Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013/02/26 Item 11 Appendixes to Final SEIR for Amendments to GPA-09-01 & PCM-09-11
Appendixes to A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) SEIR-09-01 SCH No. 2004081066 December 2012 ??????? ???????? APPENDIXES A: Notice of Preparation and Comments B: General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment C: Traffic Technical Report D: Air Quality Analysis E: Noise Analysis F: Updated Water Technical Report G: Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study H: Global Climate Change Analysis APPENDIX A Notice of Preparation and Comments NOTICE OF PREPARATION -JANUARY 15, 2010 To: Subject: Distiibution List NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Lead Agency: Agency Name: Street Address: City/State/Zip: Fax: Contact: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenne Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 409-5913 Stephen Power AICP, Principal Plannei The City of Chula Vista publicly announces its intent to initiate preparation of a Supplemental Enviionmental Impact Repo:t (SEIR) fol the following "Project" as defined by the Calitbmia Enviionmental Quality Act (CEQA) and set foIth in Public Resources Code Section 21065 The City of Chula Vista is the Lead Agency that will prepme the SEIR A desciiption of the proposed pI0ject and an explanation of its potential enviionmental impacts are pIovided in this Notice of Pieparation (NOP) Please plovide your written comments including specific statutury :esponsibilities of' yore agency, as applicable Wiitten comments must be ieceived at the emliest possible date, but no late1 than 30 days aftei the receipt of this notice Please send yom Iesponse and the name ofthe contact pe:son to: Stephen Powei AICP, Principal Planne:, at the address shown above A public scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 26, 2010, from 2:00 pm to 4 pro, at 276 Fomth Avenue (Building 100), Chula Vista, CA, 91910, Project Title: Project Location: Project Description: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-09-01) for' amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11). City of Chula Vista, within the County of San Diego. The "P:oject" consists of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and an Otay Ranch Geneial Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) associated with approximately 1,200-ac:es within the Otay Ranch GDP Ihe parcels complising the Project Area az'e located in multiple villages and planning areas including Villages 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9; the Unive:sity/Regional 7ectmology Park (RTP) site; Planning A:ea 12 /Eastern UIban Cente:; and a small poIfion ot the Chula Vista Open Space Prese:ve The GPA proposes adoption of new Geneial Plan text, policies and suppoiting exhibits including Ievised General Plan Land Use and ievised Cit'culation Plan-East Diagiams The GDPA proposes amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP consisting of revisions to text, maps and tables that would assm e that the GDP is consistent with the GPA Date: Janausy 15,2010 t l hen/l we, AIC /Princip l Plannei V (619) 409-5864 2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) AND AN OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (GDPA) PROJECT LOCATION fhe GPA and GDPA (collectively known as the Project) are located in the south centlal poItion of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area in the eastern poition of the City of Chula Vista Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map illustlates the Project's location The Project Area is complised of land spanning multiple existing villages and planning areas including poltions of Villages 4, 7, 8, 9 /EUC and the University/RIP site Additional ar'eas Iequired for circulation ioadways are included in Villages 3, 4 and 8 East and are within the Pt0ject Area See Exhibit 2: Otay Ranch GPA/GDPA Ploject A ea Note that Village 8 West, Village 9 /EUC and the Univelsity/RTP site are bisected by Village 8 East and State Route 125 (SR-125) Planning #aeas adjacent to Village 8 West include Village 4 to the west, Village 7 to the nolth, Village 8 East to the east and the Otay Ranch Pteselve to the south Planning Aleas adjacent to Village 9/EUC include the iemaindei of the Eastern Ulban Centei to the nolth, the Univelsity/RTP site to the east, SR-125 to the west and the Otay Ranch Pleselve to the south Ihe Univelsity/RIP site is bounded by Village 11 to the nolth, Village 9/EUC to the west and the Otay Ranch PleSelve to the south and east Exhibit 3, illusttates an aelial photo of the Ptoject Alea. PROJECT SETTING Ihe Project AIea is located on the US Geological Storey 7 5' selies Otay Mesa Qua&angle Ihe topography consists of a large relatively flat mesa bisected on the southelly end by ephemelal dlainage swales Ihe Pioject Area varies fi'om an elevation of' approximately 200 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 400 feet MSL Ihe mesa tops have been subjected to annual tilling associated with aglicultural land uses Vegetation associated with the Otay Rivei Valley embankment is mostly natmal and ianges fi'om distmbed to ielatively undistulbed An existing conclete watei reselvoii, situated at the westelly side of the Pt0ject Alea, is not a part of the Pto.ject Existing watellines also tlavelse the Ploject Alea PROJECT BACKGROUND In DecembeI 2005, the City of Chula Vista apploved the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 Genelal Plan Update (2005 GPU) and cettified the associated ploglam EIR addlessing long telm planning stiategies foi the glowth and development of the City (Final Environmental Impact Repolt for the City of' Chula Vista Genelal Plan Update, EIR #05-01). Although the EIR for the GPU addressed the entile City, the City Council did not applove land use designations for an area it designated the °'DefeHal Alea" This Defelial Area includes the Pwject Alea as well as additional parcels Exhibit 4, Existing Geneial Plan Land Uses, illustlates the existing land uses within the Defelral Area. ]7he Project constitutes an amendment to this fi st tieI of documents Subsequent plans intended to implement the Project would be consideled second-tiei documents Because it is situated in the Deferial Axea, land uses designated for the parcels which comprise the Project are presently subject to pre-2005 land use designations (2001 General Plan) The 2005 GPU also included amendments to the City's Circulation Plan-East, which affected the subject parcels (The 2005 GPU circulation and transportation amendments were not apatt of the defenal action taken by the City Council in 2005 ,) Ihe Prc!ject proposes to amend portions of the cmiently adopted circulation roadway system See Exhibit 5, Adopted Circulation Plan-East and Exhibit 6, Proposed Circulation Plan-East ]?he Otay Ranch GDP provides fbr a balance of residential, employment and open space /tecieational land uses and the potential location of a university/regional technology park (R]'P) Due to its size and complexity, both the planning and environmental documentation for the specific planning azeas or villages within the Otay Ranch GDP have been tiered The first tiei of planning and environmental analysis included included the Otay Ranch GDP/Sub regional Plan (SRP) and a PEIR (EIR #90-01; SCH #89010154), which were adopted by the Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October' 28, 1993 The Otay Ranch GDP was amended on December 5, 2005 with approval of the City of Chula Vista General Plan Update and associated General Plan Update EIR (EIR #05-01; GPA #01-03) and again on May 23, 2006 by the Village 2, 3 and a Portion of 4 Second Tier EIR (EIR#02-02) PROJECT DESCRIPTION ][he GPA and GDPA propose to allow implementation of Village 8 West, Village 8 East, Village 9/EUC and the University/RIP site as well as necessary roadway and utility coHidor improvements Village 8 West proposes redefined boundaIies foI Villages 4, 7, and 8 to provide a cleat definition of Village 8 West and Village 8 East that correlate with the changes proposed fbr Village 9/EUC and the University/R fP sites The ievised land use plan fbr Village 8 West seeks to implement a mixed use pedestsian and tIansit oriented town center at the intersection of Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) and La Media Road Ihe Village 8 West Iown Center would be organized mound a land use pattern inspired by the town center arterial roadway configntation Ihe Town Center would be the nucleus of Village 8 West and also function as a neighborhood shopping center Lowei density residential uses would radiate in a southerly diIection, A Bus Rapid Transit (BRI) tiansit stop, series of urban parks and plazas, a portion of' the planned 70 acre Community Pazk, commercialAetail opportunities, and a middle school also would be sited in the Town Center Ihe proposed mix of' residential land use designations fbr Village 8 West includes Residential Low Medium (RLM), Residential Medium (RM), Residential Medium High (RMH) and Fown Center (IC) Non-residential land use designations include park and recieation (PRK), Public and Quasi Public (PQ), open space (OS), open space preserve (OSP), and "othei". fhe other category provides for roadways and infiasttucture Village 8 East is the remainder of the current Village 8 and no changes from its adopted 2001 land uses ate proposed with the project Village 9/EUC proposes to implement a land use and ciIculation pattern that is suppoItive of the Univeisity/RIP site as well as a Village 9 ]7own Center Ihe Village 9 Town Center would fearer e compact mixed-use development with a pedestIian and tiansit orientated fbrm, The Town Center layout would be stmctmed mound a strong interconnecting network of g id streets This street netwolk includes a north-south iurming town centei attelial and an east-west iunning Campus Boulevald Ihe highest intensity development would be sited where the town centei attelial intelsects Campus Boulevard Stmctmes within this cme area would be located and designed to from a common building wall reminiscent of a traditional "Main Stleet" Ihis core alea also would be directly linked to the Uuiveisity/RIP site. It is intended that the intelfi ce between the Village 9 Iown Centei and the Univelsity/RIP site be as t anspment as possible and allow uses that suppoI both the University/RIP, as well as the mixed use residential zone The Easteln Uiban Center would extend nolth of the Town Centei ]7o the south, ploposed development would be less intense and pfimalily Iesidential in chalactei as one approaches the Otay Rivet Valley Ihe proposed mix of residential land use designations foI Village 9/EUC includes RLM, RM, Mixed Use Residential (MUR), TC, and Easteln Uiban Centei (EUC) Non iesidential land use use designations include PRK, PQ, OS, OSP, and "othei" Ihe Univelsity/RIP site ploposes to accommodate a futule university and a iesealch and development facility that also could featme high tech manufactuling Discretionaly actions iequited for the Project include a GPA and GDPA Ihe proposed GPA includes plovisions to adopt new GeneIal Plan text, with accompanying policies and exhibits Ihe GPA will eliminate the RL land use from the Project Area and implement RM, RMH, TC, and RIP designations in addition to the existing RLM, MUR, EUC, and Uhivelsity categories It also proposes to adopt a ievised General Plan Land Use Diagram and a revised CiIculation Plan East Exhibit 7 illustlates Proposed Genelal Plan Land Uses, The GDPA consists of ievisions to the GDP text, land use maps, mad tables to assule consistency with the GPA The amendments inclease the intensity and altei the chalacteI of' development allowed by the GDP ]7hey also ptovide foI an increase and iedisttibution of cui1ently allowed development potential and an imploved intelface with ovelall development within the Otay Ranch GDP and with Iegional inflastmctule Exhibits 8 and 9 illustlate CUlient and ploposed General Development Plan Land Uses GPA Land Use Changes ]yhe Project seeks to modify Land Use and Fianspoltation plovisions of the Genelal Plan within the project alea as follows: Land Use: 1 Eliminate the area of Residential Low (RL) land use and its unit count 2 Reduce the alea of Residential Low/Medium (RLM) land use and its unit count 3 Inclease the area of Residential Medium (RM) land use and its unit count 4 Increase the alea of Residential Medium/High (RMH) land use and its unit count 5 Inclease the area of Mixed Use Residential land use and its unit count 6 Inclease the axea of ]7own CenteI (IC) land use and its unit count, 7 Allocate a poI ion of the Easteln Ulban Centei (EUC) to Village 9 and inclease its unit count. 8 Increase the m'ea of Palk (PRK) land use 9 Reduce the mea of Public/Quasi Public (PQ) land use 10 Refine the at ea of Open Space (OS) land use 11 Locate a Regional I'echnologyPatk (RIP) within the UniveIsityplanning asea Circulation Changes ][he Project seeks to amend the existing General Plan Land Use and TranspoItation Element as follows: 1 Eliminate La Media Road ciossing the Otay River Valley, 2, Eliminate Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) as a town center arterial easterly of SR 125, 3 Change name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Stieet fiom the point ot existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway. 4. Reclassit ¢ Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) easterly of SR-125 as a six lane gateway 5 Reclassit!¢ the segment of Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) between existing Heritage Road easterly to the town center arte:ials at Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) and La Media Road as a fore lane major. 6. Reclassit ¢ and realign the segment of La Media Road fi'om the town center atterials at La Media/Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) south easterly to SR-125 as a fore lane major 7 DeteImine a Level ot Service (LOS) that is acceptable for town centeI atterials 8 Eliminate the mid atteiial SR-125 bridge crossing between Village 8 and 9, 9, Eliminate requirement fox park and ride fhcilities at the Village 9/University BRI transit stop, Goals and Policy Changes Ihe Project seeks to implement goals and policy updates that assme integration and conformance with General Plan and General Development Plan documentation GDPA ][he Prqject would implement amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP in the foIm of text and graphics fox the Project Area ][he proposed amendments ate intended to increase the intensity and alte the character ofthe development as well as provide foian inciease and redistribution ot cm:ently allowed development potential and provide an improved interface with ovemlt development and regional inf astmctme Ihe proposed GDPA includes the following: 1, Revise land use and circulation with provisions for town centers in Village 8 West and Village 9 2 Revise the upward limit of the ][own Center designation's residential intensity from 30 du/ac to 45 du/ac 3 Update overall GDP maps and statistics to :'effect these revisions and assure confoimance with the General Plan 4 Revise the statistical desciiption and policy standards for the aflected Villages and Planning Areas 5 Amend applicable poitions of the GDP to allow the maximum number of' residential units within Village 8 West and Village 9 /EUC to increase from 1,298 units to 6,050 units, EIR CONTENTS Potential Environmental Effects of the Pr'o[ect The City of Chula Vista has deteimined that the Project may cause significant adverse environmental effects and potentially significant indirect, direct and cumulative environmental effects An EIR is, therefore, requi ed in order to comply with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 and 15081 Specifically, it has been determined that a supplemental program level EIR will be prepaxed which will allow tiering of future actions including subsequent Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans, Tentative Maps and Site Plans In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Procedmes, the environmental impact analysis will describe the environmental setting of the project, identif ¢ potential environmental impacts, address the significance of potential impacts, identi mitigation measmes to address potentially significant environmental impacts, and determine the significance of' impacts after mitigation, In an effort to p eserve the City's quality of life, the City adopted a Growth Management Ordinance (Chaptet 19,09 of Municipal Code) in 1987, which contains Quality of Life Thieshold Standards for 11 facilities and improvements As required by the City's ordinance, the SEIR will include an analysis of the Project for compliance with the City's growth management standards including the following: drainage; traffic; police; schools; lihiaries; water; air quality; sewage; rite/emergency medical services; and parks, recreation and open space The SEIR will incorporate by reference, where appropriate, portions of previously certified and related documents, including the Otay Ranch GDP Pmg am EIR (#90-01), City of Chula Vista GPU EIR (#05-01), and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Repoiting Pmgr am (MMRP) Ihe scope of the SEIR fbr the Project wilI be based in part on comments received in response to this NOP and public input received dining the public seoping meeting Ihe SEIR will address each of' the environmental issues summarized herein A MMRP will be prepared to document implementation of the requi ed mitigation measmes, l or each mitigation measme, the timing of implementation will be identified and tied to a specific pmiect action Responsible pazties will be identified to implement and monitor the satisfaction of each mitigation measure Fhe following environmental issues will be analyzed in the SEIR: A#' Quality An Air Quality Iechnical Report will be prepared that will address potential air quality impacts anticipated flom both short term (construction emissions) and long term (stationary somce and mobile somce emissions) project activities The SEIR will evaluate the Pmiect's ielationship to the air pollution limits established by the South Coast AiI Quality Management Discrict [he analysis will include an evaluation of confbrmance with other applicable air quality plans and policies, cmbon monoxide "hotspots" and potential health lisks associated with toxic aii contaminants File Air Quality Iechnical Repoit will be included in the SEIR as an appendix Biological Resources The SE1R will compare the biological msomces analysis piepaIed foI the 2005 GPU EIR with the cmrent analysis Any dhect ol indirect impacts of the Pioject on sensitive biological resomces not pIeviously identified will be ad&essed The PIoject also will be reviewed and evaluated fbi consistency with the City of Chula Vista's Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) and the Otay Ranch Resous'ce Management Plan (RMP) Cultural Resources The SEIR will update and supplement the cultaral resources analysis prepared for the 2005 GPU EIR to evaluate any changes. The Cultusal Resomces Study will be prepared assessing the potential of the Project to adversely impact sensitive resources Ihis analysis will consist of a review of site records and past iepoits piepared fbr the Otay Ranch and its East Planning AIea [he study also will identify impacts, evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measmes Iequired in the 2005 GPU EIR, and recommend modifications to those mitigation measmes, if necessary, Geology and Soils fhe SEIR will provide a geotechnical overview of the Project as compared to the 2005 GPU EIR, Any changes m updates to geological conditions and hazards will be addressed and any applicable mitigation measures presented in the 2005 GPU EIR will be identified fbr the Project Hydrology/Water Quality Ihe SEIR will include an analysis of hydrology/water quality impacts including an update of regtflatory plans and policies presented in the 2005 GPU EIR Ihe SEIR will adch'ess the Project's potential impacts on water quality, groundwater resources, drainage, and flood hazaId based on the proposed land use changes fbr the Project Area £neTgy Ihe SEIR will address changes in energy demand as compared to the 2005 GPU EIR that could result fiom the proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch Villages, including an update of existing and proposed facilities serving the Project Axea and confirmation that providers would be able to meet projected demand that could result fiom approval of the proposed amendments Global Climate Change The SEIR will address global climate change (GCC) and gIeenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the Project Ihis analysis will be based on the most recent information regmding the mechanisms behind GCC fi ctms contributing to GHG emissions, current conditions and tlends and the broad environmental issues related to GCC Ihe analysis also wilt include mn overview of cmrent international and domestic legislation, plans, policies, and programs A GCC 8 Iechnical Repoit will be piepared Ibxesholds for evaluating the Pt0ject's potential contribution to GCC will be established pmticulafly in light of the goals identified in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). Using appropriate models, Project GHG emissions and inventories for' existing and built-out proposed uses will be estimated for the following sources: projected traffic, pmiected energy consumptive use (natmal gas and electricity), water delivery, wastewater tieatment, and solid waste disposal, Mitigation recommendations will be provided Hazat ds/Hazat dous Materials The SEIR will incorporate relevant information fl'om the 2005 GPU EIR as it relates to the Project Land Use, Planning and Zoning A land use analysis will describe existing land uses and infi'asttucture within and adjacent to the Project Area and land use plans and policies that apply to the site and adjacent aseas Proposed changes to existing land use and land use plans and policies will be described An analysis of' consistency with adopted plans/policies and the compatibility (use, type and intensity) between the proposed GPA and GDPA and adjacent existing and planned development will be provided Landform Alteration Aesthetics The SEIR will update the 2005 GPU discussion ot landform alte:ation/aesthefics to addsess any changes within the Prqject Area to the extent that the changes represent a significant modification to the natuse of the visual setting and its compatibility with neighboring uses Thi'esholds and mitigation requirements adchessing scenic tesomces/vistas and visual characte will be reviewed and updated for pmiect consistency This evaluation will include assessment of the Pmiect's potential to compromise existing and future view potential or aesthetic resomces including those accounted for in approved planning documents Where significant landform or aesthetics impacts are identified, mitigation measmes will be provided No e An Acoustical/Noise :echnicaI Report will be prepmed for the Project to evaluate the extent to which noise associated associated with traffic circulation, aircraft noise associated with Brown Field and other aspects of Pmiect operations might impact noise sensitive uses within and adjacent to the PrQject Area Potentially significant impacts will be identified in relation to established City standaMs Ihe analysis will evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation measures outlined in the 2005 GPU EIR and will identify changes to those measmes if needed Ihe Acoustical/Noise Iechnical Report will be included as an appendix to the SE1R 9 Paleontological Resources Ihe SEIR will piovide an update to the 2005 GPU EIR as it relates to the Prqject Parks, Reczeation, Trails and Open Space The SEIR will address the proposed parks and iecieation facilities, trails, and open space included in the Project An analysis of' the adequacy of these facilities in ielation to project demand and consistency with the City's parkland tbxesholds and standards will be conducted Population and Housing The SEIR will evaluate the Project's impacts on projected housing focusing on the tlu'ee thresholds piovided in the 2005 GPU EIR These ttu'esholds include (1) population giowth, which is primarily a "growth inducing impact", (2) displacement of existing housing and (3) displacement ot people Proposed land use changes alter the cmiently planned number ot acres and distribution of esidential, commercial, recreation and open space land within the Pioject Area Ihe consistency of the Project with the City's population, housing, and employment projections also will be addressed elative to the Housing Element of the General Plan, as well as consistency with the Otay Ranch GDP Public Services An analysis of' public selvices for the Project will be based on the City's Quality of Life Ihreshold Standards for providers including police, fire, emergency medical services, libIary, parks/open space and school Public Utilities Ihe SEIR will evaluate impacts to water and wastewater A water' analysis will include a piojection of the cmrent demand and the Project's demands undei the adopted General Plan as well as proposed amendments to the Plan ]?he discussion will evaluate whether the GPA will require or result in the construction of new water treatment fiacilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; whetheI new oi expanded supplies would be required to meet projected needs; and if the GPA would be inconsistent with the Urban Water Management Plans p epared by the San Diego Cotmty Water Authority and Otay Water District A watei supply analysis will be coordinated with Otay Water District to analyze the incremental increase in watei demand ovei that analyzed in the 2005 GPU, A wastewateI analysis will be prepared based on a technical analysis to addiess the effects on the Salt Creek ]?Iamk Sewer The SEIR will identify the impacts on the existing and mastei planned sanitary sewei system and recommend proposed upgrades if necessary Transportation, C#'culation, and Access A tiaffic impact analysis (IIA) will be piepar'ed to assess the Project's eftect on the existing and planned transportation network within and adjacent to the Project Area the TIA will analyze various traffic scenarios based on SANDAG tiaffic models Existing AM/PM peak horn t affic counts, AM/PM peak horn Levels of Service (LOS), and recent street segment traffic volumes 10 will be identified fbr fi'eeways and Circulation Element ioadways StUlounding the Project Ihe IIA will evaluate project-related growth on the analyzed stIeet segments and determine which segments will be significantly impacted, if' any. ][he rIA will be included as an appendix to the SEIR Alternatives Ihe SEIR will consider a iange of project alternatives that may eliminate or reduce significant adverse enviionmental impacts to a level of less than significant, CEQA ieqnires the No Project Alternative (Plan-to-Caound and Plan-to-Plan) to be analyzed in an EIR A discussion of' other alternatives that were considered and supporting rationale indicating why they were determined infeasible also will be provided For each alteinative, the SEIR will provide a description of the alternative, consideration of the alternative's f asibility in relationship to the Statement of the Project Objectives, and a compaIative analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternative versus the impacts as a result of the Project. Other Environmental Considerations Othei environmental considerations that will be addressed in the SEIR include: Cumulative impacts (combined environmental effects) associated with related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects; Significant Environmental Effbcts Which Cannot be Avoided; Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; Growth-Inducing Impacts; and Effects Found Not to be Significant LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 : Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Vicinity Map Otay Ranch GPA/GDPA Project Atea Aerial Photo Existing General Plan Land Uses Adopted Circulation Plan-East Proposed Circulation Plan-East Proposed General Plan Land Use Existing Geneial Development Plan Land Use Proposed General Development Plan Land Uses NOP Distribution List 11 ,, Encinitas \It* t Del Mar \t Santa Fe .,. -Rancho Bernardo J ? San Diego I D I i Colonado I Imperial ! Beach ! '1 i I //-./La Jolla I'=I N Mira Mesa Poway ! Santee Lemon G rove htational Olay Mesa Tijuana I Project SiteMexico Vicinity Map Exhibit 1 ill iim .CX I,LI °°Z°°. ! \ f|m .D im ,.CX L. ,A W 0 Z \ _.l ! !! i \ .... , j , \ \, ..... I o oo Freeway ! , 'J ' ' ' " ........... o ........................... inn 6Lane Prime ' Y " -t '( . "" ..... " .... *** O,a ,Co,,eotor , : " Gateway Street (2/4 Lane) \, . " Town Center Arterial " ---OtherRoads " • . SR125 Interchange ,. \t\ Adopted Circulation Plan-East CJtY OF CHUIA VL A NORTH Exhibit 5 1 Eliminate La Media Road crossing the /i .......... Otay River Valley J./: • 2 Eliminate Rock Mountain Road (Main # Street) as a town center arterial //easterly of SR-125 //3 Change name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Street from the point of " , existing Heritage Road easterly to ' , , .... z ..... Eastlake Parkway i i .... 4 Reclassify Rock Mountain Road ¢--/:j i (Main Street) easterly of SR-125 as a ..... t ...... \, l " ......... s,x lane gateway .,. ',s t ! ! M . , ............. 5 Reclassify the segment of Rock I \ . , ;t b-** : ,?, .... Mountain Road (Main Street) "* , *' ' --, I, between existing Hentage Road .... ', \ , -. easterly to the town center arterials at ' ' .. .... { = . %. i " Rock Mountain Road (Ma'n Street) , /":.... . a,, and La Media Road as a four lane ..-"--'-r-/\ --)/f -..% £ "" < major 8" ,\_ . ' o$ -:;: . 6 Reclassify and realign the segment of , ha Media Road from the town center -" ; . arterials at La Media L , , y,6 r : /: 7 Ehmmate the mid arter a SR-125 , " -T' , T bridge crossing between Villages 8 "-" "a[ " I/, %. ". t,! and 9 ,r . , ,. %. tii i Freeway -] \ " Expressway (7 or B Lane) , ,/! " j /.. " --Q ...... ,,. :: 1 1 6 Lane Prime : ........ = 6 Lane Major din Street et .." . 4 Lane Major *** Class I Colleeter .. ...... . " ::'l " , ,,, Gateway Street (6 Lane) t ! ' { k <}0 Geteway Street (2/4 Lane) _. " ,) Town Center Arterial "¢ . . --OtherReade " SR125 Interchange -\\ \\ (3]3" OF CHUIA VISTA Proposed Circulation Plan-East NORTH Exhibit 6 , >. 5 il,ooo !il' -I! KIH D LIHilLI ,ll, llllil ii, o \ \ \ C .4 I J¸ IBJ 311DIi| Wn \ J \ z Z W ..9o :D o . FNHm ! ii ii' l| iJH LJ 4®®®o® i II1 ./j_ '\ \ \ \ EXHIBIT 10 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS TO RECEIVE THIS NOTICE OF PREPARATION Federal Bus'ean ot Land Management Fedeial Aviation Administration Immigratiun and Natutalizatiun Selvice U,S, Army Coips of Engineers US Fish & Wildlife Seivice State California AiI Resources Board California Department of Conseivafion Califomia Department of Fish & Game Califbmia Department of Water Resousces California EneIgy Commission California Envirorunental Ptotection Agency Califbmia State Lands Commission California Waste Management Caltrans District 11 Govemo1's Office of Planning and Resemch (State Clear inghouse) Oftice of Historic Presei ,ation Regional Water Quality ContIol Board -San Diego Region 9 Coant County Department of'Agficultme County Department of Enviionmental Health County of San Diego Depmtment of Parks & RecIeation County ot San Diego Air Pollution Cuntml District County of San Diego Department ot Planning and Land Use County ot San Diego Department of Public WoIks County of San Diego -Chris Wickham County of San Diego -Irish Boaz Local Agency Foimation Commission San Diego County Water Authority Local Agencies Chula Vista Elementas y School Distiict City of Impeiial Beach City ofNational City Planning Department City of San Diego Development SeIvices Depaitment City of' San Diego Enviionmental SeIvices Department City of San Diego Metiopolitan WastewateI' Depai nent City of San Diego Real Estate Assets City of San Diego IIanspoitation Engineering City of San Diego Watei' Depaifment Metropolitan Iiansit Development Board Otay Water District Po t of San Diego San Diego Association of GoveInments San Diego Housing Commission Sempla Eneigy Southbay hiigation Distiict Southwestern College Sweetwatei Community Planning Group Sweetwater Authority Sweetwatei Union High School District Other' Adams BIoadwell ,Joseph & Cm'dozo American Archway Reseaich and Development Specialists Biown Field OpeIations Office California I anspotfation Ventmes Califoinia Waste Management California Native Plant Society Cdr GeoIge l, Kost Center fbi Biological Diversity Chula Vista Stm-News Chula Vista Coordinating Council CIosstoads II Endangeied Habitats League EnviIonmental Health Coalition Helix INS -Bob Baiiow McMillin Companies MI, l homas Davis Natmal History Museum Otay Mesa Planning Committee Otay Mesa/Nesto Community Planning Gioup Otay Mesa ChambeI of Commeice Otay Valley Quasiy LLC Otay Ranch Company Pacific Bell PSB PSBS San Diego Audubon Society San Diego County Archaeological Society San Diego Union-Tribune Sietia Club SweetwateI Valley Civic Association 1"he EastLake Company The Environmental Trust IheIesa Acetro Valley de Oro Community Planning Gioup JOHN L. $NYDER DIRECTOR )3ieg,J DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 5201 RUFFIN ROAD, SUITE D SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 4310 (858) 694-2055 FAX: {858) 694.8928 Web Sita: www sdc0unty ca govtdpw! RICHARD E. CROtPTON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR February 19, 2010 Stephen Power, AICP, Principal Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr' Power: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL iMPACT REPORT' (SEIR,,09;,01) FOR AMENDMENTS TO 'THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA.,09'01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09.11) The County of San Diego (County) received the Notice of Prepa{ation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental impact Report (SEIR) for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan and Qtay Ranch General Development Plan, dated January 15, 2010 County Departments of Department of Public Works (DPW) and Parks and Recreation (DPR) staff have completed their review and appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments DPW Traffic Transportation Transportation Planning comments: . SEIR should assess potential traffic impacts of project traffic onto roadways located outside of the City of Chula Vista. The proposed project may distribute trips onto existing and future County roads such as Otay Lakes Road, Bonita Read, Sweetwater Road, Briarwood Road, Corral Canyon Road. Central Avenue, Proctor Valley Road, San Miguel Road, I.a Media, and roadways located within the East Otay Mesa Specific Planning Area SEIR should provide an assessment of the project's potential cumulative impacts to facilities located within the unincorporated area of San Diego County,, Fairshare contributions to the County's Transportation impact Fee (TiF) program should be considered to mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts, Fairshare contributions should be based upon the amount of project trips that wile be distributed onto the County roadways Kids • The Environment • Safe and iHabie Communities Mr Power February 19, 2010 Page 2 DPR Environmental Review comments: • The proposed project is directly adjacent to County-owned and/or managed properties including Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) and the Otay Ranch Preserve The EIR should fully disclose and anatyze all potential impacts of the project and project alternatives to these properties O The OVRP is run cooperaiively through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement among the County of San Diego and the cities of San Diego and Chuta Vista It is recommended that the City coordinate with the OVRP Citizen Advisory Committee and Policy Committee for input on and/or approval of the project Please contact the following OVRP joint staff to arrange for' a presentation of the proposed project: o County of San Diego: Chuck 'T'ucker; (858) 966-1352 or e-mail at Chuck 2 ucker@sdcounty ca gov o City of San Diego: Laura BaH; (619) 533-6727 or' e..mait at Iball@sandiego gov o City of Chula Vista: Lynnette Lopez; (619) 409-5465 or e-mail at Itessitore-,Icpez@ci chuJa-vista ca us 0 The County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista are joint Preserve Owner Managers (POM) for the Otay Ranch Preserve T:he County and City currently manage the Salt Creek property located east of the proposed project site Additionally, per the C)tay Ranch Resource Management Plan, the POM is responsible for managing the lands directly south of the proposed project site once they are conveyed into the Preserve, Any potential impacts to this parcel should be discussed and coordinated with County POM staffl Cheryl Geddard, Land Use/Environmental Planner ill, at (888) 966-1374, or e-mail at Cheryl .Goddard@sdcounty ca,gov: County DPR oversees the County Trails Program and the Community Trails Master' Plan (CTMP) The County Trails Program is developing a system of interconnected regional and community trails and pathways which involves both trail development and management on public, semF.public and private lands. There are several existing trails, as well as proposed trails, tied to development development projects which are currently being constructed within the vicinity of the project, in addition, the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan and the 2007 East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Amendment identify proposed trails within this area It is recommended that the EIR evaluate any potential effects on the recreational use of these existing and proposed trails For additional information regarding trai! locations or to discuss any potential impacts, please contact the County Trails Program Coordinator, Maryanne Vancio, at (858) 966-1372, or e-mail at Maryanne Vancio@sdcounty ca gov The County appreciates the opportunity to participate in the review process for this project and look forward to receiving future environmental documents related to this Mr Power February 19, 2010 Page 3 project or providing additional assistance at your request If you have any questions on DPW Traffic/Transportation Planning's comments, please contact Bob Goralka, DPW Program Manager, at (858) 874-4202, or email at Robert:Goralka@_d._count &_c_a. v For questions on DPR's comments, please contact Megan Hamilton, Group Program Manager, at (858) 966..1377, or e-mail at _n Hamilton@sdco ..,a.qov, For all other general comments, please contact Jutia Quinn, Environmental Planning Manager, at (858) 874-4054, or e-mail at Julia.Quinn Sincerely: RICHARD E, CROMPTON, Assistant Director Department of Pubiic Works REC:JMQ:cw GO: Bob Goralka, DPW Traffic/Transportation Planning Julia M Quinn, DPW Environmental Services Megan Hamilton, DPR Group Program Manager Cheryl Goddard, DPR Land Use Environmental Planner' Ill JPB DEVELOPMENT, LLC February 17, 2010 Mr Stephen Power Principal Planner CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista, CA 91910 RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-90-01) for amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11 ) Dear Mr Power: JPB Development, LLC (JPB) received a copy of the Notice of Preparation referenced above on January 19, 2010 We are writing this comment letter within 30 days of receiving the Notice to ensure that the City is aware that JPB filed an application with the City of Chula Vista on December 9, 2009 for Chula Vista General Plan Amendments (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments (GDPA) to implement the Land Offer Agreement between JPB Development, LLC (and related entities) and the City of Chula Vista for Villages 3, 4, 8 East and 10 As described in the NOP, Villages 4, 8 East and 10 are within the "Deferral Area" Area" along with the properties described in the NOP Since the JPB application was filed prior to preparation and distribution of the NOP, it's unclear why the JPB project was not, at a minimum, referenced in the NOP as a "reasonably foreseeable project" and the proposed GPAs and GDPAs are not even mentioned in the NOP A copy of the University Villages Project Description submitted with the December 2009 application is attached for your reference Clearly, due to the proximity of the JPB properties to the "Project" described in the NQP, there are environmental issues such as land use, circulation, hydrology, public utilities and public services that are common to both properties and must be comprehensively analyzed in the EIR Since the Chula Vista City Council deferred consideration of the entire southern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch in December 2005, it is crucial that both the public and decision makers consider the Deferral Area in its entirety in order to make the best and most informed decision In addition, it is critical that all impacts associated with the Deferral Area, beyond just cumulative impacts, be evaluated in the EIR 1392 East Palomar Street, Suite 202 /Chula Vista, CA 91913 (619) 210-0560 /(619) 397-1341 fax February 17, 2010 Page Two Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the NOP Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions Sincerely, JPB DEVELOPMENT, LLC/Ranie L Hunter Executive Vice President cc: Scott Donaghe, City of Chula Vista Attachment DRAFT ,i, University Villages Project Description1 The proposed project is comprised of Otay Ranch Village 3, a portion of Village 4, a portion of Village 8 and Village 10. This project implements the Land Offer Agreement between JPB Development-related entities and the City of Chula Vista and includes Chula Vista General Plan Amendments (CVGPA), Chula Vista Multi-Species Conservation Plan Amendments (MSCPA), Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments (GDPA) and Resource Management Plan Amendments (RMPA). Proposed project components are described below.. Chula Vista General Plan Amendments (East Planning Area) Land Use and Transportation Element: 1 Village 3 is comprised of 368 4 acres and is currently designated Research & Limited Industrial (1766 acres), Open Space Preserve (107,9) and other associated circulation and manufactured opens space land uses on the current Chula Vista General Plan, The proposed CVGPA includes the following Village 3 amendments: a Modify the development footprint along the eastern edge of Village 3 to convert Open Space Preserve to Mixed Use Commercial and Research & Limited Industrial to Open Space Preserve, b Modify the boundary between Villages Two and Three to reflect the location of the neighborhood park in the northwest portion of Village Three c, Modify the permitted land uses within Village 3 outside of the 1,000' landfill buffer from Research & Limited Industrial to village-related land uses including, Residential High permitting 388 units, Residential Medium-High permitting 170 units, Residential Medium permitting 372 units, Mixed Use Commercial permitting 824 units on 20 acres, Village Core, Open Space (104,2 acres) and Parks & Recreation (70 acres), d Realign Main Street within Village 3, crossing Wolf Canyon into Village 4 to the east at a more northerly location e, Realign Heritage Road within Village 3 and change the classification of Heritage Road between Santa Liza and Main Street from a Six-Lane Prime Arterial to a 4 Lane Major Road, f The balance of Village 3 3 would remain designated Research & Limited Industrial (77,2 acres), The portion of Village 4 included in the proposed project is comprised of 434,6 acres The Chula Vista General Plan designates Village 4 an urban village This portion of Village 4 includes Parks & Recreation (121 acres), Residential Low-Medium (594 acres) land uses permitting 141 units and 216 7 acres designated Open space Preserve This proposed CVGPA includes the following Village 4 amendments: Ihis Ptoject Description assnmes tile MSCP land swap in Villages 8 and 10 ecembe 2( 09 Pab, e 1 DRAFT a Modify the development footprint in Village 4, south of the proposed realignment of Main Street to improve preservation of sensitive habitats along Wolf Canyon and accommodate grading efficiencies within Village 4 b As mentioned above, the project includes the realignment of Main Street within Village 4, north of its current alignment, The eastern portion of Village 8 (Village 8 East) included in the proposed project is comprised of 428 7 development acres and 202,5 acres of Open Space Preserve The Chula Vista General Plan currently designates Village 8 an urban village, Village 8 East includes Residential Medium-High permitting 289 units, Residential Low-Medium permitting 676 units and a Village Core This proposed CVGPA includes the following amendments: a Modify the development footprint along the southern edge of Village 8 East to include an additional 51 acres of development, This proposal converts approximately 51 acres of Open Space Preserve to Residential Low-Medium north of the area designated Active Recreation b Modify the permitted land uses within the northeastern portion of Village 8 East from Residential Low-Medium to Residential High permitting 2,754 units, Residential Medium permitting 523 units, Residential Low Medium permitting 483 units, Public & Quasi Public (5,3 acres) and Parks & Recreation (93,6 acres Neighborhood and Community Park) 4, The portion of Village 10 included in the proposed project is comprised of 1926 development acres and 9006 acres of Open Space Preserve, The ChulaVista General Plan primary land use designation is Public & Quasi Public (University Study Area) and includes a secondary land use including Residential Medium-High permitting 85 units, Residential Low-Medium permitting 335 units and other village-related land uses, This proposed CVGPA includes the following amendments: a Modify the development footprint for Village 10 to the south and east converting approximately 27,8 acres of Open Space Preserve to Residential Low Medium and 320 acres of Open Space Preserve to Residential Medium-High The proposed project converts approximately 60 acres of Public & Quasi Public (University Study Area) to Open Space Preserve b Modify the permitted land uses within the northern portion of Village 10 from Residential Low-Medium to Residential High permitting 950 units, Residential Medium-High permitting 724 units, Public & Quasi Public (3,5 acres) and Parks & Recreation (7 0 acres) The southern portion of Village 10 would remain Residential Low-Medium permitting 162 units Public Facilities and Services Element Amendments: The proposed project includes the following public park and recreation facilities not currently designated in the Chula Vista General Plan: DRAFT 1 Unnamed Neighborhood Park-Otay Ranch Village 3 2 Unnamed Neighborhood Park-Otay Ranch Village 8 3 Unnamed Neighborhood Park-Otay Ranch Village 10 4 Unnamed Community Park-Otay Valley Regional Park Active Recreation Area Chula Vista Multi-Species Conservation Plan Amendments The project proposes a comprehensive amendment to the MSCP in order to implement the land use and circulation amendments described above, These amendments include a Boundary Adjustment in the Village 3, Village 4, Village 8 East and Village lO/University, The proposed amendments are described below: 1 Modify the MSCP Boundary within Village 3 adjacent to Wolf Canyon (Acreage TBD) 2 Modify the MSCP Boundary within Village 4 adjacent to Wolf Canyon (AcreageTBD) 3 Modify the MSCP Boundary within Village 8 north of the area designated Active Recreation in the Otay River Valley The proposed project converts approximately 51,0 acres of Preserve to Development Area, 4, Modify the MSCP Boundary within Village 10 The proposed project converts approximately 600 acres formerly designated University/Development Area to Preserve In addition, the proposed modification converts approximately 600 acres of Preserve along the southern and eastern edge of Village 10 to Development Area, Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments 1, Village 3 is comprised of 368 4 acres and is currently designated Industrial (176,6 acres), Open Space (107,9) and other associated circulation and manufactured opens space land uses on the current Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDPA), The proposed GDPA includes the following Village 3 amendments: a, Modify the development footprint along the eastern edge of Village 3 to convert Open Space Preserve to Mixed Use and Industrial to Open Space, b Modify the boundary between Villages Two and Three to reflect the location of the neighborhood park in the northwest portion of Village Three c Modify the permitted land uses within Village 3 outside of the 1,000' landfill buffer from Industrial to village-related land uses including, Residential High permitting 388 units, Residential Medium-High permitting 170 units, Residential Medium permitting 372 units, Mixed Use permitting 824 units on 20 acres, Village Core, Open Space ($042 acres) and Parks & Recreation (7,0 acres) d Realign Main Street within Village 3, crossing Wolf Canyon into Village 4 to the east at a more northerly location, e Realign Heritage Road within Village 3 and change the classification of Heritage Road between Santa Liza and Main Street from a Six-Lane Prime Arterial to a 4 Lane Major Road f The balance ofVillage 3 would remain designated Industrial (772 acres) DRAFT 2 The portion of Village 4 included in the proposed project is comprised of 4346 acres The Chula Vista General Plan designates Village 4 an urban village This portion of Village 4 includes Parks & Recreation (12.1 acres), Residential Low-Medium (59 4 acres) land uses permitting 141 units and 216 7 acres designated Open space Preserve This proposed GDPA includes the following Village 4 amendments: a Modify the development footprint in Village 4, south of the proposed realignment of Main Street to improve preservation of sensitive habitats along Wolf Canyon and accommodate grading efficiencies within Village 4 b As mentioned above, the project includes the realignment of Main Street within Village 4, north of its current alignment 3 The eastern portion of Village 8 (Village 8 East) included in the proposed project is comprised of 4287 development acres and 2025 acres of Open Space Preserve The GDP currently designates Village 8 an urban village. Village 8 East includes Residential Medium-High permitting permitting 289 units, Residential Low-Medium permitting 676 units and a Village Core This proposed GDPA includes the following amendments: a. Modify the development footprint along the southern edge of Village 8 East to include an additional 53. acres of development. This proposal converts approximately 51 acres of Open Space Preserve to Residential Low-Medium north of the area designated Active Recreation. b Modify the permitted land uses within the northeastern portion of Village 8 East from Residential Low-Medium to Residential High permitting 2,754 units, Residential Medium permitting 523 units, Residential Low Medium permitting 483 units, Public & Quasi Public (53 acres) and Parks & Recreation (93.6 acres Neighborhood and Community Park). The portion of Village 10 included in the proposed project is comprised of 192 6 development acres and 9006 acres of Open Space Preserve The GDP primary land use designation is Public & Quasi Public (University Study Area) and includes a secondary land use including Residential Medium-High permitting 85 units, Residential Low Medium permitting 335 units and other village-related land uses This proposed GDPA includes the following amendments: a Modify the development footprint for Village 10 to the south and east converting approximately 278 acres of Open Space Preserve to Residential Low Medium and 32,0 acres of Open Space Preserve to Residential Medium-High The proposed project converts approximately 60 acres of Public &. Quasi Public (University Study Area) to Open Space Preserve b Modify the permitted land uses within the northern portion of Village 10 from Residential Low-Medium to Residential High permitting 950 units, Residential Medium-High permitting 724 units, Public & Quasi Public (3 5 acres) and Parks & Recreation (70 acres). The southern portion of Village 10 would remain Residential Low-Medium permitting 162 units DRAFT Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Amendments The project proposes a comprehensive amendment to the Resource Management Plan Preserve Boundaw to implement the land use and circulation amendments described above These RMPAs would bring the RMP Preserve into consistency with the amended MSCP Preserve described above A February 16, 2010 Stephen Power, AICP Principal Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista, CA 91910 RE: Comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-O9-01) for amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Dear Mr Power: San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) respectfully submits this letter in response to the City of Chula Vista's (City) Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-09-01) for amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11). SDG&E is a public utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that provides electric and gas services to customers throughout San Diego County The CPUC mandates that SDG&E must provide for the short and long-term needs of customers in its service territory, Notice of Preparation for the SEIR The NOP identifies that Energy will be addressed in the scope of the SEIR for the Project, Specifically, the NOP (page 8) states that The SEIR will address changes in energy demand as compared to the 2005 GPU EIR that could result from the proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch Villages, including an update of existing and proposed facilities serving the Project Area and confirmation that providers would be able to meet projected demand that could result from approval of the proposed amendments, SDG&E concurs that Energy issues should be addressed in the EIR The discussion of Energy issues is essential because, as discussed below in more Stephen Power, AICP February 16, 2010 Page 2 detail, a new electric substation is required to (1) support the on-going development within Otay Ranch and (2) maintain reliable electric service to the Eastern Chula Vista area If a new substation is not developed in a timely manner, then new development may need to be delayed until a new substation is licensed and constructed to provide additional capacity to serve additional development Substation Need and Planning History SDG&E has been working with the City of Chu]a Vista and various developers and property owners since 2004 to identify a site for a new substation in the Otay Ranch area In 2004, SDG&E identified the need for a new electric substation to serve the future development in Otay Ranch based on the anticipated growth in the area SDG&E met with various developers and property owners of Village 11, EUC, Freeway Commercial and Village 9 as well as City Planning and Building Department staff, to discuss the need for a new substation in the southern part of Otay Ranch. The existing Telegraph Canyon Substation, which has been serving the Otay Ranch development, is currently loaded at 75% of its capacity The existing substation does not have sufficient capacity to meet the ultimate load demand of the Otay Ranch development The new substation is needed by 2015 to meet project demands Therefore, the site for the new substation must be obtained by 2010 to provide adequate time for site acquisition, design, licensing through the CPUC, permitting through other agencies and construction to meet the 2015 in service date of the substation In 2005, SDG&E was included in the University Framework Strategy Planning effort with the City, the University and the other affected developers/property owners within the Eastern University District One of the goals of the Framework Committee was to determine potential acceptable locations for the substation which could be incorporated into development plans early in the planning process, Initially a site in the northwestern portion of the EUC was identified as a potential location for the new substation since the EUC was the load center for the new substation and it was adjacent to planned roadways In early 2007, after extensive discussion and consideration of numerous substation site alternatives, the members of the University Framework Strategy Planning effort collectively endorsed a site located on land owned by the City This site, located south of Hunte Parkway and directly adjacent to SDG&E's Miguel-Mexico Transmission Corridor, became known as SDG&E's "Preferred Substation Site" and the sole focus of SDG&E's substation siting efforts for the last few years Throughout 2007 and 2008, SDG&E worked with the City to develop a site plan on the Preferred Substation Site, which is technically challenging to develop due 2 Stephen Power, AICP February 16, 2010 Page 3 to some physical constraints After numerous iterations of grading concepts, which included specific design elements requested by the City, SDG&E developed a feasible grading concept for the site that was acceptable to both the City and SDG&E, Discussions progressed with the City to include identifying the process needed for SDG&E to acquire the site from the City In May 2008, the City entered into a Land Offer Agreement with a private developer, which involved the exchange of lands within the Otay Ranch including the parcel containing the Preferred Substation Site, SDG&E is working with the City to identify a feasible location for the new substation to serve the ongoing development within Otay Ranch It is imperative that the City address the need for the new substation now so that development can timely occur within Otay Ranch SDG&E appreciates this opportunity to comment on the NOP for the SEIR We look forward to continuing to work with the City in the planning and provision of a new substation to serve future development within the Otay Ranch area of the City of Chula Vista If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 858-654-1239 or dcolllins@semprautilities com, Sincerely, Debbie Collins, AICP Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Management South San Diego Gas & Electric Company CC: Mo Derbas, Senior Business Analyst, Construction and Operations, SDG&E Tom Acuna, Team Lead -Land Planning, SDG&E Jill Larson, Senior Counsel, Sempra Energy Sheri Gates, Project Manager, SDG&E Ellis Jones, Principal Engineer, Electric Distribution Planning, SDG&E Kathy Babcock, Land Manager, SDG&E Ahmad Solomon, Government Affairs Manager San Diego, Sempra Energy 3 DEPARIMENI OF TRANSPORTATION DISIRICT 11 PLANNING DIVISION 4050 IAYLOR S l REET, M S 230 SAN DIEGO, CA 921 I0 PHONE (619) 688 6681 FAX (619) 688-2511 11"5" 711 AI;:NOLL} S{ ]i} £2\BZ! NEG{iER Go, emor @J:7 ¢ ) o1 ¢ poiver /e e le;, l e i t l eblua y 18, 2010 MI Stephen Power City of Cbula Vista 276 Foarth Avenue Chuta Vista, CA 91910 I I-SD-VAR (5, 54, 125,805) Chula Vista General Plan Update SEIR NOP SCH 2004081066 Dear Mr', Power: ]'he California Depamnent ot "[ransportation (Cattians) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the DIaR Supplemental Envkonmental Impact Repozt (SEIR) foi the City o£ Chula Vista (City) Genelal Plan Calttans would like to submit the fbllowing comments: Caltrans recognizes that there is a strong link between tlansportation and land use. Development can have a significant impact on tla c and congestion on State t ansportation facilities [n particular, the pattern of'land use can affect both total vehicle miles traveled and the numbe of tlips per household. Thelefole, Caimans encomages local agencies as part of their' general plan updates to wolk towards a safe, functional, interconnected, nmlti-modat system integrated with land use planning that supports the concept of a local cimulation system which is pedestrian, bicycle, and tlansil-fliendly in oider to enable residents to choose alternative modes of transportation. Transit accoiranodations can be accomplished through the provision of park and fide facilities, bicycle access, signal pliolitizatinn foi transit, oi othei enhancements Milch can improve mobility and alleviate traffic impacts to State facilities sePAng the City: Interstate 5 (I-5), Interstate 805 (I-805), State Route 54 (SR-54), and State Route 125 (SR-125). SR-125 Interchanges: According to Proposed Circulation Plan (NOP Exhibit 6), the plan proposes future SR-125 interchanges at Otay Valley Road and Rock Mountain Road, along with the existing interchanges at Birch Roacl, Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes Road, East H Street, and San Migucl Ranch Road -this is unchanged from the currently adopted cilculation plan (NOP Exhibit 5) One revision made by the proposed circulation plan tTrom the adopted circulation plan is Exhibit 6, Item 7: "Eliminate the mid arterial SR-125 bridge crossing between Villages 8 and 9" Early coordination with Caltrans on the development o£ Project Study Reports (PSRs) foI ptoposed futme SR-125 intetchanges is recommended South Bay BRI. [he San Diego Association of Govelnments (SANDAG) and Caltlans are currently working on the South Bay Bus Rapid transit (BRT) project -Caltians looks foB ard to coordinating with the City of Chula Vista to work towards a mutual vision for' ( )1]lra#l$ #llpS'ot !$ mobi[iti a(to $ (alifor±!i 1 M Stephen Power February !8, 2010 Page 2 providing high-speed transit connections between downtown San Diego mad the Otay Mesa Border Clossing Ihe BRT will use SR-125 to directly serve the Otay Mesa Border crossing. Ihe SANDAG ploject manager' for the South Bay BRT pIoject is Jennifer Williamsan (619 699-1959) SANDAG RTP: With SANDAG's Sustainable Communities Strategy efforts in the 2050 Regional ranspoItation Plan (RIP), per Senate Bill 3'75 (SB 375), Caltrans encourages the City to coordinate with SANDAG to address regional strategies to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) and vehicle miles traveled (VM'I) rlaffic Impact Study: A uaffic impact study is necessary to determine this proposed plan's neas-term and long-term impacts to State fhcilities -existing and proposed -and to propose appropriate mitigation measures The study should use as a guideline the Cahtans Guide for the P±epamtion oflrtafl c Impact Studies ( IS Guide), which is located at the following website: Minimum contents of the traffic impact study are listed in Appendix "A" of the TIS Guide. Ihe LOS for operating State highway facilities is based upon Measules of Effectiveness (MOE) identified in the High ay Capacity Manual (HCM) Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C'" and LOS "D" on State highway Iacilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and reconwnends that the lead agency consalt with Caltrans to determine the appropriate tmget LOS If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than this tmget LOS, the existing MOE shouId be maintained in general, the mgiun.wide goal for' an acceptable LOS on all ti'ceways, roadway segments, and intersections is "D" For undeveloped ot not densely developed locations, the goal may be to achieve LOS "C'" Ihe geographic area examined in the traffic study should include as a minimnm all regionally significant arterial system segments and intersections, including State highway facilities where the project will add ovel 100 peak houI trips: State highway f.cilifies that are experiencing noticeable delays should be analyzed in the scope of the ttaffic study tbl plojects that add 50 to 100 peak hour t ips. All fieeway entrance and exit ramps where future traffic will add a significant number' of' peak-hour flips that ma cause any traffic queues to exceed storage capacities should be analyzed fframp metering is to oecm, a ramp queue analysis tbr oil neaxby Caltans metered on-ramps is equired to identify the delay to motolists using the on..r amps and the storage necessaIy to accommodate the queuing 1-he effects of ramp metering should be analyzed in the traffic study l or metered freeway ianaps, LOS does not apply However', ramp meter' delays above 15 minutes ale considered excessive CalItans endeavor's that any direct and ctmaulative impacts to the State highway system be eliminated oi reduced to a level of' insignificance pmsuant to the California 15 nvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards standards £B#t¥IfI mlp l v mobil,t} e.¢ro ( alifor lie, Mr. Stephen Power [:ebrua y 18, 2010 Page 3 The lead agency should monitor impacts to insure that roadway segments and intersections remain at an acceptable Level of Sei vice (LOS) Should the LOS reach tmaceeptable levels, the lead agency should deIay the issuance of building permits for' any project until the appropriate impact mitigation is impIemcnted ® Encroachment Permit: Any work perfbrmed within Caltrans right-of-way (ROW) will r'equi e discretionary review and approval by the Department. Additional information regatding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the Calt:ans Pamits Office at 619-688-6158 Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment permits Calttans looks fbrwmd to continuing coordination with City start on the Chala Vista General Plan; please include Caltrans in futuie notifications for related public meetings mad workshops. If'you have any questions, please contact Connery Cepeda, Community Planning Liaison, at 6t9 688.6968 Sineetel¥ z/L /JACOB ARMSTRONG, Chief' Development Review Bianch (hlttan i)Jlpr¢ )e' mobiligl tt¢ oss (Miformct SBX LTR-10-1380 South Bay Expressway Febrnary 10, 2010 Put the fun back in driving! 1129 La Media Read, San Biege, CA 92154 p 619 7104800 • f, 619,710,4697 southbayexpressway com Mr Stephen Power Principal Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Calif0tnia 91910 Re: Contract No C230-002 State Route 125 South Project, Amended and Restated Toll Road Design Build Contzact City of Chula Vista Letter Dated Januazy 15, 2010 Subject: Response to Notice of Piepazation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SE1R-09 01) for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-0]) and Otay Ranch General Plan Development Plan (PCM-09-l 1) Dear Stephen: South Bay Expressway, LP (SBX) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Supplemental Enviionmental Impact Report (SE1R-09 01) lot Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Plan Development Plan (PCM-09-11) As noted in the NOP, the "Project" consists ota General Plan Amendment (GPA) and and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) f0r certain planning azeas and villages with Otay Ranch The Project area occurs on either side of the State Route 125 South The NOP indicates that a traffic impact analysis (IIA) will be prepared for the Project SBX has no further comments in response to the NOP, but requests that we remain on the mailing list and be notified of the public review period for the Draft EIR If you have any questions please feel free to contact Tony Evans at (619) 710-4006 Yours truly, SOUTH BAY EXPRESSWAY, L.P. By: California Transportation Ventures, Inc its general paztnei Dave Hawley Executive Vice President, Construction cc: SBX-G Hulsizer; A G Evans; R Stead Linda S Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection Department of Toxic Substances Control Maziar Movassaghi, Acting Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 ® Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor February 8, 2010 Mr, Stephen Power Principal Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CITY OF CHULAVlSTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT (SCH# 2004081066), SAN DIEGO COUNTY Dear Mr, Power: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-mentioned Project,, The following project description is stated in your document: "The 'Project' consists of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and an Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment (GDPA) associated with approximately 1,200 acres within the Otay Ranch GDP, The parcels comprising the Project Area are located in multiple villages and planning areas The GPA proposes adoption of new General Plan text, polices and supporting exhibits including revised General Plan Land Use and revised Circulation Plan-East Diagrams, The GDP Amendment proposes amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP consisting of revisions to text, maps and tables that would assure that the GDP is consistent with the GPA The GPA and GDPA are located in the south central portion of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan area in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista, California, The Otay Ranch GDP provides for a balance of residential, employment and open space /recreational land uses and potential location of a university/regional technology park (RTP), The relatively flat mesa tops in the Project Area have been subjected to annual tilling associated with agricultural land uses", DTSC has the following comments: 1) The EIR should identify the current or historic uses in the Project area that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances, and any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment Following are the databases of some of the pertinent regulatory agencies: ) Printed on Recycled Paper Mr Stephen Power February 8, 2010 Page 2 of 4 National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U S,EPA), EnviroStor: A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below), Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U,S, EPA, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U S,EPA 3) 2) Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) /Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. Please see comment No, 11 below for more information All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should be clearly summarized in a table 4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted in the Project area prior Mr, Stephen Power February 8, 2010 Page 3 of 4 to the new development or any construction All closure, certification or remediation approval reports bythese agencies should be included in the EIR 5) If buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs) If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities, Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies 6) 8) 10) 9) 7) Project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas Sampling may be required If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be be applicable to such soils Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during construction or demolition activities,, If it is found necessary, a site investigation and a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency and a qualified health risk assessor should be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 65) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5) If it is determined that that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942 Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented,, If the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or Mr Stephen Power February 8, 2010 Page 4 of 4 other related residue Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project 11) DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties under CERCLA, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www.dtsc.ca.qov/SiteCleanu /Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489 12) In future CEQA documents, please provide your e-mail address, so DTSC can send you comments both electronically and by mail If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, at rahmed dtsc.ca.qov or by phone at (714) 484-5491 Sincerely, Greg Holmes Unit Chief Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program -Cypress Office CC: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse PO Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 state.clearinqhouse opr.ca.qov CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, MS 22-2 Sacramento, California 95814 ADelacrl dtsc.ca.qov CEQA# 2790 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnotd Schwarzene(Ioen Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 653-6251 Fax (916) 657-5390 Web Site www n hc e-mail: ds nahc@pacbell net February 3, 2010 Mr Stephen Power, AICP, Principal Planner CICTY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: SCH#2004081066 CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the General Plan Amendment (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PSM-Og 11) Project; located in the Otay Mesa Area within the City of Chula Vista; southeast San Dieqo County, California Dear Mr Power: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the state 'trustee agency' pursuant to Public Resources Code §21070 for the protection and preservation of California's Native American Cultural Resources (Also see Environmental Protection Information Center v Johnson (1985) 170 Cal App. 3rd 604) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA -CA Public Resources Code §21000 21177, amended in 2009) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the California Code of Regulations §15064 5(b)(c )(f) CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including objects of historic or aesthetic significance" In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the project-related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following The Native American Heritage Commission did perform a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search in the NAHC SLF Inventory, established by the Legislature pursuant to Public Resources Code §5097 94(a) and Native American Cultural resources were not identified within the APE However, there are Native American cultural resources in close proximity to the APE Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway, Enclosed are the names of the nearest tribes and interested Native American individuals that the NAHC recommends as 'consulting parties,' for this purpose, that may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e g APE) We recommend that you contact persons on the attached list of Native American contacts A Native American Tribe or Tribal Elder may be the only source of information about a cultural resource. Also, the NAHC recommends that a Native American Monitor or Native American culturally knowledgeable person be employed whenever a professional archaeologist is employed during the 'Initial Study' and in other phases of the environmental planning processes. Furthermore we suggest that you contact the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Coordinator's office (at (916) 653-7278, for referral to the nearest OHP Information Center ofwhich there are 11 Consultation with tribes and interested Native American tribes and interested Native American individuals, as consulting parties, on the NAHC list ,should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA (42 USC 4321-43351) and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U SC 470 [f)]etse), 36 CFR Part 8003, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ; 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq) and NAGPRA (25 U SC 3001-3013), as appropriate Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project Also, Public Resources Code Section 509798 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050 5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery Discussion of these should be included in your environmental documents, as appropriate The authority for the SLF record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory, established by the California Legislature, is California Public Resources Code §5097.94(a) and is exempt from the CA Public Records Act (cf California Government Code §6254 10) The results of the SLF search are confidential However, Native Americans on the attached contact list are not prohibited from and may wish to reveal the nature of identified cultural resources/historic properties Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural sign'ficance may also be protected the under Section 304 of the NH PA or at the Secretary of the Interior' discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf 42 U SC, 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APE and possibly threatened by proposed project activity CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064 5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens Health and Safety Code §7050 5, Public Resources Code §509798 and Sec §15064 5 (d) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American Note that §7052 of the Health & Safety Code states that disturbance of NatJve American cemeteries is a felony Aqain, Lead aqencies should consider avoidance, as defined in §15370 of the California Code of Requlations (CEQA Guidelines), when siqnificant cultural resources are discovered durinq the courco of project planninq and implementation Please feel free to contact me at (916) 653-6251 if you have have any questions Attachment: List of Native American Contacts Cc: State Clearinghouse Native American Contacts San Diego County February 3, 2010 Barona Group of the Capitan Grande Edwin Romero, Chairperson 1095 Barona Road Lakeside CA 92040 sue@barona-nsngov (619) 443-6612 619-443-0681 Diegueno Sycuan Band ofthe Kumeyaay Nation Danny Tucker, Chairperson 5459 Sycuan Road El C on CA 92021 ssilva@sycuan-nsngov 619 445-2613 619 445-1927 Fax Diegueno/Kumeyaay La Posta Band of Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson PO Box 1120 Diegueno Boulevard CA 91905 (619) 478-2113 619-478-2125 Viejas Band of Mission indians Bobby L Barrett, Chairperson PO Box 908 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine , CA 91903 jrothauff@viejas-nsn gov (619) 445-3810 (619) 445-5337 Fax San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Allen E Lawson, Chairperson PO Box 365 Diegueno Valley Center, CA 92082 (760) 749-3200 (760) 749-3876 Fax Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee Ron Christman 56 Viejas Grade Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine , CA 92001 (619) 445-0385 Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians Johnny Hernandez, Spokesman PO Box 130 Diegueno Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 brandietaylor @yahoolcom (760) 765-0845 (760) 765-0320 Fax Jamul Indian Village Kenneth Meza, Chairperson P O Box 612 Jamul CA 91935 jamulrez@sctdvnet (619) 669-4785 (619) 669-48178 -Fax Diegueno/Kumeyaay This list Is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 70505 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Also, federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, and federal NAGPRA This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2004081066; CEOA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the General Plan Amendment (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (psNF09-11) Project; located in the City of Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa Area of southwestern San Diego County, California. Native American Contacts San Diego County February 3, 2010 Mesa Grande Band of Mission indians Mark Romero, Chairperson PO Box 270 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 mesagrandeband@msn,,com (760) 782-3818 (760) 782-9092 Fax Diegueno Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee Steve Banegas, Spokesperson 1095 Barona Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay Lakeside CA 92040 (619) 742-5587 (619) 443-0681 FAX Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage Preservation Paul Cuero 36190 Church Road, Suite 5 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Campo CA 91906 chairman@campo-nsn,gov (619) 478-9046 (619) 478-9505 (619) 478-5818 Fax Clint Linton P,,O,, Box 507 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 (760) 803-5694 cjlinton73@aol,,com Diegueno/Kumeyaay Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas P,O,, Box 775 Diegueno Pine Valley CA 91962 (619) 709-4207 Inaja Band of Mission indians Rebecca Osuna, Spokesperson 2005 S,, Escondido Bird, Diegueno Escondido CA 92025 (760) 737-7628 (760) 747-8568 Fax This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 70505 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Cede and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Also, federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, and federal NAGPRA. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2004081066; CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental impact Report (DEIR) for the General Plan Amendment (GPA.09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PSM-09-11) Project; located in the City of Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa Area of southwestern San Diego County, California, Thomas A, Davis 1657 Gotham Street Chula Vista, CA 91913-2618 619-421-4277 February 2, 2010 Steven Power AICP Principle Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report dated January 15, 2010 I am a private citizen who is concerned with the future of Chula Vista and do not represent any group or organization and wish to respond to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report dated January 15, 2010 For some personal background, I was a commissioned officer in the United States Navy serving on active duty for 24 years until retiring as a Captain in the regular navy, I have served on various Chula Vista City committees and commissions since establishing a permanent residence here in 1975. After retiring from the navy I formed two businesses licensed in the city While operating these businesses I served as chairman of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee; on the Board of Directors; and then became President I have served on a number of committees involving land use and facilities construction and renovation for Southwestern College and currently serve on the oversight committee for the proposition R administrative center design and construction In regard to the notice of preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed General Plan Amendment associated with about 1,200-acres in the Otay Ranch GDP, I have the following items that I believe should be covered in great detail in the DEIR: 1, I am very concerned that the issue of potable water is not fully considered in the development project proposed The increase in residential units from 1295 to 6050 would potentially increase the water requirement by something on the order of 180 acre feet of water per year (in excess of 60 million gallons just for indoor consumption alone). A recent court decision to negate the effect of redirecting agricultural water allocations from the Imperial Valley to the San Diego region will severely impact the available water for projects such as this, In addition, the Colorado River water allocations to the region have been reduced as a result of increased demands from the lower Colorado River basin states The drive to achieve significant water conservation on the part of the public by the Metropolitan Water District and the subsidiary water distribution agencies underline the impact development projects have on the availability of water,, Alternate water sources such as from desalinization plants for potable water, recycled water from liquid waste, and utilization of underground aquafirers are not readily available, are decades from use, or inadequate to support projects such as this, There seems no reasonable mitigation that can substitute for the shortfall in the availability of water, 2,, The availability of electrical power from the Western Grid is marginal at the present time and is not expected to improve according San Diego Gas and Electric/Sempra Energy,, The power company has instituted an extensive and vigorous conservation program and advertising campaign that reflects the marginal capacity of the grid to provide adequate electrical power during peak usage times now In view of these considerations, increasing the demand the proposed project would impose on the availability of power is not good, and should be carefully considered in [eviewing the impact this project will have Considering the multi decade long planning, funding, and approval process involved in constructing new power plants, adding significantly to the demand for electrical power is risky at best 3 The treatment and disposal of liquid and solid waste suffers from the same shortfalls as those for water and power Chula Vista is dependent on the city of San Diego to process liquid waste and to private companies for disposal of solid waste Although in the past the City of Chula Vista has enjoyed an excess in sewer capacity, this cushion is almost expended and should not be consumed on projects such as this The Otay landfill is approaching capacity and although there are proposals for new landfills south and east of the city, these facilities are far from operational and place the disposal of solid waste in doubt,, The proposed project seems to press the known capacity of waste handling capabilities beyond the limit, 2 4 Chula Vista has traditionally misestimated the impact of traffic on surface and limited access streets and roads, In the case of freeways the city's view has been that it is the responsibility of the State of California (CalTrans) to provide adequate freeway service,, This is a narrow and unrealistic view since it is well known that the state is financially unable to fund the freeways to support the traffic that this and other cities of the region have and are planning to generate, This project will generate at least 50,000 vehicle trips per day, the majority of which will use 1-805 and I-5, The SR-125 toll road has failed to relieve a significant number of vehicle trips on the surface roads and freeways, In addition, the provision in the toll road operating agreement prohibits improvements to increase capacity of either 1-805 or I-5, and imposes substantial and prohibitive monetary penalties payable to the toll road operator if improvements to the freeways are made even if the state had the funds to do it Since access and exit to the project will utilize Main Street/Rock Mountain Road and other surface streets, the capacity of the streets will be pushed to unacceptable levels of service that cannot be simply or easily mitigated, There seems to be little or no consideration of, or provision for, utilization of public transportation, The regional transportation plan has no provision for light rail access to this area of the Otay Ranch development and the ability of the City of Chula Vista to provide bus service to the area will most likely result in no or very inadequate bus service; minimizing the ability of public transportation to reduce the load on streets and freeways 5,, Chula Vista has consistently underestimated the requirement for police and fire protection and coverage needed for new developments. The significant increase in residential and commercial coverage of the program area will markedly increase to demand for these public services and should be carefully considered in undertaking a major increase in demand, In conclusion, I consider that the areas outlined above need full and thoughtful review before changes and additions are made to the General plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Sleekly, Thomas A, Davis 3 McMillin Land Development A Corky McMillin Company City ot Chula Vista Planning Department Attn: Steve Power', AICP, Piincipal Planner 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Notice of Preparation for Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-09 01) Dear Mr',Power, The McMillin Companies appreciates the oppoitunity to comment on the Notice of' Preparation fol the Supplemental Environmental Impact Repoit evaluating the proposed amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan aft cting a 1,200 acre portion of the Otay Valley parcel of the Otay Ranch We have reviewed the NOP and related materials and offer the following comments: Ihe NOP includes Planning Area 12 /Eastern Urban Centel as areas subject to change under the proposed amendments; however it is unclear what changes are being proposed which dhecfly affect the Eastern Urban Center, which is defined in the cmrent GP as being that area bounded by Birch Road to the north, the futtue extension of Htmte Parkway to the south and SR125 and Eastlake Parkway to the west and east respectively Any changes which directly affect the Eastern Uiban Center or the role of the EUC in the Otay plan should be clearly identified , "[he amendments to the existing General Plan and General Development Plan propose increased densities in the Iown Center designation, increases in the square footage of non residential development, as well as a change in the character of the planned non residential development patterns fiom neighborhood serving commercial to a more regional serving, arterial based development pattern, Ihe Existing GP policy LUI 85 5 states that the City shall "carefully consider' fbi each Focus Aiea land uses that will not diminish or prevent the establishment of uses primarily intended for other' Focus Areas of the Eastern District". The proposed land use changes need to be evaluated in a comprehensive market study to ensure that the proposed commercial and high density residential development is market viable, can be absorbed and does not diminish or prevent establishment of' other uses primarily intended fur other areas of the plan, In addition to validating the land uses, the market study will also provide critical inputs into the fiscal study in terms of realistic rates of absorption ot the land uses and timing of costs and revenues McMillin Realty McMillin Mortgage McMillLn Land Development McMillin Homes McMinin Cowanercial Mailing Address: RO Box 85104 ' San Diego, CA 92186-5104 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 TEl-(619) 4774117 ' FAX (619) 336-3119 www mcrnillin corn 3 The plan changes appea: to be :emoving oppo:tunities fb: executive and estate housing while at the same time inc:easing the amount of office oppo:mnities in the plan 2hese actions appem' to be in conflict as the availability ot nea:by housing for company executives is a piimaly determinant of whether desi:able corpo:ate office use:s will choose to locate in Chula Vista Ihe market study should evaluate this issue and what impacts this land use decision may have on the ability to meet employment goals and implement the economic development strategy fb: the City 4 2he proposed changes include :educing the LOS and stIeet classification of majo: arterial :'oads, as well as the deletion ot othe :egional 'ce:ials, so it is impm ant that the t:affic study evaluate a comp:ehensive, maximum build out plan, including those fb: the :emaining undeveloped ownerships and ongoing planning effoits of the adjacent imisdictions The traffic study should conside: the :esults of the market study in te:ms of a mmket-viable mix of land uses in deteimining total AD f, Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NOP and look forwa:d to reviewing the &aft Environmental Impact Repo: when it is available Sin "--1 Vice p: ident, [he Co:ky McMillin Companies OU,S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration WestermPacific Regron Los Angeles Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration P.O Box 92007 LosAngeles CA 90009-2007 January 26, 2010 Mr Stephen Power, AICP Principal Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr Power: Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) I am in receipt of your Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09~II) Based on the map provided, the project area appears to be located approximately three miles morth of the Brown Field Airport It is necessary under Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to notify the Federal Aviation Administration ( AA) of any proposal which would exceed certain certain elevations with respect to the ground and neighboring airports CFR Title 14 Part 77 13 states that any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA: • any construction or alteration exceeding 200 ft above ground level any construction or alteration: within 20,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a i00:I surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 ft within i0,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft • within 5,000 ft of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed that above noted standards when requested by the FAA • any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location ro fulfill this requirement, it is necessary to complete and return a copy of the Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration This form is found on the web at: http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa7460 Once completed please forward the '7460-1, and any related plans for obstruction evaluation to: Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2601 Meacham Blvd ort Worth, TX 76137-4298 Or coordinate with FAA's Western-Pacific Region System Obstruction Evaluation Specialist Karen McDonald to address any potential air space obstruction issues Ms McDonald may be contacted at 310-725-6557 or karen.mcdonald@faa.gov Additionally, the FAA has the following comments: • The Exhibit l, vicinity Map provided in the NOP does not portray the airport or airport runway layout in Exhibit 1 The City of Chula vista should be aware that residential neighborhoods affected by aircraft noise will in all likelihood generate complaints from homeowners as well as engender hostility towards the airport Real estate disclosures should be developed advising homebuyers there's an airport that operates on a 24-hour basis 3-miles south of their pxoperty and that they may be impacted by aircraft noise Be aware that mitigation measuxes will not eliminate noise Homeowners will still be exposed to noise because aircraft will continue to cause noise in the airspace above the homes Furthermore, sensitivity to noise is an individual matter Some people are more sensitive to noise than others Therefore, all the sound attenuation in the world will not eliminate the potential annoyance that individuals experience from noise If you have any questions regarding this matter, a call at 13 01 72 3637 Victor Globa Environmental Protection Specialist please feel free to @ARNOr D SCHWAP ENEOGER GOVERNOR STAGE OF CAI.II ORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 0/PLANNING AND RESEARCH STAqf E ChEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT t[: OF CALI CYNI HIA RYAN l DIREUFOR Notice ol Pt eparation anualy 20.2010 Io: Re iewing Agencies Re: Supplnrental EIR (SEIR-09 01) fm Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch Genelal De ehipment Plan (PSM-09-11) SCH# 2004081066 Attached fbi youi re iew and comment is tire Notice of Preparation (NOP) foI the Supplmental EIR (SEIR 09-01) fbx Amendments to the City of Chula Vista Genelal Plan (GPA 09-01) and Otay Ranch General De elopment Plan (PSM-09-11) draft Envilonmental Impact Report (FIR) Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information ielated to theii own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Ihis is a courtesy nnt ce provided by the State Clearinghouse with a remindeI foi you to comment in a timely rammer We encoulage other agencies to also iespond to this notice and express theh concerns early in the environmental review process Please ditect yoni comments to: Stephen Power City ol Chula X:ista 276 Fourth Ax enue Chula Vista, CA 91910 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research Please refer to tile SCH number noted above in all conespondence concerning this project If you have any questions about the en; ironmental document ie' iex,, plocess, please call the State £1earingbouse at (916) 445-0613 Sincelely, Scott Morgan Acting Dilectoi, State Clear rghouse Atta¢ hinents cc: lead Agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# Project Title Lead Agency and 2S0u0p4p0lm81e0n6t6al EIR (SEIR-09-01) for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PSM-09-11) Chula Vista, City of Type Description NOP Notice of Preparation The GPA and GDPA propose to allow implementation of Village 8 West, Village 8 East, Village 9/EUC and the University/RTP site as well as necessary roadway and utility corridor improvements Lead Agency Contact Name Stephen Power Agency City of Chula Vista Phone (619) 409-5913 email Address 276 Fourth Avenue City Chula Vista Fax State CA Zip 91910 Project Location County San Diego City Chula Vista Region Cross Streets N/A Lat/Long Parcel No N/A Township N/A Range N/A Section N/A Base N/A Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use 54 805,125 Brown Field Numerous Numerous . . ,-........ <innificantlv throughout Land use, zoning, and General Plan land use eeslgnaL ou w, , -. Plan Area the General Pr ectlssues Air Qua itv; Biological Resources; Archaeologic-Histofic; Geologic/Seismic; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Water Quality; Other Issues; Toxic/Hazardous; AestheticNisual; Landuse; Noise Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Depadmeet of Fish and Game Region 5; Native American Heritage Commission; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 11; CA Resources Recycling and Recovery; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 9 Date Received 01/20/2010 Start of Review 0t/20/2010 End of Review 02/18/2010 ...... • : .... ,,,ia d hv lead aqency 0ss,5 qC1 85 DJ 1" t..O g ob o -t --= E l l--o _ o= i o "6 -' ' • -2e o= ._o ,-= °og_ --o o m o3 Eo = :z = o EO,' -= --c 0 3 --'->C ._ ._ [3 [3 [3 CI [3 (3 CI g E E o 5 g 5 g 550 o < o o o o -0 0c 0 0 00 0 E --0 m= . : oe , em e e > eo m 3 CI [3t [] CI [] e 0 eLL > E --c E--go -F_ z oow oO cc oow o< IEo --O 03 = , , • -o g ,,,<o 0 e 5 u E " 8 ° g ._ (.93 ":o _ ) c .--0 O c ,^= o .-i o < " ' , IIo = o = c 0 co -o m , E } o_ [3 [] [] [] 1810 [] [] [] 9 F--GO Co0 ÷ % OIOC! Cg San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. Enviionmental Review Committee 21 Ianuaxy 2010 'To: Mr Stephen Power, Piincipal Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fomth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Subject: Notice of Prepaxation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) DemMr Pow : Thank you for the Notice of Prepaxation for the subject project, received by this Society last week We axe pleased to note the inclusion of cultmal resources in the list of subject areas to be addressed in the DEIR, and look foiwaxd to ieviewing it during the upcoming public comment period To that end, please include us in the distribution of the DEIR, and also piovide us with a copy of the cultuial resomces technical repoit(s) SDCAS appreciates being included in the City's environmental review process for' this project Sincerely, EnviIonmental Review Committee cc: SDCAS President IZile PO Box81106 SanDiego, CA 92138-1106 (858)538-0935 APPENDIX B General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment Otay Ranch, Village 8 West & Village 9 September 2012 DRAFT Project Sponsor/Applicant: OTAY LAND COMPANY, LLC 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92008-6528 (760) 918-8200 Contact: Jeff O’Connor Prepared By: WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 495 San Ramon, CA 94583-5186 (925) 463-1700 Contact: Johanna Crooker OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA INTRODUCTION September 2012 DRAFT I-1 I. Introduction A. Purpose of the General Plan Amendment (GPA) Otay Land Company (OLC) proposes to amend portions of the General Plan in order to establish consistency between the 2005 General Plan Update (GPU), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and proposed SPA plans for Village 8 West and Village 9. One primary purpose of the proposed GPA is to resolve the status of the Deferral Area designation established by Council Resolution No. 2005-424. In addition to approving the 2005 GPU, Council Resolution No. 2005-424 also maintained that “it is necessary to defer consideration of land use designations and certain policies and objectives pertaining to Villages 8, 9, and 10 of the Otay Ranch.” Refer to the Appendix for a copy of Resolution No. 2005-424 and for the exceptions to the approval. As a part of this application, OLC addresses the exceptions listed in Resolution No. 2005-424 as they pertain to the Village 8 West and and Village 9 Planning Areas. OLC also seeks to implement the Land Offer Agreement consummated by OLC and the City of Chula Vista, dated April 9, 2008. In addition to the amendments proposed by OLC, City of Chula Vista staff has proposed a number of amendments. Many of these amendments reflect existing conditions throughout the City; however, the majority of these amendments pertain to adjacent Otay Ranch Villages, Planning Areas, the University and the Regional Technology Park (RTP) to ensure coordinated planning efforts between these areas and Village 8 West and Village 9. Adopted General Plan page numbers, exhibit numbers and figure numbers pertain to the General Plan document adopted December 13, 2005 as amended May 2010. B. Purpose of the Project/Proposal This GPA application is one part of OLC’s intent to implement long-range development goals and strategies as they pertain to Village 8 West and Village 9. OLC also will submit applications for an Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans, Tentative Subdivision Maps (TM) and the associated environmental documentation (EIR). Again the purpose is to ultimately establish compliance with the current General Plan. As part of this application, land use designations are proposed for intensification and re-configuration based on concepts for an energized Town Center in Village 8 West and an intensified urban core in Village 9, compatible with a potential, adjacent University. These plans for intensification are generally consistent with current 2005 General Plan policies. OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA INTRODUCTION September 2012 DRAFT I-2 This Page Intentionally left Blank OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-1 II. List of Proposed Amendments This section provides a list of proposed amendments by page number in the General Plan. Each proposed amendment is followed by a parenthetical reference, indicating if the amendment is being initiated by the applicant (OLC) or by City staff (Staff). CHAPTER-1 – PREFACE ?? Page P-1, Figure 1-1 Relationship of Chula Vista to Downtown San Diego and International Border Update exhibit to illustrate eliminating La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) CHAPTER 2 -INTRODUCTION 2.0 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS ?? Page INTRO-5, Figure 2-1: Chula Vista Planning Area Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Update the circulation in Villages 8 and 9 to match already adopted exhibits in the Land Use Chapter (Staff) CHAPTER 3 -CHULA VISTA IN PERSPECTIVE 2.0 HISTORY ?? Page CVIP-2, Figure 3-1: Regional Location Update exhibit to illustrate eliminating La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) CHAPTER 5 -LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ?? Page LUT-7, Figure 5-2: Redevelopment Project Areas Update exhibit to illustrate eliminating La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) ?? Page LUT-10, Figure 5-3: Specific Plan Locations Update exhibit to illustrate eliminating La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-2 3.0 COMMUNITY IMAGE AND CHARACTER ?? Page LUT-16, Figure 5-4: Designated Scenic Roadways Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) ?? Page LUT-17, Figure 5-5: Open Space Network a. Remove “mitten” shaped open space from Wolf Canyon near Village 4 (Staff) b. Revise open space areas to reflect changes to Village 8 West and Village 9 (OLC) ?? Page LUT-19, Figure 5-6: Entryways and Gateways Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) ?? Page LUT-20, First, Second, and Fourth Bullets a. Revise first bullet to reflect changing “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street”, i.e. state “Main Street from Interstate 805 to Eastlake Parkway” (OLC) b. Delete second bullet (OLC) c. Revise fourth bullet to change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) ?? Page LUT-22, Table 5-2: Primary Gateway Locations Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street”. ?? Page LUT-24, First Bullet a. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) b. Change description “University Campus Focus Area” to “University Focus Area” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-28, Figure 5-7: Chula Vista Planning Areas Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) ?? Page LUT-40, Figure 5-9: Activity Centers Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) c. Move the Regional Technology Park to the University (Staff) d. Remove “mitten” shaped open space from Wolf Canyon near Village 4 (Staff) e. Remove shading, asterisks, and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-41, Figure 5-10: Focus Areas of Change Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-3 ?? Page LUT-47, Figure 5-12: General Plan Land Use Diagram Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Land Use changes to Village 8 West and Village 9 (OLC) c. Land Use changes to other Villages (Staff) d. Remove cross-hatch, asterisks, and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-49, Table 5-4: General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Update Table to reflect the following: a. Increase the range of regional technology park FAR from 0.25-0.75 to 0.25-2.0 (Staff) b. Increase density range of Town Centers from “18-30” to “18-45” (OLC) c. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-54, Regional Technology Park Expand Definition of RTP and revise FAR (Staff) ?? Page LUT-56, Second, Third and Fourth Paragraphs a. Second paragraph, change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) b. Third paragraph, change upper range of Town Center density to “45” from “30” (OLC) c. Third paragraph, add “or transit oriented development” as an area acceptable for increased density (OLC) d. Fourth paragraph, add a period at the end of the paragraph (Staff) ?? Page LUT—57, Projected Population a. Update text to reflect projected population of “331,100” instead of “325,200” (Staff) b. Update percent growth to “49%” instead of “46%” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-57, Table 5-5 Chula Vista Projected Population in 2030 Update table to reflect projected population of “163,600” instead of “157,700” for East (incorporated area) and “331,100” instead of “325,200” for Total (Staff) ?? Page LUT-59, Table 5-6: General Plan Land Use Distribution in 2030 by Planning Area a. Acreage for the category “East Chula Vista Subareas” has been modified to reflect the OLC GPA proposal and inclusion of RTP (Staff) b. Corresponding “Total General Plan Area” figures have also been updated to reflect these changes (Staff) c. Statistics provided by City (Staff) d. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-60, Table 5-7: General Plan Land Use in 2030 a. 2030 acres has been modified to reflect the OLC GPA Proposal and inclusion of RTP (Staff) b. 2030 dwelling units has been modified to reflect these changes (Staff) c. Statistics provided by City (Staff) d. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-62, Third Paragraph OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-4 a. Update text to clarify that selected streets can also exceed LOS D in the Otay Ranch Subarea (Staff) b. Update Title of Section 5.4 from “Urban Core Circulation Element” to “Urban Circulation Element.” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-64, Figure 5-13E: Circulation Plan – East Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) c. Reclassify Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) easterly from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway as a 6 Lane Gateway (OLC) d. Reclassify the segment of La Media Road from the Town Center Arterial at the La Media/Main Street intersection south easterly to SR-125 as a 4 Lane Major (OLC) e. Provide lane transitions from the 4-lane Town Center Arterial to a 6-lane Prime at La Media Road northerly of the Town Center Arterial, at Main Street (formerly Rock Mountain Road) easterly of the Town Center Arterial, and Main Street (formerly Rock Mountain Road) westerly of the Town Center Arterial (Staff) f. Illustrate “other” road from southerly end of La Media Road to the Otay Valley District Active Recreation Area (Staff) ?? Page LUT 65, Table 5-9: Street Segment Performance Standards and Volumes Modify Table to indicate that LOS D, 43,200 average daily trips (ADT) is acceptable for a Town Center Arterial (OLC) ?? Page LUT-67 through LUT-72 (72.1): Urban Circulation Element a. Update “Urban Core Circulation Element” to Urban Circulation Element” (Staff) b. Revise text to state that the Urban Circulation Element applies to the Urban Core Subarea in western Chula Vista and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea in the East Planning Area (Staff) c. Add that continuing to use existing procedures and suburban–based performance standards hinders the implementation of two (formerly only one) of the primary themes of the General Plan (Staff) d. Clarify that change in LOS will also avoid oversizing roadways during the planning process (Staff) e. Revise “Urban Roadway” to “Urban Street” (Staff) f. Expand definition of Town Center Arterial and Gateway Street (OLC) g. Move text from section 5.5.5 as a subsection of Urban Core Streets (Staff) d. Renumber sections 5.5.6 and 5.5.7 to 5.5.5 and 5.5.6 respectively (Staff) ?? Page LUT-73, Section 5.6.1 Regional Transit Plan and 5.6.2 Public Transit Expansion Expand definition to include transit facilities and park and ride per Figure 5-14; include adequate parking for commuters (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-5 ?? Page LUT-75, Figure 5-14: Regional Transit Vision Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) c. Adjust location of the Transit Stop and eliminate Park and Ride in Village 9 (OLC) d. Correct transit route designations (Staff) ?? Page LUT-80, Figure 5-16: Existing and Programmed Bikeways Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) 7.0 PLANNING FACTORS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES ?? Page LUT-90, Table 5-18: Urban Form Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) ?? Page LUT-96 Objective – LUT 5 Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-110, Policies LUT 14.8 through LUT 14.11 a. Delete Policy LUT 14.8 and renumber the remaining polices in this section so the numbering remains sequential (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) ?? Page LUT-113 Objective – LUT 17 a. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (OLC) b. Add “stop or” to transit station (Staff) ?? Page LUT 131 Mobile Home Overlay District a. Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-6 10.0 EAST AREA PLAN ?? Page LUT-225, Figure 5-36: East Planning Areas, Subareas Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) ?? Page LUT-228, Figure 5-37: East Planning Area, Otay Ranch Subareas Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) c. Remove “mitten” shaped open space from Wolf Canyon near Village 4 (Staff) d. Add “University Campus” call-out to Eastern Planning Area (Staff) e. Illustrate “other” road from southerly end of La Media Road to the Otay Valley District Active Recreation Area (Staff) ?? Page LUT-231, Figure 5-38: East Planning Area, Activity Centers Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) c. Change reference in legend from “Adjacent Shopping Center” to “Town Center” (OLC) ?? Page LUT-245, Figure 5-42: East Planning Area, East Main Street Subareas Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) ?? Page LUT-248, Policy 72.1 Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-249, New Policy 72.5 Provide neighborhood commercial services within ¼-mile walking distance of residents and/or transit (Staff) ?? Page LUT-249, New Policy 72.6 Town Centers should provide community/neighborhood serving services (Staff) ?? Page LUT-249, New Policy 72.7 Provide pedestrian and street connectivity between the Villages utilizing a grid circulation pattern that offers a wider range of mobility choices and routes. (Staff) ?? Page LUT-249 Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-249.1, New Policy 73.4 73.4 a. “Locate High to Medium-high density residential within 1/4-mile radius to the Village Core(s), Town Center(s) or transit.” (Staff) b. Renumber policies (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-7 ?? Page LUT-250, Policy 73.5 (Renumbered to 73.6) a. Add Town Centers as a place for promoting pedestrian travel and transit (Staff) b. Renumber policies (Staff) ?? Page LUT-251, Policy 75.2 Revise language to address edge conditions (Staff) ?? Page LUT-251, Section 10.5 Otay Ranch Districts, Bullets 2 through 4 Update description of planning districts (Staff) ?? Page LUT-253, Figure 5-43: Otay Ranch Subareas -Western District Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) c. Remove “mitten” shaped open space from Wolf Canyon near Village 4 (Staff) d. Clarify transit station/stop (OLC) ?? Page LUT-257 through 259 Remove shading and asterisks and notes regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-257, Policy 80.1 Add Otay Ranch RMP Phase I and II (Staff) ?? Page LUT-257, Policy 80.2 Revise language to address grading techniques (Staff) ?? Page LUT-257, New Policy 80.3 Add policy to address infrastructure siting and design that minimizes impacts to Wolf Canyon (Staff) ?? Page LUT-257, Section 10.5.2 Central District -Description Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) ?? Page LUT-258, Section 10.5.2 Central District – First Paragraph Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) ?? Page LUT-258, Objective 81 a. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) b. Change the word “density” to “intensity” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-258, Policy 81.2 Revise language for low-medium density locations west of the Town Center (OLC) ?? Page LUT-258, Policies LUT 81.5 a. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) b. Delete the word “mass” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259, Policies LUT 81.8 Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-8 ?? Page LUT-259, Policy LUT 81.9 Delete Policy from this section (replaced by new Policies 92.3, 95.1, and 95.4) (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259, New Objective 82 Add new objective to address interface between the Town Center and Village Eight (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259, New Policy 82.1 Add new policy requiring access connections throughout Village 8 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259, New Policy 82.2 Add new policy requiring grading that minimizes creation of large slopes that are visible to the public (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259, New Policy 82.3 Add new policy requiring enhanced architectural facades and landscaping along edges, circulation roads, and the canyon rim (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259, New Policy 82.4 Add new policy requiring transit connectivity throughout Village 8 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259.1, New Objective 83 Add new objective describing land uses, transit and connectivity for Village 8 East (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259.1, New Policy Policy 83.1 Add new policy requiring diverse housing types (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259.1, New Policy 83.2 Add new policy requiring transition between the Village Core and surrounding uses (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259.1, New Policy 83.3 Add new policy requiring land uses adjacent to the MSCP to be lower density residential (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259.1, New Policy 83.4 Add new policy requiring transit within village cores (Staff) ?? Page LUT-259.1, New Policy 83.5 Add new policy requiring necessary community facilities (Staff) ?? Page LUT-260, Figure 5-44: Otay Ranch Subarea -Central District Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) c. Revise Village 8 West and Village 9 land uses (OLC) d. Revise land uses in other villages (Staff) e. Clarify transit station/stop (OLC) f. Illustrate “other” road from southerly end of La Media Media Road to the Otay Valley District Active Recreation Area (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-9 ?? Page LUT-261 through LUT-262, Objectives 84, and 85 and corresponding policies Renumber Objectives and Policies (Staff) ?? Page LUT-263, Figure 5-45: East Planning Area, Otay Ranch Subareas -Otay Valley District a. Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Clarify transit station/stop (OLC) c. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) d. Illustrate “other” road from southerly end of La Media Road to the Otay Valley District Active Recreation Area (Staff) ?? Page LUT-264 through 281 Remove shading and delete asterisks and notes regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-264, Description of District Change “1,400 acres” to “1,200 acres,” “five focus areas” to “four focus areas” and describe (Staff) ?? Page LUT-264, Existing Conditions Update description of location (Staff) ?? Page LUT-264 and 265, Vision for District a. Add the word “with” (Staff) b. Replace multi-institutional” and “traditional” with “university campus” (Staff) c. Expand description of the University Focus Area (Staff) d. Move description RTP into the University Focus Area description (Staff) e. Change “medium” to “low-medium” and “medium high” to “mixed use” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-266 through LUT-265.1, University Study Area and Framework Strategy Change “University Study Area and Framework Strategy to “University Village Study Area and Strategic Framework Policies” and update description (Staff) ?? Page LUT-266, Objective LUT-84 and corresponding policies Renumber to 86 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-266, LUT 84.1 (Renumbered to 86.1) Change five to four primary land use Focus Areas and update description (Staff) ?? Page LUT-267, Objective LUT-85 and corresponding policies a. Renumber to 87 (Staff) b. Added “and to” text (Staff) ?? Page LUT-267, Policy 85.4 (Renumbered to 87.4) Update description of focus area; include grading requirement (Staff) ?? Page LUT-267 through 268, Policy 85.6 (Renumbered to 87.6) Replace policy with updated description of Strategic Framework Policies contents and requirements (Staff) ?? Page LUT-268, New Policy 87.7 Add new policy requiring compliance with the Strategic Framework Policies (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-10 ?? Page LUT-268, Objective LUT-86 and corresponding policy (Renumbered to 88.6) a. Renumber to 88 (Staff) b. Move to page 271(Staff) c. Change multi-institutional university to university campus (Staff) ?? Page LUT-269, Figure 5-46: East Planning Area, Otay Ranch Subarea -Eastern University District Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) c. Add elementary school to Village 9 (OLC) d. Revise Village 8 and Village 9 land uses (OLC) e. Revise land uses in University area, including relocation of RTP (Staff) f. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) g. Illustrate “other” road from southerly end of La Media Road to the Otay Valley District Active Recreation Area (Staff) h. Locate Village 9 Transit stops (OLC) ?? Page LUT-270, Figure 5-47: Eastern University District, Focus Areas Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” (OLC) c. Relocate RTP to University Area (Staff) d. Reconfigure University Boundary (Staff) e. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-271. through LUT-275, 10.5.5 University Campus Focus Area a. Change to “University Focus Area” (Staff) b. Update description to include RTP (Staff) c. Make the University Campus portion a new subsection (10.5.5.1) (Staff) d. Make the RTP a new subsection (10.5.5.2) on page 274.1 (Staff) e. Remove shading and delete asterisks and notes regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-271, 10.5.5 Existing Conditions a. Change 530 acres to 558 acres, thereby including the 85-acre RTP (Staff) b. Add description of High-Tech High (Staff) ?? Page LUT-271 through LUT 271.1, Objective 87, Policies 87.1 through 87.3 a. Renumber Objective and Policies to 89 (Staff) b. Describe University Focus Area to include University Campus and RTP (Staff) ?? Page LUT-272 through 272, Objective LUT-88 and Policies 88.1 through 88.4 a. Renumber Objective and Policies to 90 (Staff) b. Change “multi-institutional university center facility” to “university campus” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-272, Policy 88.1 (Renumbered to 90.1) Change 530 acres to 473 acres (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-11 ?? Page LUT-272, Objective 89 a. Change to LUT 91 and renumber corresponding policies (Staff) b. Change to University Campus (Staff) c. Add the RTP (Staff) ?? Page LUT-273, Policy 89.1 (Renumbered to 91.1) a. Update location (Staff) b. Delete first bullet regarding campus core (Staff) c. Revise fourth bullet to include adjoining areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274, Policy 89.2 (Renumbered to 91.2) Change “University Study Area and “Framework Strategy to “University Village Study Area” and “Strategic Framework Policies” respectively (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274, Policy 89.3 (Renumbered to 91.3) Change villages to areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274, Policy 89.4 (Renumbered to 91.4) Add no conflict to OR GDP for alternative residential land use (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.1, through LUT-275 New Section 10.5.5.2 Move section 10.5.7 Regional Technology Park from page LUT-279 to here and renumbered as section 10.5.5.2 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.1, Description of Focus Area and Existing Conditions Delete (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.1, Vision for Focus Area Revise description of location of RTP as part of University Focus Area (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.1, Objective —LUT 92 Change “industrial” to “business” park (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.2, Policy 92.2 Revise to locate accessory uses in Town Center and EUC (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.2, Policy 92.3 Revise language to limit secondary uses to support research and development, and not compete w/EUC (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.2, Policy 92.4 Revise text (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.2, Policy 92.5 Delete, redundant with Policy 92.3 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.2 New Policy 92.5 Provide convenient access to the University, EUC, University Village, and Hunte Parkway (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-12 ?? Page LUT-274.2, Policy 92.6 Revise to state portions of RTP placed along streets and edges of the Town Center to promote pedestrian orientation (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.3, New Policy 92.7 Locate parking to rear of buildings (Staff) ?? Page LUT-274.3, New Policy 92.8 Revise text (Staff) ?? Page LUT-275, New Objective LUT-94 and new corresponding policies Requires coordination of infrastructure needs between Village 9, the EUC and the University (Staff) ?? Page LUT-276, 10.5.6 University Village Focus Area, Description of Focus Area (Text moved from page LUT-274) a. Update description to include adjacent RTP (Staff) b. Added semicolon after “…transit-oriented mixed use…” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-276, Vision for Focus Area Update description and relationship between the University and University Village (Staff) ?? Page LUT-277, Objective -LUT 90 a. Renumber to LUT 95 (Staff) b. Update description to include RTP and RTP work force (Staff) c. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-277, Policy 90.1 a. Renumber to 95.1 (Staff) b. Add “and RTP work force” (Staff) ?? Page LUT-277, Policy 90.2 a. Renumber to 95.2 (Staff) b. Add commercial services, office (Staff) ?? Page LUT-277, Policy 90.3 Renumber to 95.3 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-277, Policy 90.4 a. Renumber to 95.4 (Staff) b. Add more intense format and complementary to EUC (Staff) ?? Page LUT-277 through 278, Objective 90.5 a. Renumber to 95.5 (Staff) b. Add RTP (Staff) ?? Page LUT-278, Policy 90.6 and 90.7 a. Renumber to 95.6 and 956 (Staff) b. Add RTP (Staff) c. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-13 ?? Page LUT-279, Policy 90.8 a. Renumber to 95.8 (Staff) b. Add RTP (Staff) c. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) d. Change “multi-modal transportation center” to “transit station” ?? Page LUT-279, Policy 90.9 a. Renumber to 95.9 (Staff) b. Reference Figure 5-47 and delete reference to densities (Staff) ?? Page LUT-279, New Policy 95.10 Add increased densities on private properties for housing that benefit the university (Staff) ?? Page LUT-279, Policy 90.10 Renumber to 95.11 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-279 Policy 90.11 a. Renumber to 95.12 (Staff) b. Add extend transit service beyond the Town Center (Staff) ?? Page LUT-279, New Policy 95.13 Provide shuttle service and/or transit routes that are beyond the mass transit service area (Staff) ?? Page LUT-280, Policy 90.12 a. Renumber to 95.14 (Staff) b. Add EUC (Staff) ?? Page LUT-280, Policy 90.13 a. Renumber as 95.15 (Staff) b. b. Change 30 to 45 du/ac (Staff) ?? Page LUT-280, Policy 90.14 Renumber as 95.16 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-280, Objective 91 and Policies 91.1 through 91.3 a. Renumber Objective and Policies to 96 (Staff) b. Remove shading and delete asterisk and note regarding Deferral Areas (Staff) ?? Page LUT-280, Policy 91.3 Add RTP and rephrase connectivity to Town Centers, RTP and university (Staff) ?? Page LUT-280, Section 10.5.7 Regional Technology Park Focus Area Move to section 10.5.5 and include as new subsection 10.5.5.2 (See Page LUT-274.1 through 275) (Staff) ?? Page LUT-281 through 284, Section 10.5.8 Eastern Urban Center and Objectives and Policies 94 through 95 Renumber to Section 10.5.7 and Objectives and Policies 97 thru 98 (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-14 ?? Page LUT-283, Policy 94.7 (Renumbered to 97.7) Change “University Study Area and “Framework Strategy to “University Village Study Area” and “Strategic Framework Policies” respectively (Staff) ?? Page LUT 284 through 286 Section 10.5.8 Freeway Commercial Focus Area and corresponding policies Renumber to Section 10.5.8 and Objectives and Policies 99 through 100 (Staff) ?? Page LUT 284, Policies 95.5 and 95.6 (Renumbered to 98.5 and 98.6) Change “University Study Area and “Framework Strategy to “University Village Study Area” and “Strategic Framework Policies” respectively (Staff) ?? Page LUT-290 through 302 Bayfront Area-Wide Planning Factors, Objectives 98 through 106 and corresponding policies Renumber Objectives and Policies 101 through 109 (Staff) ?? Page LUT-303, Final Action Deferral Areas Delete entire section and remove highlighting (Staff) CHAPTER 6 -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT 3.0 PLANNING FACTORS, FACTORS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES ?? Page EDE-4, Figure 6-1: Employment Land Areas Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Move RTP to University (Staff) c. Move University leader to correct location (OLC) e. Revised employment bubble (Staff) f. Add Village 8 West employment lands (OLC) ?? Page EDE-6, Policy ED 1.4 Change “multi-institutional university center” to “university campus” (Staff) ?? Page EDE-6, Policy ED 2.1 Change “In the SR-125 commercial corridor” to “East of the SR-125 commercial corridor and the University Village 9 Town Center” (Staff) ?? Page EDE-8, Section 3.2.4 Promoting Technology Change “multi-institutional university center” to “university campus” (Staff) ?? Page EDE-9, Policy ED 4.2 Change “minimum 125 to 200-acre” to “approximately 85-acre” (Staff) ?? Page EDE-9, Policy ED 4.4 Change “multi-institutional university center” to “university campus” (Staff) ?? Page EDE-17, Policy ED 11.1 OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-15 Change “multi-institutional university center” to “university campus” (Staff) CHAPTER 8 -PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT 3.0 PLANNING FACTORS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES ?? Page PFS-6, Figure 8-1: Water Service Areas a. Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) ?? Page PFS-8, Figure 8-2: Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater Collection a. Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) ?? Page PFS-10, Figure 8-3: Drainage Improvements a. Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name of “Rock Mountain Road” to “Main Street” from the the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway (OLC) ?? Page PFS-19, Figure 8-5: Emergency Evacuation Routes Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) ?? Page PFS-25, Figure 8-6: Existing Primary and Secondary Schools Serving Chula Vista Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) ?? Page PFS-31, Figure 8-7: Existing and Proposed Libraries Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) ?? Page PFS-37, Figure 8-9: Existing and Proposed Public Parks and Recreation Facilities Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Adjust locations of neighborhood parks in Village 8 (Staff) c. Illustrate “other” road from southerly end of La Media Road to the Otay Valley District Active Recreation Area (Staff) ?? Page PFS-59, Figure 8-10: Solid Waste Facility a. Update exhibit to eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Change name to Figure 8-11 (Staff) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS September 2012 DRAFT II-16 CHAPTER 9 -ENVIRONMENTAL 3.0 PLANNING FACTORS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES ?? Page E-35 through E-36 Add new policy E 7.8 (Staff) ?? Page E-66, Figure 9-10: General Areas Map Update exhibit to illustrate the following: a. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) b. Update circulation to match other adopted exhibits in the Land Use Chapter (OLC) ?? Page E-73, Figure 9-12 Projected 2030 Noise Contour Map Update Map to Eliminate La Media Road extension (OLC) OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 8 WEST & VILLAGE 9, GPA ADOPTED VERSUS PROPOSED September 2012 DRAFT III-1 III. Adopted Versus Proposed This section provides a visual comparison of the proposed General Plan amendments as they would appear in the General Plan . • Text to be added to the body of the document and within tables is shown as underlined text. An example follows: The quick brown fox • Text to be deleted from the body of the document and within tables is shown as strikethrough text. An example follows: The quick brown fox • Exhibits are shown as a side-by-side comparison between both the “Adopted” and “Proposed” exhibit. o The currently Adopted is outlined by a solid blue line: o The Proposed revised exhibit is outlined by a red dashed line: Figure 3-1 Page P-1 Adopted U.S.A. INTERNATIONAL BORDER PACIFIC OCEAN NORTH N.T.S. CHULA VISTA NATIONAL CITY LEMON GROVE LA MESA EL CAJON SANTEE SAN DIEGO CORONADO IMPERIAL BEACH 54 125 805 5 M E X I C O CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE EASTERN URBAN CENTER DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO Figure 1-1 Relationship of Chula Vista to Downtown San Diego and International Border PREFACE CHAPTER 1 Chula Vista Vision 2020City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista: Past, Present, and Future Since Chula Vista's establishment as a permanent settlement in the late 1800's and its incorporation in 1911, the community has evolved based upon a vision of what it wants to be and forward-looking plans to get there. The original town site layout conceived by Colonel William G. Dickinson of the San Diego Land and Town Company is still apparent in today's northwest area of Chula Vista. th Approaching its 100 anniversary as a city, Chula Vista has expanded by ten times in area, and transitioned from an agricultural community to a rapidly changing, more urban place. It has become one of California's 15 largest cities in population and among the most dynamic. But as the City has grown larger, the world, in a sense, has grown smaller. Chula Vista is increasingly connected to and influenced by its proximity to the international border and interactions with other local governments and regional plans and programs. Figure 1-1 shows the relationship of the Chula Vista Urban Core and Eastern Urban Center to downtown San Diego and the international border. 1.0 PREFACE Figure 3-1 Page P-1 U.S.A. INTERNATIONAL BORDER PACIFIC OCEAN NORTH N.T.S. CHULA VISTA NATIONAL CITY LEMON GROVE LA MESA EL CAJON SANTEE SAN DIEGO CORONADO IMPERIAL BEACH 54 125 805 5 M E X I C O CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE EASTERN URBAN CENTER DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO Figure 1-1 Relationship of Chula Vista to Downtown San Diego and International Border PREFACE CHAPTER 1 Chula Vista Vision 2020City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista: Past, Present, and Future Since Chula Vista's establishment as a permanent settlement in the late 1800's and its incorporation in 1911, the community has evolved based upon a vision of what it wants to be and forward-looking plans to get there. The original town site layout conceived by Colonel William G. Dickinson of the San Diego Land and Town Company is still apparent in today's northwest area of Chula Vista. th Approaching its 100 anniversary as a city, Chula Vista has expanded by ten times in area, and transitioned from an agricultural community to a rapidly changing, more urban urban place. It has become one of California's 15 largest cities in population and among the most dynamic. But as the City has grown larger, the world, in a sense, has grown smaller. Chula Vista is increasingly connected to and influenced by its proximity to the international border and interactions with other local governments and regional plans and programs. Figure 1-1 shows the relationship of the Chula Vista Urban Core and Eastern Urban Center to downtown San Diego and the international border. 1.0 PREFACE Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Chula Vista Planning Area Page INTRO-5 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Fifth Av Broadway H StL St Palomar St Main St SAN DIEGO BAY NORTH N.T.S. LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 125 5 805 54 Figure 2-1 City of Chula Vista General Plan Adopted Chula Vista Planning Area Page INTRO-5 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Fifth Av Broadway H StL St Palomar St Main St SAN DIEGO BAY NORTH N.T.S. LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 125 5 805 54 Figure 2-1 City of Chula Vista General Plan Proposed AREA OF CHANGE U.S.A. INTERNATIONAL BORDER PACIFIC OCEAN NORTH N.T.S. CHULA VISTA NATIONAL CITY LEMON GROVE LA MESA EL CAJON SANTEE SAN DIEGO CORONADO IMPERIAL BEACH 54 125 805 5 M E X I C O Figure 3-1Regional Location Page CVIP-2 Adopted U.S.A. INTERNATIONAL BORDER PACIFIC OCEAN NORTH N.T.S. CHULA VISTA NATIONAL CITY LEMON GROVE LA MESA EL CAJON SANTEE SAN DIEGO CORONADO IMPERIAL BEACH 54 125 805 5 M E X I C O Figure 3-1Regional Location Page CVIP-2 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Redevelopment Project Areas LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Redevelopment Plan & Expanded Areas NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Figure 5-2 Page LUT-7 Adopted Redevelopment Project Areas LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Redevelopment Plan & Expanded Areas NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Figure 5-2 Page LUT-7 Proposed Hunte Pkwy Main St Main St AREA OF CHANGE Eastlake Pkwy Adopted Specific Plan Locations LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Specific Plan Locations NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd t S ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY 1 LAKE 1 2 3 8 4 5 6 7 SPECIFIC PLANS 1 Bonita Gateway 2 Bonita Glen 3 Gateway 4 Bayfront 5 Montgomery 6 Auto Park North 7 Auto Park East 8 Urban Core dRh Birc SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Figure 5-3 Page LUT-10 125 54 805 5 Specific Plan Locations LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Specific Plan Locations NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd t S ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY 1 LAKE 1 2 3 8 4 5 6 7 SPECIFIC PLANS 1 Bonita Gateway 2 Bonita Glen 3 Gateway 4 Bayfront 5 Montgomery 6 Auto Park North 7 Auto Park East 8 Urban Core dRh Birc SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Figure 5-3 Page LUT-10 125 54 805 5 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Hunte Pkwy Main St Main St Designated Scenic Roadways LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Scenic Roadways NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Bonita Rd er Rd tawteewS Hilltop Dr East H St Mt MiguelRd dR yellaV rotcorP Otay Lakes Rd Heritage Rd Main St dR etseuW dR ntM kcoR d R ch Bir tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av BroadwayMarina Pkwy H St J St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Figure 5-4 Page LUT-16 Adopted Designated Scenic Roadways LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Scenic Roadways NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Bonita Rd er Rd tawteewS Hilltop Dr East H St Mt MiguelRd dR yellaV rotcorP Otay Lakes Rd Heritage Rd Main St dR etseuW d R ch Bir tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av BroadwayMarina Pkwy H St J St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Figure 5-4 Page LUT-16 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Main St. Hunte Pkwy Main St Eastlake Pkwy Open Space Network Figure 5-5 Page LUT-17 Adopted Open Space Network Figure 5-5 Page LUT-17 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Figure 5-6 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd d R ch Bir tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Entryways and Gateways NORTH N.T.S. LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Overall Entryways Primary Gateways Secondary Gateways Gateway Streets F Street Promenade Page LUT-19 Adopted Figure 5-6 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd d R ch Bir tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Entryways and Gateways NORTH N.T.S. LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Overall Entryways Primary Gateways Secondary Gateways Gateway Streets F Street Promenade Page LUT-19 ProposedAREA OF CHANGE Hunte Pkwy Main St Eastlake Pkwy Main St ! Eastlake Parkway ! Rock Mountain Road from Heritage Road to State Route 125 ! Hunte Parkway from Eastlake Parkway to Proctor Valley Road ! La Media Road from Otay Lakes Road to Rock Mountain Road Main Street ! Heritage Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the City's southerly boundary ! Wueste Road For policies regarding scenic resources, refer to Section 7.6, Enhancing Community Image, of this element. 3.2 Gateways The appearance of a community is a good indicator of how well a community functions, and says a lot about the sense of community pride that its residents have. A visually attractive city is desirable, as it conveys a positive image and inspires community pride. Chula Vista's organized system of entryways and gateways offers opportunities to improve the City's appearance, establish a stronger community image, and enhance community pride amongst residents. Special design treatments, which may include themed signage, landscape and architectural design enhancements, and other elements should be used used to signify arrival into the City and progression to key destinations along gateway streets. The special design treatments should consider topographic conditions and roadway configuration. Discussion of entryways, gateways, and gateway streets is also closely related to Section 3.1, Scenic Resources and Open Space Network of this element. In addition to entryways, gateways and gateway streets, special attention should be given to providing an enhanced pedestrian linkage (“F Street Promenade”) between the Urban Core Subarea and the Bayfront along F Street. For policies regarding entryways, gateways, and gateway streets, refer to Section 7.6, Enhancing Community Image, of this element. Entryways and gateways are divided into three categories, which are defined below and shown on Figure 5-6, Entryways and Gateways. Discussion of the categories and their design treatments follow. Main Street from Interstate 805 to Heritage Road An individual’s perception of Chula Vista can be a strong contributing factor in in making economic decisions. Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-20 City of Chula Vista General Plan Core Subarea, Bayfront Planning Area, and Bonita; one into the Southwest Planning Area; one into the Main Street District; and three that will provide access to the Eastern Urban Center. These Primary Gateways include roadways that provide direct access into important community activity areas. Primary Gateways are listed in Table 5-2, below; a short description follows. See Section 7.6, Enhancing Community Image, for primary gateway policies. TABLE 5-2 PRIMARY GATEWAY LOCATIONS Freeway Primary Gateway Interstate 5 E Street/Marina Parkway H Street J Street/Marina Parkway Palomar Street State Route 54 Fourth Avenue Interstate 805 Olympic Parkway E Street/Bonita Road East H Street Telegraph Canyon Road Main Street/Auto Park Way State Route 125 Otay Lakes Road Olympic Parkway Birch Road Rock Mountain Road Main Street ! E Street/Marina Parkway Gateway – This Gateway serves as a key entrance into the northerly portion of the Urban Core Subarea and is the first entrance into the City off of Interstate 5 from the north. The gateway includes E Street from Interstate 5 to Broadway and will serve primarily as a vehicular corridor to Broadway and Downtown Third Avenue. The E Street/Marina Parkway Gateway will also serve as the first access point from the north into the City's Bayfront Planning Area on Marina Parkway. ! H Street Gateway – This gateway will be the primary entrance into the Urban Core Subarea, as well as the City's Bayfront Planning Area. On the east It will extend to Broadway from Interstate 5 and provide direct access to Broadway, the Chula Vista Center, and Downtown Third Avenue. On the west it will extend from Interstate 5 to the Bayfront. H Street is also planned as a transit corridor. Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-22 City of Chula Vista General Plan There are fourteen freeway entrances into the City that are designated as Primary Gateways. ! Rock Mountain Road Main Street Gateway – This gateway provides access to both the EUC and the University Campus Focus Area. It will extend from State Route 125 to Eastlake Parkway to the east, and to the primary entrance into the University Campus Focus Area. Secondary Gateways Secondary Gateways are significant roadways that link Chula Vista from adjacent communities and should provide travelers with a clear impression that they are entering the City of Chula Vista. Enhanced landscaping and appropriate signage should occur at Secondary Gateways, including Broadway from National City to the north, and Beyer Way and Beyer Boulevard from San Diego to the south. See Section 7.6, Enhancing Community Image, for secondary gateway policies. 3.3 Neighborhood Identity The quality, physical form, and arrangement of urban design contribute to neighborhood identity and overall livability. Urban design refers to the various physical design elements that make up the City's built environment, including buildings; public public spaces; streetscapes; and landscaping. One example of urban design is the Downtown Third Avenue District, with a distinctive row of palm trees in the street medians; neighborhood signage; modern and well-landscaped civic buildings; Friendship and Memorial Parks; and unique retail shops along Third Avenue. Another example is Otay Ranch Village One's Heritage Park and Village Core. Chula Vista has several good urban design elements, such as the urban parks and plazas in the Urban Core Subarea, and Bayfront access west of Interstate 5; however, these elements need to be better connected to improve people's access and to increase vitality in adjacent commercial areas. 3.4 Historic Preservation The most effective way to protect the resources that represent the history of a community is through the adoption and implementation of a local historic preservation ordinance. Beginning in 2002, the Chula Vista Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Committee evaluated the City's historic preservation policies and programs and developed recommendations for historic preservation efforts. Their report, “An Evaluation of Historic Preservation in Chula Vista,” was accepted by the City Council on September 30, 2003. Key recommendations for City action are included below, and as policies in Section 7.6, Enhancing Community Image, of this element. Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-24 City of Chula Vista General Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chula Vista Planning Areas Figure 5-7 Page LUT-28 Adopted E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Fifth Av Broadway H StL StNaples St Main St SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 125 5 54 BAYFRONT NORTHWEST SOUTHWEST EAST NORTH N.T.S. Figure 5-7 Page LUT-28 Chula Vista Planning Areas Main St Proposed J StG St Orange Ave Bonita Rd Central Ave East H St Hilltop Dr TelegraphCanyon Rd 805 Heritage Rd. La Media Rd. Eastlake Parkway Hunte Pkwy Otay Lakes Rd Olympic Pkwy Palomar St AREA OF CHANGE Main St LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Existing Activity Centers Future Activity Centers Urban Core Commercial Corridors NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr tS H tsaE Heritage Rd tS ra molaP tsaE La Media Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 1 3 4 7 8 10 11 12 9 6 5 13 2 14 Rd EAST NORTHWEST BAYFRONT SOUTHWEST Activity Centers 16 15 Figure 5-9 Page LUT-40 Activity Centers 1 Downtown Third Avenue 2 Chula Vista Center 3 Oxford Town Focus Area 4 Palomar Street Commercial 5 Terra Nova Plaza 6 Bonita 7 Community Hospital 8 Southwestern College 9 Eastlake Village Center 10 Eastern Urban Center 11 University 12 Olympic Training Center 13 Rancho Del Rey Shopping Center 14 Broadway 15 Regional Technology Park 16 Freeway Commercial Adopted For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas inform ationEastlake Parkway Hunte Pkwy Main St LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Existing Activity Centers Future Activity Centers Urban Core Commercial Corridors NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr tS H tsaE Heritage Rd tS ra molaP tsaE La Media Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 1 3 4 7 8 10 15 12 9 6 5 13 2 14 Rd EAST NORTHWEST BAYFRONT SOUTHWEST Activity Centers 16 Figure 5-9 Page LUT-40 11 AREA OF CHANGE Activity Centers 1 Downtown Third Avenue 2 Chula Vista Center 3 Oxford Town Focus Area 4 Palomar Street Commercial 5 Terra Nova Plaza 6 Bonita 7 Community Hospital 8 Southwestern College 9 Eastlake Village Center 10 Eastern Urban Center 11 University 12 Olympic Training Center 13 Rancho Del Rey Shopping Center 14 Broadway 15 Regional Technology Park 16 Freeway Commercial Proposed AREA OF CHANGE AREA OF CHANGE Adopted E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H StPalomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Focus Areas of Change NORTH N.T.S. LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary East Focus Areas of Change Northwest, Bayfront, & Southwest Focus Areas of Change Figure 5-10 Page LUT-41 5 54 125 54 125 805 5 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H StL StPalomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary East Focus Areas of Change Northwest & Southwest Focus Areas of Change Figure 5-10 Page LUT-41 NORTH N.T.S. Focus Areas of Change Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Eastlake Parkway Hunte Pkwy Main St Main St General Plan Land Use Diagram Figure 5-12 Page LUT-47 For areas shown in cross-hatch, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas Adopted General Plan Land Use Diagram Figure 5-12 Page LUT-47 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE TABLE 5-4 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-49 * New zoning district(s) is needed. ** Existing zoning district to be amended. NA = Not applicable TBD = To be determined For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-54 City of Chula Vista General Plan Limited Industrial The Limited Industrial designation is intended for light manufacturing; warehousing; auto repair; auto salvage yards; and flexible-use projects that combine these uses with associated office space. The FAR for this category ranges from 0.25 to 0.5 . Regional Technology Park The Regional Technology Park designation is intended for research and development and hightech manufacturing, along with the administrative and office space associated with such activity. The FAR for this category ranges from 0.25 to 0.752.0. General Industrial The General Industrial designation is intended to allow all uses identified for the “Research” and “Limited Industrial” categories, plus heavier manufacturing, large-scale warehousing, transportation centers and public utilities. This category also includes auto salvage yards. The FAR for this category ranges from 0.25 to 0.5. 4.9.6 Public and Quasi-Quasi-Public, Parks, and Open Space The following land use designations are provided to identify various lands used for public, quasipublic, recreation/parks, and open space uses. Public and Quasi-Public The Public and Quasi-Public designation depicts areas used by schools; churches; hospitals; civic centers; fire stations; libraries, utilities, or other similar uses. When only a P or PQ symbol is used on the Land Use Diagram, without the PQ land use, it indicates the possible location of a future facility, rather than an existing use. Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation designation is intended for parks; sports fields; playgrounds; golf courses; and other passive and active recreation uses. The designation may also include community centers and urban parks. Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-56 City of Chula Vista General Plan 4.9.7 Special Designations Resort The Resort designation identifies existing and potential locations for large-scale, destinationoriented resort facilities with a full range of resort-related services. Uses may include, but are not limited to: hotels and motels; resort-oriented commercial services; restaurants and retail shops; cultural arts centers; recreational uses; time-share residences; conference centers; and permanent residences. The specific density of use for resorts within this category shall be determined at the Sectional Planning Area Plan level, with consideration given to General Plan consistency, environmental impacts and other relevant factors. Eastern Urban Center This designation is applied to an area generally bounded by State Route 125, Birch Road, EastLake Parkway and the extension of Rock Mountain Road Main Street from State Route 125 to Eastlake Parkway, within the East Area Plan. The Eastern Urban Center (EUC) is a highintensity, mixed use urban center that will serve eastern Chula Vista and the broader south county area, and will also function as the urban core for the Otay Ranch. It will contain residential densities that range from Medium-High to Urban Core residential, and a variety of integrated mixed use; commercial; cultural; public; and office uses. Standards unique to the EUC, for both public and private uses, will be developed to create its distinct urban character. Town Center The Town Center designation is intended to provide a pedestrian-oriented environment that includes a mix of multi-family residential; retail shops; restaurants; professional office; or other commercial use opportunities. Higher residential densities and commercial services are provided within approximately ¼-mile of transit facilities. A residential density range of 18 to 30 45 dwelling units per acre is permitted, although the higher densities may be approved only where necessary to support special housing needs, such as student and faculty housing for the future university or transit oriented development. Town Centers should typically provide a more extensive grid street system and may include specially designed arterial roadway(s) that encourage increased pedestrian activity, while providing for efficient traffic circulation. H Street Transit Corridor Special Study Area This study area is generally defined as covering properties along both sides of H Street, extending from Interstate 5 to Fourth Avenue. The purpose of the H Street Transit Corridor Special Study Area is to evaluate potential modifications to land uses; densities; intensities; building mass; and the potential for high-rise buildings. While the special study is to be focused on the H Street corridor, as generally depicted on Figure 5-18, Urban Form, the precise boundaries will be established at the time of the study. The study is further described in LUT Section 7.2. University Study Area The University Study Area is applied to four focus areas that are located on the site of the future university and surrounding properties in the East Area Plan, and includes the University Campus; University Village; the Regional Technology Park; and the Eastern Urban Center. The purpose of the University Study Area is to develop a coordinated strategy to address the important relationships between the Focus Areas and the need for coordinated development to enhance the economic and community success and vitality of the District. This Study Area is further described in LUT Section 10.5.4 . 4.10 Projected Population and Projected Land Use 4.10.1 Projected Population At build-out in 2030, the overall Chula Vista Planning Area will accommodate a population of approximately 331,100325,200, an increase of about 4946% percent over the 2004 estimated population of 222,300. The Planning Area also includes lands outside the City's 2004 corporate boundary. This reflects an overall annual growth rate of about 1.8 percent over the next 26 years. The City's annual growth rate over the past 30 years was about 4.6 percent, not including the annexation of the inhabited Montgomery community in 1985, which included approximately 26,000 residents. Table 5.5, Chula Vista Projected Population in 2030, below, shows the current estimated and projected populations for Chula Vista by Planning Area. Additional historic population growth information can be found in Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Chula Vista in Perspective. Page LUT-57 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-59 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-60 City of Chula Vista General Plan The Circulation Plan was analyzed using the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) regional transportation demand model (TRANPLAN Series 10 population and employment forecasts). Technical evaluation was performed to confirm that the system will have sufficient capacity to provide acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). 5.3 Measurements of Traffic Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of actual traffic conditions and the perception of such conditions by motorists. It is used to describe the average daily number of vehicles on a street relative to the street's vehicular capacity and the resulting effect on traffic. There are six defined Levels of Service, A through F, which describe conditions ranging from “ideal” to “worst”, as defined in Table 5-8, Level of Service (LOS) Descriptions, below. In order to determine the LOS for a designated point along a street or at an intersection on a daily basis, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume is compared to the street's intended capacity. This type of LOS analysis is a general indicator of roadway segment performance, and does not take into account intersection operations during peak commuting hours. Table 5-9, Street Segment Performance Standards and Volumes, shows acceptable LOS and volume for various street classfications. The acceptable LOS is C for all street classifications, except for select streets in the Urban Core and Otay Ranch Subareas, which have an acceptable LOS of D. This is discussed fully in Section 5.4, Urban Core Circulation Element. Level of Service (LOS) Description of Operation A Traffic is typically free-flowing at average travel speeds, with very little delay. Vehicles are seldom impeded in their ability to maneuver in the traffic stream. Delays at intersections are minimal. B Represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver in the traffic stream is slightly restricted but the majority of vehicles do not stop and it is not bothersome. C Represents stable operations with acceptable delays; if an intersection is signalized, a few drivers may have to wait through one signal cycle. The ability to change lanes and maneuver may be more restricted than LOS B. D Congestion occurs and a small change in volume increases delays substantially during short periods, but excessive backups do not occur. E Congestion occurs with extensive delays on one or more signal cycles and low travel speeds occur. F Arterial traffic flows at extremely low speeds, intersection congestion occurs with excessive delays; and back ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement. TABLE 5-8 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTIONS Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-62 City of Chula Vista General Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Circulation Plan -East Figure 5-13E Chula Vista Vision 2020 Page LUT-64 City of Chula Vista General PlanAdopted 54 125 805 Circulation Plan -East Figure 5-13E Chula Vista Vision 2020 Page LUT-64 City of Chula Vista General Plan NORTH N.T.S. Lakes Rd Rd SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd d Rhc Bir tS ramolaP tsaE Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP c Ol i ymp Telegraph d C R anyon Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE AREA OF CHANGE Proposed Sweetwater Road Bonita Rd Main St Otay Valley Rd Eastlake Pkwy La Media La MediaRd Otay Lakes Rd Proctor Valley Road Mt Mi uel Rd Mig Ranch RoadSan Miguel F StG StH St J St L St Naples StPalomar St Hunte Pkwy A roadway's capacity is primarily a function of the number of lanes provided to carry traffic volumes, and whether or not the roadway is divided with a median or center turn lane. Typically, the more lanes provided, the more capacity the roadway has to accommodate traffic demand. The peak hour capacity of a roadway is influenced by a number of variables, including: the type of intersection controls; signal timing; the presence and frequency of driveways; on-street parking; the percentage of the daily traffic in the peak hour; the direction of traffic in the peak hour; and other factors. 5.3.1 Analyzing and Measuring Traffic Impacts The City of Chula Vista conducts traffic analyses and planning through a three-tiered system that allows the City to cover a broad range of time frames and conditions spanning from 20-year future forecasts, to near-term project evaluations, to actually driving the roadways to determine real-time current performance. These three analyses have different degrees of precision in determining impacts based on several considerations which include: the type of project being considered; the study years chosen; whether the analysis will consider short-term impacts, longterm impacts or both; and whether the analysis is being conducted to satisfy a CEQA requirement or is strictly a City traffic review. Page LUT-65 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 TABLE 5-9 STREET SEGMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND VOLUMES Threshold Standards. The standards generally require that arterial roadway segments throughout the City maintain operating conditions of LOS C or better, with the exception that LOS D may occur for not more than two hours per day, typically in the peak travel periods. This periodic review of roadway operations and volume levels also provides the opportunity to consider geometric modifications that may provide additional capacity necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. Results from the TMP can also be used to evaluate potential roadway segment performance under near-term conditions (Years 0-4), using the methodology described in Chapter 11 (Arterial Streets) of the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, which determines segment LOS based on speed. This methodology is not applicable beyond a four-year horizon. Classification of facilities and definition of segment lengths should be consistent with the City's current Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program. 5.4 Urban Core Circulation Element Element Traditional LOS methodologies and traffic study guidelines often favor improved automobile flow, which may have a negative impact on pedestrian and transit mobility, and have the unintended effect of limiting development opportunities in more developed areas. The Urban Core Circulation Element, however, recognizes that the automobile is just one of several modes of travel that can move people in urbanized environments, and that more intensive developments in built-up areas should not be constrained by policies that focus exclusively on moving vehicular traffic. The overall goal of the Urban Core Circulation Element is to support the development of great places and neighborhoods by providing transportation choices and supporting those choices with attractive, safe, convenient, and functional infrastructure for all modes of travel. The Urban Core Circulation Element provides opportunities to make policies and standards sufficiently flexible to support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in select transit corridors and town centers while maintaining the commitment of new development to mitigate impacts of new travel demand, and to improve the transit, pedestrian and bicycle environment. The Urban Core Circulation Element recognizes that in certain corridors and centers served by transit, it is acceptable to reduce the vehicle level of service standards that are applied to suburban areas of the City under certain circumstances. These circumstances would include ensuring that the area's transportation system is able to move people effectively by a combination of modes and providing a sound analytical approach for evaluating traffic LOS. The Urban Core Circulation Element promotes the use of revised level of service standards, alternative ways of measuring level of service for vehicles, and possibly establishing level of service criteria and performance measures for other modes of travel. The following steps were taken to develop the Urban Core Circulation Element, which applies to the Urban Core Subarea in western Chula Vista and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea in the East Planning Area: Page LUT-67 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 1. Identification of context-specific street classifications The following roadway Urban Street classifications are proposed within the Urban Core, and its immediate environs, and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea: · Gateway Street Urban Arterial Commercial Boulevard Downtown Promenade Town Center Arterial See Section 5.5.76 for a more detailed discussion of the above-described Urban Sstreet classifications. 2. Development of capacity standards for the Urban Core Circulation Element. The capacities for the Urban Core Circulation Element were developed based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures. The values presented in Table 5-9, Street Segment Performance Standards and Volumes, were obtained from the Generalized Planning Analysis method, which provides a method for estimating 24-hour street segment capacity using HCM 2000 procedures. Whereas, ADT-based thresholds in the City of Chula Vista and many other communities, have evolved over time as a general practice, the Generalized Planning Analysis method provides a scientific method to relate peak hour HCM-calculated results to acceptable ADT volumes on certain classes of roads. The acceptable 24-hour volume is adjusted to account for design elements that move traffic efficiently. These include traffic signal spacing and timing. The results provided by the method were tailored to the Urban Core Sstreets classifications to account for peak hour spreading. Because the Urban Core and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea will become a destinations rather than a waypoints, the 24-hour volume will be less concentrated in peak commuting hours. The maximum capacities shown in this table assume implementation of traffic and multi-modal improvements. 3. Identification of appropriate performance standards for the Urban Core Circulation Element. The Urban Core Circulation Element will accommodate all modes of travel (vehicular; transit; bicycling; and walking) and a variety of different trip types (shopping; entertainment; dining; as well as commuting). As discussed above, the existing capacities and performance standards used for streets throughout the City of Chula Vista emphasize vehicular commuting trips, and have the unintended effect of limiting the potential for a more urbanized downtown environment. Accordingly, within the Urban Core, and its immediate environs, and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea (where the Urban Core Circulation Element is located), the minimum performance standard for on the Urban Core Circulation Element is LOS D. Previously referenced Table 5-9 presents the proposed LOS criteria for these related Uurban roadway Street classifications. Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-68 City of Chula Vista General Plan The approach of using a performance standard of LOS D for more urbanized areas is not unique to Chula Vista. Both the City of San Diego and San Diego County use LOS D as their performance standard in urbanized and built-out communities. The City of San Diego uses LOS C as the minimum performance standard in newly developing areas. The City of Chula Vista will have the same two-tiered performance standards that are tailored to the context of surrounding development. Further, the Urban Core Circulation Element follows the precedent of California Senate Bill 1636 (which allows for relaxing of LOS standards in “infill opportunity areas”) and the City of San Diego, which has established a performance standard of LOS E for streets in their Centre City District. Continuing to use existing procedures and suburban-based performance standards would effectively discourage development in the Urban Core Subarea and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea, hindering the implementation of one two of the primary themes of this General Plan. As discussed above, because of existing and projected future land use patterns in the City, there is a strong distinction between the operating characteristics of the street systems within and outside of the Urban Core Subarea and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea. The LOS and volume standards in the City's Circulation Plan will be applied throughout Chula Vista, with special considerations in the Urban Core Subarea, where LOS D will be acceptable. LOS D is appropriate in the Urban Core Subarea and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea because development will have a more urbanized character, and physical constraints exist, such as limited area to expand rights-of-way. Also, the change in performance standards will help balance and serve all transportation modes (i.e., Transit, pedestrian, bicycling, etc.) and will avoid the disruptive effects of widening streets in a built environment or oversizing roadways during the planning process. In accordance with that urban character, projects within the the Urban Core Subarea and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea will need to comply with urban development standards, as presented in Section 7.2 of this element. 5.5 Roadway Classifications Roadway classifications for the City of Chula Vista are described below. The roadway volume and acceptable LOS for each roadway classification is summarized in Table 5-9, Street Segment Performance Standards and Volumes, Detailed information regarding roadway design and roadway sections are found in the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, which contains general guidelines for roadway design, including street cross-sections and other related improvements. Urban Core streets are described below and are addressed in more detail in Section 9.3.5, Urban Core Street Network. Page LUT-69 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 .5.5.1 Freeways Freeways are an important part of the overall circulation system, serving as a means of bypassing regional through traffic, as well as supplementing the local thoroughfare system. Capable of carrying large volumes of unimpeded traffic at high speeds, freeways serve as the primary corridors between communities and other major traffic generators, such as large commercial; industrial; recreational; and residential centers. Page LUT-69.1 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 5.5.5 Town Center Arterial The Town Center Arterial is intended for use primarily in the East Planning Area's Otay Ranch Subarea. Many conflicting movements are reduced through the use of paired one-way streets that may include on-street parking, wider sidewalks, and neckdowns at intersections. The Town Center Arterial provides a more efficient traffic flow by eliminating wide roadway arterials, with their inherent long signal cycle lengths and segregated left turn lanes at major intersections, and it creates a more energized, mixed use pedestrian-oriented community within an enlarged urban transit network. 5.5.65 Class 1 Collector Streets Collector streets allow access to residential areas by relieving traffic pressure on arterials and major streets by providing alternate routes for short trips. Class I collector streets primarily circulate localized traffic, and distribute traffic to and from prime arterials and major streets. Class I collectors are designed to accommodate four lanes of traffic; however, they carry lower traffic volumes at slower speeds than major arterials. 5.5.76 Urban Core Streets The following four five roadway classifications, are found only in Chula Vista's Urban Core Subarea and portions of the Otay Ranch Subarea, and have a different acceptable LOS standard than the City's other roadway classifications. Their acceptable LOS D is in accordance with the concepts described above in Section 5.4 of this element. Gateway Street These roadways include (segments of Broadway, Fourth Avenue, E Street, H Street, I Street, and L Street,), which connect the Urban Core to State Route 54, Interstate 805, and Interstate 5; and the segment of Main Street between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway, which connects the Eastern Urban Center and Eastern University District to State Route 125. These facilities are analogous to six-or four-lane major roads in other parts of the City, but will provide special design features and amenities to encourage access for the full spectrum of travel modes. These streets will will be the major entry points to and from the Urban Core these areas, and special landscape and entry treatments will be incorporated into the design. Urban Arterial These roads include portions of E Street; H Street, and Fourth Avenue. Urban arterial crosssections are similar to four-lane major roads in other areas of Chula Vista, but with special features to support multi-modal trip-making, such as wider sidewalks, transit station curb “bulb outs”, and pedestrian amenities. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-71 Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-72 City of Chula Vista General Plan Commercial Boulevard These streets include segments of Broadway and Third Avenue (north of E Street and South of H Street) and will serve existing and future shopping districts. Design will be generally consistent with four-lane majors in other areas, but with special design features reflecting the multi-modal nature of streets in more urban areas. Downtown Promenade These roads (including portions of F Street and Third Avenue) will provide access to retail establishments in the heart of the Urban Core. Cross-sections will be similar to a two-lane or fourlane collector, but with multi-modal features and amenities that accommodate the surrounding urban context. Furthermore, and in order to help promote pedestrian friendliness, these streets will provide, in varying amounts, the following generalized amenities: ! Way finding maps; grated planters; trash receptacles; and benches strategically located throughout the Urban Core Subarea. Streetscapes should be designed with inviting wider sidewalks that should be passable without having to maneuver around hedges or other obstacles. ! On-street parking, limited driveway cuts, and landscaping or planting strips, that create a buffer between traffic and pedestrians and provide canopy shade. A well-designed streetscape makes people feel comfortable and invites and motivates residents to walk or bike to destinations, such as shopping or work. Urban Core Subarea street design should include mid-block crosswalks and neighborhood pass-throughs to future open space areas and common areas. This helps to create a human scale. · ! Behind the sidewalk, easily accessible building entrances with minimum building setbacks, windows at street level, and no blank walls on adjacent buildings. ! Distinctive public transit amenities to increase ease of use and attractiveness of neighborhoods. Transit amenities should include next-bus information kiosks, bicycle facilities, and interconnections to other routes and bikeways; bike racks; lockers; and shower facilities. The objective of this design is to provide convenient public access by reinforcing bikes as a mode of transportation connected to and coordinated with other modes and bus lines, connecting people and places through a complete street network that invites walking and bicycling. Town Center Arterial The Town Center Arterial is intended for use primarily in the East Planning Area's Otay Ranch Subarea. Its main purpose is to bring traffic into and through the heart of a Town Center. The unique separated travelway design through the Town Center encourages multi-modal circulation and enhances pedestrian activity that fosters a vibrant commercial mixed-use Town Center. Many conflicting movements are reduced through the use of paired one-way streets that may include on-street parking, wider sidewalks, and neckdowns at intersections. The Town Center Arterial provides a more efficient traffic flow by eliminating wide roadway arterials, with their inherent long signal cycle lengths and segregated left turn lanes at major intersections, and it creates a more energized, mixed use pedestrian-oriented community within an enlarged urban transit network. The “split” or “paired” couplet design allows for double frontage exposures of commercial uses, and slower traffic speeds that promote pedestrian activity and help define the Town Center as an identifiable place. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-72.1 Chula Vista Vision 2020 5.6 Public Transit Plan The proposed public transit system is a comprehensive network combining existing and planned public transit facilities to provide affordable, efficient public transportation for the residents of Chula Vista. It integrates the needs of both regional travel and local travel. The key routes of the proposed public transportation system are discussed in the following sections. The public transit network is based on SANDAG's Regional Transit Vision (RTV) and has been augmented with additional routes by the City. 5.6.1 Regional Transit Plan The Regional Transit Vision (Figure 5-14) calls for a network of fast, reliable, and convenient services that include rubber-tired vehicles (referred to as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)) that connect residential areas with employment and other major activity centers. The figure also delineates routes as well as transit stations, stops, and park and ride facilities. Using market research and analyzing people's travel patterns, four service concepts have been identified to address varying needs (see Table 5-10). Together, these different service concepts make up a comprehensive system that complements and supports existing and planned land uses. Yellow Car and Red Car services form the backbone of the regional transit system, providing rapid and relatively frequent service. The Coaster commuter rail system is an example of Yellow Car service, while the San Diego Trolley is an example of Red Car service in Chula Vista. Yellow Car (BRT) service is planned for the Interstate 805 corridor, and Red Car (BRT) service is planned for east/west corridors (H Street, Palomar Street, and Main Street) and the State Route 125 corridor. Blue Car service is essentially the local bus network, while Green Car service includes local shuttles that connect local activity centers and the backbone transit network. Green Car service would connect the Bayfront Planning Area and the Northwest Planning Area's Urban Core Subarea in Chula Vista. 5.6.2 Public Rapid Transit Expansion -South Bay Transit First! SANDAG's adopted Regional Transit Vision and Transit First! Strategy, which is discussed in Section 1.5.1 of this element, incorporates Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles into Chula Vista's circulation system, replacing the previously planned light-rail transit system envisioned for eastern Chula Vista. The BRT system uses high quality, rubber-tired vehicles, offering the speed, comfort and amenities of a trolley with the flexibility of non-fixed modes of transportation. BRT vehicles travel in their own lanes and/or receive priority at signalized intersections in mixed flow conditions. Upgraded transit stations will have shelters, passenger information and other features that may also include adequate parking for commuters . Page LUT-73 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Regional Transit Vision Figure 5-14 NORTH N.T.S. Page LUT-75 Adopted 5 0 0 ( B l u e L i n e L RT ) 7 0 9 6 2 8 6 8 0 6 2 8 6 2 8 7 0 9 6 3 5 6 3 5 6 3 5 7 0 9 6 2 8 6 4 0 6 4 0 6 8 0 6 8 0 S h u t t l e S h u t t l e E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP c Ol i ymp Telegraph d C R anyon Fifth Av Broadway H StL StPalomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE d R hc Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 125 805 5 NORTH N.T.S. Figure 5-14 Page LUT-75 Regional Transit Vision Legend Transit Routes Transit Stops Light Rail Yellow Car BRT Red Car BRT Shuttle Red Car BRT Yellow & Red Car BRT LRT/BRT With Park & Ride Proctor Valley Road ProposedAREA OF CHANGEMain St. AREA OF CHANGE Main St Hunte Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy Sweetwater Rd Bonita Rd Naples St Orange Ave NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Bonita Rd ter Rd awteewS Heritage Rd d R ch Bir tS r amolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp d Canyon R Telegraph Fifth Av Broadway Industrial Bl Bay Bl H StJ StL St Naples StPalomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR National City San Diego Imperial Beach San Diego 125 5 54 805 Existing and Programmed Bikeways Figure 5-16 LEGEND City Boundary Existing Class 1 Existing Class 2 Existing Class 3 Proposed Class 1 Proposed Class 2 Proposed Class 3 General Plan Boundary Page LUT-80 Adopted NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Bonita Rd ter Rd awteewS Heritage Rd d R ch Bir tS r amolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp d Canyon R Telegraph Fifth Av Broadway Industrial Bl Bay Bl H StJ StL St Naples StPalomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR National City San Diego Imperial Beach San Diego 125 5 54 805 Existing and Programmed Bikeways Figure 5-16 LEGEND City Boundary Existing Class 1 Existing Class 2 Existing Class 3 Proposed Class 1 Proposed Class 2 Proposed Class 3 General Plan Boundary Page LUT-80 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Eastlake Pkwy Main St Hunte Pkwy Main St. Urban Form Figure 5-18 Page LUT-90 Adopted Urban Form Figure 5-18 Page LUT-90 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H StL StPalomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR NORTH N.T.S. LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Potential High-Rise Locations H Street Transit Corridor Special Study Area E STREET VISITOR TFA H STREET GATEWAY TFA EASTERN URBAN CENTER ProposedAREA OF CHANGE E St Main St Hunte Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy Main St. Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Designate opportunities for mixed use areas with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs, and transit in appropriate locations throughout the City. Policies LUT .1 Promote mixed use development, where appropriate, to ensure a pedestrianfriendly environment that has opportunities for housing; jobs; childcare; shopping; entertainment; parks; and recreation in close proximity to one another. LUT .2 Encourage new development that is organized around compact, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods and districts in order to conserve open space resources, minimize infrastructure costs, and reduce reliance on the automobile. LUT .3 Authorize and encourage mixed use development in focus areas, including highdensity residential housing, neighborhood-serving commercial, and office uses. LUT .4 Develop the following areas as mixed use centers: Urban Core; Bayfront; Palomar Trolley Station; Eastern Urban Center; and Otay Ranch Village Cores and Town Centers. LUT .5 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement mixed use zoning districts that provide development standards for mixed use development, which should address minimum density and intensity requirements; allowable uses; building heights; and shared parking standards .LUT .6 Allow for the revitalization and intensification of infill sites within the Northwest and Southwest Planning Areas, consistent with FAR limitations; and amend the Zoning Ordinance so that it does not inhibit appropriate infill development. LUT .7 Encourage new ownership or rental housing in mixed use designations and near major transit services, where compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. Mixed use housing should minimize impacts on designated single-family neighborhoods. 55555 any 55 Page LUT-96 City of Chula Vista General Plan For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Objective -LUT 5 LUT 14.5 Continue to actively participate in regional organizations and processes to ensure the integration of Chula Vista circulation system facilities with circulation systems planned for by other agencies. LUT 14.6 Define and evaluate quality of life standards for transportation, and establish an implementation plan for financing needed facilities. LUT 14.7 Coordinate with regional agencies to ensure adequate transportation links with regional population, employment and activity centers. LUT 14.8 Analyze the need for, timing and ultimate construction of the future La Media Road Crossing of the Otay Valley as part of the pending updates of plans within the surrounding area, such as the City of San Diego’s Otay Mesa Community Plan Update. Factors to be considered in the analysis include existing and forecast traffic volumes and LOS on the circulation system, and Johnson Canyon Open Space Preserve. LUT 14.98 In order to provide direct access to the University, RTP, Village Nine Town Center, and to provide regional transit service across the Otay Valley, support the construction of the Rock Mountain Main Street and Otay Valley Road interchanges with State Route 125, as warranted in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Toll Road Agreement with San Diego Expressway Limited Partnership and Agreement Affecting Real Property, as amended. LUT 14.109Work with regional planning agencies to incorporate revisions in the regional mobility network proposed to support the City of Chula Vista's General Plan. LUT 14.110Work with regional funding agencies to prioritize transportation system improvements as they are needed in Chula Vista, local smart growth opportunity areas, and south San Diego County. Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-110 City of Chula Vista General Plan Objective -LUT 17 Page LUT-113 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit. Policies LUT 17.1 Designate sufficient land at appropriate densities to support planned transit and require that development be transit-oriented, as appropriate to its proximity to transit facilities. LUT 17.2 Direct higher intensity and mixed use developments to areas within walking distance of transit, including San Diego Trolley stations along E, H, and Palomar Streets, and new stations along future transit lines, including Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). LUT 17.3 Establish new Town Centers in the East Planning Area to be transit-oriented and include a transit stop or station. LUT 17.4 Require developers to consult and coordinate with SANDAG and the City to ensure that development is compatible with and supports the planned implementation of public transit. 7.9 Improving Vehicular And Transit Mobility The City of Chula Vista will continue its efforts to develop and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system with adequate roadway capacity; however, the City's ability to widen roads to accommodate increased demand from automobile traffic is limited. Additionally, road widening in some areas is not consistent with goals to create streets that are pedestrian-friendly and safe. Therefore, the City must seek alternative ways to increase the capacity to move both people and cars. This includes more efficient use of roadways, traffic demand reduction, and increased use of transit, bicycles, and walking. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Mobile Home Overlay District LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Mobile Home Overlay District Areas NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Page LUT-131 125 54 805 5 1 23 45 7 12 1314 16 15 17 18 22 30 29 31 32 20 25 21 689 11 19 28 26 24 21 10 Existing Mobile Home Parks In Overlay District 1 Chula Vista Mobile Home Park 2 Jade Bay Mobile Lodge 3 Bayscene Mobile Home Park 4 Fogerty Brothers Trailer Park 5 Caravan Trailer Park 6 Trailer Villa 7 Terry’s Mobile Home Park 8 Mohawk Trailer Park 9 Terry’s Broadway Trailer Park 10 Rose Arbor Mobile Home Park 11 Cabrillo Mobile Lodge 12 Flamingo Trailer Park 13 Bison Mobile Home Park 14 Sharon’s Trailer Park 15 Brentwood Mobile Home Park 16 Mountain View Mobile Lodge 17 Georganna Trailer Park 18 Bayside Bayside Trailer Park 19 Rancho Bonita Mobile Home Park 20 El Mirador Trailer Court 21 Orange Tree Mobile Home Park 22 Continental Country Club 23 Hacienda Mobile Estates 24 Lynwood South Mobile Home Park 25 Farmhouse Trailer Park 26 Granada Mobile Estates 27 Thunderbird Mobile Home Park 28 Fabulous Caliente Mobile Home Park 29 Palm Mobile Estates 30 Palace Gardens Mobile Home Park 31 Don Luis Estates 32 Otay Lakes Lodge 23 27 Figure 5-18A Adopted Mobile Home Overlay District LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Mobile Home Overlay District Areas NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Page LUT-131 125 54 805 5 1 23 45 7 12 1314 16 15 17 18 22 30 29 31 32 20 25 21 689 11 19 28 26 24 21 10 Existing Mobile Home Parks In Overlay District 1 Chula Vista Mobile Home Park 2 Jade Bay Mobile Lodge 3 Bayscene Mobile Home Park 4 Fogerty Brothers Trailer Park 5 Caravan Trailer Park 6 Trailer Villa 7 Terry’s Mobile Home Park 8 Mohawk Trailer Park 9 Terry’s Broadway Trailer Park 10 Rose Arbor Mobile Home Park 11 Cabrillo Mobile Lodge 12 Flamingo Trailer Park 13 Bison Mobile Home Park 14 Sharon’s Trailer Park 15 Brentwood Mobile Home Park 16 Mountain View Mobile Lodge 17 Georganna Trailer Park 18 Bayside Bayside Trailer Park 19 Rancho Bonita Mobile Home Park 20 El Mirador Trailer Court 21 Orange Tree Mobile Home Park 22 Continental Country Club 23 Hacienda Mobile Estates 24 Lynwood South Mobile Home Park 25 Farmhouse Trailer Park 26 Granada Mobile Estates 27 Thunderbird Mobile Home Park 28 Fabulous Caliente Mobile Home Park 29 Palm Mobile Estates 30 Palace Gardens Mobile Home Park 31 Don Luis Estates 32 Otay Lakes Lodge 23 27 Figure 5-18A Proposed Main St Hunte Pkwy AREA OF CHANGE Main St. East Planning Area Subareas Figure 5-36 Page LUT-225 Adopted East Planning Area Subareas Figure 5-36 Page LUT-225 125 5 805 54 NORTH N.T.S. LEGENDMASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES OTAY RANCH MAIN STREET UNINCORPORATED EAST OTAY RANCH UNINCORPORATED SWEETWATER OTHER MISCELLANEOUS AREAS SUBAREAS: E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Fifth Av Broadway H StL St Palomar St Main St SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR CITY OF SAN DIEGO NATIONAL CITY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO JAMUL DULZURA EAST CHULA VISTA BOUNDARY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF SAN DIEGO NAP NAP HWY 94 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE East Planning Area Otay Ranch Subareas Figure 5-37 Page LUT-228 Adopted East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP c Ol i ymp Telegraph d C R anyon LOWER OTAY LAKE d Rhc ir B 125 Village 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OTAY VALLEY DISTRICT EASTERN UNIVERSITY DISTRICT OTAY RANCH SUBAREA BOUNDARY Village 5 EASTLAKE Freeway Commercial Eastern Urban CenterVillage 9 Village 8 Village 4 Village 2 West WESTERN DISTRICT Village 2 Village 1 Village 6 Village 3 OTAY LANDFILL EAST MAIN STREET SUBAREA Village 7 Planning Area 18B UNICORPORATED EAST OTAY RANCH SUBAREA MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES SUBAREA OTAY RIVER SALT CREEK WOLF CANYON COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Figure 5-37 Page LUT-228 East Planning Area Otay Ranch Subareas Proposed AREA OF CHANGE University Campus Hunte Pkwy Main St Eastlake Pkwy Otay Valley Rd Main St East Planning Area Activity Centers LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Existing Activity Centers Future Activity Centers NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd t S ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 dRh Birc SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Activity Centers 1 Terra Nova 2 Bonita 3 Rancho Del Rey 4 Southwestern College 5 Eastlake Business Center 6 Eastern Urban Center 7 Olympic Training Center 8 University & Adjacent Shopping Center 3 4 6 8 7 5 2 1 Rd Figure 5-38 Page LUT-231 Adopted East Planning Area Activity Centers LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Existing Activity Centers Future Activity Centers NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd t S ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 dRh Birc SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Activity Centers 1 Terra Nova 2 Bonita 3 Rancho Del Rey 4 Southwestern College 5 Eastlake Business Center 6 Eastern Urban Center 7 Olympic Training Center 8 University & Adjacent Town Center 3 4 6 8 7 5 2 1 Rd Figure 5-38 Page LUT-231 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Main St Hunte Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy AREA OF CHANGE Main St East Planning Area East Main Street Subarea Figure 5-42 Page LUT-245 Adopted East Planning Area East Main Street Subarea Figure 5-42 Page LUT-245 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Vision for Subarea Otay Ranch is comprised of villages that integrate neighborhoods, shops and employment opportunities with parks, schools, and other civic facilities that create a community with a shared sense of pride and place. Neighborhoods are designed to encourage community interaction. Development is clustered in villages with varying character and density, interrelated, yet distinct in identity and style. A high intensity mixed use urban center (the Eastern Urban Center) provides a unique functional and symbolic center for Otay Ranch. A range of transportation alternatives to the automobile is provided, most notably transit and a pedestrian/bicycle network. Offices and commercial development are located near transit stations. Streets, plazas, and buildings are designed to complement human, rather than vehicular activity. A comprehensive open space preserve exists and the importance of landform preservation and environmental design have promoted environmentally sensitive communities. In addition to the Village Cores, which provide central areas of more intense uses, Town Centers have been established in several villages of Otay Ranch. Planned with the same mixed use and mobility characteristics as Village Cores, they provide for even more intense land use, such as higher residential density, and more office, retail, and other commercial uses. They also utilize a more extensive grid street system, which promotes pedestrian circulation and allows for more efficient integration of transit, pedestrian, and automobile traffic. Town Centers include a Town Center Arterial roadway, designed to accommodate pedestrian-oriented development based upon higher residential densities. Town Centers also include transit stations within a one one-quarter mile radius, to serve the high density residential in and around the Town Centers. Develop comprehensive, well-integrated, and balanced land uses within villages and town centers that are compatible with the surroundings. Policies LUT 72.1 Create a series of Town Centers Centers of size or intensity greater than the typical Village Core concept, and characterized by higher density, mixed use development, with an appropriate amount of commercial, community, and other necessary services. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-248 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 Objective -LUT 72 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information LUT 72.2 Provide for mixed land use in each Village Core and Town Center focusing on shops, plazas, parks, and housing arranged to encourage social interaction. LUT 72.3 Provide a variety of housing types, including single-family and multi-family, in residential neighborhoods and mixed use village centers, responding to the needs of families, singles, students, and seniors. LUT 72.4 Concentrate higher intensity land uses and those uses that generate pedestrian activity within toward the Village Core or Town Center, with densities generally decreasing away from core areas. LUT 72.5 Each Village Core or Town Center must provide neighborhood commercial services within 1/4-mile radius of residences and/or transit. LUT 72.6 Town Centers should provide community/neighborhood serving commercial uses. LUT 72.7 Provide pedestrian and street connectivity between the Villages utilizing a grid circulation pattern that offers a wider range of mobility choices and routes. Promote alternative modes of transportation, which are intended to encourage a healthy lifestyle and reduce reliance on the automobile, and support the viability of transit through land use distribution and design. Policies LUT 73.1 Provide for walking and biking on streets designed to link neighborhoods, activity centers, and community destinations. LUT 73.2 Town Centers and Village Cores should include a transit station that is appropriately sited to increase commuter ridership and promote activity and viability of nearby commercial and office developments. LUT 73.3 Higher residential densities in Town Centers and Village Cores should be located within a one-quarter mile radius of transit stations. Page LUT-249 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Objective -LUT 73 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information LUT 73.4 Locate High and Medium-High density residential within 1/4-mile radius to the Village Cores(s), Town Center(s), or transit. LUT 73.45 Locate activity centers adjacent to transit stations, which should be designed with inviting pedestrian access and public spaces. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-249.1 LUT 73.56 Promote pedestrian travel within the villages and town centers and the use of bicycles and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) for trips outside the villages. LUT 73.67 Incorporate pedestrian-oriented design features on streets that move vehicular traffic through the Town Center's pedestrian environment, including potential use of a Town Center Arterial couplet design. Accommodate land uses that diversify the economic base within Otay Ranch and the surrounding south San Diego County region. Policies LUT 74.1 Provide sufficient land and infrastructure to accommodate commercial and industrial uses. LUT 74.2 Promote additional business and higher paid employment opportunities for residents of Chula Vista. LUT 74.3 Promote synergistic uses between the villages of Otay Ranch to provide a balance of activities, services and facilities. Preserve and protect Otay Ranch's significant natural resources and open space lands with environmentally sensitive development. Policies LUT 75.1 Create and maintain a comprehensive comprehensive open space system throughout the Otay Ranch villages that, through environmental stewardship, restores and preserves nature's resources for generations to come. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-250 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 Objective -LUT 74 Objective -LUT 75 LUT 75.2 Design villages that to have well defined edges where they interface with natural or naturalized features, such as the Chula Vista Greenbelt, open spaces, or wildlife corridors. Provide public services and facilities to meet the needs of the Otay Ranch residents. Policies LUT 76.1 Services and facilities will be conveniently located and efficiently managed and provided to Otay Ranch residents concurrent with needs. LUT 76.2 If deemed necessary by the Sweetwater Union High School District, accommodate an additional high school that is centrally located to serve the student demand in the undeveloped areas of the Otay Ranch Sub-area, exclusive of Village Two, that includes Villages Three, Four, Eight, and Nine, and the Eastern Urban Center. Encourage a non-traditional school design that can efficiently integrate with adjacent, more intensive mixed use, commercial, and residential uses. The location of the high school shall be determined by the District, with input from the City, prior to or concurrent concurrent with approval of any Sectional Area Plan for the villages or the (EUC), as listed above. 10.5 Otay Ranch Districts The Otay Ranch Subarea has four planning districts, which are listed below and shown on Figure 5-37. ! The Western District (Villages Two, Two West, and Three) ! The Central District (Villages Four, Seven, and the westerly portion of Village Eight) ! The Eastern University District (Village Nine, University Campus, Planning Area Twelve, and the Eastern Urban Center and Freeway Commercial easterly portion of Village Eight) ! The Otay Valley District (Active Recreation, Mixed Use Commercial, and Light Industrial) Objective -LUT 76 Page LUT-251 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Otay Ranch Subarea -Western District NOT TO SCALE Figure 5-43 Page LUT-253 Adopted TS TS NP NP ES Heritage Rd ywkP c O i lymp Main St. 125 CENTRAL DISTRICT Eastern Urban Center Village 9 Village 8 Village 4 RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM Village 2 Village 1 Village 6 Village 3 OTAY LANDFILL EAST MAIN STREET SUBAREA Village 7 MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES SUBAREA WOLF CANYON LIGHT INDUSTRIAL VILLAGE CORE Figure 5-43 TS Page LUT-253 NORTH N.T.S. TS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK FUTURE TRANSIT STATION/STOP FUTURE TRANSIT ROUTE PROPOSED ROAD ALIGNMENT SR-125 INTERCHANGE LEGEND NP ES TS Otay Ranch Subarea -Western District i Med a a R L d AREA OF CHANGE AREA OF CHANGE Proposed Main St. La Media Rd. Protect the natural features of the Otay Ranch Preserve located in Wolf Canyon. Policies LUT 80.1 Maintain the natural landform character of Wolf Canyon by implementing policies of the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Phase I and II (RMPs). LUT 80.2 Ensure development respects existing landforms by utilizing landform grading techniques that result in natural rather than manufactured slope appearance in areas that interface with Poggi and Wolf Canyons. LUT 80.3 Site and design infrastructure facilities to minimize visual and other impacts to Wolf Canyon. 10.5.2 Central District Description of District The Central District of the Otay Ranch Subarea is centered at the planned intersection of Rock Mountain Road Main Street with La Media Road (Figure 5-44). It is comprised of Villages Four, Seven and Eight of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). Existing Conditions This District is being planned and implemented in accordance with the objectives and policies of this General Plan and the Otay Ranch's GDP. Vision for District The District has a mixture of land uses and intensities that includes a large community park; a pedestrian-oriented mixed use town center; single-family and multi-family residential uses surrounding a typical Village Core; and a middle school. The large community park provides Objective -LUT 80 Page LUT-257 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information enhanced sports and recreation opportunities for all Otay Ranch residents. Single-family homes along Rock Mountain Road Main Street have expansive views of Wolf Canyon, Rock Mountain, and the Otay Valley. Development in the Rock Mountain area is sensitively situated to preserve significant viewsheds and topographic features. A pedestrian-oriented Town Center, with transit services and Town Center Arterials in the form of couplets or other pedestrian-oriented arterial street design, is located along portions of La Media Road and Rock Mountain Roads Main Street, where Villages Four, Seven, and Eight meet. Develop a higher density, mixed use, transit-oriented town center positioned on the intersection of Rock Mountain Road Main Street and La Media Road, surrounded by lower density intensity residential use and a large community park, and that preserves Rock Mountain as an important landform and visual resource. Policies LUT 81.1 Develop approximately 70 acres of Village Four west of La Media as a large community park to serve Otay Ranch. LUT 81.2 Provide for single-family homes in Low Medium density along Rock Mountain Road. south of the Town Center, away from major roadways. LUT 81.3 Development near the significant viewsheds and topographic features of Rock Mountain should be done sensitively to preserve these important visual resources of Otay Ranch. LUT 81.4 Support the relocation of the VORTAC facility currently located within Village Seven. LUT 81.5 Provide for a Town Center with pedestrian-oriented arterials and mass transit service at the intersection of Rock Mountain Road Main Street and La Media Road. LUT 81.6 Support larger commercial uses in the Town Center by providing additional visibility and access for both vehicles and pedestrians. Objective -LUT 81 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-258 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information LUT 81.7 Allow arterial traffic into the Village Eight Town Center through use of the Town Center Arterial, which may include a pedestrian-oriented, one-way couplet street system or other pedestrian-oriented street design. LUT 81.8 Locate a junior high school, designed with a pedestrian orientation, in Village Eight at the corner of the intersection of La Media and Rock Mountain Road Main Street. Because the Sweetwater High School District serves a larger area than the Otay Ranch, the school may need to serve grades 7 through 12. The District will determine at the SPA level the grades to be served and area needed for the school. LUT 81.9 Provide for an interface between the Town Center mixed uses and the Regional Technology Park (RTP) where office and RTP support uses can colocate with Town Center uses if supported by market conditions, as determined by the Director of Building and Planning. Ensure a cohesive relationship between the Town Center and adjoining land uses within Village Eight. Policies LUT 82.1 Provide access at multiple locations and the Circulation Element Road to ensure connection and circulation throughout the Town Center and Village Eight in all directions (north/south and east/west). LUT 82.2 Respect topographic differences and minimize the creation of large slopes that are visible to the public. LUT 82.3 Provide enhanced architectural elevations and landscape design to minimize “back of building” appearances throughout Town Center and Village Eight, along circulation thoroughfares and the canyon rim. LUT 82.4 Provide transit service throughout Village Eight. Page LUT-259 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-285 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Objective -LUT 82 Develop a pedestrian-oriented and transit friendly community east and south of the Town Center, including a range of housing types, community facilities and a mixed-use Village Core. Policies LUT 83.1 In Village Eight, provide diverse and less intensive housing types, east and south of the Town Center. LUT 83.2 Provide transition between the adjoining residential land uses and the Village Core to ensure a cohesive visual character. LUT 83.3 Limit land uses to lower density residential adjacent to the MSCP Preserve. LUT 83.4 Provide transit service within the Mixed Use Residential designated as Village Core. LUT 83.5 Provide the needed community facilities, including an elementary school and neighborhood park near the Village Core. 10.5.3 Otay Valley District Description of District The Otay Valley District is comprised of three parcels along the Otay Valley in the southerly portion of the Otay Ranch. The parcels are separated by the open space lands that surround each parcel (See Figure 5-45). Existing Conditions The District consists primarily of undeveloped, relatively flat land on both sides of the Otay River, and a topographically constrained site, located on the south side of the Otay Valley, east of Heritage Road, and adjacent to the City of San Diego jurisdiction on Otay Mesa. A portion of this LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-259.1 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Objective -LUT 83 Otay Ranch Subarea -Central District NOT TO SCALE Figure 5-44 Page LUT-260 Adopted Otay Ranch Subarea -Central District NOT TO SCALE Figure 5-44 Page LUT-260 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE MAIN STREET AREA OF CHANGE EASTERN URBAN DISTRICT Village 8 MAIN ST site has been used for industrial activities. Much of the District's land is within the Open Space Preserve in Chula Vista's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. The MSCP has identified certain areas as potential locations for active recreation uses. Refer to Chapter 9, the Environmental Element, of this General Plan, for policies intended to preserve sensitive resources in and near these areas by limiting the location, type, and character of development. A portion of the District's lands was previously used for a gun club. Consequently, lead contamination from bullet slugs is a concern for any planned future use, due to potential water quality degradation to the adjacent Otay River and/or human exposure. Thorough testing, evaluation, and remediation (if required) of potential lead contamination will be required. Vision for District Active recreation uses are located on properties adjacent to the Otay River that were identified as suitable sites for such uses by the City's MSCP Subarea Subarea Plan. Designate and allow for appropriate and carefully planned land uses that provide additional recreational activities, both public and private, and entertainment and supporting commercial activities that do not threaten the viability of sensitive biological habitats or the Otay Valley's function as a key component of the Otay Ranch Preserve. Policies LUT 8284.1 Limit public and private active recreational uses and approximately 15 acres of mixed use commercial in support of recreational uses to the previously disturbed, non-sensitive areas deemed appropriate for active recreation and supporting mixed use commercial development by the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan. Access to these sites should be readily accessible from existing and planned public roads and should not intrude into core Preserve areas. Objective -LUT 8284 Page LUT-261 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Objective -LUT 8385 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-262 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 LUT 8284.2 Prior to the approval of any project that proposes the demolition or significant alteration of a potentially significant historic resource within the “Bird Ranch” property in Otay Valley, as defined pursuant to applicable state and federal laws, require the completion of a historic survey report to determine significance. If determined to be significant, require appropriate and feasible mitigation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. LUT 8284.3 Limited commercial and active recreation uses authorized by Policy LUT 8284.1, above, shall be sited to minimize the potential negative effects of these uses on adjacent Preserve areas. LUT 8284.4 Prior to approval of any discretionary permit in the Otay Vally District, ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan, and assist implementation of the Concept Plan through project features and design that support or provide access; staging areas; trails; and appropriate buffering. Promote limited industrial development opportunities where appropriate access to non-residential circulation roadways is provided and environmental impacts are minimized. Policies LUT 8385.1 Allow limited industrial development on property east of Heritage Road and south of the Otay Valley, subject to the preparation of a master development plan that addresses appropriate street improvements; vehicular access; screening from public viewsheds; development infrastructure; protection of adjacent environmentally sensitive resources; water quality; and phasing. LUT 8385.2 Improved access to industrial lots shall be a condition for future industrial development. East Planning Area Otay Ranch Subareas -Otay Valley District ADD NEW FIGURE Figure 5-45 Page LUT-263 Adopted TS TS Heritage Rd MAIN ST 125 CENTRAL DISTRICT OTAY RANCH SUBAREA BOUNDARY EASTERN UNIVERSITY DISTRICT OPEN SPACE WESTERN DISTRICT OTAY LANDFILL EAST MAIN STREET SUBAREA OTAY VALLEY DISTRICT WOLF CANYON MIXED USE COMMERCIAL NORTH N.T.S. TS FUTURE TRANSIT STATION/STOP FUTURE TRANSIT ROUTE PROPOSED ROAD ALIGNMENT SR-125 INTERCHANGE LEGEND Figure 5-45 Page LUT-263 East Planning Area Otay Ranch Subareas -Otay Valley District OTAY VALLEY DISTRICT (NOT A PART OF PLANNING AREA 20) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ACTIVE RECREATION ACTIVE RECREATION Proposed Heritage RdLa Media Rd Otay Valley Rd AREA OF CHANGE Main St AREA OF CHANGE 10.5.4 Eastern University District Description of District The Eastern University District consists of approximately 1,400 1,200 acres in five four Focus Areas: University Focus Area: Comprising of a University Campus and a Regional Technology Park; University Village; Regional Technology Park; Eastern Urban Center; and Freeway Commercial, aligned north-south along State Route 125, a major transportation corridor. (See Figures 5-46 and 5-47.) Existing Conditions The majority of the Eastern University District's five four Focus Areas are vacant, undeveloped, and in various stages of planning. The Freeway Commercial (Otay Ranch Town Center) focus area is mostly developed. State Route 125, a major element in the development of the area, is currently under construction forms the western edge of the district. Vision for District The Eastern University District serves as the urban center for the East Planning Area, and also serves much of the inland south San Diego County region. This District provides needed, higher value employment opportunities along with business and commercial services; cultural and entertainment services; and a multi-institutional university center or traditional university campus and related support uses. As a regionalserving center, residential development is at a greater scale, intensity, and density than the surrounding villages and Town Centers located throughout Otay Ranch. The District's five four Focus Areas have strong relationships to each other and are connected by compatible, mutually supportive land uses, circulation, and urban form. The District is linked together and supported by a rapid transit system. A key component of the District is the University Campus Focus Area, which comprises a multiinstitutional university center or traditional university. The University Focus Area, is comprised of the university campus and a regional technology park. The university campus can be a multi-institutional university center or traditional university. The Regional Technology Park is a large, master-planned business park, providing research and high-The Eastern Urban Center (EUC) is the vibrant urban hub of the Otay Ranch, providing regional services and commercial and residential uses to the area. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-264 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information tech manufacturing industries, arranged in clusters. The RTP capitalizes on the research activities, incubator and start-up industries, and skilled labor force resulting from the presence of the adjoining university campus. The university helps create additional opportunities for economic development and employment through relationships formed between academic research and study, research and product development activities, and light industrial/manufacturing uses. The adjoining University Village Focus Area is comprisesd of a university-oriented Town Center of transit-oriented mixed use, and low-medium to medium-high mixed-use residential densities beyond the Town Center. Responding to the significant demand the university generates for housing and university-related commercial services, it provides the housing; retail; cultural; and other commercial services required by the university. Residential densities have been increased through collaborative arrangements between private development interests and the the university, which encourage higher residential densities in return for land dedicated for the university campus and its related facilities. The Regional Technology Park is a large, master-planned business park, providing research and high-tech manufacturing industries, arranged in clusters. The RTP capitalizes on the research activities, incubator and start-up industries, and skilled labor force resulting from the presence of the nearby multi-institutional university center. The university helps create additional opportunities for economic development and employment through relationships formed between academic research and study, research and product development activities, and light industrial/manufacturing uses. The Eastern Urban Center (EUC) is the vibrant urban hub of the Otay Ranch, providing regional services and commercial and residential uses to the area. The EUC derives increased vitality and commercial market demand from the multi-institutional university center campus. The Freeway Commercial Commercial Focus Area, while relating to the university much less than the other Focus Areas in the District, enhances the commercial vitality of the EUC, and also benefits from increased market demands generated by the presence of the university and the EUC. University Village Study Area and Strategic Framework Strategy Policies In order to maximize the opportunities resulting from the university center and the relationships described above, a “University Study Area” has been designated on properties that surround the site of the future campus, including the Eastern Urban Center, Regional Technology Park, University Campus, and University Village Focus Areas. The strategy for these areas must address the interdependent relationships between housing; economic; cultural; and academic factors within this area. This framework strategy must be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, Page LUT-265 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Action Deferral Areas information preparation and approval of any subsequent SPA documents that may be required within the areas encompassed by the University Study Area. The framework strategy is intended to allow SPA plans for the villages and Planning Areas within the study area, including those under multiple ownership, to be prepared more efficiently. The four Focus Areas of the Eastern University District have an interdependent land use and physical relationship that require coordinated development policies prior to adoption of any SPA Plan within the University Focus Area or University Village Focus Area. The Strategic Framework Policies will consider key relationships between land use, transportation, transit, grading, backbone infrastructure, and drainage as they pertain to the University Focus Area and the University Village Focus Area. The Strategic Framework Policies shall be completed and incorporated into the Otay Ranch General Development Plan prior to, or in conjunction with the preparation and approval of the first SPA Plan Plan or similar planning document within the University Focus Area or University Village Focus Area. The policies shall provide for an orderly and cohesive development pattern for the University Village Study Area. These coordinated efforts will ensure a synergy between the uses that will result in interconnected patterns for land uses and facilities. It also ensures that the detailed design decisions for any of the properties within the area will not unduly affect the potential development of the adjoining properties. The completion of the Strategic Framework Policies will allow SPA plans within the Eastern University District that are under multiple ownership, to be prepared in a coordinated and cohesive manner. The following objectives and policies recognize the interdependence and important relationships between the Focus Areas of the Eastern University District, and the need for coordinated development to enhance the economic and community success and vitality of the this District. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-265.1 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 Develop a corridor of integrated, high-intensity urban uses; office and business parks; retail centers; residential uses; and a major higher educational institution along the State Route 125 corridor to serve the East Planning Area and the broader south county region. Policies LUT 846.1 Accommodate the coordinated development of five four primary land use Focus Areas within the State Route 125 corridor: (1) a region-serving urban center with the highest residential densities and an office/commercial focus; (2) a sub-regional retail/lifestyle center; (3) a higher education institution(s) that make up a multi-institutional university center or a traditional university campus and a research and technology-oriented, light industrial business park; and (4) a Town Center providing university-related retail, service, cultural, and entertainment centers.; and (5) a research and technology-oriented light industrial business park. LUT 846.2 Allow for flexibility and adjustments of the designated land use/Focus Area boundaries, and recognize ownership boundaries to: promote the intermixing of uses that support and complement those existing in adjoining Districts and subareas; account for changing market conditions and economic development objectives; and foster the development of a cohesive pattern of urban development and built form. LUT 846.3 Permitted uses and densities/intensities may be adjusted among the Focus Areas, provided that the objectives, policies, and principles for land use relationships, community character, and urban form for the District are maintained.Objective -LUT 846 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-266 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Establish a distinctly identifiable corridor that creates a unique sense of place through: its integration of diverse uses and land use Focus Areas into uses within a cohesive development pattern; and its linkages that results in interconnected uses and facilities between the District's Focus Areas, and to adjoining communities, and open spaces and the subregion. Policies LUT 857.1 Integrate public schools; parklands; cultural and community facilities; libraries; a higher education facility; and comparable uses that support the other primary land uses. LUT 857.2 Locate and design buildings, public spaces, and landscaping to create a distinct character and identity for each Focus Area, emphasizing development patterns that foster pedestrian activity and enhance community livability. LUT 857.3 Connect the corridor's uses to surrounding open spaces with pedestrian and bike paths and greenbelts. LUT 857.4 As part of any SPA plan within the University Village Study Area, establish a coordinated system of physical elements that interconnect and unify the University corridor's Focus Areas and University Village Focus Area, including streets, grading, transit, sidewalks, streetscapes, signage, lighting, building placement and form, and architectural character. .LUT 857.5 Carefully consider for each Focus Area land uses that will not diminish or prevent the establishment of uses primarily intended for the other Focus Areas of the Eastern University District. LUT 857.6 Complete preparation of a framework strategy for the University Campus, University Village, Eastern Urban Center and Regional Technology Park Focus Areas included within the “University Study Area” prior to or concurrently with Objective -LUT 857 Page LUT-267 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information any future GDP amendments and SPA plans for villages within the Eastern University District. This strategy shall identify and consider important land use, economic, circulation, and design elements, and relationships between these Focus Areas. The strategy shall also identify key principles or “ground rules” for development to allow subsequent SPA planning for the individual focus areas and ownerships to proceed independently. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan shall include the Strategic Framework Policies above prior to adoption of the first SPA Plan within the “University Focus Area” or “University Village Focus Area”, that addresses issues related to the orderly and cohesive development of the University Village Study Area. The Strategic Framework Policies shall address key physical relationship components such as land use, transportation, transit, grading, backbone infrastructure, drainage, and environmental considerations. The Policies shall also identify key principles or development requirements for each SPA Plan within the University Focus Area and the University Village Focus Area to ensure they develop in a cohesive and interconnected manner. LUT 87.7 Each SPA Plan within the University Focus Area and University Village Focus Area shall comply with the Strategic Framework Policies. Encourage the dedication of land, and other voluntary actions that facilitate creation of a multi-institutional university campus. Policies LUT 868.1 Allow residential and commercial development at densities and intensities that are at the higher ranges specified in individual land use designations, as identified in the General Plan for projects that facilitate establishment of a university through the dedication of land and easements and other mechanisms or actions, such as the construction of necessary improvements, or the inclusion of other project features that assist in the creation of the university. Objective -LUT 868 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-268 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-285 for Final Action Deferral Areas information East Planning Area Otay Ranch Subarea -Eastern University District Figure 5-46 Page LUT-269 For areas shown in cross-hatch, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas Adopted East Planning Area Otay Ranch Subarea -Eastern University District Figure 5-46 Page LUT-269 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE AREA OF CHANGE TS Eastern University District Focus Areas Figure 5-47 Page LUT-270 Chula Vista Vision 2020 For areas shown in cross-hatch, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas Adopted City of Chula Vista General Plan NORTH N.T.S. TS FUTURE TRANSIT STATION/STOP FUTURE TRANSIT ROUTE PROPOSED ROAD ALIGNMENT SR-125 INTERCHANGE LEGEND Figure 5-47 Page LUT-270 City of Chula Vista General Plan Eastern University District Focus Areas Chula Vista Vision 2020 dR etseuW d Rhc ir B Hunte Pkwy Rd La Media 125 TS TS TS TS TS TS VILLAGE 6 VILLAGE 7 VILLAGE 8 VILLAGE 11 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL EASTERN URBAN CENTER UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY VILLAGE OTAY RANCH SUBAREA BOUNDARY Main Street Proposed RTP AREA OF CHANGE AREA OF CHANGE Main St Hunte Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy AREA OF CHANGE Otay Valley Rd 10.5.5 University Campus Focus Area Description of Focus Area The University Campus Focus Area is located in the southeastern portion of the East Planning Area, immediately south of Hunte Parkway, east of State Route 125, and immediately northwest of the Salt Creek open space area (see Figure 5-47.) It will be devoted to development of a university campus and related facilities and will be integrated with the adjoining Regional Technology Park. There are two (2) distinct land uses within the focus area: A University Campus and a Regional Technology Park. Existing Conditions This vacant, undeveloped area is currently undergoing planning efforts intended to bring about development of a multi-institutional university center or traditional university and related facilities, as well a a regional technology park on approximately 530 558 acres. A public charter school (High-Tech High) is situated directly south of Hunte Parkway and Village 11 and occupies approximately 10 acres of the university site. 10.5.5.1 University Campus Vision for Focus Area The University Campus portion of the University Focus Area encompasses the university campus itself and on-site related commercial, cultural, and residential uses. The campus and its related uses act as an economic stimulus by contributing intellectual capital and innovation that spurs new economic development and job opportunities for local and regional residents, and provides an institution of civic distinction for the City of Chula Vista. The institution supports and encourages research-supported light industrial/manufacturing industries in adjoining areas and in the region .Establish an educational institution a university campus that promotes economic development and serves as a center of education, prestige, and distinction for the City of Chula Vista and southern San Diego County. For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-271 Objective -LUT 879 Adopted GP Page LUT-268 Policies LUT 879.1 Accommodate a Multi-Institutional Teaching Center (MITC) or University Center, that consists of a partnership or consortium of colleges, universities, and/or research institutes that share land and buildings. LUT 879.2 Alternatively to policy LUT 879.1, accommodate a traditional university campus that might be (1) a liberal arts college, focused primarily on 4-year undergraduate degrees; (2) a regional comprehensive university, with undergraduate degrees and a full range of masters programs; or (3) a major research university that provides a rich complement of undergraduate programs, as well as masters, doctoral, and professional degrees. LUT 879.3 Accommodate a multi-institutional university center or traditional university that supports and encourages research and related high-tech, light industrial/manufacturing industries in the regional technology park, and in surrounding areas and in the region. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-271.1 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Ensure a multi-institutional university center facility campus that is accessible to students regionally and bi-nationally. Policies LUT 8890.1 Accommodate the development of the multi-institutional university center or a traditional university and supporting uses on approximately 530 473 acres. LUT 8890.2 Accommodate the development of, at a minimum, a full service, 4-year higher educational institution that integrates all uses that contribute to and support its primary mission, including academic instruction and research (classrooms, laboratories, library, etc.); athletic and recreational facilities; student, faculty, and staff housing; and supporting facilities (corporation yards, maintenance facilities, parking, etc.). LUT 8890.3 Accommodate university academic, athletic, and support facilities for an enrollment of 15,000 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) students and a cumulative population of 25,000 encompassing faculty, staff, visitors, and research professionals. LUT 8890.4 Develop minimum densities, established through a campus plan sufficient to supply at least 30 percent of the student housing needs, and 20 percent of graduate student and faculty/staff housing needs. Provision of this housing may be met through collaboration between the university and private ownership interests. Develop a multi-institutional university center or traditional university site campus that combines a learning institution's various functions into a cohesive and well-designed area that enhances pedestrian activity and livability; respects the natural setting; and is well-integrated with adjoining communities and uses, including the University Village Town Center, the Regional Technology Park, Eastern Urban Center, and the surrounding residential community. Objective -LUT 89 91 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-272 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-285 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Objective -LUT 88 90 Policies Use & Design LUT 8991.1 Prior to the adoption of a SPA Plan that includes involving the university site or any contiguous area supporting the campus, locate and design the development of university and supporting uses and those adjoining areas to achieve a cohesive and integrated campus environment, in consideration of the following principles: ! Development of a campus core as the highest intensity of use, which concentrates classrooms, offices, libraries, and other academic uses that are surrounded by housing, athletic fields, and other complementary uses. ! The campus core shall be located in proximity and linked to the Town Center, establishing continuity of urban form; density; street network; pedestrian sidewalks; paths; and landscape. Uses that may be shared by the university and surrounding community should be concentrated along the campus/Town Center edge, such as art galleries; cultural facilities; retail; food service; and similar uses. A permeable edge between the campus and Town Center Center shall be established. ! The campus core shall be linked with the transit center established within the Town Center. ! Individual research institutes that may be developed with a Multi-Institutional Teaching Center (MITC) or traditional university may be distributed throughout the university site and/or as an interface with the Town Center, Regional Technology Park (RTP), or Eastern Urban Center (EUC). In either case, tThere should be direct physical linkages with the campus core. ! The university's uses and buildings shall be linked and unified through a system of plazas/quads; pathways; transportation corridors; recreational areas; and open spaces. ! Greenway linkages shall be established between the university campus and surrounding open spaces. Page LUT-273 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information ! Buildings shall be sited along common sidewalks, pathways, and plazas to stimulate a high level of pedestrian activity. ! Parking shall be located on the periphery of the campus core and university campus, to the extent feasible. LUT 8991.2 Permit flexibility in the delineation of the edge between the university and an adjacent Town Center to facilitate the mixing of land uses and account for the building program established at the time of development, provided that the General Plan's intentions for concepts of land use relationships, urban form, and community character are achieved. General concepts shall be prepared as part of the framework strategy Strategic Framework Policies for the University Village Study Area and specific delineations shall occur through subsequent detailed planning, i.e., Sectional Planning Area Plans. Intensity/Heights LUT 8991.3 Allow a sufficient floor area ratio necessary to develop university academic, research, and support buildings. A maximum floor area ratio (FAR), averaged over the entirety of the site and appropriate in character to surrounding areas villages, shall be established during preparation of the University Campus SPA Plan. LUT 8991.4 As an alternative to the development of the university campus, allow for residential land use at an equivalent density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres on land designated Public/Quasi Public within the Eastern University District. Clustering of residential units is encouraged, as specified and regulated within an approved SPA-level Plan on land designated Public/Quasi Public. Residential units may also be transferred to other land within the Eastern University District, as provided for in the adopted SPA-level Plan. This alternative is not intended to conflict with any secondary land use plan for the University site under the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-274 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Note: Section 10.5.6 was moved to page LUT-276 Objective -LUT 92 10.5.7 Regional Technology Park Focus Area 10.5.5.2 Regional Technology Park Description of Focus Area The Regional Technology Park Focus Area is approximately 150-200 acres, located immediately west of State Route 125, with excellent access to be provided by major roadways and public transit facilities (see Figure 5-47). Existing Conditions The area is currently vacant and undeveloped. Planned development of this area will also need to respond to specific circulation and land uses identified in planning documents covering the University Village to the east, and the mixed use Town Center to the northwest. Vision for Focus Area The Regional Technology Park (RTP) portion of the University Focus Area is a large approximate 85-acre, master-planned light industrial type business park oriented to, and accommodating research and high-tech manufacturing activities. The RTP integrates manufacturing and research uses with related commercial business uses. The design of the RTP accommodates corporate corporate manufacturers that require high quality manufacturing and research oriented facilities and workplace amenities. The research and manufacturing uses are able to capitalize upon the presence of the university research activities, a skilled workforce, and other supporting or related industries located within the RTP and in other nearby areas of Otay Ranch, and the broader south County region. Establish a high-quality industrial business park that is oriented to and accommodates high technology businesses conducting research and light industrial/manufacturing activities that provide job opportunities for residents of Otay Ranch, Chula Vista, and the greater south San Diego County region. Page LUT-274.1 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Note: Section was moved from Section 10.5.7 on adopted GP page 279 Adopted GP Page LUT-279 Chula Vista Vision 2020 Policies LUT 92.1 Promote research and development uses associated with light manufacturing businesses by adopting GDP-and SPA-level policies and Planned Community District regulations that provide regulations and standards that encourage the locating of desired high technology uses and industries. LUT 92.2 Integrate Locate accessory uses, such as daycare facilities; health clubs/spas; parklands; and other uses that enhance the quality and workplace environment of the business park, but in limited amounts neccessary to support the workplace in the Town Center and EUC in order to maximize the availability of land for the primary research and manufacturing uses. LUT 92.3 Allow ancillary professional office retail, service and finance and limited service businesses as secondary uses where such uses are necessary to support the primary research and development and light manufacturing uses. These secondary uses should be limited such that they do not compete with or provide similar goods and services to those intended fothe Eastern Urban Centerr the EUC and adjoining areas that are intended as the preferred location for these support uses. LUT 92.4 Allow suitable Establish floor area ratios (FAR) to accommodate research, light manufacturing, and supporting uses in multi-story buildings that allow for a seamless transition between the University Village and RTP. LUT 92.5 The area of office, retail, professional, and other ancillary uses shall be limited to that necessary to support research and development and light manufacturing uses. LUT 92.5 Locate and design the RTP so it is conveniently accessible from Hunte Parkway, the University Village, EUC, University, as well as from regional transportation including SR-125 and the BRT line. LUT 92.6 Concentrate primary buildings along one or more primary streets to establish .Locate portions of the RTP in proximity to the Town Center to achieve visual continuity and integrate pedestrian orientation that workers in the RTP can access outdoor dining, plazas, malls, and squares to enhance socialization and pedestrian activity within the Town Center. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-274.2 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Adopted GP Page LUT-280 Policies LUT 92.7 Locate parking at the rear of buildings to promote business visibility and a pedestrian-friendly environment. LUT 92.8 The RTP may be comprised of non-contiguous planning areas provided that the minimum size of a planning area is 25 acres. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-274.3 Chula Vista Vision 2020 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Adopted GP Page LUT-280 Policies LUT 93.1 Proactively attract the development of incubator industries and research institutions that may be induced by the presence of a university campus. LUT 93.2 Develop the business park as a distinctly identifiable and high-quality campus environment, with unifying streetscapes; landscapes; architectural character; signage; lighting; and similar elements. LUT 93.3 Establish a network of streets, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and open spaces to connect with the adjacent Town Centers, university, and surrounding open spaces. Ensure the coordination and sizing of infrastructure needs in proximity to Village 9, EUC and University. Policies LUT 94.1 Coordinate and size infrastructure needs such as sewer, water, roads and utilities jointly with the development of the University Village and University. LUT 94.2 Minimize the placement of the RTP at multiple locations within the University Focus Area in order to maximize infrastructure economies. LUT 94.3 Independent of the University Campus development, phase and develop the RTP commensurate with residential development within the adjoining University Village, EUC and surrounding area. Page LUT-275 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Objective -LUT 94 Objective -LUT 93 Provide opportunities to develop new research institutions, industries, and businesses that capitalize upon the intellectual capital and research activities of the university. Adopted GP Page LUT-280-281 10.5.6 University Village Focus Area Description of Focus Area The University Village Focus Aarea is located immediately adjacent to the west of the University Campus Focus Area, with State Route 125 along its west boundary (see Figure 5-47). It will be strongly identified with and oriented to the planned university facility and regional technology park. Existing Conditions The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Conceptual planning will be followed by subsequent GDP and SPA applications. Vision for Focus Area The University Village Focus Area includes a university-oriented Town Center of transit-oriented mixed use, medium-high, medium, and low-medium residential land use designations and densities. The Town Center surrounded by a village with residential densities are higher than typically found in Otay Ranch as a result of the dedication of fifty additional acres for the university campus, which further facilitates the development of the university and integrates the Town Center with this expanded university campus as shown on Figure 5-47. As a result, Tthe area is strongly tied to the planned university campus and regional technology park. It provides housing, retail and other commercial services, and cultural and entertainment uses that are necessary to support the university. It incorporates a Town Center generally centered at the intersection of the Town Center Arterial roadways and a planned transit station. Residential areas that surround the Town Center and near a multi-institutional university center campus or traditional university maintain a higher density than other villages typical of the Otay Ranch area in order to respond to the increased demand for housing to be created by the university campus at the size and location shown on Figure 5-47. Because of the unique and significant market factors attributable to the university, demand is strong for land capable of providing residential and non-residential uses, both within the campus boundary and in adjacent areas. Page LUT-276 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Note: Section was moved from page LUT-274 Adopted GP Page LUT-281 Chula Vista Vision 2020 Establish a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use Town Center that serves as the interface, or common meeting ground, of the university, regional technology park, and surrounding residential development and serves the university campus at the size and location shown on the General Plan as well as the regional technology park work force. This should functionally serve in a comparable manner to the other village centers throughout the Otay Ranch, although with the addition of a university population. Policies LUT 905.1 Accommodate retail; professional office; entertainment; cultural; restaurant; and mixed use structures that integrate housing with retail or office uses, a diversity of housing, and comparable uses that support the residential and university communities and regional technology work force. LUT 905.2 Allow the development of uses that directly support or complement the university, such as commercial services, office, research institutes and faculty, staff, and student housing. LUT 905.3 Preclude the development of regional serving, large-format retail, automobile sales and service, and comparable uses that are not supportive of intense pedestrian activity. LUT 905.4 Allow the development of retail and office uses at floor area ratios (FAR) in a more intense format necessary to serve the university village and related businesses, rather than the sub-regional or regional that are complementary to business and retail needs intended for the EUC. LUT 905.5 Locate and design the development of university, regional technology park, and supporting uses to achieve a cohesive and integrated mixed use Town Center, in consideration of the following principles: ! Development of a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use Town Center (e.g., a Main Street) along the transportation couplet/transit corridor that has the highest Page LUT-277 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-285 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Objective -LUT 905 Adopted GP Page LUT-275 intensity of development, is directly linked to the university core, regional technology park, and EUC, and serves as the centerpiece of identity and community character. Continuity shall be provided through urban form; the massing and scale of buildings; interconnected street network and sidewalks; and landscaping. ! Development intensity shall transition and be reduced to the south, within residential neighborhoods located between the Town Center and surrounding open spaces. Because of the expected need for increased housing resulting from the university, detached single-family development shall be focused only along canyon rims adjacent to open space. ! A permeable edge shall be established where uses that support both the university, regional technology park, and residential community may be developed (e.g, arts; cultural; retail; entertainment; etc.). ! Structures within the heart of the Town Center area shall be located and designed to form a common “building wall” along sidewalks, with parking to the the rear or in subterranean structures, to stimulate pedestrian activity. Ground floor uses shall be limited to retail sales, dining, and other purposes that are “pedestrian active.” ! Develop an interconnected grid street system, with narrow streets that foster pedestrian activity. ! Incorporate a consistent and well-designed program of landscape; furniture; lighting; signage; and other amenities along the Town Center's sidewalks and public places. ! Establish greenway linkages between the University Village and surrounding open spaces. ! Incorporate pedestrian-oriented retail uses in the ground floor of public parking structures where adjacent to public streets or pedestrian-oriented spaces. LUT 905.6 Design and site housing to relate to the public street as a “living room” of community identity, diminishing the visual dominance of the garage, locating them to the rear of the properties when alleys are developed. Page LUT-278 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Adopted GP Page LUT-276 Chula Vista Vision 2020 LUT 905.7 Promote the development of uses that may be shared by the university, regional technology park, and residential community, such as libraries, performing arts, galleries; cultural facilities; retail; food service; and similar uses. LUT 905.8 Integrate the development of a multi-modal transportation center a transit station that is linked to the regional transit system to serve the Town Center. regional technology park, and university. LUT 905.9 Accommodate a mix of single-family attached, townhomes; apartment/condominiums; mixed residential-commercial units; and singlefamily detached homes, recognizing a need for higher residential densities and different types of housing to support resulting from the university at the location shown on Figure 5-47. Help meet this demand by providing increased densities on privately owned properties as an incentive where land is committed to meet the needs of the university. LUT 95.10 Provide increased densities on privately owned properties to accommodate a mix of of housing as an incentive where land has been provided to the City as an extraordinary public benefit to meet the needs of the university. LUT 90.10 LUT 95.11 Residential uses may be developed as single-use structures or combined with retail and office/professional uses in mixed use buildings. LUT 90.11 LUT 95.12 Residential development beyond the mass transit service area or beyond the Town Center shall transition to medium or lower densities allowing variable housing types such as town homes and stacked flats. LUT 95.13 Provide accessible shuttle service and/or local transit routes and shelters beyond the mass transit service area to serve residents of the University Village. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-279 City of Chula Vista General Plan For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303 for Final Action Deferral Areas information Adopted GP Page LUT-277 LUT 90.12 LUT 95.14 Concentrate the highest residential densities that adjoin the Town Center, EUC, university core, and transit corridors. The lower densities shall be located adjacent to permanent open spaces. LUT 90.13 LUT 95.15 Allow residential density of up to 3045 dwelling units per acre within the transit service area (one-quarter-mile radius from a transit station/stop), subject to the provisions of policy LUT 90.14, below 95.16. LUT 90.14 LUT 95.16 Residential and commercial development projects within the University Village Focus Area shall occur at the lowest density and intensity of applicable General Plan designations unless the City in its discretion determines the project provides extraordinary public benefit. Establish a unified community that provides public facilities, such as parking, schools, parks, and open spaces; and promotes walking and biking, comparable to the prevailing patterns of residential development within Otay Ranch. Policies LUT 916.1 Allow for the development of public or private parking structures that can be shared by multiple uses within the Town Center. LUT 916.2 Integrate parks, schools, community and cultural facilities, and similar uses that support the residential neighborhoods. LUT 916.3 Establish a system of pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout the Residential Villages and as residential areas and the Town Center that connections to the university, regional technology park, Eastern Urban Center, Town Center, and adjoining open spaces. 10.5.7 Regional Technology Park Focus Area Note: Section was moved to 10.5.5.5 (See Page LUT-275 for edits) LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-280 For text shown in shading, please see Page LUT-303for Final Action Deferral Areas information Objective -LUT 9196 Adopted GP Page LUT-278 Chula Vista Vision 2020 10.5.87 Eastern Urban Center Focus Area Description of Focus Area The Eastern Urban Center (EUC) is approximately 265 acres, located in the central portion of the Eastern University District, between the Freeway Commercial and the University Village Focus Areas (see Figure 5-47). State Route 125 borders the area on the west and other major roadways either surround the Focus Area or lead directly toward it. Existing Conditions The area is currently vacant and undeveloped. Planning for this area is underway, in conjunction with the planning of adjacent focus areas. Vision of Focus Area The EUC is the urban core of eastern Chula Vista and is the most intensely developed of all areas in the Otay Ranch and east Chula Vista. It is a vibrant hub, integrating high density residential housing, low-and high-rise office uses, and community and regional-serving commercial and entertainment uses, providing opportunities for new City-wide and region-wide functions to be located there. As an urban hub, it is served by a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system with a centrally located transit station. Surrounding land uses in the adjacent University Village, the University Campus, Regional Technology Park, and Freeway Commercial Focus Areas relate closely to the EUC. Page LUT-281 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Provide a centralized urban area to support the East Chula Vista/Otay Ranch and south San Diego County population, providing regional goods and services that cannot be accommodated in the residential Village Cores of Otay Ranch. Policies LUT 947.1 Integrate civic uses; recreation activity; a system of parks; necessary schools; and other resident-serving uses and encourage joint use of public and private faculties. LUT 947.2 Encourage the highest residential densities of the Otay Ranch Subarea to develop in the EUC. LUT 947.3 Provide sufficient acreage to accommodate cultural and community public facilities, open space, park(s), and schools within the urban center and encourage the development of a performing arts center. LUT 947.4 47 47 Develop the EUC as an intense urban form, with mid-and high-rise buildings typically located in the central core and near transit. LUT 9 .5 Apply the Design Review process for discretionary projects to ensure that building facades are designed and oriented to accentuate and enhance the pedestrian experience and urban street scene. Buildings fronting on pedestrian spaces shall be designed to support and enhance dining, entertainment, and art and cultural activities. LUT 9 .6 As part of the approval of a SPA, provide pedestrian-oriented plazas, throughblock paseos, and landscaped squares to add interest and provide contrast to the buildings, which should generally be built to the sidewalk's edge. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-282 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 Objective -LUT 947 LUT 947.7 As part of a Strategic Fframework strategy Policies for the University Village Study Area, identify development regulations and design standards within City ordinances, policies, and other regulatory measures that may hinder achieving the intended urban vision for the EUC. Revise regulations and standards for both public and private uses and facilities where deemed necessary to create the urban character intended for the EUC. LUT 947.8 Accommodate phased development, allowing the urban land use intensity and character of the EUC to intensify and evolve in stages in response to economic and other factors. Establish an area that functions as a retail commercial, services, and office node providing an intense, pedestrian-oriented urban activity center that is linked by land use, design, and circulation, including a Bus Rapid Transit system (BRT) to the region, other villages of the Otay Ranch, and the University Village, University Campus, Regional Technology Park, and Freeway Commercial Focus Areas. Areas. Policies LUT 958.1 Accommodate uses that provide an employment base for the region, including office, retail, business/research park, and visitor-serving commercial; cultural and entertainment activity; an urban open space corridor linkage; and high density multi-family residential uses developed as single uses or integrated with retail and office in mixed use buildings. LUT 958.2 Allow the development of uses that directly support or complement the university, such as research; education, and business institutes; and faculty, staff, and student housing. LUT 958.3 Floor area ratios shall accommodate a variety of low, mid, and high-rise buildings for residential uses; professional, medical, financial, and other business uses; and local, specialty, and regional serving retail complexes. Objective -LUT 958 Page LUT-283 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 LUT 958.4 The transit center location shall enhance the function and convenience of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for residents, workers, and visitors in the EUC. LUT 958.5 The requirements for park area, function, and design shall be provided for in an EUC Parks Master Plan prepared as part of any SPA Plan within the EUC. The EUC Parks Master Plan shall be guided by the needs and standards identified in the framework plan Strategic Framework Policies prepared for the University Study Area. 58 58 58 10.5.98 Freeway Commercial Focus Area Description of Focus Area The Freeway Commercial Focus Area is composed of approximately 120 acres in the most northerly portion of the Eastern University District (see Figure 5-47). It is bounded by State Route 125 on the west, Olympic Parkway on the north, and Eastlake Parkway on the east. Existing Conditions The area is currently vacant and undeveloped. Planning and engineering for the development of this area is currently underway, following the adoption of a SPA amendment application and approval of a tentative map and associated zoning permits authorizing construction of a regional shopping center. LUT 9 .6 The precise boundary between the EUC and the University Village will be determined by the design of the Town Center Arterial during the preparation of the Strategic Framework Strategy Policies and subsequent SPA plans for the EUC and University Village. LUT 9 .7 Off-street parking facilities within the Eastern Urban Center shall be located and designed to promote the urban character and pedestrian orientation intended for the EUC. Parking shall conform to the urban architecture and form; provide convenient pedestrian access to the areas it serves; and promote the efficient use of shared parking facilities. To help insure successful buildout of the EUC, regulatory measures and design standards shall allow for flexibility in the siting of off-street parking facilities to accommodate temporary, interim, or phased parking facilities. LUT 9 .8 Promote the development of public or private parking structures that can be shared by multiple uses within the Eastern Urban Center. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-284 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 Vision for Focus Area This Focus Area provides both local and regional-serving retail commercial and entertainment uses. These uses are an important component of the Eastern University District's role as the urban and cultural center for the East Planning Area, as well as serving the surrounding south San Diego County region. The area's immediate proximity to State Route 125 and other major streets provides for an automobile orientation, although it is also served by the regional rapid transit system. Create a retail commercial center that supports the East Planning Area/Otay Ranch population by providing regional goods and services that are not accommodated in the residential Village Cores or Town Centers; functions integrally with the intense, pedestrian-oriented urban activity of the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Focus Area; and accommodates the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system connecting it to other villages, the Eastern Urban Center (EUC), and the region. Policies LUT 969.1 Accommodate uses that provide regional retail commercial and entertainment services, including: department stores; multiplex theatres; specialty retail shops; and eating and drinking establishments, but not office use. LUT 969.2 Locate the BRT route and station stop within the Freeway Commercial Focus Area to facilitate an appropriate BRT alignment and transit center for the EUC. Page LUT-285 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Objective -LUT 969 Establish a strong relationship with and linkage to the Eastern Urban Center Focus Area to the south by land use, urban form, and a pedestrian and transit circulation network. Policies LUT 97.1 LUT 100.1 Encourage uses within the southerly limits of the Focus Area adjacent to Birch Road that facilitate linking activities and relationship with the EUC. These should include pedestrian-scale entertainment venues, such as: eating and drinking establishments; coffee houses; fitness clubs; and specialty retail such as book, camera, and clothing stores. Discouraged uses include gas stations or other automotive services; drive-through restaurants; laundries; drug stores; and dry cleaners. LUT 97.2 LUT 100.2 Minimize barriers to pedestrian linkage with the EUC caused by Birch Road by reducing the width of the road section to the extent feasible, and/or incorporating improvements that enhance pedestrian safety and encourage pedestrian movement between the EUC and the Freeway Commercial Focus Area. LUT 97.3 LUT 100.3 Encourage construction of commercial establishments along the north side of Birch Road that will attract interest and pedestrian traffic from the EUC. LUT 97.4 LUT 100.2 Encourage pedestrian-friendly landscape and sidewalk treatments, such as widened planting strips and sidewalks, installation of street furniture, and interesting lighting, signage, and pavement surfaces along both sides of Birch Road. Objective -LUT 97100 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-286 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 Chula Vista Vision 2020 II.3 Area-Wide Planning Factors, Objectives and Policies There are several topics or issues with respect to the Bayfront Planning Area that require more focused discussion: · Create a Bayfront Focal Point · Bayfront Linkages · Bayfront Street Network · Mobility · Parks and Recreation · Open Space Conservation 11.3.1 Create a Bayfront Focal Point The continuing development and redevelopment of the Bayfront will create a water-oriented focal point for the entire City. With an emphasis on public recreation activities, tourism and conservation, it will emerge as the premier waterfront experience in the South County. The development standards and quality will equal those of similar areas in the northern section of San Diego Bay. The diversity of uses will exceed that of many similar projects and contribute to its vitality and use by all citizens. Create a water-oriented focal point for the entire City of Chula Vista, which includes uses that are attractive to visitors and residents alike. alike. Policies LUT 98.1 Provide for a balanced and well-defined mix of land uses including visitor 101.1 serving, commercial, cultural, civic, residential, recreational and open space Conservation. LUT 98.2 Improve the visual quality of the Bayfront by promoting both public and 101.2 private uses that will remove existing blighted structures or conditions, and develop a new image through high quality architecture and landscape architecture. LUT 98.3 Allow Bayfront development intensity that provides for economic generators 101.3 Within the capacity of planned public service and infrastructure systems. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-290 City of Chula Vista General Plan Objective -LUT 98101 Page LUT-291 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 LUT 98.4 Provide good regional access to the Bayfront from I-5 and SR 54, improved 101.4 gateway entries, well-routed and designed roadways, connections to public transit, well located and adequate parking areas, and enhanced pedestrian And bicycle access. LUT 98.5 Locate new development to be compatible with the protection and 101.5 Enhancement of environmentally sensitive lands in the Bayfront. 11.3.2 Bayfront Linkages The Bayfront Planning Area will provide visitors and residents with entertainment, recreational activities, lodging and other services within a compact area. Therefore, the full range of access linkages by car, transit, bicycle, or on foot should be planned and implemented through development of the Bayfront Planning Area. The relationship between the Bayfront and the adjacent Urban Core Subarea of the Northwest Planning Area provides an opportunity to create synergy to connected, yet distinct, areas of the City. Establish linkages between the Bayfront Planning Area and the Northwest Planning Area for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. Policies LUT 99.1 Pedestrian and bicycle access between the Bayfront Planning Area and the 102.1 Northwest Planning Area should be identified, and guidelines for their development should be established, through the Bayfront Specific Plan or a Subsequent implementation document.. LUT 99.2 Ensure the design and construction of enhanced (wider) Interstate freeway 102.2 overpasses at E, F, and H Streets, as a discrete project or in conjunction with any freeway interchange improvement programs. The crossings shall incorporate vehicular, transit, and pedestrian/bicycle access. LUT 99.3 Promote the development and operation of a circulation system to link and 102.3 serve the Bayfront Planning Area, the Urban Core Subarea's commercial Areas, and the E and H Street trolley stations. Objective -LUT 99 102 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-292 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 LUT 99.4 Ensure integration of the Chula Vista Bayfront component of the regional 102.4 Bayshore Bikeway that will provide a continuous bike loop around San Diego Bay. LUT 99.5 Ensure integration of the Bayfront Planning Area component of the Chula 102.5 Vista Greenbelt to provide a connection between eastern Chula Vista and the Bayfront. 11.3.3 Bayfront Street Network The intensification of land uses within the Bayfront Planning Area will alter the character of the built environment over time, creating a more urban context. The transportation network takes into account all modes of travel within this urban context, including public transit; bicycles; pedestrians; and the automobile. Figure 5-49 illustrates the Bayfront street network. The streets located in the Bayfront should be designed with pedestrians and bicyclists in mind in order to increase social interaction; provide better support; emphasize a friendly, inviting environment for bicycling and walking; and create great places for people to live, work and visit. In general, these streets will have wide sidewalks, street trees, and parkways. These streets will provide, in varying amounts, the following generalized amenities: !· Wayfinding maps; trash receptacles; and benches should be strategically located throughout the Bayfront. Streetscapes should be designed with inviting sidewalks wide enough to be passable without having to maneuver around hedges and other obstacles, and noncontiguous to the street for the creation of parkways. !· On-street parking, limited curb cuts, and landscaping or planting strips that create a buffer between traffic and pedestrians and provide canopy shade. A well-designed streetscape makes people feel comfortable and invites and motivates people to walk or bike to destinations. The Bayfront street design should include mid-block crosswalks and off-street pathways through future common areas and open spaces. !· · Easily accessible building entrances in close proximity to the sidewalk. Windows at street level with no blank walls on adjacent buildings. !· Distinctive public transit amenities to increase ease of its use and attractiveness of the area. Transit amenities should include bus information kiosks, bicycle facilities and interconnections to other routes and bikeways; bike racks; lockers; and shower facilities. The intent is to reinforce bicycling as a mode of transportation connected to and coordinated with other modes to connect people and places through a complete street network. As discussed in Section 5.5.7, separate roadway classifications have been identified for the Northwest Planning Area's Urban Core Subarea. These classifications reflect the special operating characteristics of roadways within a more urbanized, mixed-use environment, and facilitate multimodal design elements and amenities (such as enhanced sidewalks and transit facilities). Page LUT-293 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Establish roadways in the Bayfront Planning Area that respond to the special operating characteristics of roadways within a more urbanized environment, accommodate slower speeds in pedestrian-oriented areas, and facilitate multi-modal design elements and amenities. Policies LUT 100.1 Design and develop roadways to include pedestrian, bicycle and transit 103.1 Amenities appropriate to their function. 11.3.4 Mobility Mobility refers to all modes of transportation, and includes people's use of cars; trolleys; buses; bicycles; and walking. The planned street circulation system within the Bayfront Planning Area will provide vehicular access, although an emphasis on pedestrian circulation, accessibility, and safety is equally important to traffic flow. Increased access to transit facilities and a pedestrianfriendly environment that encourages walking are two important components of mobility in the Bayfront. The Transit First! Program prepared by SANDAG identifies future transit routes for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Chula Vista that connect to the existing E and H Street trolley stations. This transit system will use the H Street corridor as an east/west route, with planned transit stations approximately every mile. A bus shuttle system is envisioned to link the Urban Core Subarea with the Bayfront Planning Area to provide residents and visitors with convenient access to transit stations, as well as shopping and services in both areas and to provide access to the Bayfront Planning Area from other parts of the city. The extensive parks and open spaces within the Bayfront Planning Area provide an important recreational amenity for Chula Vista residents and visitors. Bicycle and pedestrian paths are envisioned throughout the Bayfront Planning Area to provide access between transit stations, parking areas, the waterfront, and these park and open space areas. Objective -LUT 100103 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-294 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 Increase mobility for residents and visitors in the Bayfront Planning Area. Policies LUT 101.1 Create safe and convenient pedestrian access to, from, and within the 104.1 Bayfront Planning Area. LUT 101.2 Provide adequate sidewalk space on heavily traveled pedestrian corridors 104.2 within the Bayfront Planning Area. LUT 101.3 Provide mid-block pedestrian crossings and sidewalk curb extensions, where 104.3 feasible, to shorten pedestrian walking distances. LUT 101.4 Locate secure bicycle parking facilities near transit centers, major public and 104.4 private buildings, and in recreational areas. LUT 101.5 Encourage the establishment of a transit shuttle system that connects the 104.5 Bayfront Planning Area with the Northwest Plan Area Urban Core,. Connections to the Civic Center and transit stations on E and H Streets should be considered as priorities. LUT 101.6 Design and implement a system of landscaped pedestrian paths that link 104.6 important features of the Bayfront Planning Area, especially an F Street Promenade that will link the Bayfront Planning Area with Broadway and Downtown Third Avenue. LUT 101.7 Encourage the establishment of a water taxi system that will link the Bayfront 104.7 Planning Area with other important features and destinations along San Diego Bay. 11.3.5 Parks and Recreation The Bayfront Master Plan provides for an approximate 250-acre park and open space system to protect the natural beauty of the area and to provide improved access and usage of the bay by Objective -LUT 101104 Page LUT-295 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 area residents and visitors. The park and open space system will include areas for quiet enjoyment of nature; active play areas; performance spaces; boardwalks; promenades; bike paths; jogging trails and an active waterfront with a new pier. The marina is planned to be reconfigured to provide access for water taxis; dinner boats; harbor cruises; historic vessels/museums; and sailing school boats. Create park and recreational opportunities in the Bayfront Planning Area that protect the natural beauty of the Bay and improve access and usage by area residents and visitors. Policies LUT 102.1 Provide park and recreation facilities within the Bayfront Planning Area to 105.1 serve residents and visitors. .LUT 102.2 Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to link park and recreation 105.2 Facilities within the Bayfront. 11.3.6 Open Space Conservation Natural open space preserve planning efforts, such as the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, areas within the Bayfront Planning Area will be the focus of continuing conservation efforts. Opportunities to provide for open space conservation occur throughout the Bayfront and such open spaces are a key component in the City's Greenbelt System. Future development opportunities adjacent to these areas, as well as park implementation efforts, need to respect and conserve these important open space resources. Refer to Chapter 9, the Environmental Element, for additional discussion and policies on open space, Provide for natural open space conservation in the Bayfront Planning Area. Objective -LUT 102105 Objective -LUT 103106 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-296 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 Policies LUT 103.1 Provide for the conservation of natural open space within the Chula Vista 106.1 Greenbelt system. LUT 103.2 Identify and protect important public viewpoints and viewsheds along the 106.2 Bayfront where native habitat areas exist. LUT 103.3 Provide for well-designed, safe and secure staging areas, kiosks, and rest stops 106.3 Within the Bayfront segment of the Chula Vista Greenbelt system. II.4 Subarea Planning Factors, Objectives and Policies 11.4.1 Sweetwater Subarea Description of Subarea The Sweetwater Subarea is located in the northern portion of the Bayfront Planning area, west of Interstate 5. The Subarea extends south to F Street and includes a small peninsular area extending southwest of F Street. Existing Conditions The majority of the planning area is owned by the Federal Government and operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the Sweetwater Marsh National National Wildlife Refuge. Primary land uses outside the Wildlife Refuge include commercial, motel, restaurant, office, and transportation/utility easement. Vision for the Sweetwater Subarea The Sweetwater Subarea has developed with a focus on employment uses and visitor-serving hotels and restaurants located in proximity to Interstate 5, while providing for expansive views and protection of sensitive open space preserve areas that extend through the Sweetwater Marsh to the San Diego Bay. To provide for protection of open space, development has transitioned from lower scale buildings adjacent to open space buffer areas to taller buildings near Interstate 5. Pedestrian and bicycle linkages, including the Bayshore Bikeway, meander along scenic roadways and provide a component of the Chula Vista Greenbelt trail system that encircles the city. Pedestrian-oriented urban development in the City's Urban Core is linked to the Sweetwater Subarea by the F Street Promenade, providing opportunities for residents to enjoy the benefits of the Bayfront natural setting. Page LUT-297 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Encourage redevelopment and new development activities within the Sweetwater Subarea that will minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive lands adjacent to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. Policies Uses LUT 104.1 Focus new development and redevelopment on less environmentally sensitive 107.1 lands. LUT 104.2 Encourage lower intensity and visitor-serving development such as hotel, mixed-107.2 use, commercial and office that will be compatible with this environmentallythemed area. LUT 104.3 Provide parks and open space for recreation, nature study and enjoyment of San 107.3 Diego Bay. LUT 104.4 Protect, maintain, and enhance wildlife habitat within the National Wildlife 107.4 Refuge while allowing public enjoyment of coastal resources. Intensity/Height LUT 104.5 In the Sweetwater Subarea, the "Visitor Commercial" designation is intended to 107.5 have an area-wide aggregate FAR of 0.5 and the Professional/Administrative designation is intended to have an area-wide aggregate FAR of 0.75. The Bayfront Specific Plan will establish parcel-specific FARs that may vary from the area-wide aggregate (refer to Section 4.9.1, Interpreting the Land Use Diagram, for a discussion of district-wide versus parcel-specific FAR.). LUT 104.6 Building heights shall be predominantly low-rise to mid-rise with some high-rise 107.6 buildings located within the eastern part of the Subarea. Any high-rise buildings Will be subject to discretionary review pursuant to the provisions of LUT Section 7.2. LUT 104.7 Establish locations within the Subarea where permitted building heights and 107.7 Densities are greater than in locations adjacent to sensitive open spaces. Objective -LUT 104107 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-298 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 LUT 104.8 Establish standards for transitions in building height that respond to public 107.8 view corridors and proximity to sensitive open spaces. Design LUT 104.9 The Bayfront Specific Plan or other regulations prepared to guide development 107.9 in the Sweetwater Subarea shall address design issues that create a sense of place, a pedestrian-friendly environment, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle linkages, and compatibility with the scale and nature-oriented focus of the area as described in LUT Section 7.6. LUT 104.10 Maximize the sense of arrival and access to the Bayfront via the E Street entry 107.10 and provide clearly identifiable gateways to the Bayfront. Amenities LUT 104.11 Community amenities to be considered for the Sweetwater Subarea as part of 107.11 any incentives program should include, but not be limited to, those listed in Policy LUT 27.1 11.4.2 Harbor Subarea Description of Subarea The Harbor Subarea is located in the central portion of the Bayfront Planning area, generally between F and J Streets. This portion of the planning area includes both land and water use areas. Existing Conditions Existing land uses in the Harbor Subarea include industrial and related uses, marina, parks, open space, and easements for utilities. Vision for the Harbor Subarea The Harbor Subarea is an exciting world-class waterfront highlighted by an active marina and signature park facilities linked by landscaped pathways. A major conference center and the vibrant cultural facilities, offices, hotels, shops and restaurants attract international and regional visitors and create a community gathering place for Chula Vistans and nearby residents. Visitors and residents enjoy the cool bay breezes and marine activities in the Harbor Subarea and readily visit the nearby urban villages of Downtown Chula Vista for shopping and cultural events via the local transit shuttle. Page LUT-299 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Provide for the redevelopment and new development of the Harbor Subarea that will reinforce its identity as the City's Bayfront focal point. Policies Uses LUT 105.1 Encourage the development of residential, hotel, conference center, retail 108.1 commercial, marina and park uses within the Harbor Subarea to create a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented waterfront destination. LUT 105.2 Retain the existing corporate land use located between F Street and H Street, 108.2 west of Bay Boulevard, as a major employer and industrial business in Chula Vista, but limit the extent of any new general industrial uses to assure development of the unique visitor-oriented uses within the Harbor Subarea. LUT 105. 3 Ensure provisions for fire service within the Harbor District to serve the Bayfront 108.3 master plan. LUT 105.4 Anciliary commercial uses may be allowed within the Bayfront High residential 108.4 land use designation, provided they are restricted to the ground floor, limited oriented to the convenience of residents. Intensity/Height LUT 105.5 In the Bayfront Harbor Subarea, the "Visitor Commercial" and "Mixed Use 108.5 Commercial" designations are intended to have a subarea-wide aggregate FAR of 0.5. The Bayfront Specific Plan will establish parcel-specific FARs that may vary from the area-wide aggregate (refer to Section 4.9.1, Interpreting the Land Use Diagram, for a discussion of district-wide versus parcel-specific FAR.). in extent and Objective -LUT 105108 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-300 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 LUT 105.6 In the Harbor Subarea, residential densities shall be in the Bayfront High 108.6 Residential designation at 60 to 115 dwelling units per acre. The LCP and Port Master Plans will provide more detailed guidance for allowed densities within their range. LUT 105.7 Building heights shall be predominantly high-rise with some mid-rise and 108.7 low-rise. Any high-rise buildings will be subject to discretionary review pursuant to the provisions of LUT Section 7.2. LUT 105.8 Establish standards for transitions in building height that respond to public 108.8 view corridors. Design LUT 105.9 The Bayfront Specific Plan or other regulations prepared to guide development 108.9 in the Harbor Subarea shall address design issues that create a sense of place, a pedestrian-friendly environment, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle linkages, and compatibility with the scale and marine-oriented focus of the Area as described in LUT Section 7.6. LUT 105.10 Provide aesthetic improvements to existing and new development, including 108.10 establishing clearly identifiable access to the Bayfront, preserving existing views and creating enhanced views, through placement of new high quality development in harmonious relationship between sensitive habitats and the built environment. LUT 105.11 Provide view corridors to San Diego Bay that are framed by buildings and 108.11 enhanced landscaping on all gateway streets. LUT 105.12 Maximize the sense of arrival and access to the Bayfront via the F Street 108.12 Promenade E, H, and J Streets to provide clearly identifiable gateways to the Bayfront.. Amenities LUT 105.13 Community amenities to be considered for the Harbor Subarea as part of any 108.13 incentives program should include, but not be limited to, those listed in Policy LUT 27.1. Page LUT-301 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 11.4.3 Otay Subarea Description of Subarea The Otay Subarea encompasses approximately 144 acres and includes the southern portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront area extending south of J Street to Palomar Street. Existing Conditions The Otay Subarea consists of industrial and related commercial uses, utility facilities and easements, and open space. Vision for the Otay Subarea The Otay Subarea provides employment through an industrial business park south of J Street and adjacent to Interstate 5. A small area of commercial at the southwest corner of Interstate-5 and J Street provides an entry and services for bayfront visitors. Additional employment is provided by the energy and utility oriented industrial uses in the southern portion of the Subarea. The regional-serving recreational vehicle park and passive parkland in the central portion of the Subarea provides a nature-oriented visitor opportunity near San Diego Bay. Trails and bikeways in the Otay Subarea link with the Chula Vista Greenbelt to provide residents and visitors opportunities for exercise and exploration. Opens spaces provide for views of the bay as well as buffers to protect environmentally sensitive marine areas. 109 Encourage redevelopment and new development activities within the Otay Subarea that will provide employment, recreational and visitorserving opportunities, and energy utility needs. Policies Uses LUT 106.1 Focus new development and redevelopment on the less environmentally 109.1 sensitive lands. LUT 106.2 Encourage visitor-serving, open space and park uses that are compatible with 109.2 environmentally sensitive areas. Objective -LUT 106109 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Page LUT-302 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 LUT 106.3 Provide for industrial business park uses, and limited ancillary commercial 109.3 uses in proximity to Interstate-5 and Bay Boulevard. Intensity/Height LUT 106.4 In the Otay Subarea, the "Visitor Commercial" and "Industrial Busines Park" 109.4 designation are intended to have an area-wide aggregate FAR of 0.5. The Bayfront Specific Plan will establish parcel-specific FARs that may vary from the area-wide aggregate (refer to Section 4.9.1, Interpreting the Land Use Diagram, for a discussion of District-wide versus parcel-specific FAR.). Design LUT 106.5 Building heights shall be predominately low-rise with some mid-rise buildings. 109.5 LUT 106.6 The Bayfront Specific Plan or other regulations prepared to guide development 109.6 in this area shall address design issues that create a sense of place, a pedestrian-friendly environment, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle linkages, and compatibility with the scale and nature-oriented focus of the area as described in LUT Section 7.6. LUT 106.7 Provide aesthetic improvements to existing and new development, including 109.7 establishing clearly identifiable access to the Bayfront, preserving existing views and creating enhanced views with development, encouraging high quality development in harmonious relationship between sensitive habitats and the built environment. Amenities LUT 106.8 Community amenities to be considered for the Otay Subarea as part of any 109.8 incentives program should include, but not be limited to, those listed in Policy LUT 27.1. !FINAL ACTION DEFERRAL AREAS On December 13, 2005, per Resolution No. 2005-424, the Chula Vista City Council deferred final action on provisions relating to Villages Eight, Nine, and Ten/University in Otay Ranch for an interim period. This did not affect circulation roadway classifications or locations. Through final General Plan formatting, Figure 5-45, Eastern University District, and Figure 5-46, Focus Areas, as referenced in City Council Resolution 2005-424, section IV.1.(d)(11), have been renumbered as Figure 5-46 and Figure 5-47. The affected text is shown with shading, and the affected areas in Figures 5-12, 5-46 and 5-47 are shown with cross-hatching. Page LUT-303 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd Eastern Urban Center Eastlake Otay Valley Regional Technology Park Rancho Del Rey Channel Broadway Corridor Bayfront South Broadway South Third Avenue Main Street Corridor University d R ch Bir tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Employment Land Areas H Street Corridor Downtown Third Ave Employment Land Areas Figure 6-1 Page EDE-4 Note: This figure shows generalized areas where industrial, commercial or other land use designations that may offer significant employment opportunities are located. Please refer to the Land Use and Transportation Element and the General Plan Diagram for more precise and complete information on land use designations and what uses are allowed in specific areas. Adopted NORTH N.T.S. E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd Eastern Urban Center Eastlake Otay Valley Rancho Del Rey Channel Broadway Corridor Bayfront South Broadway South Third Avenue Main Street Corridor University d R ch Bir tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 125 805 5 Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Employment Land Areas H Street Corridor Downtown Third Ave Employment Land Areas Figure 6-1 Page EDE-4 Note: This figure shows generalized areas where industrial, commercial or other land use designations that may offer significant employment opportunities are located. Please refer to the Land Use and Transportation Element and the General Plan Diagram for more precise and complete information on land use designations and what uses are allowed in specific areas. AREA OF CHANGE Regional Technology Park Proposed Village 9 Main St Hunte Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy Main St Village 8 West ED 1.4 Increase the supply of land for non-retail employment through the designation of land to accommodate a regional technology park; a future business park; industrial or business park space; and development of a multi-institutional university center campus. ED 1.5 Consider fiscal implications of General Plan amendments that propose changes to industrial and commercial lands. ED 1.6 Promote economic development that fosters job availability, economic revitalization and tax revenues. 3.2.2 Jobs/Housing Balance Currently, many Chula Vista residents commute out of the City for employment, contributing to local and regional traffic congestion and air pollution. It is essential to the City's job creation goals that areas for business park, office, and retail development are designated, properly zoned and entitled. In the same manner, it is equally important that areas of the City are properly zoned for a variety of housing types, from multi-family units to estate development. Providing a variety of jobs with differing income opportunities and a variety of housing types helps Chula Vista remain competitive in the regional marketplace in terms of location, amenities and costs. It also assists the City in attracting new, targeted businesses to provide a diverse and ample employment base for Chula Vista residents. Maintain a variety of job and housing opportunities to improve Chula Vista's jobs/housing balance. Policies ED 2.1 In the East of the State Route 125 commercial corridor and the University Village 9 Town Center, plan and facilitate a Regional Technology Park and development that generates regional-serving retail and service jobs. ED 2.2 Facilitate increased employment densities near transit stations and routes. Page EDE-6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CHAPTER 6 Objective -ED 2 ED 3.2 Identify and mitigate, where appropriate, obstacles to the formation and expansion of local business. ED 3.3 Implement programs to support local businesses, and market Chula Vista as an ideal location for business development and growth. ED 3.4 Ensure the provision of adequate land and appropriately sized parcels for small industries and start-up businesses. ED 3.5 Provide for ancillary commercial development in business parks, such as banks and restaurants, in order to provide amenities for future tenants. ED 3.6 Encourage and facilitate a diversity of the type of small businesses established in proximity to one another so as to avoid redundancy of uses within a single block, commercial mall, or neighborhood, but do not preclude clusters of mutually supportive businesses such, as found in a “restaurant row”. 3.2.4 Promoting Technology Chula Vista has had success in attracting electronics, defense, and transportation industries, and can build upon these efforts. Opportunity exists in recruiting the biotech, bio-med, telecommunications, and software industries, as well. Establishment of technology schools, as well as a multi-institutional university center campus, will aid the City in seeding technology parks and industries, potentially in the form of a regional technology park (RTP). The concept of an RTP is to facilitate development of a business and industrial park large enough to accommodate research and production for the emerging high-technology and biotechnology sectors. By attracting technology industries to Chula Vista, the City can create desirable jobs for its residents, resulting in higher per capita incomes; more discretionary income to spend on local goods and services (generating more local tax revenues for public services); and more income to invest in local improvements and amenities. This, in turn, will help continue to raise the community's overall standard of living. Page EDE-8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CHAPTER 6 Become a center for applied technology innovation. Policies ED 4.1 Publicize the economic and social benefits of industry, emphasizing the health of the Chula Vista economy, the “high-tech” dimensions of industry, and the community value of well-paying, high-benefit industrial employment. ED 4.2 Maintain land sufficient for the long-term location of an minimum 125 to 200-acre approximately 85-acre Regional Technology Park in eastern Chula Vista (which may include portions of Otay Ranch). ED 4.3 Adopt a master plan for the City's bayfront, in cooperation with the San Diego Unified Port District, that analyzes the feasibility of creating a Research Development Park or a Regional Technology Park at that location, in conjunction with other visitor serving uses. ED 4.4 Continue to recruit and promote the establishment of a multi-institutional university center campus, as well as research and development facilities that promote technology. 3.2.5 International Trade The importing and exporting of goods is critical critical to the region’s economy. Chula Vista is in the center of the binational, San Diego/Tijuana metropolitan area. Because of the City’s proximity to the US/Mexico border, the busiest border crossing in the world, and its position on the Pacific Rim, Chula Vista is uniquely situated to capitalize on cross-border and international trade. Several Pacific Rim-related firms, including Hitachi and Dai-Nippon, are located in Chula Vista. Future business attraction and recruitment strategies should continue to focus on the City’s distinct locational advantage, and on targeted export/import and maquiladora (”twin plant”) firms. Page EDE-9 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CHAPTER 6 Objective -ED 4 Page EDE-17 City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CHAPTER 6 Promote educational excellence and training to ensure a qualified workforce. ED 11.1 Promote the establishment of a multi-institutional university center campus for higher education through the designation of a candidate site and discussions with the appropriate agencies or organizations. ED 11.2 Facilitate partnerships with school districts and industry to achieve educational excellence and to create programs that promote and support workforce development. ED 11.3 Collaborate with industries and trades regarding curriculum needs that respond to changes in technology and employment trends. Provide labor market information from data sources and industry sectors to local educational institutions and training agencies for adults and youth. ED 11.4 Work with job training programs and encourage training for life skills, job readiness and specific target industries. ED 11.5 Encourage the opportunity for employment of local residents. ED 11.6 Work to facilitate employment by improving transportation; childcare; job training opportunities; and other employment readiness factors. Coordinate efforts with local; state; federal; and private agencies/organizations. Policies Objective -ED 11 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Otay Lakes Rd La Media Rd dR sekaL ya Ot Hunte Pkwy tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Fifth Av Broadway H St L StPalomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY CAL-AMERICAN OTAY WATER DISTRICT LEGEND City Boundary Water District Boundaries County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. Water Service Areas Figure 8-1 Page PFS-6 Adopted E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Otay Lakes Rd La Media Rd dR sekaL ya Ot Hunte Pkwy tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Fifth Av Broadway H St L StPalomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY CAL-AMERICAN OTAY WATER DISTRICT LEGEND City Boundary Water District Boundaries County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. Water Service Areas Figure 8-1 Page PFS-6 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Main St Hunte Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy Otay Valley Rd Main St Adopted E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Otay Lakes Rd La Medi a Rd dR sekaL y ta O Hunte Pkwy tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Broadway H St L StPalomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 LEGEND City Boundary Sewer Trunks Pump Stations County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. Figure 8-2 Page PFS-8 Proposed G.P. Amendment Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater Collection AREA OF CHANGE Proposed E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Otay Lakes Rd La Medi a Rd dR sekaL y ta O Hunte Pkwy tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Broadway H St L StPalomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 LEGEND City Boundary Sewer Trunks Pump Stations County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. Figure 8-2 Page PFS-8 Proposed G.P. Amendment Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater Collection Main St Hunte Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy Otay Valley Rd Main St Page PFS-10 Drainage Improvements Figure 8-3 Adopted 54 125 805 5 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Rd Otay Lakes Rd Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H StL StPalomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE d R ch Bir SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR Page PFS-10 Drainage Improvements Figure 8-3 NORTH N.T.S. LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary Drainage Basins Drainage Channels 1 9 11 5 4 2 8 13 10 7 12 6 14 1 3 AREA OF CHANGE Proposed Hunte Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy Main St Main St E St Fourth Av Third AvSecond AvFirst Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Bonita Rd Otay Lakes Rd Rd dR sekaL y ta O Hunte Pkwy tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Fifth AvBroadway Hilltop Dr Av Av H St L StNaples St Palomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 LEGEND City Boundary Evacuation Route -Freeways Evacuation Route -City Streets County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. La Media Oleander Melrose Heritage Rd Emergency Evacuation Routes Figure 8-5 Page PFS-19 Adopted E St Fourth Av Third AvSecond AvFirst Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Bonita Rd Otay Lakes Rd Rd dR sekaL y ta O Hunte Pkwy tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Fifth AvBroadway Hilltop Dr Av Av H St L StNaples St Palomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 LEGEND City Boundary Evacuation Route -Freeways Evacuation Route -City Streets County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. La Media Oleander Melrose Heritage Rd Emergency Evacuation Routes Figure 8-5 Page PFS-19 AREA OF CHANGE Proposed SWEETWATER RESERVOIR LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. E St D StC St F St G StH StJ StK SttS L Moss St Naples St Oxford St Main St Anita St Palomar St Hilltop Dr East H St Otay Lakes Rd T d e R le on gra any ph C tS ramolaP tsaE ywkP ic p Olym First Av Second Av Third Av Fourth AvFifth Av Broadway SAN DIEGO BAY A A A A E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E H H H H H H H H H H H H M M M M M M M M MM M SOUTHWESTERN CHULA VISTA HILLS BONITA VISTA TIFFANY McMILLIN HERITAGE RANCHO DEL REY HEDENKAMP OTAY RANCH JOSEPH CASILLAS HILLTOP HILLTOPHILLTOP HALECREST COOK KELLOGG GREG ROGERS PARK VIEW VALLE LINDO ROHR LOMA VERDE CASTLE PARK PALOMAR CASTLE PARK CASTLE PARK LAUDERBACH PALOMAR HARBORSIDE CHULA VISTA VISTA SQUARE FEASTER EDISON CHULA VISTA CHARTERCHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA RICE MUELLER ROSEBANK NATIONAL CITY SWEETWATER NATIONAL CITY GRANGER MONTGOMERY MAR VISTA LOS ALTOS FINNEY JUAREZ-LINCOLN SILVER WING MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY SAN YSIDRO IMPERIAL BEACH SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST MAR VISTA OTAY EASTLAKE OLYMPIC VIEW ARROYO VISTA SALT CREEK (Under Construction) EASTLAKE THURGOOD MARSHALL LIBERTY (Under Construction) EASTLAKE SUNNYSIDE BONITA VISTA DISCOVERY CLEARVIEW VALLEY VISTA ALLEN CC (FUTURE) U.S.A. INTERNATIONAL BORDER905 54 805 5 LEGENDCity of Chula Vista Boundary Other Cities Boundary Elementary School District Boundary High School District Boundary Water Bodies AEHMCC CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH CITY OF NATIONAL CITY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 125 Elementary School Middle School High School Adult School Community College Heritage Rd kes a L R y ta d O Hunte Pkwy Proctor Valley Rd Bonita Rd Existing Primary and Secondary Schools Serving Chula Vista Figure 8-6 Page PFS-25 Adopted SWEETWATER RESERVOIR LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. E St D StC St F St G StH StJ StK SttS L Moss St Naples St Oxford St Main St Anita St Palomar St Hilltop Dr East H St Otay Lakes Rd T d e R le on gra any ph C tS ramolaP tsaE ywkP ic p Olym First Av Second Av Third Av Fourth AvFifth Av Broadway SAN DIEGO BAY A A A A E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E H H H H H H H H H H H H M M M M M M M M MM M SOUTHWESTERN CHULA VISTA HILLS BONITA VISTA TIFFANY McMILLIN HERITAGE RANCHO DEL REY HEDENKAMP OTAY RANCH JOSEPH CASILLAS HILLTOP HILLTOPHILLTOP HALECREST COOK KELLOGG GREG ROGERS PARK VIEW VALLE LINDO ROHR LOMA VERDE CASTLE PARK PALOMAR CASTLE PARK CASTLE PARK LAUDERBACH PALOMAR HARBORSIDE CHULA VISTA VISTA SQUARE FEASTER EDISON CHULA VISTA CHARTERCHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA RICE MUELLER ROSEBANK NATIONAL CITY SWEETWATER NATIONAL CITY GRANGER MONTGOMERY MAR VISTA LOS ALTOS FINNEY JUAREZ-LINCOLN SILVER WING MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY SAN YSIDRO IMPERIAL BEACH SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST MAR VISTA OTAY EASTLAKE OLYMPIC VIEW ARROYO VISTA SALT CREEK (Under Construction) EASTLAKE THURGOOD MARSHALL LIBERTY (Under Construction) EASTLAKE SUNNYSIDE BONITA VISTA DISCOVERY CLEARVIEW VALLEY VISTA ALLEN CC (FUTURE) U.S.A. INTERNATIONAL BORDER905 54 805 5 LEGEND City of Chula Vista Boundary Other Cities Boundary Elementary School District Boundary High School District Boundary Water Bodies AEHMCC CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH CITY OF NATIONAL CITY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 125 Elementary School Middle School High School Adult School Community College Heritage Rd kes a L R y ta d O Hunte Pkwy Proctor Valley Rd Bonita Rd Existing Primary and Secondary Schools Serving Chula Vista Figure 8-6 Page PFS-25 AREA OF CHANGE Proposed E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Otay Lakes Rd La Media Rd dR sekaL y ta O tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Fifth Av Broadway H St L StPalomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 LEGEND City Boundary Existing Library Proposed Library County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. L L L L L L L L Existing and Proposed Libraries Figure 8-7 Page PFS-31 Adopted E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Otay Lakes Rd La Media Rd dR sekaL y ta O tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Fifth Av Broadway H St L StPalomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 LEGEND City Boundary Existing Library Proposed Library County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. L L L L L L L L Existing and Proposed Libraries Figure 8-7 Page PFS-31 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE County of San Diego LEGENDCity Boundary Sweetwater Regional Park Boundary Otay Lake County Park Boundary OVRP Concept Plan Boundary Community Park Future Community Park Potential Community Park Neighborhood Park Future Neighborhood Park Potential Neighborhood Park Recreational Complex Future Recreational Complex Community Center Future Community Center Mini Park OVRP Potential Recreational Areas NORTH N.T.S. 125 5 805 54 E StD StC St 4 2 3 6 812 11 7 109 5 F StG St H StJ StK St L StMoss StNaples StOxford StPalomar St Hilltop Dr East H St tS ramolaP tsaE nita dR oB ywkP cipmylO La Media Rd Paseo Ranchero Heritage Rd Hunte Pkwy Otay Lakes Rd Rd sekaL yatO Te d l R e g n raph Canyo First AvSecond AvThird AvFourth Av Fifth AvBroadway 1 14 13 15 16 1917 18 21 20 26 22 30 33 34 59 47 44 39 46 38 35 54 55 7572 73 74 77 71 58 56 57 79 80 81 82 87 86 78 76 84 83 85 45 40 42 41 43 53 52 51 48 49 6465 62 68 67 70 63 66 50 61 60 69 32 31 29 27, 28 23 2425 36 37 SAN DIEGO BAY Special Purpose Park Existing and Proposed Public Parks and Recreation Facilities Figure 8-9 Page PFS-37 Adopted SWEETWATER RESERVOIR LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE County of San Diego LEGEND City Boundary Sweetwater Regional Park Boundary Otay Lake County Park Boundary OVRP Concept Plan Boundary Community Park Future Community Park Potential Community Park Neighborhood Park Future Neighborhood Park Potential Neighborhood Park Recreational Complex Future Recreational Complex Community Center Future Community Center Mini Park OVRP Potential Recreational Areas NORTH N.T.S. 125 5 805 54 E StD StC St 4 2 3 6 812 11 7 109 5 F StG St H StJ StK St L StMoss StNaples StOxford StPalomar St Hilltop Dr East H St tS ramolaP tsaE nita dR oB ywkP cipmylO La Media Rd Paseo Ranchero Heritage Rd Hunte Pkwy Otay Lakes Rd Rd sekaL yatO Te d l R e g n raph Canyo First AvSecond AvThird AvFourth Av Fifth AvBroadway 1 14 13 15 16 1917 18 21 20 26 22 30 33 34 59 47 44 39 46 38 35 54 55 7572 73 74 77 71 58 56 57 79 80 81 82 87 86 78 76 84 83 85 45 40 42 41 43 53 52 51 48 49 6465 62 68 67 70 63 66 50 61 60 69 32 31 29 27, 28 23 2425 36 37 SAN DIEGO BAY Special Purpose Park Existing and Proposed Public Parks and Recreation Facilities Figure 8-9 Page PFS-37 AREA OF CHANGE Proposed E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Otay Lakes Rd La Media Rd dR sekaL y ta O Hunte Pkwy tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Fifth Av Broadway H St L StPalomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 LEGEND City Boundary Landfill -County of San Diego LANDFILL County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. Solid Waste Facility Figure 8-10 Page PFS-59 Adopted E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av dR noynaC hp ra Teleg East H St Otay Lakes Rd La Media Rd dR sekaL y ta O Hunte Pkwy tS ramolaP E ywkP cip Ol my Fifth Av Broadway H St L StPalomar St Main St Orange Av 5 805 SAN DIEGO BAY LOWER OTAY LAKE UPPER OTAY LAKE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR 54 LEGEND City Boundary Landfill -County of San Diego LANDFILL County of San Diego NORTH N.T.S. Solid Waste Facility Page PFS-59 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Figure 8-1011 AREA OF CHANGE Meeting the future energy needs of Chula Vista and the region will require an integrated approach, including: increased development of, and reliance, on renewable energy sources; decreased dependence on non-renewable energy sources; and the expansion and promotion of energy conservation programs and measures. The development of renewable sources of energy within Chula Vista and the region will facilitate the ability to meet energy needs in an environmentally sensitive manner and reduce dependency upon imported energy. Promote energy conservation through the efficient use of energy and through the development of local, non-fossil fuel-based renewable sources of energy. Policies E 7.1 Promote development of regulations and building design standards that maximize energy efficiency through appropriate site and building design and through the use of energy-efficient materials, equipment, and appliances. E 7.2 Encourage and support the local research, development, generation, and use of non-fossil, fuel-based renewable sources of energy, including wind and solar resources, that meet local energy needs in an environmentally sensitive manner and reduce dependence on imported energy. E 7.3 Develop and provide pertinent information about the benefits of energy conservation and available energy conservation incentive programs to all segments of the community. E 7.4 Pursue and encourage the expansion of local energy conservation, energy efficiency, and related incentive programs. E 7.5 Pursue 40% City-wide electricity supply from clean, renewable resources by 2017. E.7.6 Encourage the construction and operation of green buildings, considering such TM programs as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ) Green Building Rating System. E 7.7 Support tree planting programs that will be implemented to reduce energy needs. Objective -E 7 City of Chula Vista General Plan Page E-35 ENVIRONMENTAL CHAPTER 9 E 7.8 Ensure that residential and non-residential construction complies with all applicable City of Chula Vista energy efficiency measures and other green building measures that are in effect at the time of discretionary permit review and approval or building permit issuance, whichever is applicable. 3.1.8 Promoting Solid Waste Reduction Strategies While the Public Facilities and Services Element addresses current and future solid waste disposal facility needs, this section of the Environmental Element addresses recycling and waste reduction efforts. Recycling and solid waste reduction programs have been in place in Chula Vista since 1990 to meet the State goal of diverting or reducing 50 percent of the solid waste generated by all residential, commercial, and industrial uses. A City-wide residential curbside collection program for recyclable items has been in place since 1991. The preparation of a solid waste management plan is required as part of the permit approval process for new development and redevelopment projects; the plan must address the pre-construction, construction, and operational phases of the project. As a result of these efforts, Chula Vista has reduced or diverted more than 50 percent of the solid waste generated within the City, thereby achieving the State goal. Chula Vista's household hazardous waste (HHW) program, designed to provide a means to safely collect; recycle; treat; and dispose of HHW, was implemented in 1997. HHW collected at the City's facility is sent to various locations throughout the United States for treatment and/or recycling. Section 3.4.2 of this element, Managing Household Hazardous Waste, further addresses the management of HHW. Public education and awareness programs, including programs for school-age children, support the recycling program and contribute to high participation rates. In addition to recycling, Chula Vista's solid waste management strategies include source reduction and composting. The City is working towards the goal of establishing a permanent compost site at the Otay Landfill. The current and future demand for solid waste disposal requires Chula Vista to take an aggressive approach to source reduction. Continued efforts to educate the public about recycling, proper disposal of household hazardous waste, and composting will be critical to meeting the future solid waste disposal needs of the General Plan area. Chula Vista has reduced or diverted more than 50 percent of the solid waste generated within the City. Chula Vista Vision 2020 Page E-36 City of Chula Vista General Plan ENVIRONMENTAL CHAPTER 9 Adopted Figure 9-10 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd d R ch Bir tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE COUNTY of SAN DIEGO UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 805 125 5 Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR General Areas Map NORTH N.T.S. LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary General Area Page E-66 Proposed G.P. Amendment Proposed AREA OF CHANGE Figure 9-10 E St Fourth Av Third Av Second Av First Av Hilltop Dr East H St Heritage Rd d R ch Bir tS ramolaP tsaE La Media Otay Hunte Pkwy ywkP Oly ic mp Telegraph d C n R anyo Fifth Av Broadway H St Palomar St Main St LOWER OTAY LAKE COUNTY of SAN DIEGO UPPER OTAY LAKE 54 805 125 5 Lakes Rd Rd SAN DIEGO BAY SWEETWATER RESERVOIR General Areas Map NORTH N.T.S. LEGEND General Plan Boundary City Boundary General Area Page E-66 Proposed G.P. Amendment Main St Hunte PkwyEastlake Pkwy Otay Valley Rd Main St Adopted Projected 2030 Noise Contour Map Figure 9-12 Page E-73 Projected 2030 Noise Contour Map Figure 9-12 Page E-73 Proposed AREA OF CHANGE LA MEDIA RD. HERITAGE RD. SR-125 MAIN STREET EASTLAKE PKWY. HUNTE PKWY. SR-125 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO 2005 424 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CITY S COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAND USE MAP AND LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PROVISIONS FOR THE DOWNTOWN THIRD AVENUE DISTRICT SECTION 9 5 1 THE H STREET CORRIDOR DISTRICT AND ITS FOCUS AREAS SECTIONS 9 5 2 9 53 AND 9 54 A PORTION OF THE MAIN STREET DISTRICT AND RELATED LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICIES LUT 415 45 2 AND 435 AND THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS FOR VILLAGES 8 9 AND 10 OF THE OTAY RANCH AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES REPEALING THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN AND AMENDING THE CITY S MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM SUBAREA PLAN WHEREAS the City of Chula Vista s current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in July 1989 with a partial update conducted in conjunction with adoption of the Otay Ranch project in 1993 and WHEREAS pursuant to State law the City has undertaken a periodic comprehensive review to update its General Plan looking out to the year 2030 and WHEREAS the current Housing Element of the General Plan is subject to 5 year periodic updates under separate provisions of State law and is therefore not affected by this comprehensive General Plan Update and will remain in its current form until its next update under applicable State law andWHEREAS the comprehensive General Plan Update GPU project was initiated with a public Town Hall Meeting in April 2002 and WHEREAS the City and its consultants worked over the next three years in the conduct of an extensive four phased public outreach and input process to gather information needed to prepare the GPU and to share with and receive feedback ITom the public on various interim work products and the proposed draft GPU and WHEREAS that public outreach and input process involved five other Town Hall meetings and four ad hoc committees with over 50 citizen members holding over 70 meetings that included a Steering Committee Economic Development Subcommittee Public Facilities Services Subcommittee and Environment Open Space Sustainable Development Subcommittee and Resolution No 2005 424 Page 2 WHEREAS as part of this three year process staff and the consultants also met with the Planning Commission andor City Council on 9 occasions to provide updates and present interim work products and to receive preliminary input and direction regarding policy issues and the land use and transportation scenarios to be evaluated and WHEREAS the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution contain all lands within the boundaries of the City s General Plan Area as diagrammatically depicted on the General Plan Land Use Diagram presented as Figure 5 2 of the proposed Land Use and Transportation E ement except the Downtown Third Ave District and the H Street Corridor District as shown on Figures 5 27 and 5 28 respectively ofthe proposed Land Use and Transportation Element and WHEREAS within that overall General Plan Area the substantive amendments to land use and transportation are associated with particular focus areas within the Northwest Southwest and East Planning Areas as as presented in the proposed General Plan document and include both amendments proposed by the City as well as those proposed in the East Planning Area through private General Plan Amendment GPA applications filed with the Planning and Building Department of the City ofChula Vista by the Otay Ranch Company 01 01 and 03 01 Otay Land Company 03 04 and F at Rock Land Company 03 08 and WHEREAS in conjunction with adoption of the City s MSCP Subarea Plan on May 13 2003 it was noted that a mapping correction was needed to change approximately 45 acres of active recreation land uses within the Otay River Valley to Preserve designation and WHEREAS the City adopted the Montgomery Specific Plan in 1988 pursuant to Resolutions No 13413 and 13780 which was a policy plan and did not contain any separate ordained zoning regulations for the area and WHEREAS the proposed GPU Land Use and Transportation E ement now contains a Southwest Area Plan that incorporates the remaining relevant policy provisions from the Montgomery Specific Plan and calls for the preparation of several more ocalized Specific Plans within the Area and WHEREAS in December 2004 the City originally released the proposed GPU for public review and WHEREAS the City has referred the proposed GPU to all necessary entities required by the State Planning and Zoning Law Government Code section 65000 et seq and WHEREAS pursuant to California Government Code section 65302 5 the City transmitted the Draft GPU and supporting technical documents to the Office of the State Geologist in the Department of Conservation State Geo ogical Survey the current name of the Division of Mines and Geology Division on January 8 2005 for review and comment The submittal also included an explanation of how various parts of the Draft GPU addressed safety element and related requirements Tbe Division provided informal verbal comments to staff by phone on January 25 2005 that characterized the GPU as having excellent policies and as one of the better documents reviewed No written comments comments werereceived and Resolution No 2005 424 Page 3 WHEREAS pursuant to the requirements of California Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 21679 5 the City submitted the GPU to tbe San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Authority for a determination of consistency with the Brown Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ALUCP As documented in a May 5 2005 letter from the Authority to the City tbe Autbority determined that tbe proposed GPU is consistent with tbe current ALUCP and WHEREAS as a result of tbe substantial public comments received during the review of the GPU the City determined in March 2005 that it would pause the GPU process to consider the comments and entertain revisions to the Plan in response and WHEREAS in September 2005 the City released a revised set of GPU documents and a re circulated Draft ErR for a second public review and WHEREAS pursuant to California Govemment Code section 65090 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the GPU on December 8 2005 and recommended that the City City Council adopt the Resolutions approving the GPUand its related actions and WHEREAS the proceedings and all evidence introduce before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on December 8 2005 and the minutes and resolution resulting there from are hereby incorporated into the record ofthese proceedings and WHEREAS the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the GPU and notices of said hearings together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the hearing pursuant to California Government Code section 65090 and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 13 2005 on the subject GPU and WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Chula Vista reviewed analyzed considered approved and certified a Final ErR made certain Findings of Fact adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the GPU pursuant to CEQA by Resolution Resolution No 2005 423 and WHEREAS subsequent to the September 2005 release of the revised General Plan Update owners of real property within the Otay Ranch portion of the East Planning Area have proposed changes to the Preferred Plan which are substantial in nature and could facilitate the acquisition of land for future University uses in Eastern Chula Vista and WHEREAS in order to provide sufficient time to explore the feasibility of the proposed land use changes with regard to sound planning principles and to evaluate the proposal s consistency with the goals and objectives of the General Plan Update it is necessary to defer consideration ofland use designations and certain polices and objectives pertaining to Villages 8 9 and 10 ofthe Otay Ranch Resolution No 2005 424 Page 4 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds detennines and resolves as follows 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on December 8 2005 and the minutes and resolutions resulting there from are hereby incorporated into the record ofthis proceeding II GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY The City Council hereby finds that the General Plan as amended is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following the adoption of amendments by this Resolution III COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNINGAND ZONING LAW The City Council hereby finds that the General Plan Update as approved in this Resolution complies with all applicable requirements ofthe State Planning and Zoning Law In particular the GPU s proposed Element structure includes the content requirements for all seven mandatory elements pursuant to Government Code section 65302 as shown below Mandated Element Land Use Circulation Housing Conservation Open Space Noise Safety Chula Vista GPU Element Land Use Transportation Land Use Transportation Housing Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental IV APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AMENDMENT The City Council hereby approves and adopts the General Plan Update and the amendment to the Chula VistaMSCP Subarea Plan which consists of the following documents included in the record ofproceedings and on file in the City Clerk s Office I The September 2005 re released Draft General Plan and General Plan Diagram referenced as Document I of2 excepting the following a those portions of the Plan and Diagram pertaining to the Downtown Third Avenue District GPU Section 9 5 1 b the H Street Corridor District and its Focus Areas GPU Sections 9 5 2 9 5 3 and 9 54 Resolution No 2005 424 Page 5 c portions of the Main Street District bounded by Main Street on the north Beyer Blvd on the east the City limits on the south and Broadway on the west and related land use and transportation element policies LUT 415 45 2 and 45 3 and d all provisions of the General Plan Update that relate specifically to Villages 8 9 and U1nive0rsity area within Otay Ranch are deferred for consideration for a period of no more than 120 days from the effective date of this resolution The provisions of the General Plan Update related to Villages 8 9 and U1nive0rsity hereby deferred for consideration include the following I those portions of Land Use Diagram Figure 5 12 covering Villages 8 9 and UlnOiversity except for the circulation system roadways 2 Table 5 4 as it applies only to the Regional Technology Park and Town Centers 3 Figure 5 9 as it applies to Activity Centers 11 and 15 4 Tables 5 6 and 5 7 as they apply to Town Centers and the Regional Technology Park 5 LUT Policy 54 and 17 3 as they apply to Town Centers 6 Section 140 6 last paragraph under Vision for Subarea 7 Objective 72 and Policies LUT 72 1 through 742 as they apply to Town Centers 8 Section 10 5 2 last sentence Vision for District 9 Objective 81 as it applies to Village 8 10 Policies 815 816 and 819 as they apply to Town Centers and the Regional Technology Park 11 LUT section 10 54 Objectives 84 through 86 and their related policies and Figures 5 45 and 5 46 except for those provisions objectives and policies on pages LUT 258 through LUT 264 that apply to the Eastern Urban Center and the Freeway Commercial area 12 LUT sections 1505 10 5 6 and 10 5 7 in their entirety 2 The September 2005 Draft General Plan Proposed Edits referenced as Document 2 of 2 excepting any edits pertaining to the Downtown Third Avenue District GPU Section 9 5 1 the H Street Corridor District and its Focus Areas GPU Sections 9 5 2 9 53 and 9 54 and the provisions regarding Villages 8 9 and lO University as identified in section V l d of this resolution above 3 The further edits regarding Transit Focus Areas as presented in Attachment 1 to the December 13 2005 staff report excepting any edits pertaining specifically to the TFA at H Street Third Avenue Resolution No 2005 424 Page 6 4 Staffs supported land use alternatives and related General Plan Update text and map erratas for the Freeway Commercial and Gun Club areas as presented in Attachments 3A 3B to the December 13 2005 staff report 5 The miscellaneous additional GPU corrections as presented in Attachment 5 to the December 13 2005 staff report 6 The proposed land use alternatives and text revisions for the South Broadway and South Third Avenue areas as presented in Attachment 7A and 7B to the December 13 2005 staff report 7 The MSCP Subarea Plan mapping amendment as presented in Attachment II to the December 13 2005 staff report V OTAY RANCH COMPANY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS GPA 01 01 and GPA 03 10 A The approved GPU land use and circulation provisions resulting ITom the City s consideration of General Plan Amendment applications GPA OI OI and GPA 03 10 reflect a variation from the Applicant s proposals as originally submitted within the Otay Ranch Village 2 2 West and Village 3 and the Freeway Commercial portion of Planning Area 12 areas generally as follows and as more specifically represented by the applicable provisions of the approved GPU documents listed in Section V above 1 For Village Two and Village Two West the industrial land use in the Otay Landfill buffer is maintained to provide a separation between the village residential uses and the Otay Landfill 2 For Village Two and Village Three along Wolf Canyon the open space boundary is maintained for consistency with the MSCP and Otay Ranch RMP Preserve 3 For the Freeway Commercial portion of Planning Area 12 the GPU maintains the Retail Commercial designation and denies that portion of the Applicant s request because a The demand for retail property will remain very strong and the change to mixed use residential will reduce the inventory ofavailable land needed retail commercial uses b The property is situated in an area already planned to provide retail commercial services Resolution No 2005 424 Page 7 c Its location surrounded by arterial roadways makes the property highly conducive to retail development while reducing its viability as alivable residential community d Residential development of this site would be isolated from many necessary residential services and amenities and other residential communities and substantial residential capacity is already provided in other better suited areas of Otay Ranch VI REPEALING OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN The Montgomery Specific Plan is hereby repealed upon the effective date of the General Plan Update BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is directed to prepare a GPU Implementation Program consistent with Chapter 11 of the updated General Plan and return to Council within 120 days ofthe effective date of this Resolution BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the existing General Plan with the exception of the Housing Element and the land use designations and applicable policies and provisions specifically related to Villages 8 9 and 10 are hereby superceded and repealed upon the effective date ofthe General Plan Update Presented by Approved as to form by es D Sandova ing and Building Director v r Ann Moore City Attorney Resolution No 2005 424 Page 8 PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED by tbe City Council of the City of Chula Vista California tbis 13th day ofDecernber 2005 by tbe following vote AYES Councilmembers Castaneda McCann Rindone and Padilla NAYS Councilmembers None ABSENT Councilmernbers None ATTESTUL In Susan Bigelow MMC Cit lerk J STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA I Susan Bigelow City Clerk of Chula Vista California do hereby certify tbat the foregoing Resolution No 2005 424 was duly passed approved and adopted by tbe City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 13th day of December 2005 Executed this 13tb day of December 2005 IJ L Susan Bigelow MMC City erk General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) Otay Ranch, Village Eight West and Village Nine September 2012 DRAFT Project Sponsor/Applicant: Otay Land Company, LLC 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92008-6528 (760) 918-8200 Contact: Jeff O’Connor Prepared By: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 495 San Ramon, CA 94583-5186 (925) 463-1700 Contact: Johanna Crooker This Page Intentionally Left Blank General Development Plan Amendment, Village Eight West & Village Nine, September 2012 i I. Introduction As part of the proposed Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans for Otay Land Company’s Village Eight West and Village Nine, the following document includes proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to ensure consistency between the General Plan, the General Development Plan and the SPA documents. The majority of proposed amendments to the GDP are updates to various land use exhibits and land use summary tables to reflect the proposed land use plans within the affected villages of Otay Ranch. The affected villages include Village Eight West (formerly portions of Villages Four, Seven, and Eight) and Village Nine. It is important to note that at the time of this application other proposed general development plan amendments may be under review. Since the City has not formally adopted these plans, the following revisions do not necessarily reflect these changes. The only revisions proposed by this General Development Plan Amendment application are those that are directly related to Village Eight West, Village Nine, and those specifically requested by the City of Chula Vista. II. List of GDP Amendments The following table, Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project, includes a list of the proposed General Development Plan Amendments associated with the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans for Otay Land Company’s Village Eight West and Village Nine. Each amendment is identified by page number and section and is described under the “issues” column. Each amendment also includes a corresponding discussion of the resolution between staff and the applicant as well as the justification for the proposed change. General Development Plan Amendment, Village Eight West & Village Nine, September 2012 ii This Page Intentionally Left Blank Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 iii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes Global Update footnote to indicate date of current amendment (OLC) Formatting correction Global Correct page numbering sequence and format so they are sequential (OLC) Formatting correction Global Correct numbering of exhibits so they are sequential (OLC) Formatting correction II-6 5th Objective on Page Correct the subject-verb agreement of “integrate” (OLC) Grammatical correction II-6 6th Objective on Page Correct the subject-verb agreement of “encourages” (OLC) Grammatical correction II-8 2nd Objective on Page Correct spelling of “centers” (OLC) Grammatical correction II-8 Last Paragraph Delete “ARCO” (Staff) Name Correction II-9 First Paragraph a. Correct spelling of “characteristics” (OLC) b. And “1/4” to mile walk pedestrian shed (OLC) c. Revise text to allow stop or stations for transit (OLC) d. Correct capitalization of “in” (Staff) a. Grammatical correction b. Correct planning industry standards of walk radius c. Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements d. Grammatical correction II-9 Last Paragraph Add “unless otherwise permitted by City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or such other manner approved by City Council (Staff) Allow flexibility in the arrangement and number of units pursuant to the LOA II-10 L Add “density” to the description of Uses column (Staff) Consistency II-10 LM a. Add “density” to the symbol column (Staff) b. Add density range of 3-6 du/ac (Staff) a. Consistency b. Consistency II-10 LMV a. Add “density residential” to the symbol column (OLC) b. Update uses description to explain difference between LMV and LM (OLC) a. Consistency b. Clarification Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 iv PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-10 M a. Add “density” to the uses description (OLC) b. Add “…and considered singlefamily…with densities above 11 dwelling units…” (Staff) c. Add “Where small lot or cluster developments of single-family detached or attached units are proposed, recreational facilities (such as swim clubs, pedestrian parks, town squares, etc.) may be required within the neighborhood planning area as determined during the SPA planning process.” (Staff) Consistency II-11 MH Add “density residential” to the uses description (OLC) Consistency II-11 MU a. Refine description and add ”The residential land use density ranges that are permitted within the Mixed Use category correspond with the General Plan residential land use designations for the High (H) (18-27 du/ac) range and the Medium High (MH) (11-18 du/ac) range, so the appropriate Mixed Use residential densities are within the 11 –27du/ac range.” (Staff) b. Require zoning district at SPA level (staff) a. Consistency b. Consistency II-11 TC a. Add the category symbol (OLC) b. Revise text to allow stop or stations for transit and eliminate reference to BRT (OLC) c. Define density range as 18-45 (Staff) a. Consistency b. Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements c. Consistency II-12 EUC Add the category symbol (OLC) Consistency Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 v PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-12 FC Add the category symbol (OLC) Consistency II-12 RTP a. Add the category symbol (OLC) b. Correct improper capitalization of words (Staff) c. Add text to allow for development and administrative and office space associated with high tech uses (Staff) d. Correct spelling of “accommodates” (OLC) e. Change “nearby” to “adjacent” (Staff) a. Consistency b. Grammatical correction c. Allow compatible uses in RTP (OLC) d. Grammatical correction e. Clarification II-12 I a. Add the category symbol (OLC) b. Correct Planning Area name by deleting “a” a. Consistency b. Consistency II-12 P/QP Add the category symbol (OLC) Consistency II-12 CP/P Add the category symbol (OLC) Consistency II-12 U a. Add the category symbol (OLC) b. Correct spelling of “institutes” (OLC) a. Consistency b. Grammatical correction II-13 SRSA Correct the subject-verb agreement of “resource” (Staff) Grammatical correction II-14 Exhibit 18a: Overall Project Summary Table Update statistics (Staff) Reflect proposed and existing conditions Table provided by City II-16 & II-17 Exhibit 18b: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Land Use Plan Update land use (Staff) Reflect proposed and existing conditions Map Provided by City II-18 First Paragraph Update Total number of dwelling units and residents in Otay Ranch (Staff) Reflect proposed and existing conditions Numbers provided by City II-18 First Bullet Update number of villages from eleven to nine (Staff) Reflect existing conditions, proposed SPA Plans and LOA II-18 Second Bullet a. Remove number of lanes (OLC) b. Remove “Bus Rapid” (OLC) a. Current SR-125 is less than 10-lanes; ultimate number of lanes is still to be determined b. SANDAG clarification II-18 Third Bullet Correct spelling of “bicycle” (OLC) Grammatical correction Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 vi PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-18 Sixth Bullet Update description of University adjacencies (Staff) Reflect existing conditions, proposed SPA Plans and LOA II-18 Last Bullet Add “Otay Valley Parcel” (Staff) Clarification II-19 Exhibit 19 Update statistics (Staff) Reflect existing and proposed conditions Numbers provided by City II-20 & II-21 Exhibit 20 Update land (Staff) Reflect existing and proposed conditions Graphic provided by City II-22 First paragraph Change “to” to “is” (Staff) Grammatical correction II-22 Exhibit 21 Update Table (Staff) Reflect existing condition Numbers provided by City II-24 & II-25 Exhibit 22 Update land uses (Staff) Reflect existing condition Graphic provided by City II-26 First Paragraph Update number of dwelling units and residents (Staff) Reflect existing condition Numbers provided by City II-26 Fourth Bullet Update open space percentage (Staff) Reflect existing condition Number provided by City II-26 Exhibit 23 Update Table (Staff) Reflect existing condition Numbers provided by City II-28 & II-29 Exhibit 24 Update land uses (Staff) Reflect existing condition Graphic provided by City II-30 Components of the Land Use Plan Revise the list to include Regional Technology Park and Environmental Resources (Staff) Consistency II-30 Subsection a Revise title to include “Rural Estate Areas” (Staff) Consistency II-30 Last Bullet regarding Urban Villages a. Add “Town Centers” (OLC) b. Update description to include Villages Eight and Eleven (OLC) a. Reflect proposed V8 West a& V9 b. SPA Plans and LOA II-32 & II-33 Exhibit 25 a. Update land use to reflect OLC proposal (OLC) b. Update land uses to reflect changes to other villages (Staff) a. Reflect proposed V8 west & V9 SPA Plans and LOA b. Reflect existing condition Graphic provided by City II-35 c. Eastern Urban Center Update projected population (Staff) Reflect proposed proposed condition Number provided by Staff II-36 & II-37 Exhibit 26 Update land use to reflect proposed condition (Staff) Reflect proposed condition Graphic provided by City II-38 e. University Add RTP to the description (Staff) Compatibility with GPA II-38 f. First Paragraph Correct improper capitalization of word (Staff) Grammatical correction Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 vii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-40 & II-41 Exhibit 27 Update open space to reflect current condition (Staff) Reflect proposed condition Exhibit provided by City II-42 First Bullet Reduce size of Town Squares to “halfacre” size and allow location to be determined by SPA (Staff) Reflect proposed V8 West & V9 SPA Plans and LOA II-42 Second Bullet Correct spelling of “amenity” Grammatical correction II-42 Third Bullet Delete “19” and add “existing and future” (Staff) Consistency II-42 Fourth Bullet Correct minimum size of Community park to 25 acres Consistency Page II-220 list minimum size as 25 acres II-44 & II-45 Exhibit 28 a. Update Circulation to match Adopted General Plan Circulation (OLC) b. Update Circulation to eliminate La Media crossing the Otay River Valley (OLC) c. Revise Main St call out to Hunte Parkway (Staff) d. Update Village Numbers a. Reflect existing condition b. Reflect proposed V8 West & V9 SPA Plans and LOA c. Reflect correct condition II-46 Second and Third Paragraphs a. Correct paragraph break (OLC) b. Correct Capitalization of Village Core (OLC) c. Delete last sentence (staff) a. Grammatical correction b. Consistency c. Consistency II-46 Third Paragraph Add “Town Center” land use (OLC) Consistency with land use maps II-46 Fourth Paragraph a. Correct improper capitalization of words (Staff) b. Revise text to allow stop or stations for transit and eliminate reference to BRT (OLC) c. Add description of the organization of uses around a couplet in the Town Center land uses (OLC) d. Add “spindle or grid” (Staff) a. Grammatical correction b. Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements c. Clarification d. Provide flexibility in town center definition II-46 Sixth Paragraph Clarify punctuation and grammar (Staff) Grammatical correction Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 viii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-47 Exhibit 29 and New Exhibit 29b a. Renumber and rename Exhibit 29 to Exhibit 29a: Village Core Concept (OLC) b. Correct “Mixed-Use c. Add new exhibit (29b) illustrating the Town Center Concept (OLC) a. Clarification b. Grammatical Correction c. Clarification 11-49 Bullets Correct Capitalization Grammatical correction II-50 First Bullet Delete Town Center as an area requiring greenbelts along arterial roadways (OLC) Town Centers are intended to be urban centers that bring arterial traffic through the heart of the Town Center, ensuring a vibrant and active commercial center. The arterial frontage occurs on an urban couplet that provides for the safe movement of traffic through the area. Arterial street frontages within the Town Center are intended to consist of storefronts, offices, and high density residential uses with minimal setback from the sidewalk. Greenbelts would contradict this design intention. II-50 b. Village Core/Town Center Policies Replace reference of High density residential with the Town Center land use designation (OLC) Consistency with General Plan and Land Use Map II-50 b. Village Core/Town Center Policies – First bullet Update the description of the Town Center (OLC) Clarification and consistency with General Plan and Land Use Map II-51 Second Bullet a. Correct spelling of “system” (OLC) b. Correct improper capitalization of words (Staff) a. Grammatical Correction b. Grammatical Correction Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 ix PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-51 Fourth bullet Add “unless otherwise permitted by City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or such other manner approved by City Council” Delete “as amended in a separate agreement” (OLC) The Otay Land Company Land Offer Agreement (LOA) establishes the amount of community purpose faculties required for the project.The CPF requirement is satisfied by the university dedication as well as additional acreage in each Village. The acreage is in conformance with CVMC. II-53 c. Village/Town Center -Mixed Use Policies Revise text to include the Town Center land use category (OLC) Consistency with General Plan and Land Use Map II-53 Exhibit 35 Renumber to 35a and rename to “Village Core Concept (Illustrative Only)” (OLC) Formatting and Clarification II-54 New Exhibit, Exhibit 35b 35b Add graphic illustrating the Town Center Concept (OLC) Clarification II-54 First bullet Allow mixed use on Town Center Arterials (OLC) To activate the Town Center street scene and promote viable, pedestrian oriented commercial uses. II-54 First sub bullet – Retail/Office Use Modify text to allow uses to front onto circulation road elements within Town Centers (OLC) To activate the Town Center Street Scene and promote viable, pedestrian oriented commercial uses. II-54 Second sub bullet – Elementary Schools Delete “Elementary” to allow any type of school to be located in a mixed use area (OLC) Provides more flexibility in the event that land use and physical constraints prevent an elementary school to be located in the location specified in the GDP, i.e. proximity to Highway 125, the San Diego Reservoir, etc. Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 x PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-55 First bullet and Fourth through sixth bullet Add “Town Center” (OLC) Clarification; Mixed uses, transit, public spaces, and urban landscaping will occur in Town Center areas as well II-55 through 56 d. Village Core/Town Center – Residential Policies Add “Town Center” and applicable descriptions and revise text to better describe the uses within the town center designation (OLC) Clarification; Residential uses in the Town Center will be mixed use and are defined by the TC land use designation. II-56 through II-57 e. Secondary Areas Policies – Second Bullet & f. Transit Policies Revise text to allow stop or stations for transit and eliminate reference to BRT (OLC) Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements II-57 First bullet Add Village Eight to the list of villages with transit (OLC) General Plan and SPA Consistency II-57 Second Bullet Correct the spelling of “transit, and add “be” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-57 Third Bullet Change “EUC” to “Freeway Commercial” (Staff) Change “Freeway Commercial” back to “EUC” (Staff) To reflect actual condition II-57 Tenth bullet a. Remove the dimension of the transit right-of-way (OLC) b. Change “approximately located” to “identified” (Staff) a. Allows width to be determined at SPA level b. Preferred wording The decision to eliminate the 25 or 22 foot dimension was questioned by Staff. It was left “to be identified at the SPA level” II-57 Eleventh (last) Bullet Change requirement to set transit alignments from final maps and improvement plans to tentative maps (Staff) Preferred trigger point II-58 g. Village/Town Center Street System Policies Revise language to bring multiple modes of traffic into the town center in a safe and efficient way (OLC) Clarification II-58 Village Entry Streets Correct capitalization of Shade and repeated words ““should be” (Staff) Grammatical correction II-58 Residential Street Delete reference to single family (OLC) Allows these streets to occur in multi-family and single-family residential neighborhoods Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xi PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-59 Third Bullet Add “couplets” to the methods of reducing traffic within villages (OLC) Clarification II-59 Fifth Bullet Except town centers from areas that prohibit through traffic (OLC) The design of the Town Center is intended to bring arterial traffic into the area, thereby promoting the viability of the commercial uses within. II-59 Ninth Bullet Correct graphic symbol. Correct spelling and grammar (Staff) Clarification II-60 Sixth Bullet Revise to allow parking on the same side of the street as parks (OLC) Important to maximize on-street parking within the Town Center to reduce the need for surface lots and parking garages II-60 Seventh Bullet Delete requirement that parking agreements be approved at the time of SPA approval (OLC) Shared parking agreements will need to be based upon the parking requirements for specific uses, i.e. restaurants, retail, etc., and these will not be known at the time of SPA approval. II-60 Exhibit 37 Renumber to 37a (OLC) Format Consistency II-61 Exhibit Number to 37b (OLC) Format Consistency II-61 i. first paragraph Correct spelling of “facilities” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-61 2. Industrial, First paragraph Change “village” to “villages” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-62 Thirteenth Bullet Correct spelling of “industrial” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-64 to II-74 University and Regional Technology Park Update text and add exhibit 37c Strategic Framework Plan to better describe the University and RTP, including the new Framework Policies and the associated SPA conformance requirements (staff) University/RTP/V9 Policy Plan text language supplied by City II-75 b. Change “ma” to “may” and Correct capitalization of “That” (Staff) Grammatical Correction Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-76 a. SPA Requirements Fifth Bullet Revise language to read “Development standards and detailed design guidelines for each of the Zones identified on the SPA Regulating Plan” (Staff) Clarification Staff requested the following language: Development standards and detailed design guidelines, including typical building elevations for each type of structure, typical floor plans, structure, location, permitted uses, lot coverage height and bulk requirements; OLC agreed to include as part of the Master Precise Plan requirements (See next bullet) II-77 SPA Requirements Sixth Bullet Relocate language from Page II-71 regarding Village Core Concept: Design Guidelines. Prior to the development of any project located within a village core or town center, a Village Core or Town Center Master Precise Plan for EUC, TC and MU land use designations (Staff) Clarification Revise based on approved implementation text II-79 A Signage Program for… Correct improper capitalization of words (Staff) Grammatical Correction II-79 Village Core Concept Move to Page II-68. Modify reference from “design guidelines” to “master precise Plan”. Require MPP after SPA approval but before final maps (Staff) Clarification II-79 Other Planning Area Requirements Add periods (Staff) Grammatical Correction II-80 Implementation mechanism 4th bullet Revise language to read “…unless otherwise permitted by the City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or such other manner approved by the City Council” (Staff) Allow flexibility in the arrangement and number of units pursuant to the LOA Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xiii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-81 b. Design Calculation Revise to read “Density Calculation” Grammatical Correction II-81 e. Density Transfer Changed numbering to c Grammatical Correction II-81 Density Transfer, First Bullet Revise language to read “ Dwelling units …unless otherwise permitted by the City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or such other manner approved by the City Council” (Staff) Allow flexibility in the arrangement and number of units pursuant to the LOA II-81 Density Transfer, Second Bullet Revise language to read “ …village shall not be exceeded…unless otherwise permitted by City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or such other manner approved by City Council” (Staff) Allow flexibility in the arrangement and number of units pursuant to the LOA II-81 Footnote 2 Add additional language that reads “ While there are no density ranges provided in the Land Use Tables for each Village and Planning Area, Exhibit 17, Otay Ranch Land Use Designations Table provides a density range for most types of residential land use categories as an aid in defining an appropriate intensity for each category” (Staff) Clarification II-84 Exhibit 38 a. Update population statistic (Staff) b. Update Table (Staff) Consistency Table provided by City II-88 & II-89 Exhibit 39 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Consistency Exhibit provided by City II-91 First paragraph Update acreage to match revised table (Staff) Consistency Number provided by City II-92 Third bullet Correct population to match revised table (Staff) Consistency Number provided by City II-93 Exhibit 40 Update Table (Staff) Consistency Table provided by City Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xiv PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-96 & II-97 Exhibit 41 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Consistency Exhibit provided by City II-99 Last two lines Update population to match revised table Add bullets (Staff) Formatting Table provided by City II-100 Exhibit 42 Update Table (Staff) Consistency Table provided by City II-102 & II-103 Exhibit 43 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Consistency Exhibit provided by City II-106 Exhibit 44 Update Table (staff) Consistency Table provided by City II-107 Parks and Open Space Policies Revise language to read “In order to provide for the standard neighborhood park size in the village, a seven-acre neighborhood park is planned. Additionally, 55.8 acres of community park land is planned in Village Four to accommodate the aggregated offsite park obligation related to residential development located in Villages One, Two, Five, Six, Seven, and Eleven. This The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of community park the Village Four community park. . ” (Staff) Consistency II-110 & II-111 Exhibit 45 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Consistency Exhibit provided by City II-114 Exhibit 46 Update Table (Staff) Consistency Table provided by City II-116 & II-117 Exhibit 47 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Consistency Exhibit provided by City II-119 Village Six Setting and Description Updated acreage and population (Staff) Consistency Numbers provided by City II-120 Exhibit 48 Update Table (Staff) Consistency Table provided by City II-122 & II-123 Exhibit 49 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Consistency Exhibit provided by City II-125 Village Seven Setting and Description Update acreage, single-family units and population (Staff) Consistency Numbers provided by City II-126 Exhibit 50 Update Table (Staff) Consistency Table provided by City II-127 Parks and Open Space Revised numbers and text (staff) Consistency Numbers and text provided by City II-128 & 129 Exhibit 51 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Consistency Revised Exhibit provided by City II-131 Village Eight Setting Update acres (Staff) Consistency Numbers provided by City Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xv PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-131 & II-132 Village Eight Description Update the statistics to reflect Village Eight West and East (Staff) Consistency Numbers provided by City II-133 Exhibit 52 a. Update the statistics of Village Eight West (Staff) b. Update the statistics of Village Eight East (Staff) a. Consistency with SPA b. Consistency with General Plan Table provided by City II-133 Second Bullet Delete reference to “low density village” (Staff) Consistency II-134 Village Core Policies Add language “it is to be planned as transit ready” (Staff) Consistency II-134 Park and Open Space Policies Update acreages and revise language to read “The excess park acreage will be allocated to the provision of parks related to Village Nine overall park acreage obligation.” (Staff) Consistency with SPA II-134 Park and Open Space Policies, Second bullet Revise language to read “Except in the town center setbacks…” and Change La Media Road to “major roads (staff)” Consistency II-134 Park and Open Space Policies, Third bullet Revise “natural open space areas” to “the open space preserve” Clarification II-134 Park and Open Space Policies, Sixth Bullet Add Bullet and language that reads “ Pedestrian and bike path connections shall be provided from Village Four and Village Eight East to the town center” (Staff) Clarification II-136 & 137 Exhibit 53 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Revised Exhibit provided by City II-139 Village Nine Setting Update statistics and delete “proposed” SR-125 (Staff) Consistency and to reflect existing conditions II-139 to 141 Village Nine Description Revise description to better explain proposed uses and secondary land uses (Staff) Consistency Draft text and numbers provided by City II-140 Exhibit 54 Update Table and renumber to “a” (Staff) Consistency with SPA Table provided by City II-141 Exhibit 55b Delete (Staff) Consistency with SPA Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xvi PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-141 Exhibit 58c Update Table and renumber to “54b” (Staff) Consistency with SPA Table provided by City II-142 Village Character Policies, Fifth Bullet Change name of Main Street to Otay Valley Road (OLC) Consistency with SPA II-142 Village Core Policies, First Bullet Change “trolley” to “transit” (Staff) Consistency with SPA II-142 Village Core Policies, Third Bullet Delete language prohibiting the number of homes to be reduced (OLC) Consistency. Conflict with LOA transfer language II-142 Parks and Open Space Policies Update park acreages (Staff) Consistency with SPA Numbers provided by City II-143 Top of page Revise the discussion of parks to reference the correct location of the community park (OLC) The community park is located in Village Four 11-143-144 Other Village Nine Policies Added new policies relating to development along couplets, building walls, more intense development and development uses that complement and support the University Campus (from old page II-74) (Staff) II-145 thru II-147 Exhibit 55 Delete exhibits and replace with one revised exhibit (Staff) Consistency with SPA Revised Exhibit provided by City II-149 Planning Area 10 a. Update Discussion of and change reference of Village 10 to Planning Area 10 to include the University, including discussion of secondary land use (Staff) b. Revise approximate acreage (Staff) c. Correct spelling of “residential (Staff) d. Delete “ARCO” (Staff) a. Consistency b. Consistency c. Consistency d. Consistency Number and draft text provided by City II-150 and 151 Exhibit 56a and 56b (Formerly Exhibits 58 a and 58b) Update Tables (Staff) Consistency Tables provided by City II-151 Exhibit 58c Delete (Staff) Consistency Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xvii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-152 to 153 c. Village 10 Policies Revise “Village” to “Planning Area” (Staff) Consistency II-152 Parks and Open Space Policies, First Bullet Revise statistics (Staff) Consistency Numbers provided by City II-152 Parks and Open Space Policies Delete second and sixth bullets regarding community park design (Staff) Consistency II-154 thru II-156 Exhibit 57 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-158 Exhibit 58 Update tables (staff) Table provided by City II-162 & II-163 Exhibit 59 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Revised Exhibit provided by City II-165 Planning Area 12 Setting Update acres (Staff) Number provided by City II-165 b. Eastern Urban Center Correct spelling of “particularly” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-166 First & second bullets Updated statistics (Staff) Consistency Numbers provided by City II-167 Exhibit 60 Update Table (Staff) Table provided by City II-167 First Bullet Correct the spelling of “representative” Grammatical Correction II-168 Second bullet Correct spelling of “criteria” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-169 Twelfth bullet Correct spelling of “Prominently” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-170 Second Bullet Correct spelling of “thoroughfares” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-170 Parks and Open Space Policies Revise acreage number and correct grammar and spelling (Staff) Grammatical Correction and Consistency Number provided by City II-170 Parks and Open Space Policies, First Bullet Correct spelling of “including” (OLC) Grammatical Correction II-172 & II-173 Exhibit 61 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-174 & II-175 Exhibit 62 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-179 Exhibit 63 Update Table (Staff) Table provided by City II-184 & II-185 Exhibit 64 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-194 & II-195 Exhibit 66 66 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-198 Text and Exhibit 67 Update statistics and Table (Staff) Table provided by City II-202 & II-203 Exhibit 68 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-205 2nd Paragraph Revised Exhibit number (Staff) Consistency II-210 & II-211 Exhibit 71 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-214 Exhibit 72 Insert revised Table (Staff) Table provided by City Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xviii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-216 & II-217 Exhibit 73 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-222 & II-223 Exhibit 75 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-225 Exhibit 76 Update Table (Staff) Revised Table provided by City II-228 & II-229 Exhibit 77 Insert revised Exhibit (Staff) Exhibit provided by City II-231 Second Paragraph Change “two” to “one” to reflect the elimination of La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley (Staff) Consistency II-231 Second Objective Revise to allow urban levels of service in village cores, town centers and the EUC (OLC) Add language “within town centers” (Staff) Consistency with SPA Consistency II-231 Footnote 1 Change “will” to “may”(staff) Consistency Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xix PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-232 First Implementation Measure Revise to allow urban levels of service in appropriate areas pursuant to the Urban Circulation Element (OLC) Revise language to read “Require, as a condition of approval of discretionary permits, the construction of new roads, bridges, roadway improvements, demand/system management, or other measures necessary to fully mitigate traffic impacts on circulation roads, to avoid reduction in existing level of service below “C”. Maintain LOS “C” or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours, LOS “D” can occur for no more than two hours of the day. Urban LOS standards defined by the Urban Circulation Element of the General Plan are applicable to Town Center Arterials. If the existing level of service is below “C”, require necessary mitigation measures to maintain the current LOS” (Staff) Consistency with SPA and General Plan II-232 Second Implementation Measure Add the language “except within town centers” (Staff) II-232 First Policy Move Policy to be a part of Third Implementation Measure (Staff) Consistency II-233 First Objective and Implementation Measure Change “light rail” to “transit” (OLC) Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xx PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-233 Second Objective, First Policy Add “or Class II bike lane connections” (OLC) Delete “or Class II bike lane connections” (Staff) Provides the option for bike lanes, which may be more appropriate in urban areas such as a town center. Class II lanes segregated from traffic by striping II-234 First Paragraph Add Town Centers (OLC) Change “or” to “and” (Staff) II-234 Table Revise Road names and classifications (OLC) Delete “Main Street/Rock Mountain Road” and Otay Valley Road at bottom of the Table (Staff) Add asterisks for “Main Street/Rock Mountain Road where it is a town center arterial in Village Eight West and a Gateway in Village Nine. Add asterisk for Otay Valley Road where it is a town center arterial in Village Eight West (OLC) Consistency with SPA Clarification II-235 Second policy Correct Spelling of “entry” Grammatical correction II-235 Third Policy Revise language to read “ Provide Town Center Arterials that incorporate the use of couplets, spindles, or a grid street system to be determined at the SPA level as a mechanism for allowing arterial roadways to enter and pass through the center/interior of a Village” (Staff) Clarification II-235 Sixth Policy Revise policy to allow parking on Town Center Arterials (OLC) Maximizing on-street parking in the Town Centers will reduce the need for surface lots and parking garages. On-street parking also acts as a traffic calming device. Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xxi PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-235 Ninth and Tenth Policies Add “except in Town Centers” (Staff) The Town Center Arterial in a circulation element road intended to bisect village cores and Town Centers II-235 Eleventh Policy Revise language to read “Except in town centers, prohibit driveways along arterials for any residential or village commercial use and strictly limit driveways for freeway commercial and EUC uses” (Staff) Driveways must be permitted in Town Centers; however they should be limited to consider sight distance and pedestrian conflicts. II-236 First Policy Update Exhibit numbers (OLC) To reflect the street section exhibit numbers II-236 Fourth Policy Correct spelling of “devices” and “bulbouts” (OLC) Grammatical correction II-236 Street/Roads a. Change “defined” to “outlines” b. Add text indicating that actual roadway configurations and standards are determined at SPA level c. Correct subject-verb agreement of “prescribe” a. Preferred language b. Allows flexibility at SPA level to use street corridors as a defining element of village design c. Grammatical correction II-236 Town Center Arterial Change “traffic” to “roadways”, “with” to “within”, correct spelling of “pedestrians” and “capacity”. Revise language to read “Town Center Arterials are typically a pair of two lane one-way streets (couplets) providing a total of four lanes within a town centers boundary. These roadways provide the equivalent capacity as a standard four lane arterial” (Staff) II-236 Village Entry Streets a. Change “only” to “primary” (OLC) b. Change “trolley” to “transit” (OLC) c. preferred language d. Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xxii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-237 Village Core Streets a. Revise language to broaden the application of Village Core Streets (OLC) b. Change “BRT” to “transit” (OLC) a. preferred language b. Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements II-237 Promenade Streets Revise to indicate not all villages have Promenade streets (OLC) Consistency with SPA II-238 Main Street/Plaza Street Revise language to indicate these streets can also serve as public plazas (OLC) Consistency with SPA II-238 Residential Street a. Revise to indicate these streets occur in residential areas (OLC) b. Allow parking to occur on one or both sides of the street (OLC) c. Change “bikes” to “bicycles” (OLC) II-238 Residential Street – First Policy Correct subject-verb agreement of “remain” (OLC) Grammatical correction II-238 Residential Street – Second Policy Correct spelling of “perimeters” Delete “except in hillside areas” and add language that reads “Exceptions can be made in perimeter locations where steep hillside terrain would make vehicular connections difficult. In such conditions, at minimum, a pedestrian connection such as a trail or paseo shall be provided” (Staff) Grammatical correction II-239 Alleys Change “bikes” to “bicycles” (OLC) Grammatical correction II-239 Traffic Calming a. Add “bulb-outs” to list of traffic calming devices (OLC) b. Revise description to clarify and include the full range of benefits provided by traffic calming devices (OLC) II-239 First Policy Correct spelling of “throughout” and change “circulation” to “mobility” (OLC) Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xxiii PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-240 to II-247 Street Sections Renumber Exhibits to be sequential Formatting II-248 Bus Routes Change “bus” to “transit” (OLC) Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements II-248 Bus Routes, Third and Fourth policies Revise to require transit to be coordinated with BRT and SANDAG/MTS (OLC) Provide flexibility in transit to accommodate future SANDAG/MTS requirements II-249 Second policy Change “MTDB” to “MTS” (OLC) II-249 Third policy Change “BRT stops” to “BRT Stations” (OLC) II-249 Low Speed Electric Vehicle Travel Modify last sentence by changing “will” to “may” (Staff) Provided that an integrated network of low speed streets allows for the movement of low speed electric vehicles to travel to and from key destination points, it ins not necessary to provide separate trails on high speed streets II-250 Bicycle/Pedestrian Paths – First and Second Paragraphs Revise terminology and descriptions to be consistent throughout (OLC) Revise paragraphs per language provided by staff” (Staff) Clarification II-250 Second Policy Capitalize “Bicycle” and delete “be two way routes” (Staff) II-252 Rock Mountain Road/Hunte Parkway Add Main Street (OLC) Add language that reads “except within the boundaries of a town center” (Staff) II-252 Otay Valley Road Add language for Otay Valley Road that reads “from Village Eight town center boundary to Street A in Village Nine” (Staff) Table 1.1 -General Development Plan Amendments for OLC Project General Development Plan Amendment, Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012 xxiv PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes II-252 to 253 Implementation Measure Revise language to read “” Develop guidelines for setbacks, grading and landscaping along scenic corridors in conjunction with individual SPA plans. A 75-foot average buffer along scenic corridors shall be met as noted on individual village land use plan diagrams for arterial and scenic corridors” (Staff) II-266 Third Paragraph Update Population (Staff) Consistency Number provided by City II-267 Town Square Add language providing for CFD maintenance (staff) Exhibit provided by City II-274 & II-275 Exhibit 94 Insert revised exhibit (staff) Exhibit provided by City II-321 Second Paragraph Change “Hartson Medical Services” to “American Medical Response” (Staff) II-323 Fire Facilities Add language that reads “ Fire facility and apparatus studies (trigger analysis and the like) may be required from time to time to ensure that emergency services are adequate (staff) II-324 Seventh Bullet Add language that reads “fire protection and” General Development Plan Amendment, Village Eight West & Village Nine, September 2012 xxv III. Proposed GDP Amendments The following section provides the actual existing and proposed text and graphics for the proposed General Plan Amendment. Text amendments are indicated using a strikethrough and underline format as indicated below: Proposed Text Deletion The quick brown fox Proposed Text Addition The quick brown fox Graphic Amendments have been shown as “Adopted” versus “Proposed” with each exhibit labeled accordingly. General Development Plan Amendment, Village Eight West & Village Nine, September 2012 xxvi This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-1 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-2 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-3 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Part II The Plan Chapter 1 Land Use Plan Section A Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to establish land plans, design guidelines and land use goals, objectives and policies for the community of Otay Ranch. This chapter defines the villages and town centers of Otay Ranch as the fundamental pattern for organizing land use. Thus, the villages and town centers of Otay Ranch become the "building blocks" for shaping the character and success of the community. The Otay Ranch Land Use Plan strives to meld the best of "Small Town America" with positive aspects of technological advances. Simply stated, the village and town center concept reduces automotive dependency, consolidates open space, promotes social interaction, and creates a strong sense of community and identity within Otay Ranch. This planning approach moves Otay Ranch to the forefront of planning for the 21st Century. The Land Use Plan is based on current urban design philosophies1, emphasizing transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly planning as a means to solve the problems associated with suburban development. By drawing on the lessons of the past, we learn from the wisdom of the American small town --communities that worked because they were "user-friendly," decades before the phrase was invented. Transit-oriented development requires high-density residential to increase ridership and improve transit viability throughout Otay 1 Heartbeat of the Community, Builder, January 1898; Brave Old World, Landscape Architecture, December 1988; Designing New Towns, Landscape Architecture, December 1988; The Search For The New Hometown, Metropolitan, March 1992; Welcome Back To Our Town, San Diego Union, December 6, 1992; New Traditionalism In Suburban Design, Zoning News, June 1989; Hip To Be Square, American Demographics, February 1989; The Kentlands Charrette, Producing A Town Town Plan In A Week, Urban Land, September 1988; In Seven Days, Designing A New Traditional Town, The New York Times, June, 1988; A Good Place To Live, The Atlantic, March 1988; Whatever Became of the Public Square, Forum, July 1990; Living Smaller, The Atlantic Monthly, February 1991; Maintaining Regional Mobility Through Land-Use Alternatives, PTI Journal, July/August 1990; Next Stop: Transit-Friendly Towns, Landscape Architecture, July 1990; Streets Are For Sharing, Landscape Architecture, July 1990; The Evolution Of New Community Planning Concepts, Urban Land, June 1990; Winning Over The Street People, Planning, May 1991; Pedestrian Pockets, New Strategies For Suburban Growth; Suburbia: Ready For Foot and Rail?, Landscape Architecture, July 1990; Repent Ye Sinners, Repent, Planning, August 1989; Return To Main Street, Home Magazine, 1991; The Quest For Community, US News and World Report, April 1990. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 Land Uses by Category (County) Other 0.1% CPF 0.4% School 1.1% Industrial 1.4% Commercial 2.5% Arterial 2.7% University 5.5% Residential 27.7% Parks & Open Space 58.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1Land Uses by Category (City) Other 0.1% CPF 0.4% School 1.1% Industrial 2.3% Commercial 2.5% Arterial 2.6% University 5.6% Residential 27.2% Parks & Open Space Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-4 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Ranch. Otay Ranch is a carefully molded series of villages and town centers, blending neighborhoods, shops and employment opportunities with parks, schools and other civic facilities to fashion a community with a shared sense of pride and place. Neighborhoods, built in small increments with front yards, porches and friendly streetscapes, encourage chance encounters and welcome neighborhood gatherings. Neighborhoods, village cores and town centers are arranged so residents can choose to walk, bike, drive or use public transit. Various forms of public transit provide internal circulation and convenient access to activity centers throughout South County and the region. Shops and services are nestled in the heart of each village and town center, churches are near homes, the post office is next door to the grocery store and just around the corner from child care and the school grounds. Stores face sidewalks, courtyards and other "public spaces" so shoppers can meet and greet one another. Town halls, public art and civic buildings provide distinctive identities. Village cores and town centers, linked by a greenbelt system, provide trail access to other villages and town centers and to the open space system. A spirit of environmental stewardship dominates Otay Ranch, embodied in a vast open space system dedicated to the preservation and management of Otay Ranch's natural treasures. Approximately 60% of Otay Ranch will be set aside as open space, including a park system, a greenbelt system and an open space preserve. The Land Use Chapter of the GDP/SRP is organized to proceed from general to specific land use information as follows: ?? Goals, Objectives and Policies (Section B): This section identifies land use goals, policies and objectives to guide the development of Otay Ranch. ?? Overall Land Use Plan (Section C): This section generally explains and summarizes the planning concepts which govern the Otay Ranch land use patterns, including villages and town centers, regional connections, open space systems, industrial and large scale commercial areas. ?? Land Use Design, Character, and Policies (Section D): This section defines the character of the major land use components, including: villages and town centers, industrial/commercial, and potential university, while providing policies to guide the implementation of the concept at later planning levels. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-5 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Implementation (Section E): This section addresses implementation of the GDP/SRP, including: SPA requirements, Otay Ranch Design Plan Requirements, Village/Town Center Design Plan Requirements, and other planning area plan requirements. Implementation Mechanisms are also addressed, including: Consistency with GDP/SRP Land Use Map, Density Calculation and Density Transfer. ?? Village and Town Center Descriptions and Policies (Section F): This section addresses the mechanisms for the realization of the urban village and town center, specialty planning areas and rural estate areas, including zoning, density transfer, SPA requirements, and contains detailed descriptions and policies for individual villages and town centers. The Land Use Chapter closely relates to, and is implemented through, other GDP/SRP Chapters, as follows: Chapter 2 Mobility Chapter 3 Housing Chapter 4 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Chapter 5 Capital Facilities Chapter 10 Resource Protection, Conservation and Management Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-6 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Section B Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL: DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE, WELL-INTEGRATED AND BALANCED LAND USES WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDINGS. Objective: Provide a well-integrated land use pattern which promotes both housing and employment opportunities, while enhancing the unique environmental and visual qualities of the Otay Ranch. Objective: Provide a wide range of residential housing opportunities, from rural and estate homes to high density multi-family projects. Provide a balanced and diverse residential land use pattern for the Otay Valley Parcel which promotes a blend of multifamily and single-family housing styles and densities, integrated and compatible with other land uses in the area. Objective: Provide development patterns complementary to the adopted plans and existing development of the adjacent communities. GOAL: ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PRESERVE AND PROTECT SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES AND LARGE OPEN SPACE AREAS. Objective: Provide land use arrangements which preserve significant natural resource areas, significant landforms and sensitive habitat. GOAL: REDUCE RELIANCE ON THE AUTOMOBILE AND PROMOTE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. Objective: Develop villages and town centers which integrates residential and commercial uses with a mobility system that accommodates alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, lowspeed/neighborhood electric vehicle, bus, rapid transit, and other modes of transportation. Objective: Develop residential land uses which encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation through the provision of bus rapid transit right-of-way, and the inclusion of a bicycle, low-speed/neighborhood electric vehicle and pedestrian network. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-7 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Objective: Commercial uses should be sized to meet the needs of the immediate and adjacent villages and town centers. Village and Town Center commercial land uses may preempt large regional commercial opportunities within villages and town centers and relegate them to the EUC or Freeway Commercial areas. Objective: Develop the Eastern Urban Center to promote alternative modes of transportation. Specifically, through the provision of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) technology right-of-way and the incorporation of multi-modal access from residential neighborhoods, villages and town centers. GOAL: PROMOTE VILLAGE AND TOWN CENTER LAND USES WHICH OFFER A SENSE OF PLACE TO RESIDENTS AND PROMOTES SOCIAL INTERACTION. Objective: Organize Otay Ranch into villages and town centers, each having its own identity and sense of place. Objective: Provide a focused residential land use pattern for the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountains Parcels which limits urban multi-family and medium-density single-family housing styles and densities to areas immediately adjacent to or within village core and resort areas. Objective: The design of the Otay Ranch should promote variety and diversity at the village or town center scale, while providing a sense of continuity through the use of unifying design elements. Objective: Promote a diverse range of activities and services to encourage a mixture of day/night and weekday/weekend uses. GOAL: DIVERSIFY THE ECONOMIC BASE WITHIN OTAY RANCH. Objective: Create an economic base that will ensure there is adequate public revenue to provide public services. Objective: Create an Eastern Urban Center within the Otay Valley Parcel and encourage the development of a retail base for the planning area, but not to the detriment of existing regional and local commercial centers. Objective: Create a Regional Technology Park (RTP) and other business parks that offer employment opportunities for area residents which complements, rather than substitutes for, industrial development on the Otay Mesa. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-8 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 GOAL: PROMOTE SYNERGISTIC2 USES BETWEEN THE VILLAGES AND TOWN CENTERS OF THE OTAY RANCH TO PROVIDE A BALANCE OF ACTIVITIES, SERVICES AND FACILITIES. Objective: Develop individual villages and town centers to complement surrounding villages/town centers. Objective: Select villages/town centers to provide activities and uses which draw from surrounding villages/town cenrterscenters. Uses serving more than one village or town center, such as a cinema complex, should be located in a village core or town center that has convenient access to adjacent villages or town centers Section C Overall Land Use Plan The Otay Ranch Land Use Plan provides for a balance of residential, employment, and open space/recreational land uses sensitive to environmental conditions, regional influences and adjacent communities. The three parcels of the property, the Otay Valley, Proctor Valley, and San Ysidro Mountains parcels, are centered on the visual, environmental, and recreational resource of the Otay Lakes. This central amenity provides a focal point for the project. The Otay Ranch Land Use Plan relates to the established urban community of Chula Vista to the west, the City of San Diego to the south, and the rural communities of the County of San Diego to the north and east. The property is linked to the South County through a circulation network including the SR-125, a proposed bus rapid transit route connecting with the regional system, and a roadway network tied to surrounding communities. A regional urban center (the Eastern Urban Center -EUC) creates the functional and symbolic center for the Otay Ranch. It contains diverse urban land uses, providing regional services, housing and neighborhood services. The urban center is close to the future university site, and the ARCO/United States Olympic Training Center. 2 A village core/town center may complement and supplement the uses within another village core/town center. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-9 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Residential areas are grouped into "villages" and "town centers". The heart of the village is the "village core". The village core accomplishes two objectives not met by typical suburban development patterns: 1) villages provide a sense of community and social cohesion in a "small town" way; and 2) villages reduce dependence on the automobile. Town Centers (TC) are designed with the same characteristcs characteristics as village cores. However, town centers allow for higher density housing, office, retail and other commercial developments than allowed in traditional village cores, utilizing a more extensive grid street system, which promotes direct access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists from the surrounding village developments. The Town Center concept maintains the ¼1/4-mile walk pedestrian-shed radius that contains the number of households needed to support viable public transit stations or stops. A unique road arterial (“Town Center Arterial”) is a major feature In in the middle of the Town Center. This arterial is designed to accommodate pedestrian-oriented development based on larger dwelling unit quantities and higher densities. The vision of the Otay Ranch as a diverse, integrated community, is facilitated by a circulation plan that provides for the efficient movement of the automobile and the opportunity for residents to use bicycles, low-speed/neighborhood electric vehicles, buses and rapid transit. The General Development Plan/Subregional Plan Land Use Map3 (See Exhibits 20, 22 and 24) identifies the location of major roadways, open space, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Villages, Town Centers and Planning Areas are divided into specific land uses. These areas are assigned a specific number of dwelling units and a specific acreage. The conceptual location of parks, schools, and the transit reservations are also shown. The arrangement of the dwelling units permitted within planning areas may change due to environmental or site planning reasons; however, the total number of dwelling units within each village, planning area or town center may not increase unless otherwise permitted by City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or such other manner approved by City Council. 3 While the Otay Ranch Land Use Map is depicted in three separate maps, hereafter these maps are referred to as the GDP/SRP Land Use Map. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-10 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Otay Ranch Land Use Designations Symbol Category Uses VL Very low density residential Larger lot, rural character, single-family detached residential. The maximum density is one dwelling unit per acre and lot sizes vary depending on topography, with minimum lot size defined in Section F. L Low density residential Estate lot single-family residential, ranging in density from one to three dwelling units per acre. LM Low medium density residential This category includes single-family detached dwellings on medium size lots, ranging in density from three to six dwelling units per acre. Although not a minimum or a standard, these areas are typically 7,000 square foot lots. In addition, under the concept of cluster development, single-family dwellings on smaller lots, zero lot line homes, and some single-family attached units (townhouses and patio homes) could also be consistent with this designation. LMV Low medium density residential village This category is permitted only in large scale master planned communities containing a variety of uses, including commercial, designed and organized in a manner that encourages nonautomotive travel and pedestrian orientation :i.e., a village. This category is similar to the LM category by providing To ensure character differentiation and village viability, the LMV category requires specific area densities within the range of three to six dwelling units per acre; . Therefore, However, LMV categories are accompanied by a specific density and number of homes to ensure greater product differentiation and market segmentation. The density is not tied to any segment of the range. This hHousing types includes a wide variety of lot sizes, predominantly single-family, organized in patterns which contribute to a small scale pedestrianoriented community. The occurrence of some attached homes, such as townhomes, within this designation is consistent with the intent, as long as the character of the development area is consistent with the typical single-family neighborhood. M Medium density residential This category includes small single-family, detached units on smaller lots, zero lot line, patio and attached homes, such as duplexes and townhomes with a limited amount of stacked flats. Densities with the range of six to 11 dwelling units per acre are appropriate and considered single-family, with densities above eight 11 dwelling units per acre considered multi-family for purposes of GDP/SRP planning. Where small lot or cluster developments of single-family detached or attached units are proposed, recreational facilities (such as swim clubs, pedestrian parks, town squares, etc.) may be required within the neighborhood planning area as determined during the SPA planning process. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-11 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Symbol Category Uses MH Medium high density residential This category includes multi-family units such as townhomes, garden apartments and stacked flats, including flats over commercial. Densities within the range of 11 to 18 dwelling units per acre are appropriate. Mobile homes are also included in this category. MU Mixed Use The most critical organizational element of the village cores is are mixed use areas. Mixed land uses are provided in order to concentrate commercial and residential activities closer together in order to stimulate accessible to pedestrians activity. The creative mixing of uses enhances community interaction and discourages multiple auto trips. The mixed use development category is a combination of uses, befitting an energetic town-like environment. The mixed Mixed use Use category promotes innovation and economic service to the village, therefore there is flexibility in the development standards and the zoning districts are defined at the SPA level. The residential land use density ranges that are permitted within the Mixed Use category generally correspond with the General Plan residential land use designations for the High (H) (18-27 du/ac) range and the Medium High (MH) (11-18 du/ac) range, so the appropriate Mixed Use residential densities are within the 11 – 27du/ac range. For more details on Mixed Use residential policies, see Part II, Chapter 1, Section D. TC Town Center This designation establishes Town Centers (TC) that allow for higher density housing, office, retail and other commercial developments than allowed in traditional village cores, utilizing a more extensive grid street system, which promotes direct access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists from the surrounding village developments. The Town Center concept maintains the ¼ -mile walk pedestrianshed radius that contains the number of households needed to support viable public transit stops or stations. A unique road arterial (“Town Center Arterial”) is a major feature of the Town Center. This arterial is designed to accommodate pedestrianoriented development based on larger dwelling unit quantities and higher densities. Transit stops or stations serving the future expansion of the Bus RapidTtransit technology will be the centerpiece for the Town Centers in the Otay Ranch. Town Center policies will require the sametransit-oriented densities and permit a gradual reduction in multi-family and single-family densities farther away from the Town Center. Appropriate Town Center residential densities are within the 18-45 du/ac range. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-12 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Symbol Category Uses EUC Eastern Urban Center This designation indicates a regional center comprised of local and regional shopping opportunities and office and employment uses configured up to 15 stories. Visitor Commercial such as transit lodging, hotel, motels, commercial recreation and other retail are allowed. High density residential, including high rise residential is also an essential part of the EUC. FC Freeway Commercial This category includes regional uses which require an automobile orientation near regional transportation systems. Expected uses include thoroughfare commercial, visitor commercial, and regionally oriented retail commercial. RTP Regional Technology Park This designation applies the Regional Technology Park (RTP) land use designation that Is Intended is intended to be a large, masterplanned business park that integrates research and development activities with high tech manufacturing along with the administrative and office space associate with such a facility as well as and other light Industrial uses. It accomodates accommodates new research institutions, industries and businesses able to capitalize upon the research activities of the nearby adjacent University Campus and University Village. The RTP accommodates a limited amount of supporting retail, service, professional office and finance businesses. and Iis able to provide services and amenities that provide a high quality work environment. I Industrial This category includes light manufacturing, warehousing, flexible use buildings and public utilities. Very limited amounts of restaurant and office oriented commercial are also permitted. Village Three and Planning Area 18a are identified in the Otay Ranch to contain Industrial land uses P/QP Public/Quasi Public This includes public uses such as sewerage treatment plants, utility yards, corporate yards, etc. CP/P Community Park/Park This overlay designation indicates the approximate location of Community Parks (CP) and Neighborhood Parks (P). These facilities to be fixed in location at the SPA level. U University The area indicated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as the University Site is intended to accommodate the development of a full service, four year higher educational institution, including supporting facilities and faculty and staff housing. The university may be a traditional campus focusing on four-year undergraduate degrees and masters programs, or a major research university that provides undergraduate, masters, professional, and doctoral programs. It may also be a multi-institutional teaching center or university center that consists of a consortium of colleges, universities, and/or research institutuesinstitutes that share campus land and facilities. PR Park & Ride This area is designated for parking and intermodal transfers from and to buses, trolley and automobiles. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-13 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Symbol Category Uses GC Golf Courses This category includes areas intended for use as golf course and golf course associated uses. See Part II, Chapter 1, Section F, Villages 13 and 14 for more details. OS Open Space These areas include Management Preserve, open space, regional park, and open space district areas. No dwelling units are allocated to these areas. See Chapter 4, Parks & Open Space, for more details. LDA Limited Development Area An open space easement will cover the areas designated as ‘Limited Development Area’ (LDA). These areas will be refined at the SPA level. Exact edge locations will vary depending primarily on slope and location of significant vegetation. Overall open space acreage cannot be reduced at the SPA level during refinement. These areas will be left as natural open space with the exception that roads and utilities are anticipated to cross or lie within these areas. The placement of roads and utilities in these areas should minimize disturbance by crossing perpendicular through the easement. Roadways and utilities should not follow canyon bottoms. ‘Limited Development Areas’ may be included within private lots but would have the following set of restrictions. Removal of native vegetation would be prohibited except as necessary for construction of roads and utilities. There would be no buildings or other structures, agriculture, landscaping, livestock, grazing, horses, trash disposal or fences allowed within these areas. Brushing for fire control zones would conform to the local fire district regulations. SCC/CC Specialty Conference Center /Community Center This is the designation ascribed to the Otay Ranch House indicating the intent to preserve some level of public use of the facility R Resort This category includes mixed use and resort oriented development such as village commercial, recreation, theaters, restaurants, and hotel oriented commercial, recreation and conference facilities. SRSA Sensitive Resource Study Area This category is a designation indicating the potential presence of sensitive resources such as vernal pools and native grasslands. Upon completion of additional study at the SPA level, this designation may be reconfigured or eliminated based on the studies and/or proposed mitigation, without the need for a GPA or GDP amendment. Those areas without resources may be developed to the resort land use. Those areas identified SRSA will be preserved. Exhibit 17 Otay Ranch Land Use Designation Table 1. Land Use Character by Parcel The total number of dwelling units for each village and the proposed number for each planning area within each village or town center is shown on the Overall Project Summary Table. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Page II-14 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 * 637 acres of open space included in this acreage.. SF Units MF Units Total Units Res. Ac. Park Ac. CPF Ac. Sch Ac. C'ml. Ac. Ind. Ac. Uni. Ac. Open Sp. Art. Ac. Total Ac. Otay Valley Parcel 9,320 17,112 26,432 2,933.1 229.3 97.1 202.7 257.3* 565.2 434.0 3,992.3 738.0 9,449 74,086 Proctor Valley Parcel 2,631 1,558 4,189 1,885.4 12.5 17.1 10.0 252.0 --5,656.7 61.3 7,895 12,391 San Ysidro Mountains Parcel 779 -779 1,499.8 3.4 2.3 10.0 3.3 --4,036.2 -5,555 2,494 Total: 12,730 18,670 31,400 6,318.3 245.2 116.5 222.7 512.6 565.2 434.0 13,685.2 799.3 22,899 88,971 Parcel Dwelling Units Overall Project Summary * 1,800,000 square feet of commercial may occur vertically or horizontally within Village 8 West and Village 9; therefore, actual acreage may vary within each land use. Acreage Approx. Pop. Exhibit 18a Overall Project Summary Table Overall Project Summary Dwelling Units Acreage Parcel SF MF Total Res. Park CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. Uni.* Open Sp. Art. Other Total Approx. Pop. Otay Valley Parcel 10,580 13,083 23,663 2,699 180 89 205 254 480 1,270 3,559 628 20 9,384 60,030 Proctor Valley Parcel 2,631 1,558 4,189 1,885 13 17 10 252 0 0 5,657 61 0 7,895 12,393 San Ysidro Mountains Parcel 777 0 777 1,502 3 2 10 3 0 0 3,947 0 0 5,467 2,486 Otay Ranch Maximum 13,988 14,641 28,629 6,086 196 108 225 509 480 1,270 13,163 689 20 22,746 74,909 Exhibit 18a Overall Project Summary Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Page II-15 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Page II-16 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 18b Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Land Use Plan (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Page II-17 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 18b Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Land Use Plan (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-18 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 a. Otay Valley Parcel The Otay Valley Parcel is the most urban of the three Otay Ranch parcels. The land use plan provides continuity to adjacent developed areas, while creating a unique character. At build-out, this parcel will provide a maximum4 of 20,951 26,235 dwelling units, accommodating approximately 59,575 74,054 residents. The major components of the land use plan for the Otay Valley Parcel include: o Eleven Nine urban villages, with village cores which include mixed use areas, neighborhood parks, and elementary schools. o A circulation system which includes a planned ten-lane highway (SR-125), Bus Rapid Transit routes, and a system of regional arterials. o A pedestrian trail system that features a network of trails for walking, bycyclesbicycles, equestrian travel and potential use of low-speed/neighborhood vehicles utilizing facilities such as neighborhood paseos, the “village pathway”, pedestrian bridges and regional trails providing linkages to the Otay Ranch Village Greenway and the Chula Vista Greenbelt. o Highest intensity uses along SR-125, including the EUC, more intense urban villages, and freeway commercial areas. o Industrial uses on the western edge adjacent to existing business park uses and the Otay Landfill, and at the southern edge adjacent to planned industrial uses on the Otay Mesa. o A university site located in Planning Area 10 on the eastern portion of the parcel, including adjacent to Village Nine and Ten. o The Eastern Urban Center with regional services and activities, and the highest residential intensities. o The Otay Valley Regional Park (a portion of the overall regional park currently being planned for the entire length of the Otay River Valley). o The Otay Valley Parcel land use table below shows the distribution of land use categories. 4 The maximum DU number reflects all residential development on the Otay Valley Parcel, However, Village 3 Three has a primary land use designation of Industrial, a portion of and Village 9 Nine is University, and Plannig Area Ten 10 have has a primary land use designations of University. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-19 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Amended September 2012 Page II-20 Otay Valley Parcel Village Dwelling Units Acreage SF MF Total Res. Park CPF Sch C'ml Ind. Uni. OS Art. Other Total Approx Pop. Village 1 2,454 1,522 3,976 703 23 13 10 6 265 47 1,067 11,734 Village 2 986 1,800 2,786 335 15 6 10 12 88 239 69 774 7,882 Village 3 10 176 147 35 368 Village 4 453 -453 118.0 63 2.1 ----310 35.0 528 1,495 Village 5 1,263 1,550 2,813 371 17 11 10 2 70 15 496 7,995 Village 6 941 1,449 2,390 275 8 14 10 22 58 387 6,736 Village 7 1,053 448 1,501 242 9 6 85 7 45 17 411 4,512 Village 8 1,021 436 1,457 268 9 6 10 13 23 14 343 4,379 Village 9 Univ 364 364 Village 9 Res 735 1,010 1,745 251 10 7 10 9 58 19 364 4,928 Village 10Univ 269 269 Village 10 Res* 669 170 839 146 35 4 10 3 56 15 269 2,574 Village 11 1,005 1,385 2,390 307 10 9 35 10 51 67 489 6,749 Plng. Area 12 3,313 3,313 80 26 12 35 189 5 20 367 8,548 Plng. Area 18A 216 216 Plng. Area 20 15 194 209 Other: Open Space (a) 637 2,188 2,825 SR-125 -----------182.0 182.0 -Public 20 20 Arterial ------------69.1 69.1 -Maximum Residential/Total Acreage 10,580 13,083 23,663 2,699 180 89 205 254 480 1,270 3,559 628 20 9,384 60,030 Exhibit 19 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Table [0](a) Open Space represents the open space In the University area outside Villages Nine and Ten, and the open space area In the remainder of the Otay Valley Parcel, but not the Village Three Industrial alternative. * Village 9 & Village 10 primary land use is University. Secondary land use is Residential not included in residential/total acreage. ** Park acerage includees 8.3 acres satisfied by the community park in Village 4. . Amended September 2012 Page II-21 SF Units MF Units Total Units Res. Ac. Park Ac. CPF Ac. Sch Ac. C'ml. Ac. Ind. Ac. Uni. Ac. Open Sp. Art. Ac. Total Ac. Village 1 2,454 1,522 3,976 703.2 23.1 13.4 10.0 6.3 --264.8 46.5 1,067.3 11,734 Village 2 674 2,309 2,983 335.1 15.4 6.3 10.3 11.9 87.9 -239.0 68.8 774.7 8,173 Village 3 Ind -----10.2 --176.5 -146.9 34.8 368.4 -Village 4 453 -453 118.0 62.8 2.1 ----309.9 35.0 527.8 1,495 Village 5 1,263 1,550 2,813 370.7 16.6 11.3 10.0 2.0 --70.4 15.4 496.4 7,995 Village 6 941 1,449 2,390 275.3 7.6 13.7 10.0 6.7 --22.0 58.3 393.6 6,706 Village 7 1,008 448 1,456 234.3 9.3 6.3 60.0 7.2 --45.3 17.1 379.5 4,368 Village 8 1,256 1,722 2,978 332.1 33.8 8.7 41.6 8.9 * --56.6 39.6 521.3 8,625 Village 9 Res 266 3,734 4,000 185.1 27.5 5.0 19.8 * -50.0 9.6 26.1 323.1 10,519 Portion of University/Village 9 (Alternative)** 68** 93** 161** 23.2** 0.9** 0.6** 0.9** 0.8** --5.4** 1.8** 33.6** 455** Plng. Area 10/University/RTP --------85.0 384.0 --469.0 -Portion of Plng. Area 10/University (Alternative)*** 580*** 424*** 1,004*** 157.1*** 20.6*** 4.1*** 8.3*** 4.4*** --47.7*** 13.9*** 256.1*** 2,937*** Village 11 1,005 1,385 2,390 306.7 10.0 9.4 35.0 10.0 --51.4 66.5 489.0 6,749 Plng. Area 12 -2,993 2,993 72.6 23.2 10.7 6.0 189.3 --1.5 72.8 376.1 7,722 Plng. Area 18 --------215.8 ---215.8 -Plng. Area 20 -------15.0 --188.0 6.0 209.0 -Open Space+ ----------2,567.3 -2,567.3 -SR-125 -----------182.0 182.0 -Public ----------19.6 -19.6 -Arterial -----------69.1 69.1 -Total: 9,320 17,112 26,432 2,933.1 229.3 97.1 202.7 257.3 565.2 434.0 3,992.3 738.0 9,449 74,086 Otay Valley Parcel Village Dwelling Units Acreage Approx. Pop. + Open Space includes open space preserve, undevelopable land, streets, and right-of-way. *** Portion of Planning Area 10/University has a primary land use designation of University and a secondary land use of residential. The secondary land use is not included in the total. * 1,800,000 square feet of commercial may occur vertically or horizontally within Village 8 West and Village 9; therefore, actual acreage within each land use will be determined at final map. ** Portion of University/Village 9 has a primary land use designation of University and a secondary land use of residential. The secondary land use is not included in the total. Exhibit 19 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Table Amended September 2012 Page II-22 Exhibit 20 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Amended September 2012 Page II-23 Exhibit 20 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-24 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 b. Proctor Valley Parcel The Proctor Valley Parcel is less intense than the Otay Valley Parcel, due to its environmental constraints and transitional location between the urban areas to the west and the rural community of Jamul to the northeast. Its southern edge to is the Lower Otay Lake. At build-out, this parcel provides a maximum of 4,189 dwelling units and will serve approximately 12,391 residents. The major components of the land use plan for the Proctor Valley Parcel include: ?? A specialty village in lower and central Proctor Valley containing a golf course and medium, low-medium and low density residential uses. This village also includes a mixed use area, which contains an MH residential component, an elementary school, and neighborhood park. The village serves as a transitional area between urban densities to the west and Jamul to the east. ?? A resort village is located on the relatively flat plateau north of Lower Otay Lake. This village consists of two areas: a resort center to the south; and low and low-medium residential areas in the foothills to the north. The resort village includes medium-high density resort residential, hotel, recreational, visitor-serving commercial, and neighborhood park uses. Public access to the lake is preserved with a lakefront trail, staging areas and access through the resort. ?? A rural estate residential area is located adjacent to the community of Jamul. Limited Development Areas have been designated to protect steep slopes and/or natural resources within residential lots. The very low density and large lot size will provide an edge for the adjacent rural areas of Jamul. ?? A majority of acreage (73.4%) is proposed as open space. ?? Wildlife corridors. ?? The land use table below shows the distribution of land use categories. Proctor Valley Parcel Dwelling Units Acreage Village SF Units MF Units Total Units Res. Ac. Park Ac. CPF Ac. Sch. Ac. C'ml. Ac. Ind. Ac. Open Sp. Art. Ac. Total Ac. Approx. Pop. Village 13 658 1,408 2,066 374.7 -7.9 -249.1 -139.7 12.2 783.6 5,695 Village 14 1,563 150 1,713 773,8 10.0 7.5 10.0 2.9 -0.8 23.7 828.7 5,384 Plng. Area 16 390 -390 716.9 2.5 1.7 ---370.0 25.4 1,116.5 1,248 Plng. Area 19 20 -20 20.0 -------20.0 64 Other: --------------Open Space ----------5,146.0 -5,146.0 -Total 2,631 1,558 4,189 1885.4 12,5 17.1 10.0 252.0 0.0 5,656.5 61.3 7,895 12,391 Exhibit 21 Proctor Valley Parcel Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-25 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 SF Units MF Units Total Units Res. Ac. Park Ac. CPF Ac. Sch Ac. C'ml. Ac. Ind. Ac. Open Sp. Art. Ac. Total Ac. Village 13 658 1408 2,066 374.7 -7.9 -249.1 -139.7 12.2 783.6 5,695 Village 14 1,563 150 1,713 773.8 10.0 7.5 10.0 2.9 -0.8 23.7 828.7 5,384 Plng. Area 16 390 -390 716.9 2.5 1.7 ---370.0 25.4 1,116.5 1,248 Plng. Area 19 20 -20 20.0 -------20.0 64 Other: -------------Open Space ---------5,146.2 -5,146.2 -Total 2,631 1,558 4,189 1,885.4 12.5 17.1 10.0 252.0 0.0 5,656.7 61.3 7,895 12,391 Dwelling Units Acreage Proctor Valley Parcel Village Approx. Pop. Exhibit 21 Proctor Valley Parcel Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Page II-26 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 22 Proctor Valley Parcel Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Planning Area 19 Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Page II-27 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 22 Proctor Valley Parcel Land Use Map (PROPOSED Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-28 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 c. San Ysidro Mountains Parcel The San Ysidro Mountains Parcel has widely varied terrain. Protection of the steep slopes and biological resources result in a high proportion of the parcel being designated open space. At build-out, this parcel is designed to provide a maximum of 777 779 dwelling units and will serve approximately 2,487 2,494 residents. The major components of the land use plan for the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel include: ?? An estate village located to the east of Lower Otay Lake. The village core includes a mixed use area, elementary school, and surrounding medium-high density residential uses. The area surrounding this village core consists of low and low-medium density residential. ?? A rural estate residential area is located on the eastern property edge. Limited Development Areas are designated to protect steep slopes and/or natural resources within residential lots. The very low density and large lot size will provide an interface with the rural areas to the east of the property boundaries. ?? The western portions of the parcel are retained as open space, providing a visual amenity for the entire Otay Ranch community. In other areas, links will be provided to the adjacent regional open space system. ?? A majority of the acreage (72.27%) is proposed as open space. ?? The land use table below shows the distribution of land use categories. San Ysidro Mountains Parcel Dwelling Units Acreage Village SF Units MF Units Total Units Res. Ac. Park Ac. CPF Ac. Sch Ac. C'ml. Ac. Open Sp. Art. Ac. Other Ac. Total Ac. Approx. Pop. Village 15 481 483 -481 483 686 683.1 3.4 2.3 10.0 3.3 7.8-97.8 --712.3 799.9 1,539 1,546 Village 17 296 -296 817 816.7 ----794.5 --1,611.2 948 Other: -------------Open Space --------3,143.9 3,143.9 --3,143.9 3,143.9 -Total 777 779 0 777 779 1,503 1,499.8 3.4 2.3 10.0 3.3 3,947.0 4,036.2 0 0 5,467 5,555 2,487 2,494 Exhibit 23 San Ysidro Mountains Parcel Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-29 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-30 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 24 San Ysidro Mountains Parcel Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-31 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 24 San Ysidro Mountains Parcel Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-32 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 2. Components of the Land Use Plan The overall pattern of land uses within Otay Ranch is defined by the following major elements: ?? Villages and Rural Estate Areas ?? Area Around the Lakes ?? Eastern Urban Center (EUC) ?? Industrial/Business Park/Freeway Commercial ?? University/Regional Technology Park ?? Open Space and Environmental Resources ?? Parks ?? Mobility System ?? University a. Villages and Rural Estate Areas A pattern of villages is proposed throughout most of the Otay Ranch. The Otay Ranch villages concentrate both higher intensity land uses and "people activities" toward the village core, with densities generally decreasing away from the core area. This organization of land uses promotes pedestrian travel internally and supports transit opportunities for external trips. The design creates a sense of community within each village by attracting residents to the village core for social, commuting, public service and shopping activities. Residential neighborhoods surround the village core and connect to it by pedestrian and circulation systems. This encourages internal, non-vehicular trips. The purpose of the village design is to provide an efficient and comfortable living environment for its residents. (Section D, Land Use Design, Character, and Policies, focuses on the village concept.) Otay Ranch contains urban villages, specialty villages and rural estates areas: ?? Urban Villages: These villages are located within the Otay Valley Parcel, adjacent to existing urban areas. These villages are transit-oriented, with higher densities and mixed uses in village cores or Town Centers. An emphasis is placed on providing alternatives to the automobile, including transit (bus and bus rapid-transit), alternative transportation low speed/neighborhood electric vehicles, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Villages One, Two, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine, and Eleven are urban villages. Each urban village has man-made or natural features or other amenities which provide a unique focus or specialty to create a sense of identity. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-33 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Page II-34 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 25 Otay Ranch Village Types & Rural Estate Areas (ADOPTED) Rural Estate Planning Areas -16 & 17 Specialized Villages -Villages 13, 14 & 15 Urban Villages -Otay Valley Parcel Primary use for Villages Nine & Ten is University. Secondary use is urban village Industrial Planning Areas -Villages 2W, 3 & PA 18b Otay Ranch Village Types, Rural Estate and Planning Areas Within Chula Vista, the primary use of Village Three is industrial, the secondary use is urban village. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Page II-35 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 25 Otay Ranch Village Types & Rural Estate Areas (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch Village Types, Rural Estate and Planning Areas Specialized Villages -Villages 13, 14 & 15 Rural Estate Planning Areas -16 & 17 Industrial Planning Areas -Villages 2W & 3 Industrial Planning Area 18 Urban Villages -Otay Valley Parcel Mixed Use Planning Area 20 Primary use for a portion of Villages Nine & Planning Area Ten is University/RTP. Secondary use is urban village Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-36 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Although most of the villages are predominately single-family oriented, higher densities are permitted within the village core. Roadways and land use connections facilitate bus service to the core. Villages One, Two, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Planning Area 12 and the University Campus are located on the future extension of the bus rapid transit route, and include the highest residential intensities and commercial uses to enhance transit ridership. Community services will be provided for local needs, based upon population and the respective facility standards. In some instances, two villages may share services. Open spaces consist of neighborhood, community parks and natural features -such as canyons, and pedestrian/bicycle and equestrian trails. ?? Specialty Villages: These villages are located in the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountains Parcels. They consist of a resort village, an estate village, and transition villages (Villages 13, 15 and 14, respectively). Neighborhood commercial and community services are provided in a village core, with limited medium and higher density residential. Low density, singlefamily uses predominate, with potential recreation and resort uses also provided. Open space is primarily undisturbed natural habitat, golf course, trails and promenades. ?? Rural Estate Areas: Two very low density residential areas are located in the easternmost portions of the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountains Parcels. These areas do not contain commercial uses. b. Area Around the Lakes Although not located on the Otay Ranch property, Otay Lake is one of the most prominent features of the Otay Ranch Project Area. Portions of each of the three Otay Ranch parcels overlook the lake, providing uninterrupted views of mountains and the ocean. The land around the lake is a desirable place for both development and recreational/open space opportunities. The area is one of great scenic beauty, providing an exceptional opportunity for housing designed to take advantage of the visual attributes of the site. The San Ysidro West Village (Village 15) located south of the lake contains 400+ acres of residential, 3.3 acres of commercial mixed use and an elementary school. The Resort Center located north of the lake will contain 230+ acres of resort and approximately 512 acres of residential uses. The resort center will include hotels, golf course, resort-related residential uses, clubhouse, commercial and public service uses. Planning for all areas around the lake must be coordinated into a cohesive design. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-37 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 A potential university site is designated on the GDP/SRP land use map west of the lake along Wueste Road. c. Eastern Urban Center A projected Otay Ranch population of approximately 74,455 88,939 creates a need for a centralized urban area to provide the regional goods and services which cannot be provided in village cores. Certain goods and services are not available in village cores because of the problems caused by permitting regional traffic into the villages. The 400-acre Eastern Urban Center and Freeway Commercial area are located east of SR-125, on a rise overlooking the Otay Valley Parcel. This area will provide an intense, vital activity center to include an employment base with office, retail, business park, and visitor-serving commercial uses; cultural, entertainment, civic, recreation activity and residential uses. uses. The bus rapid-transit (BRT) system connects the EUC to the region and some of the villages of the Otay Ranch. d. Industrial/Business Park/Freeway Commercial The Otay Ranch Land Use Plan designates industrial/business park and freeway commercial uses primarily along the SR-125 corridor. Policies relating to these uses are discussed in Section D, Land Use Design, Character, and Policies. Industrial/commercial uses are located in the following areas: ?? There are two areas for industrial uses: one located south of the Otay Valley, adjacent to industrial areas of Otay Mesa and one west of Heritage Road at the extreme western edge of the parcel near existing industrial development Included within Village 3 and within the western portion of Village Two. These light industrial uses total approximately 468.9 acres. ?? Commercial/Office: located in the EUC. These uses include the regional retail commercial, hotel, and office uses. ?? A business park is located within the EUC. ?? Freeway commercial uses are located north of the EUC and east of SR-125. The freeway commercial area includes a mixture of uses dependent on direct highway exposure and access. This commercial use totals approximately 101 acres. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Page II-38 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 26 Commercial, Industrial & Business Sites (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch Regional Commercial, Office and Industrial Areas Planning Area 12 -Freeway Commercial Planning Area 12 Eastern Urban Center -Regional Office and Commercial Industrial Areas -Village 2W, 3 & PA 18a & 18b Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Page II-39 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 26 Commercial, Industrial & Business Sites (PROPOSED) Industrial Areas -Village 2W, 3 & PA 18 Otay Ranch Regional Commercial, Office and Industrial Areas Planning Area 12 -Freeway Commercial Planning Area 12 Eastern Urban Center -Regional Office and Commercial Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-40 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 e. University/RTPRegional Technology Park The GDP/SRP Land Use Map identifies for a university campus and Regional Technology Park in the area delineated as Villages 9 University. The purpose of this land use designation is to locate a university campus as well as a regional technology park intended for research, development, and high tech manufacturing along with the administrative and office space associated with such activity at this location. f. Open Space and Environmental Resources The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP identifies an open space system which provides a network of natural, passive, and active recreational amenities throughout the Ranch. This network connects the villages to each other and to the region. A major portion of this open space system iIs part of the City's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan preserve. The Otay Ranch contains a number of sensitive resource areas, including the Otay River Valley, Salt Creek, Poggi Canyon, the San Ysidro Mountains, and the Jamul mountains. Resources include a variety of sensitive species and habitats, many of which will be protected within areas of open space identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map and MSCP Subarea Plan. The protection of significant environmental resources on the Ranch is addressed within the open space network through the following mechanisms: ?? The Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) which provides for the identification, mapping, enhancement and maintenance of the resources within its boundary. ?? The MSCP Subarea Plan which provides the policy framework for habitat planning and establishes a natural habitat preserve which Identifies and conserves core biological resource areas within Otay Ranch. ?? Open Space easements and maintenance districts, which provide for the protection of resources outside of the RMP boundary. ?? Wildlife Corridor connecting on-site and off-site regional wildlife habitat. The Open Space components of the GDP/SRP and related policies are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space, and Chapter 10, Resource Protection, Conservation and Management. The open space category includes: ?? Open Space Buffer: These are areas which surround each village and may consist of natural or landscaped open space. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-41 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Scenic Corridor: This open space contains undulating open space areas along roadways which are also identified as Scenic Corridors. These roadways are Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road; Orange Avenue -west of SR-125, Otay Valley Road and Proctor Valley Road. Significant resources within these areas will be preserved. These corridors are further discussed in the Mobility Chapter. ?? Resource Management Preserve: This open space includes areas of resource preservation/enhancement, such as Wolf Canyon, the Otay Valley Regional Park, and portions of the San Ysidro and Jamul Mountains, and may cover areas within parks and scenic corridors. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Page II-42 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 27 Otay Ranch Open Space Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch Open Space System Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Page II-43 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 27Otay Ranch Open Space Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-44 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 g. Parks The park and recreation components of the GDP/SRP and related policies are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Parks, Recreation and Open Space. The Otay Ranch land use plan identifies five levels of parks: ?? Town Squares: minimum one half acre parks located in some village core areas to serve village residents. The location will be determined by the SPA plan for that Village. ?? Pedestrian Parks: Pedestrian parks are usually designed as an ammenityamenity built for the residents of a neighborhood. Pedestrian parks are not provided through any required City policy, instead seen as a design element intended to enhance neighborhood connectivity. Typically, the appropriate homeowner’s association controls the ownership and maintenance of these facilities. ?? Neighborhood parks: serving village residents within a 1/2 to 3/3/4 mile radius located within villages, providing active recreation opportunities. The Otay Ranch Parks Plan (see Chapter 4) identifies 19 existing and future neighborhood parks. ?? Community Parks: shared between villages, within short driving distance (1 to 2 mile service radius). Each community park should be a minimum, of 35 25 acres. The Otay Ranch Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Chapter 4, identifies a a minimum of two major community park facilities. ?? Regional Parks: serving the local community and South County region. Chapter 4, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, identifies 2 potential regional parks, including the Otay Valley Regional Park and the San Ysidro Mountain Regional Park. h.. Mobility System One purpose of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to identify a circulation network of continuous routes though the ranch, providing convenient access to all villages and the region. The circulation network provides roadways through and between the three parcels of Otay Ranch. The circulation system is comprised of: ?? Regional Circulation: A system of arterials, the SR-125 highway, and the Bus Rapid -transit line. ?? Village Circulation: A system of roadways and arterials that provides multiple routes within the villages of Otay Ranch. ?? Trails System: A comprehensive system of pedestrian, bicycle, low-speed neighborhood electric vehicle and equestrian trails to provide other modes of transportation. The circulation policies and components of the GDP/SRP are discussed in Chapter 2, Mobility and Chapter 4, Parks, Recreation and Open Space. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Page II-45 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 28 Circulation Element Roads and Transit Line (ADOPTED) V5 V1 V1W V2W V2 PA 18b V4 V6 V7 V8 V9 V11 V10 PA12 FC V3 PA 18a PA12 EUC V16 V13 V14 V14 V15 V17 Otay Ranch Circulation Element Roads and Transit Line *The portion of Main Street east of SR-125 will be constructed only if the Villages Nine/Ten residential alternative is implemented. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Page II-46 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 28 Circulation Element Roads and Transit Line (PROPOSED) EUC V5 V1 V1W V2W V2 V4 V6 V7 V8 V9V11 PA 10 PA12 FC V3 PA 18 PA12 EUC PA 16 V13 V14 V14 V15 PA17 Otay Ranch Circulation Element Roads and Transit Line PA 19 PA 20 Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-47 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Section D Land Use Design, Character and Policies 1. Village/Town Center Definition and Organization Policies identified in this subsection apply to all urban villages and town centers. A detailed description with village-specific and town center specific policies for each village, town center and rural estate area is included in Section F, Village/Town Center Descriptions and Policies of this Chapter. The organization of land uses is the key to the village/town center concept. Villages and town centers are comprised of two basic components: a central area of more intense uses, the Village village Core core or town center; and surrounding areas of residential uses, the Secondary Area. Village cores and town centers contain Mixed Use (MU) and Medium-high (MH) land use categories as depicted within the GDP/SRP Land Use Map. Village cores and town centers contain Mixed Use (MU), Town Center (TC), and or Medium-high (MH) land use categories as depicted within the GDP/SRP Land Use Map. Village cores serve as the focal point and commercial hub of the village. Village cores are centered around a main street or plaza and include the following land uses: retail/commercial, residential, neighborhood parks and other civic or community uses, such as churches, child care or senior centers. Town centers are more Intense intense mixed use areas of higher residential densities and broader range of commercial and civic services than provided iIn the village cores. They are associated with public transit stops or stations. They also Incorporate incorporate town center arterial roadways whichhwhich are Intendedintended to provide a pedestrian friendly, multi-modal environment while providing for efficient automobile circulation. Retail/commercial, high density and/or mixed use residential, neighborhood parks, town squares, and other civic or community uses, such as churches, child care or senior centers are arranged around the couplet, spindle, or grid to maintain a pedestrian scale, generate pedestrian activity, promote transit use and create a vibrant town center. Bringing traffic into the town center increases the visibility of the area, ensuring the long-term viability of the commercial uses within. Residential neighborhoods surround the village core and town center, and provide a range of housing opportunities (“Secondary Areas”). Otay Ranch is planned to emphasize and enhance each villages’ and town centers’ characteristics to create neighborhoods and communities with unique identities. While the following policies apply to each village/town center, policies should be flexibly applied to reflect the character and intensity of each village or town center. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-48 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 29a Urban Village Core Concept Exhibit 29b Town Center Concept Note: Town Centers may employ one or two town center arterials School Elementary School & Transit Line Park Multi-Family Mixed-Density Mixed-Use Commercial /Office Single-Family Multi-Family/Mixed-Density Mixed-Use Commercial /Office Single-Family Residential Park Town Center Arterial (Couplet)Town Center Arterial (Couplet); Transit on Arterial or Adjacent Roadway Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-49 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 a. Village/Town Center Land Use Policies GOAL: ORGANIZE LAND USES BASED UPON THE VILLAGE/TOWN CENTER CONCEPT TO PRODUCE A COHESIVE, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY COMMUNITY, ENCOURAGE NONVEHICULAR TRIPS, AND FOSTER INTERACTION AMONGST RESIDENTS. ?? Master-plan each village/town center consistent with the GDP/SRP goals, objectives, policies and standards. ?? Include a variety of uses and housing types within each village /town center to meet the needs of residents. ?? Establish a unique character and sense of place within each village/town center. ?? Phase villages/town centers to ensure the provision of adequate facilities and services. ?? Accessory units are permitted on single-family lots within Villages One through Eleven, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 3, Housing. ?? Land uses, roads and buildings shall be designed and located to encourage walking between uses and foster a pedestrian scale. Exhibit 30 Urban Village Concept Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-50 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Encourage a pedestrian-friendly village/town center environment through the use of amenities such as: • Shaded streets • Street furniture • On-street parking • Buildings fronting the streets • Narrow streets • Reduced design speeds • Visible landmarks • Entries and porches facing the street • Commercial areas with zero front yard setbacks (build to line) • Plazas and Courtyards courtyards in commercial areas • Multi-modal circulation systems Exhibit 31 Pedestrian Environment ?? Connect open spaces, schools, parks and neighborhoods with convenient and safe pedestrian walkways and bikeways. ?? Pedestrian and bicycle routes shall connect the more distant portions of a village to the village core. Generally, such routes shall be co-located with streets, although connections may be provided along transit corridors or within greenbelts. ?? Promenade Streets streets shall extend from secondary areas into the village core or town center to accommodate pedestrian and bike access. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-51 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Non-auto circulation systems, such as pedestrian walkways and bike ways, shall be provided between villages and town centers. Where appropriate and feasible, a grade separated arterial crossings should be provided to encourage pedestrian activity between villages/town centers. Exhibit 32 Pedestrian/Bike Way Overpass ?? To define the village core/town center edge and to provide a greenbelt between villages cores/town centers, landscaped buffers shall be provided adjacent to arterial highways. The buffer shall vary in size, in relation to highway alignments, topography, community character, location of proposed facilities and existing natural features. Scenic highways have an expanded buffer (see Chapter 2, Mobility). b. Village Core/Town Center Policies The primary geographic feature is the village core or where applicable, applicable, town center. The village core/town center creates the land use relationships necessary to achieve the goal of a small town environment. Village cores contain Mixed Use (MU) and Medium-high (MH) residential land use categories as depicted within the GDP/SRP Land Use Map. Town centers act much like village cores, although commercial land use iIs more iIntense and residential densities are provided by the Town Center (TC) land use designation High (H). Each of the village cores and town centers has been conceptually located on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map, and shall adhere to the following policies: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-52 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? The A village core is defined by the Mixed Use (MU) and Medium-high (MH) land use categories as depicted within the GDP/SRP Land Use Map. The A town center also is defined as by the Town Center (TC) land use designation as depicted within the GDP/SRP Land Use Mapby Mixed Use, although residential density iIs High, and the range and -iIntensity of commercial land use iIs greater. The village Village cores and town centers may contain higher intensity uses, including: • Civic Presence and Community Purpose Facilities • Village Square or Green • Elementary School • Commercial and Office Uses • Transit Stop or Station • Parking Areas or Facilities ?? Village cores/town centers should be centrally located, within approximately one-quarter mile of the majority of a village’s population. ?? The location and form of the village core/town center shall reflect the physical constraints of the village and the village’s relationship to surrounding land uses and the circulation system. A town center shall provide for a more defined grid sytemsystem of roadways the center of which iIs the town center arterial. The town center arterial provides for greater support to mixed-use retail centers by accommodating high traffic volumes yet does so iIn a pedestrian friendly environment. It iIs anticipated that these roadways will be composed of a pair of two lane one-way streets. ?? The village core or town center shall be precisely sited at the SPA level consistent with the GDP/SRP goals, objectives and policies. The actual location may shift from the conceptual location depicted in the GDP/SRP Land Use Map, as a result of more precise analysis of the following: circulation and access, visual access from arterial roads, transit service, market and service area considerations and the type of uses proposed within the village core. ?? Community purpose facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provision of Chapter 5, Capital Facilities and Chapter 19.48 (PC Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code unless otherwise permitted by City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or such other manner approved by City Councilas amended in a separate agreement. ?? Village core and Town Center buildings shall not exceed four stories. Buildings constructed at lower heights may be converted to four-story buildings. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-53 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Locate taller buildings near the center of the village core or town center, with building heights and sizes gradually decreasing outward from the center. Exhibit 33 Village Core Bulk and Scale Exhibit 34 Village Core Commercial Access ?? Buildings shall have front access and orientation to streets and sidewalks. Access to parking lots shall be secondary to the street. ?? Avoid street side facades of unarticulated blank walls or an unbroken line of garage doors. ?? Building facades shall be varied and articulated to provide visual interest. Encourage street level windows and numerous building entries. Arcades, porches, bays, and balconies shall be encouraged. ?? Use landscape themes to help define village/town center character. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-54 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 c. Village Core/Town Center -Mixed Use Policies The basic element of the village core/town center is the mixed use area, depicted by the Mixed Use (MU) and Town Center (TC) land use categorycategories. This These designations is are intended to concentrate activities to create a friendly small town environment, enhance pedestrian access, promote social interaction, discourage multiple auto trips and increase use of alternative modes of transportation. Application of the Mixed Use (MU) and Town Center (TC) land use categoryies shall comply with the following policies: ?? Land uses permitted within Mixed Use (MU) and Town Center (TC) categoryies may vary from village/town center to village/town center as the needs warrant. Exhibit 35aVillage Core Concept (Illustrative Only) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-55 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 35b Town Center Concept (Illustrative Only) ?? The mixed use and Town Center (TC) areas is aare contiguous pedestrian area zones which includes the following activities, as listed below: • Retail/Office Uses: Uses such as, but not limited to, retail shops, professional offices, service commercial, restaurants, cinemas, health clubs, entertainment facilities, supermarkets and studios are permitted, along with attendant parking areas or facilities. Residential uses may be permitted above commercial uses. These uses shallshould not front on circulation element roads in Village Cores but may in Town Centers in order to activate the street scene and increase the viability of commercial uses. • Elementary Schools: Elementary schools Schools shall be located within or adjacent to the mixed use area, where population warrants. However, elementary schools shall not be located so as to disrupt the contiguous retail uses. School sites are shown symbolically on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map to indicate the conceptual location. The specific location of schools shall be identified at the SPA level. Residential uses are permitted, in the event the school sites shift from the mapped location. • Civic Presence Facilities: Each village/town center should contain one or more civic presence facilities within the village core/town center. The architecture of civic presence facility may be the hallmark of the character of the village/town center and help to create a focal point for village/town center activity. (In some cases, a commercial building could be the focal point.) Civic presence facilities may be drawn from a wide variety of uses, including, but not limited to: libraries, community centers, a public plaza, Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-56 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 town square or town hall, fire/police stations, cultural arts, public and/or private schools, churches, day care centers and commercial recreation facilities. In some instances, civic presence facilities may also be “community purpose facilities” sized in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 5, Capital Facilities and Chapter 19.48 (PC Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. ?? Encourage mixed uses throughout Mixed Use (MU) and Town Center (TC) areas, including residential or office uses above retail uses. ?? The design and location of residential areas shall complement the pedestrian friendly environment. ?? Commercial uses shall be sized to meet the day-to-day needs of surrounding villages/town centers. Uses which rely extensively upon regional markets, heavy autos or truck access are not appropriate in the village core or town center. ?? Concentrate retail uses near the transit station/stops in Mixed Use (MU) and Town Center (TC) areas. Orient Mixed Use (MU) and Town Center (TC) area activities which generate higher volumes of trips toward the transit facilities, rather than toward parking areas. ?? Landscape Mixed Use (MU) and Town Center (TC) areas to create an urban feeling through the use of hardscape, tree wells, pots, street furniture, thematic light fixtures, benches, bollards, and enriched paving patterns. Town Center Arterials, Village Entry Streets and Promenade Streets should be treelined with a formal landscape pattern. ?? Public access spaces, such as a plaza, town square, park, or town hall or community building, shall be provided in Mixed Use (MU) and Town Center (TC) areas. Public access spaces may be privately owned if significant public access is assured. Exhibit 36 Village Core Street Cross Section d. Village Core/Town Center -Residential Policies The residential character in the village core/town center is of a sufficient and variable density to create the critical mass required to energize a village core/town center area. The residential land uses within the village core are generally located in areas designated for Mixed Use (MU) and mediumMedium-high (MH) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-57 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 residential land uses. Some small lot, zero lot line and patio home type, single-family uses may be intermingled with the more intense uses. Within the higher Intensity intensity town center, residential density will be designated for High Town Center (TC) densityis defined by the Town Center (TC) land use designation. ?? The Town Center (TC) designation allows for higher residential densities than Mixed Use (MU) land designations. ?? Mixed Use (MU) residential with some Medium-high (MH) residential uses shall be located in the village core or town center, on two or more sides of mixed-use areas. Town Center (TC) residential uses shall be located in the town center, on two or more sides of mixed-use areas. ?? Town Center (TC), Mixed use (MU) and Medium-high (MH) and Town Center (TC) residential uses shall be characterized by higher density multi-story mixed use shopkeeper and live/work row homes, townhouses, duplexes and stacked flats residential buildings with heights ranging from two to four stories, and some single-family uses where appropriate. ?? Limited single-family uses shall be permitted within the medium-high (MH) category when interwoven with the other uses. These single-family uses shall utilize small-lot concepts consistent with the higher intensity character of the village core/town center. ?? The Town Center (TC) designations allows for High higher residential densities. e. Secondary Areas Policies The residential areas outside of the village core/town center are “Secondary Areas” predominately comprised of residential uses oriented to the village core or town center, through the design of street, pedestrian and bicycle systems and alternative modes of transportation. Residents of this area will look to a village core or town center for many goods and services. ?? Secondary areas shall be areas outside of the village core town center, predominately comprised of residential uses. ?? Outside the village core/town center, densities shall generally decrease with distance from the transit stop or station. ?? Limited convenience commercial may be located outside the village core or town center. These areas will be delineated at the SPA level. f. Transit Policies Each village is planned to facilitate alternate methods of transportation. The land use and circulation patterns of urban villages are organized around transit service and facilities. A significant alternate means of transportation in the Otay Ranch is the future extension of the bus rapid transit system. Several Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-58 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 components of the GDP/SRP Land Use Plan encourage the use of transit, such as: ?? Transit line rights-of-ways shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level within Villages One, Two, Five, Six, Eight, Nine and Planning Area 12. ?? TranistTransit stops and/or stations shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in village core/town center areas. ?? Park-and-ride facilities shall be located within the Freeway Commercial area of Planning Area 12 adjacent to a transit station. ?? The EUC shall contain a centrally located transit station. As the intensity of the EUC increases, a second transit stop may be provided, subject to the design criteria of SANDAG. The following policies are intended to ensure that village cores/town centers, and surrounding areas are readily accessible to facilitate a variety of modes of transportation: ?? Villages and Town Centers shall provide for a variety of modes of transportation, including walking, automobiles, low-speed neighborhood electric vehicles, bus, rail, specialized transit and bicycles. ?? Transportation components, such as park-and-ride facilities, bus stops, pedestrian bridges and pedestrian walkways and bike ways, shall be sited and designed to facilitate connections between transportation modes. ?? Provide adequate space for bus service or a feeder network to support transit within each village core or town center. ?? Locate commercial uses close to primary village transit stops. ?? Small park-and-ride lots for village/town center residents may be provided within the village core or town center. Regional surface park-and-ride lots shall be located outside of villages and town centers, with feeder bus service to the transit station. ?? A 25-foot transit right-of-way shall be approximately locatedidentified at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level within Town Center Arterials and/or Village Entry Streets designated as transit routes. ?? Because the GDP/SRP village cores/town centers are conceptually located on the Land Use Map and are to be approximately located at the SPA level, consistent with the GDP/SRP goals, objectives and policies, the transit line alignment on the Land Use Map may also shift to serve the village cores or town centers based on an analysis required by the policies. Precise transit alignments will be determined with the preparation of final tentative maps and improvement plans. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-59 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Bicycle parking shall be provided at transit stations and, in general, activity nodes throughout the village core or town center. ?? The design of transit facilities should complement the surrounding architecture. g. Village/Town Center Street System Policies The goal of the village/town center street system is to promote pedestrian access and to direct through-trips around arterial traffic, transit, bicycles and other modes of transportation safely and efficiently through or around the village or town center. This goal is achieved by creating a network of interconnected streets within each village or town center. Such networks have the benefit of providing alternative routes to destinations and increasing the number of intersections on those routes. This reduces the turning load at each intersection. The geometry of a dense network of streets minimizes travel distance due to the reduction of isolated areas of development and the provision of direct routing. Multiple parallel routes to the village core/town center provide shorter and more convenient routes for pedestrians, and alternate routes for automobile traffic. The village/town center street system is summarized below (detail on the system is located in Chapter 2, Mobility): Village Entry Streets : This street connects Arterial Roads to the village core. SHadeShade trees shall be required along all Village Entry Streets, sited to create a visual frame. Village Entry Streets should be should be as straight and direct as practical to provide visual landmarks for navigation and to create a sense of place. Promenade Street: The Promenade Streets lead directly from the residential neighborhoods to the village core. These streets are designed to collect vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the outlying neighborhoods, creating a backbone street system that ties the different parts of the village together. Promenade Streets should be as straight and direct as practical. Secondary Loop and Collector Street: These streets separate single-and multi-family areas and provide a loop system linking local residential streets with the Promenade and Village Entry Streets. Residential Streets: The Residential Streets within the single-family residential neighborhoods consist of a combination of double-and single-loaded local streets and cul-de-sacs. The double-loaded streets lead from the collectors to serve streets within the neighborhoods. They may be either through streets or lead to cul-de-sacs. Alleys: Alleys are permitted. Alleys may provide rear entrances for vehicles, decrease intrusions onto the residential collector streets and enable homes to be placed closer to the street, creating a pedestrian-friendly environment. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-60 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 The Village Street System shall comply with the following policies: ?? Access from villages to prime arterials roads should be limited to maintain prime arterials as high capacity regional connections. ?? Provide four-lane road connections for pedestrian, automobile and buses between villages, reflective of topographic conditions. ?? Reduce through traffic within villages by utilizing two-lane roads and couplets within villages (except for Village Entry Streets), and permitting levels of service less than LOS “C” within villages. Level of service for roads outside of villages is LOS “C”, pursuant to GDP/SRP facility thresholds. ?? Alternative routes within a village may be provided in a number of ways. The details of the circulation system for individual villages shall be prepared at the SPA level. ?? With the exception of town centers, pProhibit direct routes through villages to discourage through-traffic. ?? Cul-de-sacs shall be permitted if, at the end of the cul-de-sacs, pedestrians are provided access to the village core or other desired destinations. Dead end cul-de-sacs are permitted only in perimeter locations. ?? Streets shall balance the needs of pedestrians, buses, and automobiles. Intersections shall encourage pedestrian movement, reduce the number of turning lanes (where feasible), reduce auto speed while ensuring public safety, and provide for emergency vehicle access. ?? Alleys within the village core may serve residential and commercial areas and encourage service access at the rear of buildings. ?? Town Center Arterial: Town Center Arterials serve the Town Centers by bringing arterial traffic Into into the town centers with a pedestrian oriented grid system of streets. These arterials provide for pededstrianspedestrians, vehicles and transit In in a walkable environment. Town Center arterials Arterials are typically a pair of two lane one-way streets (couplets) that provide the equivalent capcitycapacity as an four lane arterial. Couplets allow for Intergrationintegration of pedestrians by providing slower travel speeds and narrower street width without reducing overall travel time through the Town town Centercenter. These pairs of one-way streets allow for better integration of pedestrian traffic by allowing for slower automobile speeds and minimizing street crossing widths without reducing road carrying capacity. This arterial design allows for comfortable pedestrian movement through the high activity of a Town town Centercenter. The grid-like pattern of the Town Center Arterial in the Town town Center center also offer more frequent block intersections promoting more storefront businesses among other mixed-uses. Shorter block lengths are a feature in the Town town Centerscenters, which Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-61 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 increase the vitality of commercial service areas, and at the same time avoid “strip commercial” development. The one-way Town Center Arterial resolves problems experienced on traditional high-volume traffic arterials requiring a wider roadway. h. Parking Policies ?? Parking facilities shall allow for easy pedestrian access. ?? Parking facilities shall be segmented into reasonably sized areas to prevent vast expanses of asphalt. ?? Parking facilities shall be located and designed for visual accessibility to the driving public. ?? Parking lots should be designed to accommodate future redevelopment into buildings with integrated parking structures. ?? Parking structures are permitted. Encourage ground floor retail use. ?? On-street parallel or diagonal parking adjacent to sidewalks is encouraged. On-street parking is not may be be allowed on the same side of the street as village greens and/or parks. ?? Encourage joint use of parking facilities by uses which have differing peak hours. A reduction of required parking spaces may be permitted for shared parking programs and , implemented with a joint use agreement executed and approved at the time of SPA approval. ?? Within the village core or town center, parking shall be located on-street, to encourage pedestrian accessibility, and in locations which minimize large expanses of asphalt. Parking may be visually accessible from main thoroughfares, but shall minimize visibility by locating lots to the rear of buildings wherever possible. Exhibit 37a Village Core Parking ?? Primary building entrances shall be located on the main street whenever possible. Secondary entrances for large anchor buildings may be provided from parking lots located at the rear. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-62 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Parking may be provided in structures with potential for use of the ground level for retail space. i. Village Parks Each village contains a neighborhood park, within or near the village core or town center, generally at least 7 acres in size. The design and character of neighborhood parks should be consistent with the character of the village/town center. Where feasible, the park should be located near civic presence facilitesfacilities such as community purpose facilities or schools to encourage joint-use of recreation and parking facilities. In addition to the 7-acre park, other neighborhood parks will be located in the village/town center as warranted by population. In addition, pedestrian parks are encouraged within single-family residential developments to link neighborhoods and reduce use of automobiles. However, these parks account for community purpose facility (CPF) credit rather than park credit. Park sites are shown symbolically on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map Policies and guidelines shall be developed at the SPA level for community gardens within the designated open space areas within each urban village/town center. 2. Industrial The majority of the Otay Ranch industrial uses are located to the south and west edge of the Otay Valley Parcel. Industrial uses are located on the mesa south of the Otay River Valley in Planning Area 18, and, to the west of Heritage Road at the extreme western edge of the Otay Valley Parcel in Villages Two and Three, near existing industrial development. The industrial land use category (I) establishes light industrial uses in a business park setting. These uses generate an employment base within the Otay Ranch community, as well as the South San Diego County region. Heavy industrial areas are not included within Otay Ranch because the Otay Mesa contains an adequate subregional supply of such intense uses. This category authorizes uses such as research and development, light manufacturing, warehouse and distribution facilities, office/showrooms and supporting uses. Industrial Policies ?? The actual total square footage of permitted industrial space and floor area ratios shall be established at the SPA level. Permissible ratios will vary depending on the parking needed to accommodate the proposed use. ?? The industrial category should be characterized by light industrial uses, with buildings of three stories or less. Exhibit 37b Joint School-Park Facility Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-63 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? The mass of the buildings shall be balanced with protective landscaped setbacks, open space areas and outdoor amenities such as seating areas, artwork and similar amenities. ?? Building locations should optimize off-site and on-site views and avoid a crowded appearance. ?? Arrange land uses to avoid conflicts between various industrial activities. ?? Loading and service areas should be located to the rear of buildings and be screened from street view by walls, landscaping or landforms. ?? Provide safe and efficient access for service vehicles. Service/auto conflicts shall be minimized through proper design. ?? Entries shall be sensibly located and signed with respect to landscaped parkways, visitor parking areas, loading areas, and drop-off areas. ?? Structures fronting on public areas shall present a high quality, characteristic of a professional business park. ?? Landscaping shall be consistent with the professional business park image, emphasizing screening and providing visual interest to large building and parking expanses. ?? Building, parking, screen walls, hardscape, and landscape elements shall be part of a unified aesthetic theme for the business park. ?? Detailed design criteria shall be established for industrial uses, as well as for common elements such as monumentation, streetscape and common hardscape areas. ?? Complementary uses which serve the industrial area, such as limited financial uses, daily convenience and restaurants, shall be integrated into the land use pattern, and permitted within the industrailindustrial land use category (I). ?? Design criteria shall consider transit availability in industrial areas. ?? Light and noise impacts to adjacent open space areas should be minimized. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-64 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 3. Commercial/Office/Business Park a. Regional Commercial/Office The Eastern Urban Center (EUC) contains the most intense development in Otay Ranch and is the urban heart of the region (Planning Area 12). Uses and intensities are intended to create a lively, 24-hour environment, with a creative medley of uses, building types and amenities. These uses include the regional retail commercial, hotel and office uses. Retail and office development within the Eastern Urban Center is of an intensity compatible with a "downtown" urban center. The most intense development is concentrated near the trolley station(s), with building heights and sizes gradually decreasing toward the edge of the planning area. (See Part II, Chapter 1, Section F. 12.; Eastern Urban Center [Planning Area 12] for applicable policies.) b. Freeway Commercial Adjacent to the EUC is approximately 106.5 acres of freeway commercial (Planning Area 12). The freeway commercial area provides for a mixture of uses suitable for, and dependent on, direct highway exposure, including large-scale uses which require sites primarily served by vehicular access. Typical uses permitted in the Freeway Commercial category (FC) include regional shopping opportunities such as: automobile centers; discount stores; warehouse outlets; membership clubs; and other large scale uses that require freeway exposure. Public uses such as park-and-ride and transit related services are also permitted. Freeway Commercial Policies ?? The actual amount and location of freeway commercial uses shall be established at the SPA level. ?? The freeway commercial land use category permits freewayoriented, low scale buildings of three stories or less (heights will be established at the SPA level). The mass of the buildings shall be balanced with landscaped setbacks and landscaping within parking areas. ?? Setbacks, which prevent a "strip development" appearance, should be established at the SPA level. ?? Landscaping shall create a well-kept and attractive commercial environment. Large parking areas shall be landscaped to minimize heat gain and break up expanses of asphalt. ?? Prepare a signage program for freeway commercial uses concurrent with the first SPA containing freeway commercial uses. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-65 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 c. Business Park Business park uses are generally of a "research and development" character. The uses are arranged with various amenities presenting a feeling of a quality corporate setting. Business park uses are permitted within the EUC land use category, located in the EUC (Planning Area 12). Business Park Policies ?? Exact floor area ratios for business park uses shall be established at the SPA level. ?? Business park uses shall be low to mid-rise (two to three stories maximum). ?? These facilities shall be linked by pedestrian and transit systems to other parts of the EUC, as well as to the potential university. ?? Landscape and amenities such as open space, water features, plazas, and walkways shall be an important part of the business park. ?? Buildings shall be clustered around common amenities, such as a water feature, plaza or open space. ?? An overall pedestrian circulation system shall be created throughout the business park. ?? Orient building entries toward the street on which a pedestrian plaza or common area shall be located. ?? Land uses complementary to a business park environment, such as limited retail and service uses, may be provided. ?? Encourage integration of service uses within a single office building. ?? Promote complementary architectural forms, materials and textures within clusters of buildings. ?? Promote strong, formal landscape elements to emphasize and define vehicle paths, pedestrian walkways, and outdoor spaces. ?? Parking area landscaping shall be an extension of the landscaping throughout the business park, providing unity with the surrounding environment. 4. University Tthe University of California Regents have expressed their intention to construct three new University of California campuses over the next 20 years, one of which will be sited in Southern California. On October 6, 1989, The The Baldwin Company and the City of Chula Vista jointly submitted a proposal to the University of California Board of Regents to locate a new university campus on Otay Ranch. The proposal identified a site near Wueste Road overlooking Otay Lakes and adjacent to the United States Olympic Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-66 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 Training Center. During 1992, the City of Chula Vista and San Diego City Councils and the County Board of Supervisors approved resolutions supporting the Wueste Road location for a university, subject to several conditions; notably, that an environmental process be completed assuring the identification and protection of significant resources. As part of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan approval in 1993, a university was envisioned as the primary land use for a portion of Village Nine and Planning Area Ten. For nearly 20 years, the City of Chula Vista has continued to pursue the vision of an institution(s) of higher education within the corporate limits. To date, progress has been made through the acquisition of approximately 518 acres of land for university development and as an open space buffer as part of the Otay Ranch Preserve. Recognizing the need for viable employment lands, the City’s updated General Plan (2005) called for a Regional Technology Park (RTP) use in conjunction with a university. It is the intent of this GDP/SRP to reserve the land designated as University and RTP. Since January 2006, the City has been working with key area landowners to develop a land plan that would work for property owners and meet the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. In the spring of 2008, the City and the landowners entered into Land Offer Agreements (LOAs). The LOAs provide the City with an opportunity to obtain the land necessary for the development of the University and RTP by providing certain considerations in conjunction with future entitlements for Otay Ranch Villages Three. Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, a portion of the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) and Planning Area 10. The acquisitions of the University and RTP sites, and necessary mitigation acreage will be a major step forward in achieving the City’s General Plan goals. The current schedule anticipates the final land acquisition to be completed in 2013. The GDP/SRP Land Use Map delineates the location for a university University campus Campus within Planning Area 10 in the areas within a portion of Village Nine adjacent to the EUC. Village Ten and west of Wueste Road. Village Nine is also envisioned to include a university village. The university village, together with the EUC, will provide university related retail, service, and cultural centers. A separate, smaller area for university related uses is designated east of Salt Creek and west of Wueste Rd. It is the intent of this GDP/SRP to reserve the land so designated for a universityIt is envisioned that this higher education institution will consist of a multi-institutional center or a traditional University Campus with a relationship to a RTP. The RTP is envisioned as a research and technology-oriented, light industrial business park. for a period of time dependent upon phased development as set forth in the University policies below, after which other uses, as described herein, may be developed on that land. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-67 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 University Policies ?? Planning Area 10 is designated as the University and RTP site. The entirety of this planning area will be developed exclusively for a University Campus and RTP but may include some ancillary uses that are University and RTP related support services at the discretion of the City.The area indicated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as the University Site has a primary land use designation as a university site. At any time, this area may be developed for a university campus and ancillary uses such as campus-related commercial, residential and research and development support services. However, uUse of the area east of Salt Creek and west of Wueste Road, east of Otay Valley Road, by a campus is permitted, provided that the use of Salt Creek Canyon (including defined slopes) is limited to trails, passive recreation, and to biological research and educational activities in keeping with the preservation of sensitive habitat and biological species located there. No buildings or structures shall be permitted within Salt Creek Canyon. ?? A portion of Village Nine and Planning Area Ten are designated as which includes The the University and RTP , Site also has with a secondary land use designations; the land within Villages Nine and Ten has secondary land use designations for village purposes as described in Part II, Chapter 1, Sections F9 and F10., and the area west of Wueste Road, east of Otay Valley Road, has a secondary designation as open space. The area west of Wueste Road, east of Otay Valley Road, has a secondary land use designation of Open Space. This area may be developed for university purposes at any time. This area Planning Area 10 may be developed for said secondary land uses only after the development of “Western Phases I, II and III", as identified in the Otay Ranch Phasing Plan, has been completed. Completion of such development for purposes of this requirement shall be deemed to be the issuance of building permits for 75% of the residential units in Phase I through III. (See Otay Ranch Villages Phasing Plan.) The property within Village 9 designated as University may be developed for said secondary land uses only upon the following: the repurchase of said land in accordance with the terms of that certain Land Offer Agreement, dated April 17, 2008, entered into between the City of Chula Vista and Otay Land Company and the recordation of the transfer of the fee interest in accordance with said repurchase. ?? The processing of university development plan shall include an analysis of compatibility with adjacent villages, conformance with all public facility plans, including parks, and consistency with the RMP. ?? Develop a University Campus plan to supply at least 30 percent of the student housing needs, and 20 percent of graduate student and faculty/staff housing needs. Provision of this housing may be met through collaboration between the university and private ownership interests. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-68 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Provide within the University Campus opportunities to develop new research institutions, industries, and businesses that capitalize upon and complement the intellectual capital and research activities of the adjacent RTP. ?? Individual research institutes that may be developed with a Multi-Institutional Teaching Center (MITC) or traditional university may be distributed throughout the University site and/or as an interface with the Village Nine Town Center, RTP or EUC. ?? Integrate the University Campus land planning and circulation/infrastructure planning with the High Tech high school, middle school, and elementary school campus that is located within the University and RTP land planning acreage. ?? Integrate the University Campus land planning, circulation, and infrastructure planning with surrounding parklands; cultural and community facilities; libraries; and comparable uses that will be located within the EUC and Village Nine, which has been designated as the University Village, to support the University and RTP land uses. ?? The University and RTP site planning and buildings shall be linked and unified through a system of plazas/quads; pathways; transportation corridors; recreational areas, and open spaces. ?? Vehicular parking within the University and RTP site shall be minimized. Parking areas and shall not be located within the core of the University Campus or on the campus edge adjacent Village Nine where the regional transit line is to be located. 5. Regional Technology Park (RTP) The RTP will be a large, master-planned business park or parks that provides for high quality science, advanced technology and manufacturing type development. The RTP will allow research and development uses with some limited light industrial uses. The RTP will accommodate new research institutions, industries and businesses able to stimulate and/or capitalize upon the research activities of the nearby University Campus. The RTP may include a limited amount of supporting convenience and professional office that provide services and amenities in support of a high quality work environment; however, given the limited amount of RTP area these uses should primarily be located in the adjoining Village Nine and/or EUC area. RTP Policies: ?? Develop the RTP adjacent to the University Campus and the Village Nine Town Center; but provide as a distinctly identifiable and high-quality campus environment, with unifying streetscapes; landscapes; architectural character; signage; lighting; and similar elements. ?? Promote research and development uses utilizing development and land use controls and standards provided in the SPA Plans Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-69 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 for the University and RTP to encourage high technology uses and industries as outlined in the Strategic Framework Policies. ?? Proactively attract the development of incubator industries and research institutions that may be induced by the presence of a University Campus, or conversely, that may stimulate ongoing University development. ?? Allow ancillary professional office and limited service businesses as secondary uses where such uses are necessary to support the primary research and development and light manufacturing uses. These secondary uses should not compete with adjoining areas such as the Village Nine Town Center and the EUC that are intended as the preferred location for these support uses. ?? Locate accessory uses, such as daycare facilities; health clubs/spas; parklands; and other uses that support the workplace within the surrounding University Campus, Village Nine Town Center, and the EUC in order to maximize the availability of RTP land for the primary uses. ?? Locate and design the RTP so it is conveniently accessible to transit and pedestrian connections serving the University Campus, Village Nine, and the EUC. Provide vehicular accessibility to the RTP from SR-125 along Main Street/Hunte Parkway. ?? Locate portions of the RTP in proximity to the Village Nine Town Center to achieve visual continuity and pedestrian orientation so that workers in the RTP can access dining and other uses and amenities found within Village Nine Town Center. ?? Connect the RTP to surrounding open space parks, plazas, and other public amenities by providing connections with pedestrian/bike paths, and greenbelt trails. ?? Establish higher floor area ratios (FAR) to accommodate RTP uses in multi-story buildings in order to maximize limited land availability and to allow for building form transitions between Village Nine and the RTP. RTP. Locate parking at the rear of buildings to promote business visibility and a pedestrianfriendly environment. ?? The RTP may be comprised of non-contiguous areas provided that any individual land component planning area is not less than 20 acres; however, the placement of the RTP at multiple locations shall be minimized within the University Campus. 6. University/RTP Strategic Framework Policies a. Strategic Framework Introduction: As envisioned, the Planning Areas east of SR-125 and generally south Olympic Parkway function as interelated components in establishing the urban heart of Otay Ranch. These Planning Areas form a key activity center for eastern Chula Vista, and a cultural, educational, and entertainment hub for south San Diego County. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-70 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 As shown on Exhibit 37c, the areas within this Strategic Framework Area includes Planning Area 10 (the University Campus and RTP), Village Nine (the University Village), and the EUC. The establishment of a University Campus will serve as a center of education, prestige and distinction for the City of Chula Vista and southern San Diego County region, and promote economic development. A RTP will provide a high-quality business park oriented to accommodating high technology businesses conducting research activities that will provide quality job opportunities for residents of Otay Ranch, Chula Vista, and the southern San Diego region Exhibit 37c Strategic Framework Plan Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-71 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 The dedication of land to facilitate the creation of a University Campus and the RTP has directly informed and influenced the future land use planning of the entire Strategic Framework Area. The land planning areas surrounding the University Campus and RTP allows for residential and commercial development at densities and intensities that are at the higher ranges because these projects will directly support of the combined University Campus and RTP that depend on these surrounding land uses for their primary housing needs and service demands. These higher densities and intensities of development require that there be a strong overall planning relationship between these future SPA pPlanning areas. In order to provide for an organized planning relationship between these areas so that they will fit seamlessly together once they are developed, a strategic framework of planning policies is provided in this section. The Strategic Framework policies provide guidance and direction for the future SPA Planning of all of these individual planning areas. These GDP policies recognize the multiple interdependencies associated with the planning for an orderly and cohesive development and shall be applied to the review and approval process for each of these individual planning areas and their SPA Plans. b. Strategic Framework Policies: To ensure that the full range of interdependencies and related considerations are addressed in each future SPA Plan, the Strategic Framework is structured around the following three planning policy areas: (1) Land Use Planning Policies -addressing the various types of land uses as well as the mixture of uses between residential, commercial office, retail university related, and light indsutrial within a high density urban form design pattern to be utilized in the development of these areas; (2) Mobility and Pedestrian-Orientation Policies -addresssing how to achieve a cohesive and integrated street grid, multi-modal transit and pedestrian-oriented circulation network; and (3) Infrastructure and Grading Policies -addressing how the physical relationship between components such as grading, drainage, backbone infrastructure, and environmental considerations can be made so that each planning area will develop in an interconnected manner despite different land ownerships and development timetables. 1. Land Use Planning Policies: ?? Provide an analysis that assures compatibility with adjacent villages, conformance with all public facility plans (including parks), and consistency with the Resource Management Plan (RMP) within any University development plan. ?? Achieve the appearance of a seamless edge between the University and the adjacent Village Nine through use of Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-72 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 compatible building forms, massing and community character, and attention to appropriate transitions. ?? Ensure the provision of a broad range of housing types, densities, and unit sizes, including both for-sale and rental, within Village Nine to support the needs of university students, faculty and area employees. ?? Promote the development of land uses that may be shared by the University, RTP, and residential community, such as libraries, art galleries, cultural and performing arts facilities, and similar uses. ?? Ensure that University supporting land uses such as commercial retail services, offices, and faculty/staff/student housing within University Village Nine. ?? Provide RTP supporting land uses such as ancillary professional office and service businesses within Village Nine and the EUC as necessary to support the primary research and development and light manufacturing uses of the RTP. ?? Ensure that land uses that can be shared between the University Campus and the adjoining Village Nine be concentrated along the University Campus/Village Nine Town Center edge, such as art galleries; cultural facilities; retail; entertainment, food service; and similar uses. ?? Ensure that employment and civic, cultural, and recreational opportunities that are complementary to the creation of the University and RTP planning area will be provided in the Village Nine similar to but not in conflict with those provided in the EUC. ?? Preclude the development of regional serving, large-format retail, automobile sales and service, and comparable uses that are not supportive of the intense pedestrian activity that will be created within the Village Nine Town Center. ?? Concentrate the highest residential densities within the EUC and Village Nine Town Center along the transit corridor. ?? Allow residential density of up to 45 dwelling units per acre within the Village Nine Town Center and EUC planning areas, and encourage this density where the Town Center falls within the one-quarter-mile radius of transit station/stops. ?? Reduce the intensity of development as it transitions from the Village Nine Town Center to the Mixed-Use Residential, Medium Density and Low Medium Density Residential Village planning areas adjacent Otay Valley Road. 2. Mobility and Pedestrian-Orientation Policies: ?? Establish a permeable edge between the University Campus and Village Nine through the development of an urban street grid network that includes a central spine road connecting the University Campus and to the Village Nine Town Center. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-73 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Establish a grid system of streets and the village pathway that will provide access between villages by connecting the urban street grid and pedestrian network between Village Nine and the University Campus. ?? Establish a consistent design and development standard for urban sidewalks, landscaping and street furniture that will enable the creation of an urban environment that supports a strong urban street wall that is established through development code requirements for height, massing and scale of buildings forms. ?? Locate a transit station in proximity to the University Campus and RTP within the Village Nine Town Center. ?? Incorporate pedestrian-oriented retail uses in the ground floor of public parking structures where adjacent to public streets or pedestrian-oriented spaces to ensure a continuous pedestrianoriented pedestrianoriented environment between the EUC, Village Nine, and Planning Area 10. ?? Provide accessible shuttle service and/or local transit routes and shelters beyond the mass transit service areas and the transit stations to serve all residents and businesses in the EUC, Village Nine, and Planning Area 10. ?? Establish a network of streets, pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout the residential areas of Village Nine that connect to Planning Area 10, EUC and surrounding open spaces. ?? Foster a continuous development of an interconnected street grid street system between the Village Nine and Planning Area 10, which consists of narrow streets with appropriately sized sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activity. ?? Incorporate a consistent community design program of street furniture; landscaping; lighting; signage; and other amenities along the sidewalks and public places located in Village Nine, and Planning Area 10. Buildings shall not be setback or sited away from sidewalks, pathways, urban parks and plazas to stimulate a high level of pedestrian activity. ?? Establish greenway and greenbelt linkages between Village Nine, EUC, and Planning Area 10 to surrounding open spaces. ?? Provide a pedestrian bridge over SR-125 to complete the linkage of the village path circulation system between the villages west and east of SR-125. This bridge will directly connect Village Nine and Planning Area 10 with Village Eight. 3. Infrastructure and Grading Policies: ?? Ensure the coordination, design, and sizing of infrastructure needs such as sewer, water, roads and other utilities in order to maximize infrastructure economies between the development to occur within Planning Area 10 and Village Nine. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-74 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Coordinate mass grading plans between property ownerships, villages and/or planning area boundaries in order to avoid the creation of large slopes that would form barriers to connecting circulation streets, pedestrian paths, paseos, trails, or infrastructure utilities. ?? Provide circulation connection opportunities to adjacent property ownerships, villages and/or planning areas such that there would appear to be a seamless pattern of grided streets, village pathways, paseos and trails between the Planning Area 10 and Village Nine. c. SPA Planning Conformance: Compliance with these Strategic Framework policies shall be included as part of the GDP Compliance Chapter for all forthcoming SPA Plans for planning areas that are located within the Strategic Framework planning area. Conformance to these policies shall be outlined as findings in the GDP Compliance Chapter of the SPA Plans. As applicable, compliance with the strategic framework policies shall also be provided as an item on the design review checklist. The SPA should provide general concept illustrations or schematic designs as to how proposed developments will satisfy the requirements of the Strategic Framework policies. No SPA plan for any planning areas that includes or is contiguous to the University Campus and RTP shall be adopted absent conformance with these Strategic Famework policies. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II October 28, 1993 Amended September 9, 2012 Page II-75 Section E Implementation 1. Introduction This GDP/SRP will be implemented through the P-C (Planned Community) zoning in the City of Chula Vista or Specific Plan zoning in the County. A Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for areas in Chula Vista will be prepared to provide detailed design and development criteria. A Specific Plan for unincorporated areas will provide detailed design and development criteria. Any zoning, SPA, or Specific Plan subsequently adopted for Otay Ranch must be consistent with this GDP/SRP, and the General Plan of the applicable jurisdiction. This GDP/SRP will be used to evaluate development applications within Otay Ranch. This GDP/SRP will also be used by applicants to guide responses to changing market conditions, economic considerations and environmental research throughout the implementation period of the plan. ?? SPAs are required for all areas within the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP1. ?? Each village must be master-planned as a unit. o Exceptions to the requirement to master-plan each village as a unit: a. The Inverted "L", the Ranch House property, the areas of Villages One and Two west of Paseo Ranchero and the Freeway Commercial area of the Eastern Urban Center (Planning Area 12), which may have their own SPA Plan approved prior to development of the particular area. b. In instances when a village is not under unified control, in which case an application may be accepted and processed for a portion of a village if determined necessary by the Director of the Planning and Building Department. In making the administrative decision to accept the initial application within a village, the Director shall first make a written determination that the property constitutes a significant and appropriate initial development area of the village and that the application complies with the requirements of this provision. It is encouraged Thatthat such applications comprise more than 40 acres, but lesser areas may be considered by the Director of the Planning and Building Department. The entire village shall be planned to a 1 Except Planning Area 19, if processed in the County of San Diego. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II October 28, 1993 Amended September 9, 2012 Page II-76 conceptual level to demonstrate the compatibility of the portion under the control of the first applicant and the remainder of the village, which may include but not be limited to integration of land uses and infrastructure. As part of any SPA application submittal, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that it has met or made good faith attempts to meet, with all other owners within the village to discuss the applicant's proposal and to comprehensively plan the village. The decision of the Director of the Planning and Building Department with respect to the SPA plan application shall be final. Following application submittal, the City, the applicant and other owners within the Village who wish to participate will meet and confer on a regular basis regarding issues of integration and compatibility in an effort to avoid conflicts where possible. Subsequent applications within such Village may thereafter propose amendments to the initial SPA approval. ?? More than one village or planning area may be combined within a single SPA; and should demonstrate a logical connection. a. SPA Requirements While the GDP/SRP establishes plan goals, objectives and policies for the land use, open space, circulation, recreation, and other components of the community, the SPA level of planning will provide: ?? Detailed development/site utilization plans, including site, landscape, and grading plans at or near a tentative tract map level of detail. Grading plans must include slope ratios and spot elevations in areas of manufactured slopes. A tentative tract map(s) may be processed concurrently. ?? Land uses and acreages for parks, open space, schools, public/community purpose facilities, and residential uses (including lot lines, lot size, number of units, density, and parking). ?? Physical features and easements, including transit reservation/dedication must be Identified. ?? Standards for planned public and private streets. ?? Development standards and detailed design guidelines, including typical building elevations for each of the zones identified by the SPA regulating plan. type of structure, typical floor plans, structure, location, permitted uses, lot coverage, height and bulk requirements. ?? Prior to the development of any project located within a village core or town center, a Village Core or Town Center Master Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II October 28, 1993 Amended September 9, 2012 Page II-77 Precise Plans shall be prepared for GDP land uses designated as EUC, TC, and MU. Master Precise Plans shall include: • A design concept plan graphic illustration which identifies the landscape concept, plaza spaces, village core park relationship, and linkages to regional open space (as appropriate) and adjacent villages. The concept plan should identify special setback conditions and treatments, onstreet parking, parking lots, and transit linkages. • Typical building elevations for commercial and residential shall be provided, identifying the intended character, scale and proportion, massing, compatibility with the surroundings and building materials. • Demonstrate the adequate intensity of development, with the intention of supporting a pedestrian orientation. • A design review process that will be identified as part of the SPA submittal. ?? Demonstrated conformance with the guidelines and policies of the GDP/SRP. ?? A facility financing and phasing plan, as required in the Growth Management Chapter (Part II, Chapter 9). ?? Environmental/EIR/RMP requirements or conditions. ?? Additional studies required In some planning areas by the GDP/SRP as set forth in Section F of this document. ?? Current population coefficients. b. Otay Ranch Design Plan Requirements ?? The Otay Ranch is envisioned as an integrated community made up of three parcels, each of which may have a separate and unique identity. Within this framework, villages are planned which will also have an individual sense of place. An overall Otay Ranch Design Plan shall be prepared concurrent with the consideration of the first SPA. The plan shall address the design continuity for the Ranch and contain the following: • The overall design concept for the three parcels, indicating unifying elements for public rights-of-way, and addressing whether the parcels are intended to be distinct, or linked through design treatments. • A schematic design for the arterial road system system and scenic corridors, including land configurations and schematic landscape treatments for parkways, buffers and medians. Scenic highways should be addressed. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II October 28, 1993 Amended September 9, 2012 Page II-78 • A landform grading guideline section shall be prepared to guide grading design in areas adjacent to or within sensitive areas as identified in Section F of this document. • Identification of the locational signage concept, including the use of common Otay Ranch signage, and private signage. • Establish special design guidelines for grading, landscaping and architecture for areas visible from within Salt Creek, the Otay River Valley and Upper and Lower Otay Lakes. c. Village Design Plan Requirements The village concept is the heart of the Otay Ranch community vision. In order to fully implement the villages of the Otay Ranch community throughout the 30+ years of project implementation, special design considerations will be required in the form of Village Design Plans: ?? The Village Design Plan shall be a stand-alone document adopted concurrent with SPA approval, by the jurisdiction responsible for plan review. Should more than one village be included within a SPA, the design plan shall be site-specific to each village. ?? For each village, a Village Design Plan shall be developed to delineate the intended identity of the village. This design plan shall include the following minimum components to demonstrate the character, sense of place, pedestrian orientation, and transit orientation of the village core: Identity and Theme: Establishment of village identity, considering the natural setting, unique topographic features, architectural and landscape treatments, community orientation (e.g., golf, retirement, family, etc.), village form (e.g., main street, town square), land use patterns, lifestyle factors, circulation orientation, and other characteristics such as proximity to the university or the EUC. This should consist of descriptive text and a site analysis exhibit. GDP/SRP Compliance: Discussion, by topic, of compliance with village policies identified in the Land Use Section of this document. Village Design Guidelines: Design guidelines shall include text and graphics to illustrate concepts. Guidelines shall not be generic but shall be village-specific, addressing specific unique conditions, including: Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines • Landscape themes shall be used to define village character and blend with adjacent existing development. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II October 28, 1993 Amended September 9, 2012 Page II-79 • A preponderance of naturalizing and native plantings shall be integrated into revegetation plans for manufactured slopes adjacent to open space areas. A Signage Program for Key Village and Community Signs • Signage shall be controlled and designed to fit iIn the pedestrian environment. Site Planning, Grading, Architectural and Lighting Guidelines • Walls, including acoustical barriers, shall be integrated into the architectural theme and scale of the village. • Scale and architectural treatments (i.e., roof lines, building materials) of all residential and non-residential village buildings shall be diverse and yet compatible. • Architectural colors for development adjacent to open space areas shall incorporate natural tones and shades. Special Visual Studies (for areas identified in Section F, and elsewhere, as identified by the appropriate jurisdiction) • Buffer and/or transition techniques should be developed which deal with the transition between different villages within and outside of the proposed project. • View corridors shall be integrated at the terminus or periodically along the length of streets paralleling or intersecting undeveloped open space. • Buffer techniques shall be developed to address transitions between villages and incompatible land uses to minimize visual impacts. [The following Text was relocated to pages II-76 to II-77 under SPA Requirements, Sixth Bullet regarding Precise Plans] Village Core Concept: Design guidelines for the Village Core include: A village core design concept plan graphic illustration shall be prepared which identifies the landscape concept, plaza spaces, village core park relationship, and linkages to regional open space (as appropriate) and adjacent villages. The concept plan should identify special setback conditions and treatments, on-street parking, parking lots, and transit linkages. Typical building elevations for commercial and residential shall be provided, identifying the the intended character, scale and proportion, massing, compatibility with the surroundings and building materials. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II October 28, 1993 Amended September 9, 2012 Page II-80 Demonstrate the adequate intensity of the village core, with the intention of supporting the pedestrian orientation. • A design review process should be identified as part of the SPA submittal. d. Other Planning Area Plan Requirements Guidelines shall include text and graphics to illustrate concepts. Guidelines shall not be generic but shall address specific site conditions. ?? Landscape and streetscape guidelines. ?? Parking lot landscaping guidelines should be delineated. ?? A Village Signage Program. ?? Site planning, grading, architectural, and lighting guidelines. ?? Special visual studies and recommendations for areas as identified in Section F, and elsewhere as identified by the appropriate jurisdiction. e. Design Review A design review process shall be provided with SPA submittal for implementation of the Design Plan. 2. Implementation Mechanisms a. Consistency with GDP/SRP Land Use Map SPA/Specific Plans shall be consistent with the GDP/SRP Plan. Consistency of village core location, total number of units, balance of density, etc., will be evaluated by the following criteria: ?? Total land use acres for each individual village may not vary by greater than 15% of the designated acres as indicated on the overall project summary table of this GDP/SRP, except for reasons of environment/wildlife corridor reservations. ?? Acres of mixed-use and medium-high or high density residential uses for a village may not exceed the GDP/SRP specified acres as indicated on the overall project summary table of this GDP/SRP, except as permitted by transfer, as set forth below. ?? Units may be moved between villages in response to the location of major public facilities (i.e., schools). ?? The total number of units within a village shall not exceed the total number of units as indicated on the Overall Project Summary Table of this GDP/SRP for that village unless otherwise permitted by City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by by agreement, ordinance or other such manner approved by City Council. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II October 28, 1993 Amended September 9, 2012 Page II-81 ?? If the residential development area is reduced at the SPA level, priority should be given to preserving the amount of land devoted to higher densities supporting transit and pedestrian orientation. ?? The Otay Ranch Design Plan shall be accepted prior to or concurrent with the approval of the first SPA, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. ?? Village Design Plan shall be subject to review and approval concurrent with SPA approval, by the responsible jurisdiction. ?? Design Plans shall be prepared for Industrial, Freeway Commercial areas and the Eastern Urban Center (EUC). These design plans shall delineate the intended character and design guidelines for these land use components. b. Design Density Calculation Densities within each land use category are expressed as a maximum2 number of dwelling units by planning area, as shown on the Project Summary Table. The The densities are calculated to create villages, which foster a lifestyle conducive to pedestrian-friendly design principles. The Chula Vista General Plan contains a "Village" or "V" designator for the low-medium land use category to accommodate the densities associated with this type of design. ec. Density Transfer At future planning levels, the transfer of dwelling units within each village may be permitted between neighborhoods and land uses, so long as the following criteria are met: ?? Densities Dwelling units may not be transferred between villages unless otherwise permitted by the City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or other such manner approved by City Council. ?? The total number of units allocated for a particular village is shall not be exceeded, except as provided for below as unless otherwise permitted by City Council pursuant to the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or other such manner approved by City Council. 2 Typically, land use jurisdictions express density as a range. The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Land Use Plan expressly varies from this practice by stating density as a maximum, or total, number of dwelling units. While there are no density ranges provided in the land use tables for each vVillage and Planning Area, Exhibit 17: Otay Ranch Land Use Designation Table provides a density range for most types of residential land use categories as an aid in defining appropriate intensity for each category. The comprehensive plan for Otay Ranch, including facility and service analyses, assumes that the maximum or total density will be achieved. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II October 28, 1993 Amended September 9, 2012 Page II-82 ?? The maximum density for the particular land use category is not exceeded, except as provided for below. ?? The planned identity of the village is preserved, including the creation of the pedestrian friendly and transit oriented environment. ?? Density may not be transferred from regional open space, such as the Otay Valley Regional Park or the San Ysidro Mountain Regional Park. ?? Density from neighborhood park sites will be permitted in the calculation of the overall number of dwelling units in a village, provided the total number of units does not increase. ?? If Community Purpose Facility (CPF) land uses are moved from one village to another, the land not utilized for CPF may revert to the underlying land use established for the core area, so long as the amount of land is not greater than 50% of the total designated for CPF, and the multi-family area of the village to which the CPF was transferred is reduced by a like amount. Transfers of CPF land uses shall be within the same phase. ?? If a school site must be moved from one village to another, the land not utilized for a school facility reverts to the underlying land use and the total number of units permitted within the village is adjusted accordingly. ?? Where development areas must be moved due to sensitive environmental factors, the transfer must meet the following criteria: • Units must remain in the same land use category (e.g., singlefamily units remain single-family). • Parkland may only be converted to open space uses, and a new park site must be designated in an area without environmental constraints. • Mixed-use areas may move to a residential area and units may be transferred, so long as the balance of housing types remains the same. • If the development area is diminished due to the identification of environmental factors located between villages, the number of units assigned to that area may be transferred to other areas of that village. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -83 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Section F Village Descriptions and Policies Introduction The purpose of this section is to establish policies and implementation measures distinct to each planning area. The policies reflect the unique aspects of each village based on its physical attributes and location within the overall community. All policies identified in Section D apply to each Otay Ranch village. Additional requirements are identified in Section E, Implementation. 1. Village One a. Village One Setting Village One is comprised of approximately 1,067 acres located in the northwest corner of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Telegraph Canyon Road between the Sunbow Planned Community and La Media Road. Telegraph Canyon is a broad, flat canyon to the north and Poggi Canyon is a steeper canyon to the south. Village One is located on a broad mesa, climbing gently from west to east. Open Space and Habitat: The southern edge of the village consists of the undulating slopes of Poggi Canyon. Due to farming on the Otay Valley Parcel, the natural habitat of the canyon contains varying levels of sensitivity, with areas of significant coastal sage scrub habitat on the western edges of the village. The canyon edge consists of three conditions: (1) significant habitat and slope; (2) degraded habitat and slope; and (3) no habitat with slope (see GDP/SRP Land Use Map). Land Use: Surrounding land uses include a medical center and the planned community of Sunbow to the west of the village, Southwestern College and existing residential neighborhoods to the north, and Villages Five and Two to the east and south. A portion of Village One is located immediately adjacent to the community of Sunbow, and is separated from the core of Village One by Heritage Road. Visual: Scenic values extend along Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway, identified in the GDP/SRP as open space scenic corridors. The village contains views to the surrounding mountains to the northeast and east. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village One is located west of Village Five, across La Media Road. This close relationship presents an opportunity to create a positive synergism between the two villages. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -84 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 b. Village One Description Village One is an Urban Village containing a centralized village core featuring a mixed-use development adjacent to a transit station. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village One contains: ?? A maximum of 2,454 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 1,522 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 11,74334 ?? A village core area including: • An elementary school • Transit stop and shelter, parking, bus turnout • Future transit right-of-way • Mixed Use area • Public and community purpose facilities • Multi-family residential • Three Neighborhood Parks • Affordable Housing Village One Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop.+ LMV 1,544 1,544 4.0 386.0 6.4 392.4 4,941 MU 91 91 17.8 18.0 5.1 11.6 13.4 6.3 36.4 232 MH 1,431 1,431 16.9 17.0 84.6 10.0 94.6 3,649 LM 910 910 4.0 227.5 5.1 232.6 2,912 OTHER 264.8 46.5 311.3 TOTAL 2,454 1,522 3,976 5.7 703.2 23.1 13.4 10.0 6.3 264.8 46.5 1,067.3 11,734 *Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage. **Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. + Population coefficient is 3. 2 persons per single-family unit and 2.55 persons per multi-family unit. **Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. Exhibit 38 Village One Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -85 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 c. Village One Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location between two scenic canyons/corridors with undulating edge conditions and areas of sensitive habitat. • Linkage and compatibility with Village Five. • Views of the surrounding mountains to the northeast and east. • Location along a proposed transit line. ?? The area west of Heritage Road shall be compatible with the adjacent Sunbow development. The identity of this area should reflect the proximity to Sunbow, and may differ from the identity of the remainder of the village. Village Core Policies: Village One will be developed in the initial phases of the Otay Ranch project. Therefore, the village core identity and form is based upon a traditional "main street" character, with multi-village retail serving at one end as an anchor, and a community purpose facility or public use anchoring the other. ?? The main street theme shall organize commercial, office and public/quasi-public uses in a linear fashion along a small scaled, tree-lined street with parking on both sides. While some parking may be visible from the street, it would be predominantly located to the rear of the buildings. Arcades, alleys, patios and similar spaces will provide pedestrian access from rear parking areas to the front entrances. ?? Transit rights-of-way shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tenative Map level. ?? The number of units identified in the village core is a minimum and may not be reduced. ?? A transit stop and/or station shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core. ?? Some services for users outside the village may be provided in the village core. Parks and Open Space Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents local park standard would result in the development of 35.2 acres of local parks in Village One. To satisfy this requirement, 23.1 acres of neighborhood park are planned in Village One. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of a community park Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -86 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 in Village Four. (See Chapter 4, Parks, Recreation and Open Space concerning the distribution of local park acreage.) ?? Significant coastal sage scrub habitat shall be preserved along the western portion of Poggi Canyon west of Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and the proposed development. ?? Natural open space areas adjacent to Poggi Canyon identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. Natural open space character along the canyon shall be based upon the concept developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan (requirements set forth in Section E, Implementation) and refined in the Village Design Plan for this village. ?? Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Telegraph Canyon Road/Poggi Canyon in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines which will be developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. Other Village One Policies: ?? A visual analysis with photo simulations shall be performed at the SPA level to assess visual impacts of development adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road to the western portion of Poggi Canyon. The analysis shall show the natural grade of the area and the topography after grading. ?? Landform grading guidelines for the area along Poggi Canyon and Telegraph Canyon Road shall be developed as part of the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. These guidelines shall apply to areas adjacent to natural open space. ?? Linkages with Village Two should be identified to coordinate access needs. ?? An alignment study shall be prepared prior to or concurrent with the SPA for Village One, delineating the transit route from I-805 through Villages One and Five. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -87 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -88 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 39 Village One Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -89 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 39 Village One Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -90 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -91 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 2. Village Two a. Village Two Setting Village Two consists of approximately 776acres 775 acres located long the western edge of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway and west of the extension of La Media Road. Village Two is located on a large mesa between Poggi Canyon to the north, Wolf Canyon to the south, and the Otay landfill to the west. Open Space and Habitat: The entire Otay Valley Parcel has been farmed or grazed, leaving isolated areas of habitat. The northern edge of the village consists of the undulating slopes of Poggi Canyon. The natural habitat of the canyon contains varying levels of sensitivity. Areas of significant coastal sage scrub habitat occur along Poggi Canyon on the western edges of the village. The canyon edge consists of three conditions: (1) significant habitat and slope; (2) degraded habitat and slope; and (3) no habitat with slope (see GDP/SRP Land Use Map). The slopes of Wolf Canyon are located along the southern edge of the village. The Otay Landfill to the west will eventually convert to open space use upon closure, and retains a 300-foot on-site natural buffer from development. In addition, there Is a 1,000-foot nuisance buffer designated for Industrial uses within Village Two north and west of the Otay Landfill. Wolf Canyon provides an open space and wildlife connection to the Otay River Valley to the south. Land Use: Village Two is located adjacent to Otay Landfill to the southwest. The Sunbow Community exists west of the village. Villages Six and Seven arelocated on the eastern edge of the village site. . A portion of Village Two is located immediately adjacent to the Village Three industrial area and is separated from the core of Village Two by Heritage Road. This close relationship may influence the design character of the western portion of Village Two. Visual: Scenic values extend along Olympic Parkway (Poggi Canyon) to the north, identified in the GDP/SRP as an open space scenic corridor, and Wolf Canyon to the south. The village contains views to the east and south. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village Two is located close to Village Six and Village Seven, across La Media Road. The village is separated from the other villages of Otay Ranch by Wolf and Poggi Canyons. b. Village Two Description Village Two is an Urban Village. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Two will be served by the future extension of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and will locate a transit station In the village core. Village Two will contain a large village core area with higher Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -92 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 multi-family densities (consistent with GDP policies for transit villages) as well as a modest increase in single-family densities outside the village core. The western portion of Village Two is separated from the core of Village Two by Heritage Road. This close relationship may influence the design character of Village Two West. Village Two contains: ?? A maximum of 986 774 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 1,8002,012 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 7,898 7,729 ?? A High School ?? Two Neighborhood Parks ?? A Fire Station ?? A village core area containing: • Mixed Uses with 11.9 acres of mixed use commercial • Public and community purpose facilities • A transit stop/station • An elementary school • Multi-family residential • A Town Square/Main Street • Affordable Housing Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -93 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 Village Two Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp.+ Art. Total Approx. Pop.++ LMV 762 762 5.6 135.0 135.0 2,438 MU 60 60 8.8 6.8 6.1 11.9 24.8 150 MH 1,416 1,416 15.1 93.6 15.4 10.3 119.3 3,540 M 324 324 9.0 36.0 36.0 1,037 LM 160 160 3.9 41.5 41.5 512 L 64 64 2.8 22.2 22.2 205 IND 87.9 87.9 OTHER 239.2 68.8 308.0 TOTAL 986 1,800 2,786 8.8 335.1 15.4 6.1 10.3 11.9 87.9 239.2 68.8 774.7 7,882 *Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level; Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0-acres per 1000 persons. **5.1-Acres CPF will be provided with balance to be provided in Village Three; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. +Open Space acreage within Village Two includes the 1,000-ft. buffer from the landfill and adjacent land uses. ++ Population coefficient is 3. 3 persons per single-family unit and 2.58 persons per multi-family unit. Exhibit 40 Village Two Land Use Table SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total LMV 480 223 703 5.9 118.8 118.8 2,173 MU 60 60 8.8 6.8 6.3 11.9 25.0 155 MH 1,553 1,553 16.6 93.6 15.4 10.3 119.3 4,007 M 473 473 9.0 52.2 52.2 1,220 LM 130 130 3.1 41.5 41.5 413 L 64 64 2.8 22.2 22.2 205 IND 87.9 87.9 OTHER 239.0 68.8 307.8 TOTAL 674 2,309 2,983 8.9 335.1 15.4 6.3 10.3 11.9 87.9 239.0 68.8 774.7 8,173 Village Two Dwelling Units Acreage *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. Use Approx. Pop. **6.3-Acres CPF will be provided with balance to be provided in Village Three; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. Exhibit 40 Village Two Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -94 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 c. Village Two Policies Village Character Policies: ?? Village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location between two scenic canyons with undulating edge conditions and areas of sensitive habitat. • Relationship with existing adjacent development, including buffers to the adjacent landfill, and consideration of the proposed industrial development. • Views to the east and south. • Lower density residential along Wolf Canyon ?? The area west of Heritage Road shall be designed to be compatible with the adjacent development in the Sunbow Planned Community and the Otay Landfill. The character of this area should reflect the proximity to the landfill and Its Industrial land uses and may differ from the identity of the remainder of the village. Village Core Policies: ?? Because of the central location of Village Two, uses in the village core area may be a higher intensity and sized to serve adjacent villages. Higher intensity uses could include large grocery stores and other tenants. o Because of the size of Village Two, the village core will include a larger town center on the east end and a smaler neighborhood center on the west end of the village. o The main street theme in the town center shall organize mixed use commercial/multi-family residential and public/quasipublic uses in a linear fashion along a tree-lined street with parking on both sites. While some parking may be visible from the street, it would be predominantly located to the rear of the buildings. Arcades, alleys, plazas and similar spaces will provide pedestrian access from rear parking areas to the front entrances. o The town square theme in the neighborhood center shall orient mixed use commercial/multi-family residential uses to a public town square. Parking may be provided along the mixed use area frontage, with the main parking area provided to the rear of the buildings. o Transit rights-of-way and a transit stop and/or station shall be approximately located at the SPA leveland will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -95 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standards would result in the development of 23.7 acres of local parks in Village Two. To satisfy this requirement, 23.7 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Two: ?? Open space preserve areas adjacent to Wolf Canyonidentified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots pursuant to the adopted Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. o Development adjacent to the preserve shall adhere to guidelines in of the Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. ?? Lot lines and grading shall not extend into the open space scenic corridor along Wolf Canyon or the Otay Ranch RMP boundary without appropriate environmental review. Modifications to the preserve boundary must be consistent with Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan policies. ?? Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Poggi Canyon in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines which are contained in the Overall Ranch Design Plan (see Section E). ?? View opportunities shall be provided in the design of the village. ?? The village boundary along Heritage Road and La Media Road should consist of a landscaped buffer which shall provide the transition to Poggi and Wolf Canyons and the Otay Landfill. ?? The broad valley of Wolf Canyon should be retained as an open space amenity. Surrounding uses shall be consistent with the findings of the Wildlife Corridor Study, the Otay Ranch RMP, and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. ?? Grading and landscaping along the village edge, adjacent to Wolf Canyon, should be conducted in a sensitive manner consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan to minimize conflicts with the adjacent open space preserve area. ?? Wildlife corridors shall be provided across Heritage Road linking Wolf and Poggi Canyons as shown on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map, input should be solicited from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (This policy applies only to the City of Chula Vista.) ?? Wildlife corridors shall be provided across Heritage Road linking Wolf and Poggi Canyons as shown on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map, input should be solicited and recommendations be considered from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (This policy applies only to the County of San Diego.) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -96 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 Other Village Two Policies: ?? A visual analysis shall be performed at the SPA level to assess visual impacts of development adjacent to the western portion of Poggi Canyon. The analysis shall illustrate the natural grade of the area and the topography after grading. ?? Landform grading guidelines for Wolf and Poggi Canyons shall be developed as part of the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. ?? Vehicular access through the village shall direct traffic through the village core. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -97 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 41 Village Two Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -98 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 41 Village Two Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -99 Amended November 10,1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -99 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 3. Village Three a. Village Three Setting Village Three is comprised of approximately 350 368 acres located in the southwest portion of the Otay Valley Parcel. The site is a large, flat mesa, with slopes adjacent to Wolf Canyon, the Otay River Valley, and the Otay Landfill. The village is between Wolf Canyon to the east, the Otay River Valley to the south, the Otay Landfill to the north, and existing industrial areas to the west. Open Space and Habitat: The southern and eastern edges of Village Three consist of the undulating slopes of Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley. Existing areas of coastal sage scrub and significant biological resources occur in both the canyon and on the slopes of the river valley. Land Use: Village Three is located near an existing industrial area of the City of Chula Vista to the west. Surrounding land uses include the Otay Landfill to the north, and the rock mountain quarry to the east, beyond Wolf Canyon. Visual: Scenic values extend along Main Street/Rock Mountain Road to the south (an open space scenic corridor), and along the edge of Wolf Canyon to the east. The village contains views to Wolf Canyon and Rock Mountain, distant views to the mountains to the east. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Because of its location adjacent to the Otay River Valley, Wolf Canyon and the Otay Landfill, Village Three is somewhat isolated from the other Otay Ranch villages except for Village Two. Village Four lies to the east, and Village Two lies to the northeast. This planning area provides a transition from the existing industrial area to Otay Ranch residential villages. b. Village Three Description The Village Three Industrial Area is comprised of approximately 368 acres located in the southwest corner of the Otay Valley Parcel, on the east and west of Heritage Road and north of the Otay River Valley. A section of the village Is also located south of Main Street/Rock Mountain Road. The village is bounded on the north by the Otay Landfill and Village Two, on the west by the existing Chula Vista industrial areas, and on the southeast by Village Four. Village Three contains: ?? Approximately 177 acres of Industrial land uses ?? A Community Purpose Facility Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -100 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 c. Village Three Policies Village Character Policies: o The character of this area shall be guided by the following qualities: • Location adjacent to Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley, two scenic canyons/corridors with undulating edge conditions and areas of sensitive habitat. • Relationship with adjacent and planned industrial development and the Otay Landfill. • Views to Wolf Canyon and Rock Mountain and the mountains to the east. ?? Location isolated by significant landforms. ?? Although the village is not located along a light rail transit route, a transit stop shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Parks and Open Space Policies: o Any grading or improvement plans adjacent to and/or affecting Wolf Canyon shall consider the planned development within Villages Two and Four. o Development adjacent to the preserve shall adhere to guidelines of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. o Open space preserve areas adjacent to and/or affecting Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. Natural open space character along the canyon shall be based upon the following concept developed in the Overall Village Three (Industrial) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF* Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop. I 176.5 176.5 OTHER 10.2 146.9 34.8 191.9 TOTAL 10.2 176.5 146.9 34.8 368.4 0 *See Village Two table. Exhibit 42 Village Three (Industrial) Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -101 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Ranch Design Plan and refined in the Village Design Plan for this village. o Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Heritage Road and Main Street/Rock Mountain Road in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines in the Overall Ranch Design Plan (see Section E). o The broad valley of Wolf Canyon shall be retained as an open space amenity. Surrounding uses shall be consistent with the findings of the Wildlife Corridor Study, the Otay Ranch RMP, and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. o Provide bike and pedestrian paths through the area which connect to the Otay Valley Regional Park Trail system. o Develop a set of design guidelines for architecture, signage, graphics and landscaping at the SPA level. Other Village Three Policies: o The visual impacts associated with development adjacent to Wolf Canyon should be considered in the design of neighborhoods along this edge. A visual analysis shall be performed at the SPA level to assess visual impacts of development adjacent to Wolf Canyon. The analysis shall illustrate the natural grade of the area and the topography after grading. o Landform grading guidelines for the edge of Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley shall be developed as part of the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. • Design guidelines which address the visual quality developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan and of development adjacent to the Otay Valley Regional Park shall apply to the Design Guidelines for Village Three. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -102 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 43 Village Three Land Use Map (City Primary Industrial Alternative) (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -103 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 43 Village Three Land Use Map (City Primary Industrial Alternative) (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -104 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -105 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 4. Village Four a. Village Four Setting Village Four is comprised of approximately 528 acres located in the southern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, west of La Media Road and south of Rock Mountain Road. The village surrounds Rock Mountain and contains a portion of Wolf Canyon. The village Is located directly west of Village Eight. The village is located east of Wolf Canyon and north of the Otay River Valley. Open Space and Habitat: Village Four is bounded by the Otay River Valley and Wolf Canyon and the associated slopes and drainage courses of these canyons. The dominate landform in Village Four is Rock Mountain to the south and a large mesa to the north that will contain a Community Park. Land Use: An existing rock and gravel extraction facility is located in an out-parcel along the southern slopes of Rock Mountain on the western edge outside of the village. Visual: The southern and eastern edge of the village is adjacent to La Media Road and Village Eight, an open space scenic corridor, and the Otay River Valley. Views from the village include Rock Mountain, Wolf Canyon, Otay River Valley and the San Ysidro Mountains. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village Four abuts Village Seven and Village Eight along its eastern edge. It is connected to Village Seven and the Eastern Urban Center through a greenbelt connection which extends from upper Wolf Canyon. The village is separated from Villages Two and Three by Wolf Canyon. Because of the lower density character of Village Four and Its relatively small area, it is likely that Village 4 will relate closely to Villages Seven and Eight, relying on these villages retail and other services . b. Village Four Description Village Four is comprised of a Community Park and single family homes around Rock Mountain. Because of the unique scenic value of Rock Mountain, this area will contain a greater proportion of low density development and open space. Village Four's, location and limited area prevent It from fully functioning as an urban village. Village Four contains: ?? A maximum of 453 single-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 1,495 ?? Community Park Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -106 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Village Four Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop.+ LM 453 453 3.8 118.0 7.0 2.1 127.1 1,495 COMMUNITY PARK 55.8 55.8 OTHER 309.9 35.0 344.9 TOTAL 453 453 3.8 118.0 62.8 2.1 309.9 35.0 527.8 1,495 *Includes required acreage from other residential villages based on park acreage ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. **Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF Acreage based on ratio of 1.39-acres per 1000 persons. + Population coefficient is 3. 3 persons per single-family unit. Exhibit 44 Village Four Land Use Table c. Village Four Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location adjacent to Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley. • Low density character of the village land land uses. • Fragmented character due to landforms and intervening roads. • The dominant landform of Rock Mountain. • Linkage and compatibility with Villages Eight and Seven and with the Community Park. • Views to Wolf Canyon, Rock Mountain, and the mountains to the east. • Consideration of major rock outcroppings. ?? In order to preserve the integrity of the landform, only low density residential may be placed along the south facing slopes of Rock Mountain. ?? Development should be less intense than in urban villages. ?? Lots designated “ LM” (3.8DUs/acre), adjacent to Wolf Canyon, should average10,000 square feet, with clusering permitted to provide flexibility in grading, minimize landform alteration and promote a sensitive development design. Building type is limited to detached single-family dwellings. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -107 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 o The Village Four Community Park may develop Independent from the balance of Village Four and may be Included within the SPA Plan for the adjacent Village Two area. The balance of Village Four may be the subject of a future SPA Plan. Village Core Policies: Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 4.5 acres of local parks in Village Four. In order to provide for the standard neighborhood park size in the village, a seven-acre neighbrohood park is planned. Additionally, 55.8 acres of community park land is planned in Village Four to accommodate the aggregated offsite park obligation related to residentail development located in Villages One, Two, Five, Six, Seven, and Eleven.This The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of community park the Village Four community park. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Four: ?? Open space preserve areas adjacent to Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. Natural open space character along the canyon shall be based upon the following concept developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan and refined in the Village Design Plan for this village. ?? Development adjacent to the preserve shall adhere to guidelines of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan.?? Reserve a natural habitat corridor of coastal sage scrub linking the Otay River Valley with Wolf Canyon consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The final location and width to be determined by future corridor studies. ?? Rock Mountain Guidelines: • The peak of Rock Mountain shall be retained for public access, as a natural overlook as shown on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map. • Rock outcroppings on Rock Mountain shall be preserved as open space. • Development on Rock Mountain shall be subject to design review to address grading, visual impacts on the Otay Valley Regional Park and the preservation of rock outcropping. ?? The outer limits of the wildlife corridor has been established adjacent to the quarry. This area has been identified on the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -108 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 GDP/SRP Land Use Map with a limited development designation. Development may encroach into this area, provided it meets the design criteria established in the Otay Ranch Wildlife Corridor Study, Otay Ranch RMP, and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. ?? The village edge shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, providing a soft transition to Wolf Canyon and to the Otay Valley Regional Park. ?? Any grading or planned improvements adjacent to Wolf Canyon shall consider the planned development within Villages Two and Three. ?? The broad valley of Wolf Canyon shall be retained as open space amenity. Surrounding uses shall be consistent with the findings of the Wildlife Corridor Study,the Otay Ranch RMP, and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. ?? Residential lot lines and grading shall not extend into Wolf Canyon, areas designated as open space preserve under the Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, or the open space scenic corridor area along Otay Valley Road without appropriate environmental review. Modifications to preserve boundary must be consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. ?? Pedestrian trails shall link the village with the Otay Valley Regional Park. Other Village Four Policies: ?? The visual impacts associated with development in areas adjacent to Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley shall be considered in the design of neighborhoods and the community park along this edge. A visual analysis with photo simulations shall be performed at the SPA level to assess visual impacts of development adjacent to Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley. The analysis shall illustrate the natural grade of the area and the topography after grading. ?? Landform grading guidelines for the edges of Wolf Canyon, Rock Mountain, and the open space scenic corridor along Rock Mountain Road shall be developed as part of the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. These specific guidelines shall be consistent with the definitions and standards established in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. ?? Design guidelines which address the visual quality of development adjacent to the Otay Valley Regional Park/Otay River Valley shall be included in the Village Design Plan for Village Four. Specific SPA guidelines shall incorporate guidelines developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -109 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Development adjacent to the rock quarry shall be phased to minimize the impacts from active quarry operations. Restrict access to active quarry uses from adjacent residential and park uses through the use of fencing or other buffering techniques. Special setbacks and design features may be needed to mitigate noise impacts from quarry uses. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -110 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 46 45 Village Four Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -111 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 45 Village Four Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -112 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -113 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 5. Village Five a. Village Five Setting Village Five is comprised of approximately 496 acres located in the northern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, southwest of the proposed interchange of SR-125 and Otay Lakes Road. The village is bounded on the north by Telegraph Canyon and to the south by Poggi Canyon. The site is characterized by a broad mesa between the canyons. Open Space and Habitat: The entire Otay Valley Parcel has been farmed or grazed, leaving isolated areas of habitat. The southern edge of the village consists of the undulating slopes of eastern Poggi Canyon. The natural habitat of the canyon at this location has been farmed. The northern edge of the village is Otay Lakes Road. Land Use: Village Five is located south of the existing neighborhoods of eastern Chula Vista. Surrounding land uses include Southwestern College, existing residential neighborhoods to the north, Villages One and Six to the west and south, and the EastLake Greens development to the east of Village Five. The planned route for SR-125 forms the eastern boundary. Also on its eastern edge is a 60-acre site utilized by the Otay Water District for water storage. The San Diego Aqueduct forms the northeastern corner of the village. Visual: Scenic values extend along Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway, identified in the GDP/SRP Mobility Chapter as open space scenic corridors. The village contains views to the surrounding mountains to the northeast and east, and to the Pacific Ocean to the west. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village Five is located across La Media Road from Village One, creating an opportunity for positive synergism between the two villages. b. Village Five Description Village Five is an urban village with a transit/rail line. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Five contains: ?? A maximum of 1,263 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 1,550 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 7,995 ?? A village core area including; • A "Main Street Mixed Use development • Public and community purpose facilities Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -114 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 • A light rail transit stop and station • An elementary school • Multi-family residential • Affordable Housing • Neighborhood Park(s) Village Five Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop.+ LMV 1,263 1,263 4.5 280.6 6.6 287.2 4,042 MU 72 72 18.0 4.0 10.0 11.3 6.0 2.0 27.3 184 MH 1,478 1,478 17.2 86.1 10.0 96.1 3,969 3,769 OTHER 70.4 15.4 85.8 TOTAL 1,263 1,550 2,813 7.6 370.7 16.6 11.3 10.0 2.0 70.4 15.4 496.4 7,995 *Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage. Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. **Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. + Population coefficient is 3. 2 persons per single-family unit and 2.55 persons per multi-family unit. Exhibit 46 Village Five Land Use Table Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location between two scenic canyons/corridors with undulating edge conditions. • Linkage and compatibility with Village One. • Relationship with existing adjacent development, including EastLake. • Views to the surrounding mountains to the northeast and east, and to the ocean in the west. • Location along a proposed light rail transit line. Village Core Policies: ?? The village core identity and form are based upon a traditional “Main Street” character, with village-serving retail, higher density residential office and public facilities fronting on East Palomar with a main street theme. ?? The Village Five core shall be designed to accommodate a transit line/transit stop. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -115 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? The number of homes identified for the village core is a minimum and may not be reduced. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 24.0 acres of local parks in Village Five. To satisfy this requirement, 16.6 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of community park in Village Four. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Five: ?? Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Otay Lakes Road/Poggi Canyon in keeping with the open space scenic corridor guidelines which will be developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan (requirements set forth in Section E, Implementation). ?? The proposed underground water storage facility on the village's eastern edge may include open space/recreation uses on its surface, designed to include access from the village. Other Village Five Policies: ?? A visual analysis with photo simulations shall be performed at the SPA level to assess the visual impacts of development adjacent to Poggi Canyon and Otay Lakes Road. Visual analysis requirements will be defined in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. ?? Light rail transit rights-of-way shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. ?? A trolley stop and/or station shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core. ?? Landform grading guidelines for the edge of Poggi Canyon and Otay Lakes Road shall be developed as part of the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. These guidelines shall be consistent with the definitions and standards established in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. ?? Pedestrian, bicycle, and and vehicular access should be provided to EastLake and adjacent villages. ?? A golf cart overpass will be provided between Villages Five and One. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -116 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 48 47 Village Five Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -117 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 47 Village Five Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -118 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -119 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended October 11, 2005 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 6. Village Six a. Village Six Setting Village Six is comprised of approximately 386 394 acres located in the central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Poggi Canyon and east of the extension of La Media Road. Open Space and Habitat: Village Six does not contain significant natural resources, as it has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The undulating slopes of eastern Poggi Canyon define the northern edge of the village. Land Use: Village Six is located in the interior of the Otay Valley Parcel, surrounded by land used for agricultural purposes. The village is surrounded by Villages Five, Seven, and Two to the north, south, and west, and the Freeway Commercial site to the east, across SR-125. Village Six is located immediately west of the proposed SR-125. Visual: Village Village Six contains distant views to the mountains to the east, southeast, and northeast. Scenic values exist along Poggi Canyon, an open space scenic corridor. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village Six is intended to have a close relationship with Village Five, to the north, connected with light rail transit connection. b. Village Six Description Village Six is an urban village with a transit/rail line. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Six contains: ?? A maximum of 941 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 1,449 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 6,736 6,706 ?? A village core area containing: • Commercial uses in a mixed use setting • Public and community purpose facilities • A bus/rail line stop • An elementary school • Multi-family residential • A Town Square/Village Green/Main Street • Affordable Housing • Neighborhood Park Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -120 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended October 11, 2005 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Village Six Dwelling Units Acreage Approx. Pop. Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total LMV 941 941 4.9 192.0 192.0 3,011 MU 47 47 15.7 3.0 7.6 13.7 24.3 150 MH 1,402 1,402 17.6 79.8 10.0 89.8 3,575 OTHER 22.0 58.3 80.3 TOTAL 941 1,449 2,390 274.8 7.6 13.7 10.0 22.0 58.3 386.4 6,736 *Commercial Acreage included in MU category Exhibit 48 Village Six Land Use Table SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Open Sp. Art. Total LMV 941 941 4.9 206.3 11.5 217.8 3,011 MU 158 158 23.5 7.6 2.2 6.7 16.5 403 MH 1,291 1,291 18.0 69.0 10.0 79.0 3,292 OTHER 22.0 58.3 80.3 TOTAL 941 1,449 2,390 8.7 275.3 7.6 13.7 10.0 6.7 22.0 58.3 393.6 6,706 **Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. Village Six *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. Use Approx. Pop. Dwelling Units Acreage Exhibit 48 Village Six Land Use Table c. Village Six Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location adjacent to Poggi Canyon, an open space scenic corridor. • Location along the proposed light rail transit route. • Views to the mountains on the east, southeast, and northeast. • Compatibility and linkage with Villages Two and Seven. ?? Village Six shall promote uses and activities which encourage ridership, and services for transit users. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -121 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended October 11, 2005 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Village Core Policies: ?? A trolley stop and/or station shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core. ?? The number of homes identified for the village core is a minimum and may not be reduced. ?? Some services for users outside the village may be provided in the village core. ?? The village core shall be sited to ensure its separation from the regional uses in the Eastern Urban Center. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 19.0 acres of local parks in Village Six. To satisfy this requirement, 7.6 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of community park in Village Four. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Six: ?? Open space areas adjacent to Poggi Canyon identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. Open space character along the canyon shall conform to landscape concepts developed at the SPA level and the guidelines established in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Olympic Parkway in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines in the Overall Ranch Design Plan (requirements set forth in Section E, Implementation). ?? Potential SR-125 shall be considered in the placement of uses and buffers. ?? A modest landscaped buffer shall be provided along the village edge, due to the absence of significant environmental constraints. ?? Pedestrian links to other villages and the overall greenbelt, open space, and recreational systems shall be provided in Village Six. ?? Lot lines and grading shall not extend into the open space scenic corridor along Poggi Canyon. Other Village Six Policies ?? Site planning shall minimize noise impacts and conflicts with SR-125. ?? Light rail transit line rights-of-way shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core. ?? Landform grading guidelines for the edge of Poggi Canyon shall be developed as part of the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. These specific guidelines shall be consistent with the definition and standards established in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -122 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended October 11, 2005 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 50 49 Village Six Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -123 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended October 11, 2005 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 49 Village Six Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 II -Page II -124 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended October 11, 2005 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -125 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 7. Village Seven a. Village Seven Setting Village Seven is comprised of approximately 412 380 acres located east of Wolf Canyon and north of Rock Mountain Road. Open Space and Habitat: The Village Seven site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and does not contain significant environmental resources. The upper reaches of Wolf Canyon extend into the village, although this area has no sensitive resources. Land Use: Village Seven is located in the interior of the Otay Valley Parcel, surrounded by land historically used for agricultural activities. The village is surrounded by Villages Six, Eight, Four, and the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) to the east, across SR-125. Village Seven is located immediately to the west of the planned SR-125. A 50-acre Vortac facility (an aviation navigational facility) is located within the village site. Visual: Village Seven contains views into the upper reaches of Wolf Canyon, and more distant views to the mountains to the east and northeast. The Vortac facility provides potentially negative near views within the village. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village Seven has a direct access to the Eastern Urban Center (EUC), and a close relationship with Villages Two and Four, the lower density villages on the edges of Wolf Canyon to the west. Village Seven is located between these lower intensity villages and the urban uses planned for the Eastern Urban Center. Thus, Village Seven will provide a transition from the lower densities, open space, and recreational opportunities near Wolf Canyon to the more intense neighborhoods in the EUC. b. Village Seven Description Village Seven is an Urban Village. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Seven includes: ?? A maximum of 1,053 1,008 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 448 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 4,512 4,368 ?? A middle school ?? A high school ?? A trail connection through the village connecting Wolf Canyon to the west to the Eastern Urban Center to the east ?? A village core area containing: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -126 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 • Commercial uses in a mixed use setting • Public and community purpose facilities • A transit stop • An elementary school • Multi-family residential • A Town Square/Village Green/Main Street • Affordable Housing • Neighborhood Park Village Seven Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Ind Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop. LMV 1,053 1,008 1,053 1,008 5.0 210.6 203.4 75.0 50.0 285.6 253.4 3,370 3,226 MU 9.3 6.3 7.2 22.8 MH 448 448 14.5 30.9 10.0 40.9 1,143 OTHER 45.3 17.1 62.4 TOTAL 1,053 1,008 448 1,501 1,456 6.2 241.5 234.3 9.3 6.3 85.0 60.0 7.2 45.3 17.1 411.7 379.5 4,512 4,368 *Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. **Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. Exhibit 50 Village Seven Land Use Table c. Village Seven Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character shall be guided by the following qualities: • The greenbelt corridor connecting the village with Wolf Canyon, the Eastern Urban Center and Salt Creek shall be a unifying feature of the village. • Compatibility with the Eastern Urban Center. • Views into Wolf Canyon and distant views to the mountains to the east and northeast. • Complementary relationship with Village Four. ?? Higher densities shall be strategically located to provide a transition from the more intense urban uses of the Eastern Urban Center and SR-125, to the lower intensity uses near Wolf Canyon. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -127 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Village Core Policies: ?? The greenbelt connection which winds through the village shall be an integral design element of the village core, potentially connecting open space, trails, recreational amenities, civic uses and schools. This greenbelt may be located within or adjacent to the core area. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 13.513.1 acres of local parks in Village Seven. To satisfy this requirement, 9.3 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of community parks acres in Villages Two, Ten and the EUCFour community park. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Seven: ?? A regional pedestrian and open space link will be provided through the village connecting Wolf Canyon on the west to the Eastern Urban Center and Salt Creek on the east. This greenbelt connection may take several forms, including a greenbelt, parks, trails, and the pedestrian portion of promenade streets. The average width and continuous character of the greenbelt shall be defined in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. The greenbelt shall average 200 feet in width (excluding street right-of-way) over the entire length of any village (requirements set forth in Section E, Implementation) to provide a direct connection between the village core, Wolf Canyon, and the intense uses of the Eastern Urban Center (see GDP/SRP Land Use Map). ?? The average width of the pedestrian open space/trail corridor shall be calculated from one edge of the village to the other. ?? Buffering shall be provided to screen the Vortac facility (aviation navigation facility) from adjacent land uses, if this use is not relocated. Other Village Seven Policies: ?? Three schools are planned in Village Seven. These shall be appropriately separated with intervening land uses. The high school and middle school shall abut the regional open space, providing for non-vehicular access. ?? Although this village is not located along the transit line, a transit stop shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -128 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 52 51 Village Seven Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Planning Area 12 – Eastern Urban Center Village Four Village Six 75-foot Average Buffer Along Arterials Open Space – Provide Regional Open Space Linkage from Wolf Canyon to EUC, Average 200-foot Width Across Village Seven Transition Densities from EUC/SR125 to Lower Intensities Connect School to Open Space System Coordinate Mixed Use Area with Village Four 75-foot Average Buffer Along Arterials Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -129 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 51 Proposed Village Seven Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -130 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -131 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 8. Village Eight a. Village Eight Setting Village Eight is comprised of approximately 343 522 acres located in the southern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, northwest of the proposed interchange with SR-125 and Otay Valley Road. The site is located north of the Otay River Valley. Open Space and Habitat: Village Eight is located near two open space resources: Rock Mountain to the west, and the bluffs abutting the Otay River Valley to the south. Land Use: Village Eight is located adjacent to the Otay River Valley to the south. An existing water reservoir is located on an out-parcel in the western portion of the village. Planned SR-125 forms the eastern village edge. Visual: Scenic values extend along La Media Road, an open space scenic corridor. The village contains views to Rock Mountain, and the Otay River Valley, and more distant views of the San Ysidro Mountains to the east. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village Eight is located next to Village Seven to the north, and Village Four to the west. Village Four, a low density village, may have a close relationship with Village Eight to secure services, beyond those provided within its small village core. b. Village Eight Description Village Eight is an Urban Village. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Eight containsincludes two separate development areas, Village Eight West and Village Eight East. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -132 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Village Eight West consists of: ?? 621 single-family residential units ?? 1,429 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 5,754 ?? A Town Center area containing: • 300,000 square feet of commercial uses (mixed with residential and may occur horizontally or vertically) • A community park • A community purpose facility • A transit stop • An elementary school • A middle school • Multi-family residential (mixed with comercial) • Affordable Housing Village Eight East Consists of: ?? A maximum of 1,021 635 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 436 293 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 4,379 2,870 ?? A village core area containing: • Commercial uses • Public and community purpose facilities • A transit stop • An elementary school • Multi-family residential • A Town Square/Village Green/Main Street • Affordable Housing • Neighborhood Park Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -133 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 c. Village Eight Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location adjacent to Otay River Valley. • Low density character of the village land uses. • Linkage and compatibility with Villages Four and Seven. • Views to Rock Mountain, the Otay River Valley and the mountains to the east. Village Eight (West) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C'ml. RTP Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop.+ LMV 587 331 587 331 4.8 4.9 122.2 67.0 122.2 67.0 1,878 1,102 M 290 290 11.1 26.2 7.5 33.7 966 TC 899 899 22.1 40.7 20.4 20.2 * 81.3 2,319 MH 530 530 18.0 29.5 5.8 11.4 46.7 1,367 OTHER 41.5 30.1 71.6 VILLAGE 8 WEST SUBTOTAL 621 1,429 2,050 12.5 163.4 27.9 5.8 31.6 * 41.5 30.1 300.3 5,754 Village Eight (East) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C'ml. C'ml. Open Sp. Art. Total Dwelling Units LMV 299 635 299 635 3.5 4.3 85.4 148.5 85.4 148.5 975 2,115 LMV 135 135 4.5 30.0 30.0 432 MU 8.9 5.9** 6.0 2.9 13.4 8.9 28.3 17.7 0 MH 436 293 436 293 14.5 30.1 20.2 10.0 40.1 30.2 1,112 756 OTHER 22.6 15.1 14.2 9.5 36.6 24.6 0 VILLAGE 8 EAST SUBTOTAL 635 293 928 5.5 168.7 5.9 2.9 10.0 8.9 15.1 9.5 221.0 2,871 VILLAGE 8 TOTAL 1,021 1,256 436 1,722 1,457 2,978 5.4 8.9 267.7 332.1 8.9 33.8 6.0 8.7 10.0 41.6 13.4 8.9 22.6 56.6 14.2 39.6 342.8 521.3 4,379 8,625 * 300,000 Square feet of commercial may occur vertically or horizontally; therefore, actual acreage may vary. **Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. + Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. Exhibit 45b 52 Village Eight East Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -134 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 ?? Land use designs shall consider the overall natural landform and generally slope down toward the Otay River Valley. Village Core Policies: • Although Village Eight is not located along the transit route, it is to be planned as transit ready. a A transit stop shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. • Village Eight will provide some commercial and public services to the low density residential neighborhood (Village Four) to the west. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 13.125.9 acres of local parks in Village Eight. To satisfy this requirement, 8.933.9 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The excess remaining obligation is satisfied through will be allocated to the provision of community parks in Villages Two, Ten and the EUC Four.The excess park acreage will be allocated to the provision of parks related to Village Nine overall park acreage obligation. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Eight: ?? Natural open space areas adjacent to the Otay River Valley identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. Natural open space character along the canyon will be defined in the Overall Ranch Design Plan and further refined in the Village Design Plan. ?? Except in the town center, Setbacks setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along La Media Road major roads in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines in the Overall Ranch Design Plan (requirements set forth in Section E, Implementation). ?? Lot lines and grading shall not extend into natural open space areasthe open space preserve. ?? The village edge shall be a landscaped buffer, providing a soft transition to the Otay Valley Regional Park. ?? Pedestrian trails shall link the village to the Otay Valley Regional Park. ?? Pedestrian and bike path connections shall be provided from Village Four and Village Eight East to the town center. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -135 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Other Village Eight Policies: ?? The water reservoir site shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize the impacts on nearby land uses. ?? The visual impacts of development in areas adjacent to the Otay River Valley shall be considered in the design of neighborhoods along this edge. A visual analysis shall be performed at the SPA level to assess the visual impacts of development adjacent to the Otay River Valley. The Overall Ranch Design Plan will define the visual analysis requirements. ?? Design guidelines which address the visual quality of development adjacent to the Otay Valley Regional Park shall be included in the Village Design Plan for Village Eight. These guidelines shall incorporate Ranch-wide guidelines established in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -136 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 54 53 Village Eight Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Village Seven Open Space Scenic Corridor Village Four 75-foot Average Buffer Along Arterials Buffer and Land Use Design to Minimize Freeway Impacts Consider Regional Park in Designing Edge of Village Eight, Including Landform Grading of Edge: Design Guidelines Required in Ranch Design Plan and Village Design Plan Screen/Landscape Reservoir Site Edge Transition to Lower Densities Toward Park Edge University /Village Nine Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -137 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 53 Village Eight Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -138 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -139 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 9. Village Nine a. Village Nine Setting Village Nine is comprised of approximately 364 323 acres located in the southern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, northeast southeast of the proposed interchange of SR-125 and Main Street. The site is north of the Otay River Valley. Open Space and Habitat: Village Nine is located adjacent to two natural resource areas: Salt Creek and the undulating slopes and bluffs of the Otay River Valley. Areas of significant habitat occur along the bluffs, including coastal sage scrub. Land Use: Surrounding uses include the County Detention Facility, Donovan State Prison, Otay Mesa industrial area and Brown Field, to the south across the river valley. Proposed SR-125 is the western village boundary. Visual: Scenic values extend along Main Street, an open space scenic corridor. The village contains views to Rock Mountain, the Otay River Valley, and Salt Creek, with more distant views of the San Ysidro Mountains to the east. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village Nine is located immediately south of the Eastern Urban Center, with which the Village should have a complementary relationship. Village Ten is located to the north, and Village Eight is located to the west, across SR-125. A portion of Village Nine is separated from the remainder of the village by Main Street. b. Village Nine Description The primary land use for a portion of Village Nine is designated as University (U). The intent of the GDP is to reserve a site for a full scale university and associated Regional Technology Park within the Otay Ranch. Part II, Chapter 1, Section D4 and D5, herein, describes these land uses. The remaining portion of Village Nine includes a university village, a portion of the EUC and additional mixed use and residential uses. The University Village, along with the EUC, will provide university related retail, service, and cultural centers. The GDP reserves the land for a university for a period of time dependent on the phasing. See Part II, Chapter 9, Part B, for phasing policies. The secondary land use for the University portion of Village Nine consists of an Urban Village with transit/trolley. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Nine contains the following: ?? A maximum of 735 266 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 1,010 3,734 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 4,92810,931 Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -140 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 ?? A village core or town center area containing: • Commercial uses in a mixed use setting • Public and community purpose facilities • A transit stop/and station • An elementary school • Multi-family residential • A Town Square/Village Green/Main Street ?? Affordable Housing ?? Neighborhood Village Nine (Residential)** Use Dwelling Units Acreage SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C'ml. Uni. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx Pop. LMV 621 621 4.5 138.1 138.1 1,989 MU 1,010 1,010 10.0 6.9 8.7 25.6 MH 114 18.0 56.1 10.0 66.1 2,575 EUC 1,500 1,500 * 3,870 L 114 2.0 56.9 56.9 364 OTHER 58.1 19.1 77.2 0 TOTAL 735 1,010 1,745 6.9 251.1 10.0 6.9 10.0 8.7 58.1 19.1 363.9 4,928 *Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community park. Actual park size be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level. ** Village Nine has a primary land use designation of University, as depicted in the table titled “Village Nine” (University)” , and a secondary land use designation of residential as depicted in this table. Exhibit 55a University Land Use Table (Residential) SF MF Total Dens Res. Park*** CPF Sch.** C'ml. Uni. Open Sp. Art. Total LMV 105 105 3.7 28.1 4.7 32.8 350 M 161 161 10.6 15.2 2.9 18.1 536 EUC 1,912 1,912 39.6 48.3 3.6 * 51.9 4,933 TC 1,030 1,030 23.3 44.3 1.5 2.3 7.9 * 56.0 2,657 MU 792 792 16.1 49.2 14.8 2.7 11.9 * 78.6 2,043 UNIVERSITY+ 50.0 50.0 OTHER 9.6 26.1 35.7 TOTAL 266 3,734 4,000 21.6 185.1 27.5 5.0 19.8 * 50.0 9.6 26.1 323.1 10,519 + Dedication of 50 net acres to the City as a University/Regional Technology Park land use. *** Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. Village Nine *1,500,000 square feet of commercial may occur vertically or horizontally; therefore, actual acreage within each land land use will be determined at final map. **School sites occur in the TC and MU land use. If any school site is not pursued by the school district, the site will revert to Mixed Use or Town Center. Use Approx. Pop. Dwelling Units Acreage Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -141 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 45a University Land Use Table (Residential) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -142 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Secondary Land Use: The portion of Village Nine designated as University (U) may be developed for secondary land uses as described in table 54b only upon the following: the repurchase of said land in accordance with the terms and conditions of that certain Land Offer agreement, dated April 17, 2008, entered into between the City and Otay Land Company and the recordation of the transfer of the fee interest in accordance with said repurchase. Implementation of the secondary land uses for the portion of Village Nine designated as University would add the following to Village Nine: ?? 68 single-family residential units ?? 93 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 455 ?? Commercial, park and CPF uses in a mixed use setting University* Use Dwelling Units Acreage SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C'ml. Uni. Open Sp. Art. Art. Total Approx Pop. LMV MH L UNIVERSITY 633.1 637.1 1,270.2 TOTAL 633.1 637.1 1,270.2 *University includes Villages Nine and Ten as well as an area east of these two villages. Alternative development scenarios have Villages Nine and Ten with the residential village concept and the remainder as open space. Exhibit 58c University Land Use Table Village Nine (University)* Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C’ml. Uni. Open Sp. Art . Total Approx Pop. LMV MU MH L UNIVERSITY 363.9 363.9 TOTAL 363.9 363.9 *Villages Nine has a primary land use designation of University, as depicted in this table, and a secondary land use designation of residential as depicted in the previous table. Exhibit 55b University Land Use Table (University) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -143 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 SF MF Total Dens Res. Park** CPF+ Sch. C'ml. Open Sp. Art. Total LMV 57 57 4.5 12.7 12.7 182 MU 0.9 0.6 0.8 2.3 MH 93 93 17.9 5.2 0.9 6.1 237 L 11 11 2.1 5.3 5.3 35 OTHER 5.4 1.8 7.2 TOTAL 68 93 161 6.9 23.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.8 5.4 1.8 33.6 455 Portion of University /Village 9 Alternative* *Portion of Village 9 has a primary land use designation of University, and a secondary land use designation of residential as depicted in this table. Use++ Approx. Pop. Dwelling Units Acreage ++ Estimates land use figures based on the ownership percentage of the Village. **Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. + Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. Exhibit 54b Village 9 Secondary Land Use Table c. Village Nine Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location adjacent to the Otay River Valley. • High intensity of the village land uses. • Linkage and compatibility with the Eastern Urban Center. • Views to Rock Mountain, the Otay River Valley, Salt Creek and mountains to the east. • Location along a proposed transit line. ?? The Eastern Urban Center, SR-125 and the transit corridor provide opportunities for higher density along the northern and western edges of Village Nine. The adjacent open space to the south suggests a lower density residential to complement topography and the Otay Valley Regional Park. ?? Development along the northern village boundary shall be compatible with the land uses in the adjoining Eastern Urban Center. Pedestrian walkways link multi-family residential areas, wherever feasible. ?? Residential development along the southern portion of the village shall emphasize views of the Otay River Valley. ?? Pockets of developable land south south of Main StreetOtay Valley Road shall be used for low density residential uses overlooking Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -144 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 the park, and shall be subject to special design criteria to be developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. Village Core Policies: ?? A trolley transit stop and/or station shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core town center. ?? Transit line rights-of-way shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. ?? The number of homes identified for the village core is a minimum and may not be reduced. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standards would result in the development of 14.8 31.6 acres of local parks in Village Nine. To satisfy this requirement, 10.0 25.1 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of community parks acres in Villages Two, Ten and the EUCFour community park. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Nine: ?? Natural open space areas adjacent to the Otay River Valley identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. • Significant habitat areas shall be retained in natural open space. • Degraded habitat and slope shall be revegetated consistent with revegetation and slope guidelines developed at the SPA level. Landform grading shall be utilized in these areas to represent natural slope gradients and provide an undulating edge with varying gradients. • Slope without habitat areas shall conform to landscape concepts developed at the SPA level. ?? The village edge shall be a landscaped buffer, providing a soft transition to the Otay Valley Regional Park/Otay Ranch Preserve. ?? Pedestrian trails shall be provided to link the village with the Otay Valley Regional Park. Other Village Nine Policies: ?? The visual impacts of development in areas adjacent to the Otay River Valley shall be considered in the design of neighborhoods along this edge. A visual analysis shall be performed at the SPA level to assess the visual impacts of Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -145 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 development adjacent to the Otay River Valley. The Overall Ranch Design Plan will define the requirements for the visual analysis. ?? Contour grading shall be required adjacent to the Otay River Valley. Landform grading guidelines shall be defined and developed as part of the Overall Ranch Design Plan, and further refined in the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. ?? Design guidelines which address the visual quality of development adjacent to the Otay Valley Regional Park shall be developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan and further refined in the Village Design Plan for Village Nine. ?? Development will be centered along the couplet (one-way pair road system) and the transit corridor as the location of the highest intensity of development in order to achieve a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use district that will provide a direct link to the University Campus to the west and EUC to the north, and serves as the centerpiece of identity and community character. ?? Structures within the heart of the University Town Center area shall be located and designed to form a common “building wall” along sidewalks, with parking to the rear or in subterranean structures, to stimulate pedestrian activity. ?? Provide for the development of retail and office uses in a more intense format necessary to serve related businesses that are complimentary to business and retail needs intended for the EUC, the University Campus, and the RTP. ?? Provide for the development of uses that directly support or complement the University Campus, such as commercial services, office, and faculty, staff, and student housing. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -146 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 56 55a Village Nine Land Use Map – Primary University Land Use (ADOPTED) Primary use of Villages Nine and Ten is University as described in Otay Ranch Land Use Designations Table, Part II, Chapter 1, Section C. Villages Nine and Ten have secondary land use designations for Village purposes as described in Part II, Chapter 1, Section F9 and F10, and the area west of Wueste Road, east of Otay Valley Road, has a secondary designation as open (Village Ten) (Village Nine) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -147 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 57 55b Village Nine Land Use Map -Secondary Residential Village Land Use (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -148 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 55 Village Nine/University Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -149 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-149 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 10. Portion of University/Village Ten-Planning Area 10 (University and Regional Technology Park) a. Village TenPlanning Area 10 Setting Portion of University/Village Ten Planning Area 10 is approximately 270 469 acres located in the eastern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, between east of Village Nine, south of Village Eleven and the Eastern Urban Center, and north of Salt Creek. The site is characterized by a broad mesa with slopes along the eastern boundary leading down to Salt Creek. Open Space and Habitat: Village TenPlanning Area 10 is located adjacent to the steep slopes and habitat of Salt Creek. Land Use: Village TenPlanning Area 10 is located on the eastern edge of the Otay Valley Parcel. This site is surrounded by vacant farm land and native habitat. Surrounding uses include a town enter and mixed uses in Village Nine, residential uses in Villages Eleven and Nine to the north and south, the Eastern Urban Center to the northwest, and the ARCO/U.S. Olympic Training Center across Salt Creek to the east. Lower Otay Lake lies to the east across the ridge which borders the Salt Creek corridor. Visual: Scenic values extend along Salt Creek. The villagePlanning Area 10 contains views to Rock Mountain and the Otay River Valley, and more distant views of the San Ysidro Mountains to the east. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village TenPlanning Area 10 is located immediately southeast of the Eastern Urban Center. Village Eleven is located to the north, and Village Nine is located to the southwest. Main Street separates a portion of Village Ten from its village core. b. Village TenPortion of Planning Area 10 Description-Primary Land Use The primary land use for Village TenPlanning Area 10 is designated as University. Part II, Chapter 1, Section D4 describes this land use. The intent of the GDP is to reserve a site for a full scale university within the Otay Ranch. The GDP reserves the land for a university for a period of time dependent on the phasing. Also see Part II, Chapter 9, Section B for phasing policies. The secondary land use for Village TenPlanning Area 10, as depicted in Exhibit 56a, may developed for said secondary land uses only after development of “Western Phases I, II, and II,” as identified in the Otay Ranch Phasing Plan, has been completed. Completion of such development for purposes of this requirement shall be deemed to the issuance of building permits for 75% of the residential units in Phases I through III. (See Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan). consists of an Urban Village. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit-oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Ten Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-150 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Planning Area Ten contains: ?? A maximum of 669 580 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 170 424multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 2,574 2,937 ?? A Community Park ?? A village core area containing: • Commercial uses in a mixed use setting • Public and community purpose facilities • A transit stop • An elementary school • Multi-family residential • Neighborhood Park • A Town Square/Village Green/Main Street • Affordable Housing Portion of Planning Area Village Ten (Residential)/University Alternative* Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park** CPF+ Sch. C'ml. Uni. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop LMV 414 414 4.5 92.0 92.0 1,325 M 257 128 257 128 6.5 6.0 42.9 21.4 42.9 21.4 824 410 MU 6.7 3.6 4.1 3.0 4.4 13.3 15.2 MH 170 424 170 424 14.5 17.2 11.7 24.6 10.0 8.3 21.7 32.9 43 1,081 LMV 412 38 412 38 4.5 2.0 91.5 19.1 91.5 19.1 1,318 122 CP 13.9 13.9 OTHER 56.7 47.7 15.1 13.9 71.8 61.6 TOTAL 669 580 170 424 839 1,004 5.7 6.4 146.1 157.1 34.7 20.6 3.6 4.1 10.0 8.3 3.0 4.4 56.7 47.7 15.1 13.9 269.2 256.1 2,574 2,937 *Portion of Planning Area Ten/University has a primary land use designation of University, as depicted on the following table, and a secondary land use designation of residential as depicted in this table.Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community park. Actual park size be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level. ** Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons.Village Ten has a primary land use designation of University, as depicted in the table titled “Village Nine” (University)” , and a secondary land use designation of residential as depicted in this table. + Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. ++ Estimates land use figures based on the ownership percentage of the Village. Exhibit 58a 56a Portion of University/Village Planning Area Ten 10 Land Use Table (Residential) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-151 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Village Planning Area Ten/(University)* Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C’ml. Ind. Uni.** Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop. M MU MH LMV CPRTP 85.0 85.0 OTHER UNIVERSITY 85.0 384.0 269.2 384.0 TOTAL 85.0 269.2 384.0 269.2 469.0 * Planning Area Ten/University has a primary land use designation of University, as depicted in this table, and a portion of Planning Area Ten/University has a secondary land use designation of residential as depicted in the previous table.University includes Villages Nine and Ten as well as an area east of these two villages. Alternative development scenarios have Villages Nine and Ten with the residential village concept and the remainder as open space. ** Estimates approximately 51 gross acres located adjacent to the Lower Otay Reservoir includes as part of the University acres. Exhibit 58b 56b 56b University/Village Planning Area Ten Land Use Table (University) University* Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Re s. Park CPF Sch. C'ml. Uni. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop. LMV MU MH L UNIVERSITY 633.1 637.1 1,270.2 TOTAL 633.1 637.1 1,270.2 *University includes Villages Nine and Ten as well as an area east of these two villages. Alternative development scenarios have Villages Nine and Ten with the residential village concept and the remainder as open space. c. Village TenPlanning Area 10 Policies Planning Area Character Village Policies: ?? The village Planning Area 10 character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location adjacent to the Salt Creek corridor. • High intensity of the village area land uses. • Complementary relationship and compatibility with the Eastern Urban Center, especially its residential component. • Views to Rock Mountain, the Otay River Valley, and the San Ysidro Mountains to the east. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-152 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Village Planning Area 10 Core Policies: ?? The village Planning Area core should be located near the western village Planning Area 10 boundary in order to provide some community services for the residents of the Eastern Urban Center. Parks and Open Space Policies: ?? Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 7.713.9 acres of local parks in Village TenPlanning Area 10. To satisfy this requirement, 6.7 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned., in addition to a 28-acre The remaining obligation is satisfied by the provision of community park. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village TenPlanning Area 10: ?? The community park design should provide a strong link with the adjacent regional open space through the use of neighborhood and regional trail connections. Location of the community park is subject to a feasibility study at the SPA level. ?? Natural open space areas adjacent to the Otay River Valley identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. ?? Natural open space character along the canyon shall be based upon the concepts developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan and refined in the Village Design Plan for this villagePlanning Area. ?? Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Main Street in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines in the Overall Ranch DesignPlan (requirmeents set forth in Section E, Implementation). ?? Community park grading shall not extend into the Salt Creek Open Space Preserve area. ?? Pedestrian trails shall link the village Planning Area 10 with the Otay Valley Regional Park. Other Village TenPlanning Area 10 Policies: ?? Contour grading shall be required adjacent to Salt Creek. Landform grading guidelines shall be developed as part of the Overall Ranch Design Plan and will be further refined in the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. ?? Design guidelines which address the visual quality of development adjacent to Salt Creek shall be included in the Overall Ranch Design Plan, and further refined in the Village Design Plan for Village TenPlanning Area 10. ?? Although the village Planning Area 10 is not located along the light rail transit route, a transit stop shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-153 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 59 57a Village Ten Land Use Map -Primary University Land Use (ADOPTED) (Village Ten) (Village Nine) Primary use of Villages Nine and Ten is University as described in Otay Ranch Land Use Designations Table, Part II, Chapter 1, Section C. Villages Nine and Ten have secondary land use designations for Village purposes as described in Part II, Chapter 1, Section F9 and F10, and the area west of Wueste Road, east of Otay Valley Road, has a secondary designation as open space. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-154 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 60 58b Village Ten Land Use Map – Secondary Village Residential Land Use (ADOPTED) This area is designated for a Community Park (CP) that will be specifically sited and sized (±28 acres) in connection with the SPA Park Master Plan. Grade Community Park in association with road. Minimize impacts to Salt Creek. Provide trail 75-foot Average connections to Salt Creek. Buffer Along Arterials 75-foot Average Buffer Along Arterials Open Space Scenic Corridor Utilize Landform Grading on Edges of Salt Creek Pedestrian Linkages to Regional Park *Primary use of Village 10 is University – Secondary use of village is depicted above. See Otay Ranch Land Use Designation Table, Part II, Chapter 1, Section C. Village 11 Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-155 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 57 University/Village TenPlanning Area 10/University Land Use Map -Primary University Land Use/Secondary Residential Land Use (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-156 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-157 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 11. Village Eleven a. Village Eleven Setting Village Eleven is comprised of approximately 489 acres located in the northeastern portion of the project, south of the extension of Olympic Parkway and west of the extension of Hunte Parkway. Salt Creek is located along the eastern boundary and a university is located to the south. The community of EastLake is located to the north. Open Space and Habitat: Village Eleven is located adjacent to the slopes and habitat of Salt Creek. This area has been extensively farmed. Land Use: The San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) and San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) easements cross the site northwest to southeast. EastLake Greens is a planned community located along the northern edge of the village. Visual: Village Eleven is located to the south of Olympic Parkway, a scenic corridor. Views from the village include views of the mountains to the northeast, east, and south, and views of the Salt Creek Canyon. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Village Eleven is located adjacent to the Eastern Urban Center and the Freeway Commercial area which contains a park-and-ride facility. The village will provide transitions between these more intense uses and adjacent residential uses. b. Village Eleven Description Village Eleven is an Urban Village. Urban Villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit-oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. Village Eleven contains: ?? A maximum of 1,005 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 1,385 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 6,749 ?? A middle school ?? Open space corridor ?? A village core area containing: • Commercial uses in a mixed use setting • Public and community purpose facilities • A transit stop • An elementary school Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-158 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 • Multi-family residential • A Town Square/Village Green/Main Street • Affordable Housing • Neighborhood Park Village Eleven Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Uni. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop.+ MH 583 583 13.7 42.7 42.7 1,487 MU 472 472 21.2 22.3 10.0 9.4 10.0 10.0 61.7 1,204 M 195 330 525 6.9 75.7 25.0 100.7 1,466 LMV 810 810 4.9 166.0 166.0 2,592 OTHER 51.4 66.5 117.9 TOTAL 1,005 1,385 2,390 7.8 306.7 10.0* 9.4 35.0 10.0 51.4 66.5 489.0 6,749 *Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage. *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. + Population coefficient is 3. 2 persons per single-family unit and 2.55 persons per multi-family unit. **Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level. CPF acreage based on a ratio of 1.39 acres per 1,000 persons. Exhibit 58 Village Eleven Land Use Table c. Village Eleven Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location adjacent to the Salt Creek corridor. • High intensity of the village land uses. • Compatibility with the Eastern Urban Center. • Views to the mountains to the northeast, east and southeast, and the Salt Creek corridor. ?? Village Eleven shall contain a regional greenbelt/open space area which connects to and through the Eastern Urban Center. ?? Multi-family residential uses should be located within the village core to provide housing opportunities adjacent to the Eastern Urban Center and Freeway Commercial area. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-159 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Village Core Policies: ?? The village core land uses should provide a medium density transition to the Freeway Commercial areas to the west. ?? The village core should utilize the greenbelt/open space corridor as an identifying feature. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 20.2 acres of local parks in Village Eleven. To satisfy this requirement, 10.0 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of a community parks in Village Four. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Eleven: ?? A regional greenbelt/open space link (a minimum of 75 feet wide) will be provided on the south side of the village, connecting Wolf Canyon, the Eastern Urban Center and Salt Creek. This connection may take several forms, including a greenbelt, trails, or promenade streets. The greenbelt shall be an minimum of 75 feet wide. The GDP/SRP Land Use Map provides a concept for the linkage through the village. ?? Natural open space areas adjacent to Salt Creek identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. Natural open space character along the canyon shall be based upon the concepts developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan and refined in the Village Design Plan for this village. ?? Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Main Street in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines in the Overall Ranch Design Plan (requirements set forth in Section E, Implementation). ?? Pedestrian trails shall link the village with Salt Creek and the Otay Valley Regional Park. ?? The environmental resources contained in Salt Creek Canyon shall be protected through careful buffering, landscaping and grading techniques. ?? The aqueduct and SDG&E easements should be integrated into the design of the village as open space. These easements may be utilized for road crossings, parking and limited landscaping, however, no habitable structures may be placed in the area. Residential and school uses should be buffered from the SDG&E powerlines. The width of the buffer will conform to school district requirements. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-160 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Other Village Eleven Policies: ?? Contour grading shall be required adjacent to Salt Creek. Landform grading guidelines shall be developed as part of the Overall Ranch Design Plan and further refined in the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. ?? Design guidelines which address the visual quality of development adjacent to Salt Creek shall be defined in the Overall Ranch Design Plan and further refined in the Village Design Plan for Village Eleven. ?? Although the village is not located along the light rail transit route, a transit stop shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-161 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-162 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 62 59 Village Eleven Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-163 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 59 Village Eleven Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-164 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -165 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 12. Planning Area 12 -Eastern Urban Center/Freeway Commercial a. Planning Area 12 Setting Planning Area 12 is approximately 368 376 acres in size and is located in the center of the Otay Valley Parcel. It contains both the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) and the Freeway Commercial (FC) areas. The topography in this area consists of several broad knolls. Planning Area 12 is positioned at the center of the Otay Ranch community, where three major circulation systems converge. These three systems include the open space network, the proposed SR-125 highway and the proposed bus rapid transit system. Open Space and Habitat: This prominent site will be visible from many of the developed portions of the ranch. The area has been extensively farmed and is therefore devoid of sensitive habitat. Land Use: The area is currently surrounded by by vacant farm land and will be surrounded by Otay Ranch villages. SR-125 is proposed to form the western boundary of Planning Area 12. Visual: Planning Area 12 is situated along the higher elevations of SR-125. Therefore, it commands views in all directions of the mountains and the ocean. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: Planning Area 12 is located adjacent to SR-125 on its western edge. It is west of Village 11 , north of Village Nine, and northwest of the planned university. This is the central commercial and office node for the entire Otay Ranch and will be physically linked with all other villages. b. Eastern Urban Center Description The EUC is an urban center, serving regional commercial, financial, residential, professional, entertainment, and cultural needs. This prime location is designated as the Eastern Urban Center to announce its role as the heart of the eastern territories in South San Diego County. The center will be a viable and intense mixture of uses that will act as a magnetic downtown, drawing residents, visitors and businesses. Surrounding land uses in the adjacent Village Nine, particularyparticularly its town center; the University Campus; Regional Technology Park; and the Freeway Commercial area are expected to relate closely to the EUC. The center will be composed of buildings of varying orientations. It will contain specialty land uses, as well as shopping and entertainment uses, and uses supportive of the university campus. Landmark architecture will be encouraged to create a pronounced identity. An internal circulation system will provide for pedestrians, bus and bus rapid transit connections. This system will provide efficient access throughout the Eastern Urban Center and to the ultimate bus rapid transit line through this region. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -166 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 The Eastern Urban Center contains: ?? 3,3132,993 multi-family high density residential units. ?? Build-out population of approximately 8,5487,722 ?? Regional and specialty shopping ?? Multi-Use Cultural Arts Facility (including civic arts/theaters and museums) ?? Regional Purpose Facilities ?? Local parks ?? Business Parks ?? Visitor Commercial ?? Transit station ?? An Elementary School and a High School as required by the applicable districts. ?? Urban Open Space Corridor ?? Library and Civic Facilities • Fire Station • Affordable Housing Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -167 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Planning Area 12 (EUC & FC) Dwelling Units Acreage***** Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch.*** C'ml.**** Uni. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx Pop.+ EUC 3,313 3,313 41.2 80.4 25.6 11.9 35.0 8.0 160.9 8,548 Regional Commercial 29.4 29.4 Visitor Commercial 11.0 11.0 Cultural 5.0 5.0 Off-Low Rise/Bus. 19.0 19.0 Off-Med/High Rise 11.5 11.5 OTHER+ 1.5 1.5 EUC Subtotal 3,313 3,313 41.2 80.4 25.6 11.9 35.0 75.9 1.5 8.0 238.3 8,548 FC 113.2 3.8 12.4 129.4 FC Subtotal 113.2 3.8 12.4 129.4 TOTAL 3,313 3,313 41.2 80.4 25.6 11.9 35.0 189.1 367.7 8,548 * Actual Park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level; Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 persons ** CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. Square-footage equivalent may be considered at SPA Plan level. *** School acres will divert divert to residential if not needed for school. **** May include mixed-use and multi-use. ***** The maximum permitted non-residential areas may alternatively be measured in square-feet up to the maximum projected yield of 5,179,000 square feet + Population coefficient is 3.3 persons per single-family unit and 2.58 persons per multi-family unit. ++ Fire Station Exhibit 60 Planning Area 12 (EUC & FC) Land Use Tables Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -168 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch.*** C'ml.**** Open Sp. Art. Total EUC 2,993 2,993 41.2 72.6 23.2 10.7 6.0 33.5 146.0 7,722 Regional Commercial 26.6 26.6 Visitor Commercial 9.9 9.9 Cultural 4.5 4.5 Off-Low Rise/Bus. 17.2 17.2 Off-Med/High Rise 10.4 10.4 Other + 1.5 1.5 EUC Subtotal 2,993 2,993 41.2 72.6 23.2 10.7 6.0 68.6 1.5 33.5 216.1 7,722 FC 120.7 39.3 160.0 FC Subtotal 120.7 39.3 160.0 TOTAL 2,993 2,993 41.2 72.6 23.2 10.7 6.0 189.3 1.5 72.8 376.1 7,722 Planning Area 12 (EUC & FC) *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level; Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. *****The maximum permitted non-residential areas may alternatively be measured in square-feet up to the maximum projected yield of 4,713,000 square feet Use Approx. Pop. Dwelling Units Acreage***** **CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39-acres per 1000 persons. Square-footage equivalent may be considered at SPA Plan level. ***School acres will divert to residential if not needed for school. ****May include mixed-use and multi-use. + Fire Station Exhibit 60 Planning Area 12 (EUC & FC) Land Use Tables • The mix of uses shown in Exhibit 63 are respresentativerepresentative of the expectations and intended character for the Eastern Urban Center. The final land use mix and distribution of uses shall be determined at the SPA planning level. Variation from the uses identified in Exhibit 63 may be approved subject to the following findings: 1. The intended character and purpose of the Eastern Urban Center is maintained; 2. The distribution of uses is compatible with the adopted uses in adjacent villages; and 3. The viability of the Eastern Urban Center is maintained or enhanced. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -169 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 c. Eastern Urban Center Policies EUC Character Policies: ?? The character of the EUC should be guided by the following elements: • Location at high point on the Otay Valley Parcel. • Synergism with adjacent villages, especially Village Nine and the University. • 360 degree views to Point Loma and the mountains. • Location along transit right-of-way. • Centrally located transit station ?? Locate civic and regional purpose facilities in accordance with the siting criteriancriteria in the Facility Implementation Plan. The amount and size will be determined at the SPA level. ?? The floor area ratio shall permit multi-storied buildings, highrise buildings and parking structures. The exact ratio will be established at the SPA level. ?? Locate less intense land uses around the edges of the EUC and utilize landscaped buffers of varying widths to create a transition to surrounding villages. ?? Integrate commercial and residential uses to support a 24-hour environment. ?? Provide for neighborhood, regional and specialty shopping. Provide for an array of services such as financial, medical, and research-oriented facilities in office areas. ?? Locate theaters and museums in prominent locations, to broaden the appeal of the EUC as a viable regional hub of cultural activity. ?? Prepare a framework strategy for the "University Study Area" as depicted on the General Plan Land Use Map prior to or concurrently with SPA level planning for the EUC. The framework strategy should examine what is the appropriate size, character and function of parks, cultural facilities, community purpose facilities, roadway and pedestrian way design, and other services and amenities for the EUC. Results of the framework strategy shall be considered for the EUC SPA Plan. ?? The framework strategy should identify important facilities, land use, and services that should be provided in the EUC that support or complement the university and the other areas within the University Study Area. Such uses may include specialty retail, bookstores, research and business Institutes, hotels, entertainment and visitor uses, and cultural and arts facilities. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -170 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 EUC Urban Design Policies: ?? Orient buildings to create a continuous facade to primary pedestrian spaces and primary pedestrian ways. Define the primary pedestrian areas and ways to provide a continuous pedestrian experience. ?? Emphasize an urban street scene by locating buildings at the sidewalk edge, except where creating pedestrian-oriented spaces such as patios, plazas, malls and squares. ?? Buildings fronting on primary pedestrian spaces should contain uses that support pedestrian activities such as dining, retail sites and entertainment, and cultural experiences. ?? Individual buildings or building clusters should incorporate elements of art which can be viewed and experienced from adjacent public space. ?? To create vitality and excitement, activities should flow out from buildings onto public spaces (e.g., sidewalk cafes, street vendors, sidewalk entertainment or other inviting pedestrian features ). ?? Buildings should incorporate design features which complement a pedestrian scale, such as horizontal components, overhangs, facade detail, display areas, and pedestrian seating. ?? Buildings should exhibit an urban character through the use of appropriate materials, textures, and scale. ?? The scale of prominent buildings should be generally mid-rise, up to 15 stories. ?? Buildings should display qualities that are characteristic of landmark architecture. ?? Utilize streetscape amenities, such as enhanced street paving, bollards and street furnishings, to establish identity. ?? Establish view corridors which focus on and connect key visual landmarks. ?? ProminantlyProminently feature major activities nodes such as transit stations, civic building and urban parks. ?? Varying, but complementary, land uses should be integrated to provide a mixed-use environment. A strong pedestrian connection should be created between uses and between adjacent areas within the University Study Area. ?? Encourage a mixture of land uses particularly where structures front a pedestrian plaza or urban park. ?? A variety of uses, including residential, should be incorporated within a single structure where feasible. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -171 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? The circulation system should minimize conflict with the pedestrian system. ?? Along main throughfaresthoroughfares and primary pedestrian ways, off-street parking shall be provided primarily behind buildings or within parking structures. Exceptions that allow parking on an interim basis adjacent to such thoroughfares and pedestrian ways (to accommodate build-out of development) may be permitted when the interim-phase status of the parking can be justified. For all other streets, off-street parking situated along and adjacent to the other street frontage shall be minimized in order to maintain a pedestrian orientation and preserve the urban character of the EUC. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of for approximately 25.623.2 acres of local parks in the EUC. The EUC will provide sufficient area for local parks/town squares and plazas, , or other park facilities to meet its needs onsite, as required by an EUC Parks Master Plan prepared as part of the SPA Plan. The SPA-level Parks Master Plan shall consider the needs and standards identified in the framework strategy prepared for the "University Study Area", which may include variations from conventional parkland standards. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in the Eastern Urban Center and shall be further refined by the SPA-Level Parks Master Plan: ?? Incorporate a pedestrian open space/trail corridor (average 75 feet wide) across the EUC which connects to Wolf Canyon and Salt Creek. This corridor will create a strong east/west open space system and reflect differing characteristics as it moves through Otay Ranch. This corridor has been defined by the overall Ranch Design Plan, but will be more specifically defined In the EUC SPA Design Plan. Within the EUC, this corridor shall serve as an identifiable pedestrian corridor and element that ties plazas, parks, and other urban features together to fulfill multiple functions includeingincluding urban relief, recreation, and trail connectivity, while maintaining its primary function as a key segment of the City's Greenbelt and trail system. ?? The average width of the open space/trail corridor shall be calculated from one edge of the village to the other. ?? Provide a network of pedestrian spaces, plazas, malls, promenades, and squares to create a pedestrian oriented environment. The amount of credit towards satsifying park area requirements for these amenities shall be determined in the EUC Parks Master Plan. ?? Individual building and building clusters should integrate pedestrian plazas with the overall pedestrian system. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -172 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Pedestrian plazas should incorporate fountains or artistic features as a visual focus. Other Eastern Urban Center Policies ?? Transit line rights-of-way and bus rapid transit stops/stations shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level within the EUC. Freeway Commercial Policies: ?? This category includes regional uses which require an automobile orientation near regional transportation systems. Expected uses include thoroughfare commercial, visitor commercial and regionally oriented retail commercial ?? The freeway-oriented commercial area shall include uses such as: department stores, regional mall/lifestyle center, eating and drinking establishments, movie theaters, fitness clubs, and other uses which benefit from direct freeway exposure, -serve a regional market, and strengthen its relationship and linkages to the EUC and University Campus and University Village to the south. ?? Develop a signage and graphic program at the SPA level. ?? Reserve a park-and-ride at the transit stop along the west side of Eastlake Parkway. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -173 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 64a 61 Planning Area 12 EUC Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -174 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 61 Planning Area 12 EUC Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -175 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 64b 62 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -176 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 62 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -177 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 13. Resort Village (Village 13) a. Resort Village Setting The Otay Lakes Resort Village is comprised of approximately 784 acres located to the north and above Lower Otay Lake. The land area consists of a broad mesa sloping to the south, broken by several arroyos. Long fingers of the relatively flat mesa extend north into the Jamul Mountains, becoming part of steeper slopes. This village includes the 135-acre Birch Family Estate on the western side of Upper Otay Lake. Open Space and Habitat: Village 13 contains areas of sensitive habitat, including vernal pool areas, a stand of acanthamintha and coastal sage scrub. Steep slopes exist north of the mesa and in the arroyos. Wildlife corridors exist in the eastern end of the village. The Chula Vista Greenbelt and the Otay Valley Regional Park Focused Planning Area include and surround the lake. Land Use: Surrounding land uses include an inactive quarry operation to the east, and EastLake Vistas and the ARCO/U.S. Olympic Training Center to the west, across the lake. The Upper Otay Lake and Birch Family Estate are northwest of the resort. The lake and adjoining land to the existing roadway is owned by the City of San Diego. At the east end of the lake, on City of San Diego property, there is a temporary ultralight gliding and parachuting airport. Visual: The Resort Village area contains great scenic beauty and is highly visible from surrounding areas. The village is also visible from the Olympic Training Center, Otay Lakes Road and the south side of the lake in some areas. Otay Lakes Road is a scenic corridor. The village contains distant views to the surrounding mountains, and to the Lower Otay Lake and Otay Mountain to the south. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: The Resort Village is located in a somewhat isolated position, physically separated from the village in Proctor Valley (to the north), the Estate Village (south across the lake), and the urban villages of the Otay Valley Parcel. Water Quality: The protection of Lower Otay Lake, a valuable water resource, is of paramount concern. Various methods of insuring its protection must be examined and evaluated for implementation in conjunction with the development of this village. b. Resort Village Description The Resort Village will reflect a village concept similar to other resorts such as La Quinta, California; Sun Valley, Idaho; and Vail, Colorado. The core of the village will contain shops, restaurants, Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -178 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 art galleries, and service commercial for the convenience of residents. Village services will serve residents as well as the hotel/resort visitors. The hotel(s) will be located near the village core, arranged in a rambling fashion covering the mesa top with groups of low rise buildings and casitas. Heights will generally be from one to three stories, with occasional four-story buildings. The rooms will be located to capture views and create courtyards. The hotel(s) will include eating establishments and a medium-sized conference facility. Championship golf, tennis, a swimming complex, equestrian, hiking and mountain biking may be offered. In addition, water-oriented recreational uses may be provided, such as fishing and boating, subject to the approval of the City of San Diego. The single-family homes north of the planned Otay Lakes Road alignment will be linked by trails and underpasses to the hotel, recreational amenities, restaurants, and the lake. These homesites will be sensitively designed to capture the views into canyons and across the lake. In the western portion of the village, medium density resort residential uses are planned. Residences may be condominiums or individual casitas, compatible with the resort in architectural character. The existing road will be converted to a major pedestrian and bicycle path, providing public access across the north lake frontage. Staging areas at each end of the path will include public parking. Up to a 27 hole golf course may be built. It will be designed to help preserve sensitive resources through careful route design and use of natural vegetation buffers which may also function as wildlife corridors. The canyon in the eastern portion of the site will be preserved as a wildlife corridor and open space link, from Otay Lake to the north, where it will connect with the large open space area of Jamul Mountain. The Resort Village contains: ?? A maximum of 658 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 1,408 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 5,695 ?? Resort ?? Golf Course ?? Village Commercial ?? Commercial Area Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -179 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 ?? Two Neighborhood Parks ?? Specialty Conference Center ?? Public and community purpose facilities ?? Transit Stop Village Thirteen (Resort Village) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp.*** Art. Total Approx. Pop. L 180 180 2.0 90.0 90.0 576 LMV 478 478 3.0 159.3 10.0** 159.3 1,530 1,529 M 227 227 8.0 28.4 5.0** 28.4 579 580 SCC 18.7 18.7 MH 632 632 15.0 42.1 42.1 1,612 1,610 MH 549 549 10.0 54.9 54.9 1,400 RESORT 7.9 230.4 238.3 OTHER 139.7 12.2 151.9 TOTAL 658 1,408 2,066 5.5 374.7 15.0 7.9 249.1 139.7 12.2 783.6 5,697 5,695 *Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage. *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level. ** Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage ***Open space totals included in the Proctor Valley Parcel summary. Exhibit 63 Village Thirteen (Resort Village) Land Use Table c. Resort Village Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location in proximity to the lake. • Variable topographic conditions. • Views, especially of the lake. • Location adjacent to a scenic corridor. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -180 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 • Location in proximity to large blocks of open space. • Opportunity for recreational activities. Village Policies: ?? Provide for public access along the lake. ?? Blend day-to-day services intended for permanent residents with visitor-oriented attractions such as art galleries and specialty stores. ?? Provide a transit stop for local bus service. ?? Provide well defined linkages to the lakefront bike and walk way. ?? Buffer the lake edge from development through a variable setback and landscaping. ?? Public recreational uses established along the lakefront should be complementary to existing recreational uses on the lake. ?? Decrease development intensity as it moves away from the lake. ?? A single SPA Plan should address all Resort Village areas. ?? Establish square footage and floor area ratios at the SPA level. The number of dwelling units is specified by the GDP/SRP Land Use Map. The number of hotel rooms should be a maximum of 800 rooms. The final number of rooms will be determined at the SPA level, based upon traffic, resource, visual impacts and conformance to these guidelines. ?? Establish a detailed set of design guidelines for architecture in conjunction with the Resort Village SPA Design Plan. These guidelines should address the following: bulk, scale, intensity, style and colors, including roofs, which will complement the natural surroundings. ?? Buildings along the bluff and Otay Lakes Road should be clustered and arranged to ensure that the architecture does not become a wall, preventing longer views and creating a solid edge atop the bluff. Buildings should have varied orientations, punctuated by pockets of internal open space at key intervals along the bluff edges. ?? High quality residential uses located north of Otay Lakes Road should have an average density of two dwelling units per acre in sloping high elevation areas, and three units per acre in the gently sloping areas adjacent to the road. Geographic isolation and design standards for sloping areas will provide view oriented lots with a low intensity character. Larger lots may accommodate horses and stables. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -181 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 ?? Buildings should step-down slopes and/or incorporate slopes into the structure where feasible, especially in areas of steeper slopes. ?? Buildings shall be visually compatible in terms of height, scale, and bulk and shall be set back from the edge of the mesa and composed of low-rise structures no more than three stories in height, with occasional four story buildings. ?? Building shall maximize the use of non-reflective/non-glare surfaces. ?? Buildings and materials that may be hazardous to wildlife shall not be used in proximity to wildlife corridors. ?? Access to the out-parcels shall be considered at the SPA level. ?? A visual analysis shall be performed at the SPA level to assess visual impacts along Otay Lakes Road and to identify important view corridors from Otay Lakes and prominent natural features. This analysis should illustrate natural and proposed topography, together with methods for protecting key views corridors and shall be consistent with the requirements set forth in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. ?? To mitigate visual and policy impacts from the realignment of Otay Lakes Road, a scenic roadway visual resource evaluation shall be conducted by the applicant once the actual roadway alignment and surrounding development have been determined to identify key view corridors that would be available to travelers. Significant views of Lower Otay Lake and the San Ysidro Mountain and foothills shall be preserved by a combination of the following measures: • Heights of buildings adjacent to the southern edge of the roadway shall be limited to heights which enable views of the lake and surrounding hillsides, or site planning adjacent to the southern edge of the roadway shall enable view corridors of the lake and surrounding hillsides. • Viewing areas shall be established along the roadway corridor to allow travelers to stop and enjoy the view view above the lake. ?? Ensure sufficient setback and building configuration to minimize conflicts with the wildlife corridors and scenic roadways. ?? The resort will be a “Destination Resort", with low-rise buildings, materials and colors which blend with the natural environment and special design features to complement the natural terrain. Parks and Open Space Policies: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -182 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 17.1 acres of local parks in the Resort Village. To satisfy this requirement, 15.0 acres of neighborhood parks/town squares are planned. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of a community parks in Village Four. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in the Resort Village: ?? Preserve the major north-south canyon near the eastern side of the village. Provide an undercrossing beneath Otay Lakes Road where it traverses this major canyon. ?? Careful design consideration shall be given to areas adjacent to natural vegetation, to include the use of native plant materials, indigenous species and restoration and/or revegetation of habitat areas. ?? Wildlife corridors should be designated and sized in accordance with the findings of the Wildlife Corridor Study. ?? Ensure that the resort development areas comply with the Resource Management Plan. ?? The GDP/SRP Land Use Map depicts the general location and approximate acreage of the golf course. Final environmental studies and site studies completed at the SPA level may suggest variation in routing, location and precise acreage. These modifications are permissible, as long as the character of the adjacent development does not change significantly. ?? The resort golf course should be a "links" or "modified links" course to preserve sensitive habitat areas and wildlife corridors; incorporate native vegetation; and to visually blend with the surrounding hillsides and natural areas. This type of golf course disrupts less of the natural landscape and uses less water due to reduced or minimal greens and fairways, and by incorporating natural vegetation “roughs” into the course. ?? Identify an additional point of public access between the two staging areas on Otay Lakes Road and the bike/walk way, at the SPA level. ?? Provide a continuous bike and walkway along the lakefront, in the existing Otay Lakes Road alignment, to encourage public use and access to the lake. This should provide a connection with a visitor-serving commercial use associated with the resort commercial area. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -183 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Grading and Landform Policies: Because of the varied landforms and high visibility of the Resort Village site, the treatment of grading is especially important in this village. Grading (large cut/fill slopes in particular) should be minimized through the use of the following techniques: ?? Develop landform grading guidelines as part of the Overall Ranch Design Plan. ?? The abandoned Otay Lakes Road alignment shall be rehabilitated and opened for pedestrian and bicycle viewing access. Rest areas and vistas shall be incorporated into the rehabilitated walkway or promenade. ?? Contour grading (i.e., recontoring, slope variation, etc.) should be utilized to transition graded slopes into the natural topography of the area. Guidelines for landform grading should be incorporated in the SPA plans for the area. ?? Residential and resort buildings should follow the topography. Hillside sites offer opportunities to create outdoor decks, terraces, bridged walkways between buildings and viewing areas. ?? Roadways should follow the existing landforms, to the extent possible. ?? Natural features should be retained, including natural drainage courses, major canyons and prominent ridgelines. Birch Family Estate Parcel Policies: ?? The Birch Family Estate Parcel will be utilized for a specialty conference center/community center, with low density residential uses and open space on its western edge, consistent with the residential densities of nearby EastLake Vistas and EastLake Woods. The City of Chula Vista’s greenbelt would continue to the east of the Ranch House next to the City of San Diego property. Water Quality Policies: ?? Protect the water quality of Otay Lakes as part of the environmental planning process. Develop protection measures at the SPA level which ensure that potential impacts on water quality are avoided or mitigated. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -184 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 66 64 Village 13 (Resort Village) Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -185 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 64 Village 13 (Resort Village) Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II -186 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended September 2012 Other Policies: ?? The Project plans shall be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for review as soon as possible to determine whether or not land use incompatibilities exist between the Project and the existing San Diego Air Sports Center. If it is determined by the FAA that such incompatibilities exist, then the SPA plan shall be designed to avoid such interface impacts. The Project Applicant shall then revise the Project’s phasing plan to allow for use of the sports center until its option expires. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-187 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 14. Proctor Valley Village (Village 14) a. Proctor Valley Village Setting This approximately 829 acre specialty village is nestled in the south sloping valley which encompasses Proctor Valley Road and leads into the country town of Jamul. It is bounded to the east and west by steep slopes and significant landforms, specifically San Miguel Mountain to the northwest, and the Jamul Mountain to the east. This village is located immediately northeast of the Upper Otay Reservoir, between the City of Chula Vista, and Jamul. Proctor Valley is physically and visually isolated from the Otay Valley Parcel and Jamul. Open Space and Habitat: The entire valley has been subject to varying degrees of disturbance from grazing, off-road vehicles and unauthorized trash dumping. However, significant resources in the form of coastal sage scrub, scrub, steep slopes on the surrounding hillsides, vernal pools and streambeds/wetlands occur in the valley. There are also large areas of less sensitive chaparral. A significant wildlife corridor occurs near the center of the valley and a local corridor forms the north edge of this planning area. Land Use: This valley is surrounded by farmland, water and open space. Within a mile of the north end of the valley, there are one acre lots in the Echo Valley section of Jamul. Hidden Valley Estates was recently approved for the area, with lots smaller than one acre. Southwest of Proctor Valley is the recently approved master planned community of Salt Creek which is to be built within the City of Chula Vista. Visual: Scenic values extend throughout the valley. Views of the arroyo, San Miguel and Jamul Mountains as well as the upper Otay Lake support classification of Proctor Valley Road as a scenic corridor. Views to Mexico are available on clear days. Large electrical transmission lines impair valley views south. south. Due to the surrounding hills and landforms, the Valley area is generally not visible from the adjacent areas. Relationship to Other Otay Ranch Villages: The Proctor Valley Village is physically and visually isolated from other villages. However, Proctor Valley is situated to provide commercial and public services to the residents of the Jamul Rural Estate Area (Planning Area 16). b. Proctor Valley Village Description Proctor Valley is a “specialty village” (See Part II, Chapter 1, Section C) which serves as a transition from the more urban uses of the west to the more rural areas of Jamul. Specialty Villages possess many of the characteristics of Urban Villages, but achieve Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-188 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 the desired village identity through means more appropriate for their unique topography and location. The village has a low intensity character, with an emphasis on low density single-family residential local-serving commercial and public and community purpose facilities, and higher density residential uses in the village core. Because it is relatively isolated, the village functions as a self-contained service area. It is intended that the village focus on some type of recreational theme. This village may be established with a golf club at its core, using a low profile and casual style of architecture on a prominent site near the village core. The golf club could set the overall theme for the village which could include the club and associated recreational facilities such as tennis and swimming. The Golf Club could be surrounded by higher density housing. Alternatively, the Proctor Valley Village may be established as an equestrian-oriented community, with equestrian facilities at its core, utilizing low-profile architecture. The equestrian uses would establish a theme for the entire village. The Proctor Valley village core will have commercial and recreation activities designed to serve the entire Proctor Valley area, thereby reducing out-of-valley trips. The village will have the custom look that generally originates from pockets of residential, wrapped by a golf course and surrounded by natural/landscaped open space. Residential areas on the periphery of the village will relate to the topographic conditions and will generally be lower density. The Proctor Valley Village contains: ?? A maximum of 1,563 single-family residential units ?? A maximum of 150 multi-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 5,384 ?? A Village Core containing: • Mixed use area • Multi-family residential uses • Neighborhood park • An elementary school • Golf or recreation center • Transit stop • Affordable Housing ?? A Fire Station Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-189 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Village Fourteen (Proctor Valley Village) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park * CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp.** Art. Total Approx. Pop. L 190 190 1.0 190.0 190.0 608 L 956 956 2.0 478.3 478.3 3,059 M 262 262 6.0 43.7 43.7 838 MH 150 150 15.0 10.0 10.0 383 MU 10.0 7.5 10.0 2.9 0.8 31.2 LMV 155 155 3.0 51.8 51.8 496 OTHER 23.7 23.7 TOTAL 1,563 150 1,713 2.2 773.8 10.0 7.5 10.0 2.9 0.8 23.7 828.7 5,384 *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level. **Open space totals included in the Proctor Valley Parcel summary. Exhibit 65 Village Fourteen (Proctor Valley Village) Land Use Table b. Proctor Valley Village (Village 14) Policies Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities and characteristics unique to this village. • Topography • Location between two mountains • Transition to Jamul • Views to San Miguel and Jamul Mountains, and distant views to Mexico • Recreational Theme • Resources • Synergism with Jamul Planning Area ?? The designation of this village as low intensity is intended to establish the character for the valley, and is not intended to prohibit the use of areas of higher density associated with the village core. ?? Medium and Low-Medium density residential uses should be located in areas in the immediate vicinity of the village core. Densities of remaining residential areas (comprising the bulk of Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-190 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 total residential acreage) should decrease as these areas radiate from along Proctor Valley Road toward the Salt Creek and Jamul areas. In hillside areas, development should be clustered to provide lower densities on steeper slopes. ?? The unique characteristics of Proctor Valley, in particular the isolated wide valley, present an opportunity for specialized recreational land uses. ?? Final development areas shall be adjusted to accommodate the width of regional wildlife corridors. Affected dwelling units can be transferred to less environmentally sensitive areas during SPA level planning. ?? The most northern residential area should provide a transition to the more rural areas to the northeast, incorporating the larger lots next to the open space corridor. ?? Minimize the width of Proctor Valley Road and encourage slower speeds to avoid creating a barrier which bisects the community. ?? All buildings should be low profile and predominantly horizontal in nature. ?? Utilize building colors which harmonize with the natural surroundings. Village Core Policies: ?? Create a village core with sufficient intensity to provide the facilities needed to establish a community focus: a viable, commercial center, elementary school, multi-family residential uses, parks and a focal point for public assembly. ?? The village core will include a variety of housing types. Residential uses up to medium density (6-11 du/acre) are appropriate close to the village core. Affordable housing may be accommodated through limited high intensity housing in the village core. Affordable housing will be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Housing Chapter (Part II, Chapter 3). Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 16.2 acres of local parks in the the Proctor Valley Village. To satisfy this requirement, 10.0 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of a community park in Village Four. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in the Proctor Valley Village: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-191 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? If the village has an equestrian orientation, indicate at the SPA level, the location of a comprehensive equestrian path system which links the various parts of the Village to nearby open space/recreational opportunities, consistent with the RMP. ?? Conservation and wildlife corridors shall be incorporated into the design and may also serve to separate the village development areas from surrounding areas. The design and location of these wildlife corridors should be consistent with the Wildlife Corridor Study and the RMP. Wildlife corridors may be added or widened, as a result of the study, reducing development acreage (see Section E, Implementation for Density Transfer provisions). ?? The golf course will be sensitively located to preserve as many natural features as possible and provide for wildlife movement where appropriate. Higher intensity residential uses should be clustered around the golf course. ?? The GDP/SRP Land Use Map depicts the general location and approximate acreage of the golf course. Final environmental studies and site studies at the SPA level may suggest variation in routing, location and precise acreage. These modifications are permissible, as long as the character of the adjacent development does not change significantly. ?? Building and landscape materials used in this area should reflect the natural environment and be complimentary to the existing natural setting. ?? In keeping with the low intensity character and isolated setting, development should reflect the natural landforms, with natural contour grading techniques employed including: • Recontouring and slope variation. • Smooth transitions at tops and toes of slopes, rather than harsh geometric slope banks and pads. • Rounded, finished contours. Other Proctor Valley Policies: ?? Village 14 shall not be approved until a publicly or privatelyinitiated General Plan Amendment (GPA) has been processed for the adjacent properties which identifies the ultimate land uses; the needed services, facilities and roads, a drainage plan for reservoir protection; and how sensitive resources will be preserved. As an alternative to an approved GPA for the adjacent properties, the Village 14 analysis shall include the long term land uses, residential densities, and facility/service requirements for those adjacent properties that relate to the Village 14 Proctor Valley Specific Planning Area. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-192 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Important view corridors to natural landforms should be identified at the SPA level and be addressed in the final project design. ?? Site layout should create or enhance views from homesites. ?? Grading (large cut/fill slopes in particular) should be minimized. ?? Landform grading guidelines shall be developed as part of the overall Ranch Design Plan and further refined in the Village Design Plan at the SPA level. ?? Roadways should follow the existing landforms, to the extent possible. ?? Residential and recreational buildings should be designed to harmonize with the existing topography. Hillside sites should be designed to take advantage of the opportunities to create outdoor decks, terraces and viewing areas. ?? Split level pads should be utilized wherever feasible, to help minimize manufactured slopes. ?? The provision of sewer service is not precluded in Village 14. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-193 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-194 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 68 66 Village 14 (Proctor Valley Village) Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-195 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 66 Village 14 (Proctor Valley Village) Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-196 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-197 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 15. San Ysidro West Village (Village 15) a. San Ysidro West Village Setting This specialty village is approximately 712 800 acres and located within the western part of the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel, south of Lower Otay Lake and the Jamul Mountains; northwest of Otay Mountain, and north of the Bureau of Land Management property. Topography is varied, with a broad bowl area in the eastern end of the Village. The rest of the Village contains a series of ridges and mesas, broken by drainage courses. Open Space and Habitat: This planning area contains a wide variety of habitat including expanses of non-sensitive chaparral, sensitive coastal sage scrub, intermittent streams, which contain sensitive wetlands and Southern Interior Cypress. There are several occurrences of vernal pools along the village edge and immediately offsite. A number of wildlife corridors occur across the site, including a critical regional corridor which lies at the east edge of the Village. Land Use: The village is surrounded by undeveloped open space, except for a gliderport, north of the village at the east end of the lake. Savage Dam and proposed Otay Valley Regional Park are situated at the west end of the village. A 400+ acre parcel, owned by the Helix Land Company, is located immediately south of the village planning area. Visual: The planning area consists of variable sloping topography with slopes facing various directions, providing views north to the lake and Jamul and San Miguel portions of the property. Other areas have limited views to the south and Otay Mountain. The eastern areas include some views to the east and Lyon’s Peak. Relationship to Other Villages: The village is fairly close to the Resort Village, but is intended to function separately. There is the potential for some commercial relationship with the rural estate area of East San Ysidro (Planning Area 17). b. San Ysidro West Village Description San Ysidro West is a “specialty village” (See Part II, Chapter 1, Section C). Specialty villages possess many of the characteristics of urban villages, but achieve the desired village identity through means more appropriate for their unique topography and location. An estate village, San Ysidro West, is envisioned to become the premier residential community within Otay Ranch and the South County. Development will be divided into smaller areas of prestigious homes, defined by the natural drainage areas which occur intermittently along the south side of the lake. The village core is located toward the eastern end of the village close to Otay Lakes Road. The village core theme will be similar to Rancho Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-198 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Santa Fe, with personal services and small shops as predominant uses. The lot sizes vary throughout the village, in response to topography and to create a mixture of housing and varied architectural and landscape character. Village 15 contains: ?? 481 483 single-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 1,5391,546 ?? Village Core containing: • Mixed-use area • An elementary school • Affordable Housing • Neighborhood Park ?? Fire Station Village Fifteen (San Ysidro West) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park * CPF Sch. C'ml. Open Sp.** Art. Total Approx. Pop. M 245 245 7.2 33.9 33.9 784 MU 3.4 2.3 10.0 3.3 19.0 VL+ 236238 236238 0.4 651.6 649.2 651.6649.2 755762 OTHER 7.897.8 7.897.8 TOTAL 481483 481483 0.7 685.5 683.1 3.4 2.3 10.0 3.3 7.897.8 712.3799.9 1,539 1,546 *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level. **Open space totals included in the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel summary. +Two (2) acre minimum per County Board of Supervisors Action. Exhibit 67 Village Fifteen (San Ysidro West) Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-199 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 c. Village 15 Policies: Village Character Policies: ?? The village character should be guided by the following qualities: • Location on south side of reservoir. • Synergism with the San Ysidro East Village. • Sensitive views to and from the area. • Special landforms and arroyos. ?? San Ysidro West shall be a distinctive and prestigious village with predominantly estate-type uses and complementary village core. ?? Attached residential uses are permitted within the village core to provide a balance of housing needs. ?? Utilize rural road standards to reduce grading and reinforce the identity of the village. ?? Buildings should be predominantly horizontal and harmonize with the natural surroundings. ?? Buildings shall be visually compatible in terms of height, scale, and bulk and shall be set back from the edge of the mesa and and composed of low-rise structures, no more than three stories in height, with occasional four-story buildings. ?? Buildings shall maximize the use of non-reflective/non-glare surfaces. ?? Color schemes shall be limited to natural colors that blend with the existing environment and surrounding hillsides. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 4.6 acres of local parks in Village 15. To satisfy this requirement, 3.4 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of a community parks in Village Four. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village 15: ?? Integrate open space and wildlife corridors in accordance with the corridor studies and the RMP. ?? Incorporate trail systems connecting the open space system, BLM corridors and the lake. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-200 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Significant view corridors to and from the lake and the mountains should be identified at the SPA level. The view potential should be considered in site layout. ?? Development along Otay lakes Road should be adequately set back with an undulating landscaped edge to create a rural feeling. Other San Ysidro West Policies: ?? Minimize grading through landform grading guidelines developed at the SPA level. ?? Roadways should follow the existing landforms to the extent possible. ?? Split level pads should be utilized wherever possible, to minimize manufactured slopes. ?? The Project plans shall be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for review as soon as possible to determine whether or not land use incompatibilities exist between the Project and the existing San Diego Air Sports Center. If it is determined determined by the FAA that such incompatibilities exist, then the SPA plan shall be designed to avoid such interface impacts. The Project Applicant shall then revise the Project’s phasing plan to allow for use of the sports center until its option expires. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-201 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-202 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 70 68 Village 15 Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-203 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 68 Village 15 Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-204 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-205 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 16. Jamul Rural Estate Area (Planning Areas 16 & 19) a. Jamul Rural Estate Area Setting The Jamul Rural Estate Area is comprised of approximately 1,117 acres, excluding the vast open space preserve to its south. The Rural Estate Area is located immediately south of the community of Jamul and includes a portion of Jamul. It is just to the northeast of the Proctor Valley Village. The area contains broad flat areas, as well as ridges and valleys which climb to the south as part of Callahan Mountain. NOTE: This 20 acre area adjacent to the existing development within the community of Jamul, north of Proctor Valley Road, is designated Planning Area 19. This planning area is discussed in conjunction with Planning Area 16, within this section because of its immediate proximity to Planning Area 16, and to its relatively small size. size. However, unlike Planning Area 16, Planning Area 19 will not require the preparation of a SPA Plan and the area is planned for 1-acre minimum lot sizes. Graphically, Planning Area 19 is depicted in combination with Planning Area 16 on Exhibit 6871. Open Space Habitat: The northern edge of the area is defined by a broad drainage area and wetlands. The bulk of the remaining area is heavily disturbed coastal sage scrub. Sensitive plants occur in the highest elevations along the southern edge of the area. Land Use: Developed areas north of the Rural Estates Area predominately contain one acre lots, with some as small as one half acre. The area to the east is the Daley Ranch Agricultural Preserve. The area to the south is grazing land owned by the BLM and the Otay Ranch. Visual: Scenic values abound in the Rural Estates Area, with views to the Miguel and Jamul Mountains and Lyons Valley to the east. Pastoral views of the Daley Ranch and the Tecate Mountain are present along the eastern edge of the area. Relationship to Other Villages: This area will rely on the Proctor Valley Village for some commercial activities. However, this area relates most strongly to the existing country town of Jamul. b. Jamul Rural Estate Area Description The Jamul Rural Estate Area is a rural, low-density residential community. Permitted development will be in the least sensitive locations. Plan refinement will occur after additional topographic and environmental work is completed at the SPA level. Homesites will be designed with consideration of environmental and visual factors. Because of the relatively few number of dwelling units, it is not anticipated that a village core is needed in this planning area. A complementary pattern of two and three acre average size Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-206 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 lots are planned. The 2-acre average size lot (with a 2-acre minimum) will be located in the least sensitive areas where the terrain is gentle and closest to existing one acre lots. The 3-acre average lots (with a two-acre minimum) will be located in areas where terrain is more undulating. The Jamul Rural Estate Area contains: ?? 390 single-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 1,248 ?? Potential Local Park Planning Area 16 Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park*+ CPF + Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp.** Art. Total Approx. Pop. VL 99 99 0.6 169.5 29.2 198.7 317 VL 291 291 0.5 547.4 340.8 888.2 931 OTHER 2.5 1.7 25.4 29.6 TOTAL 390 390 0.5 716.9 2.5 1.7 370.0 25.4 1,116.5 1,248 *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level. **Restricted development area used in density calculations but restricted as open space. Open space totals included in the Proctor Valley Parcel summary. +The location of required park and community purpose facility land will be subject to review at the SPA level. Exhibit 69 Planning Area 16 (Jamul Rural Estate Area) Land Use Table Planning Area 19 contains: ?? 20 single-family residential units ?? Build-out population of approximately 64 Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-207 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Planning Area 19 (Adjacent to Jamul) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park * CPF * Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop. VL 20 20 1.0 20.0 20.0 64 TOTAL 20 20 1.0 20.0 ` 20.0 64 *The location of required park and community purpose facility land will be subject to review at the SPA level. Exhibit 70 Planning Area 19 Land Use Table c. Jamul Rural Estate Area Policies Village Character Policies: ?? Define general building sites at the SPA level. ?? Limited Development Areas may be included within private lots with no development allowed. Roads and utilities are anticipated to cross or lie within these areas. ?? Adjust development areas based on wildlife corridor studies. ?? Prepare architectural guidelines for homes, ancillary structures, fencing, landscaping and grading at the SPA level. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 3.9 acres of local parks in the Jamul Rural Estate Area. To satisfy this requirement, 2.5 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. This obligation could be satisfied through the actual provision of a park within the rural estate area or the payment of park land dedication fees. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of a community park in Village Four. The following policies will guide the design of parks and open spaces in the Jamul Rural Estate Area: ?? Privately owned lots shall not extend into the management preserve identified by the RMP. ?? Provide for the wildlife corridors consistent with the conclusions contained in the Wildlife Corridor Study. ?? Provide setbacks and landscaping along Proctor Valley Road consistent with the area theme. ?? Provide for equestrian, bike and pedestrian connections into the adjacent open space areas. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-208 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Maintenance of open space areas which are not included in the Resource Management Preserve shall be assured through a homeowners association or similar funding mechanism and addressed at the SPA level. Other Jamul Rural Estate Policies: ?? Landform grading guidelines shall be developed as part of the Design Plan with the SPA. These shall address individual lot, road and other grading, and shall minimize grading in conjunction with lot development. ?? Encourage the use of split pads to minimize grading, where feasible. ?? Utilize rural road standards to minimize impacts from grading and to reinforce the proposed character of the area. ?? The provision of sewer service is not precluded in Planning Areas 16 and 19. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-209 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-210 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 71 Jamul Rural Estate Area Land Use Map (Planning Area 16 and Planning Area 19 (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-211 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 71 Jamul Rural Estate Area Land Use Map (Planning Area 16 and Planning Area 19 (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-212 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-213 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 17. San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area (Planning Area 17) a. San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area Setting The San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area is comprised of approximately 1,611 acres, including the open space area between Little and Big Cedar Canyons. The area is located on a topographically varied mesa in the southeastern corner of Otay Ranch. The area lies just south of the intersections of Otay Lakes Road and Highway 94. Open Space and Habitat: Several deep stream beds cross the site, containing significant rare vegetation, including Engleman Oak, Tecate Cypress and wetland vegetation. A large portion of the area has been disturbed by years of grazing activity, resulting in large areas of coastal sage scrub. However, due to higher elevations in this area, few gnatcatchers have been found. Land Use: The property surrounding this area is undeveloped open space and farm land, except the Thousand Trails campground at the mouth of Big Cedar Canyon. The BLM controls the land south of the area and it is anticipated to remain in open space. Visual: There are numerous views of the surrounding mountains, including Otay Mountain, Callahan Mountain and Tecate Mountain. Many areas also have views into steep canyons or across the broad Jamul Valley. Relationship to Other Villages: This area relates to the San Ysidro West Village for village core services, including commercial, school and recreation. Otherwise, this large lot rural area remains distant from other parts of Otay Ranch. b. San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area Description The San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area contains ranch sites considerably larger and more rural than elsewhere in Otay Ranch. This area is a special, rural low-density residential area, creating a casual living environment. Development areas are in the least sensitive locations. The land use plan will be refined after additional topographic and environmental work is completed at the SPA level. Homesites will be specifically designed with consideration of environmental and visual factors. Since the San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area will be a low-density residential area, it is not anticipated that a village core is needed. A complementary pattern of 4-, 6-and 8-acre average size lots are planned. These lots will extend over restricted open space area but home development will be confined to unrestricted areas. The average lot sizes increase as the topography becomes more rugged. The terrain is generally more gentle in the north and steeper toward the south. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-214 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 The San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area contains: ?? 296 single-family residential dwelling units ?? Build-out population of approximately 948 Planning Area 17 (San Ysidro Rural Estate Area) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park * CPF* Sch. C'ml. Open Sp.** Art. Total Approx . Pop. VL 153 153 0.25 323.7 287.1 610.8 490 VL 105 105 0.15 299.8 397.2 697.0 336 VL 38 38 0.125 193.2 110.2 303.4 122 OTHER TOTAL 296 296 0.18 0.362 816.7 794.5 1,611.2 948 *The location of required community purpose facility land will be subject to review at the SPA level. **Restricted development area used in density calculations but restricted as open space. Open space totals included in the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel summary. Exhibit 72 Planning Area 16 (San Ysidro Rural Estate Area) Land Use Table c. San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area Policies ?? Preserve areas of especially significant slope or resources as defined in the GDP/SRP Land Use Map and further refined by accurate topography and additional resource studies. ?? Define general building sites at the SPA level. ?? Limited Development Areas may be included within private lots with no development allowed. Roads and utilities are anticipated to cross or lie within these areas. ?? Adjust development areas based on wildlife corridor studies. ?? Prepare architectural guidelines for homes, ancillary structures, fencing, landscape and lot grading at the SPA level. Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in the development of 2.8 acres of local parks in the San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area. This obligation could be satisfied through the actual provision of a park within the rural estate area or the payment of park land dedication fees. The remaining obligation is satisfied through the provision of a community park in Village Fou r. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-215 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open space in the San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area: ?? Privately owned lots shall not extend into management preserve areas identified by the RMP. ?? Provide for the wildlife corridors consistent with the conclusions contained in the Wildlife Corridor Study. ?? Provide for equestrian, bike and pedestrian connections into the adjacent open space areas. ?? Maintenance of open space areas which are not included in the Resource Management Preserve shall be assured through a homeowners association or similar funding mechanism and addressed at the SPA level. Other San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area Policies: ?? Landform grading guidelines shall be developed as part of the Area Design Plan at the SPA level. These shall address individual lot, road and other grading, and and shall encourage minimal grading in conjunction with lot development. ?? Encourage the use of split pads to minimize grading where feasible. ?? Utilize rural road standards to minimize impacts from grading and to reinforce the proposed character of the area. ?? The provision of sewer service is precluded in Planning Area 17. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-216 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 75 73 Planning Area 17 (San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area) Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-217 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 73 Planning Area 17 (San Ysidro East Rural Estate Area) Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-218 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-219 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 18. Planning Area 18 (Mesa Industrial Area) Planning Area 18 Setting Planning Area 18 is comprised of approximately 216 acres and is located adjacent to and north of Brown Field and Lone Star Road. This area is primarily in the City of San Diego and extends north to the southern top edge of the Otay River Valley. Johnson Canyon defines the eastern edge. It is the southwestern most portion of Otay Ranch. (See Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Map) Open Space & Habitat: For years, the area has been farmed and grazed, resulting in a disturbed grassland. Vernal pools exist primarily near the rim of the valley. Land Use: A Navy communications facility is adjacent to this area. Brown Field is southeast of the area and a farming and trucking facility is located south of the site. Just east of the site is the Donovan State Prison. Visual: This flat site has views east to Otay Mountain and north across the Otay River Valley to Rock Mountain. Relationship to Other Villages: This area is separated from the rest of the ranch. It relates, in character, to the industrial areas of the Mesa, in the County and City of San Diego. Mesa Industrial Area Description The area is planned to provide large space for light industrial uses which produce relatively low traffic volume (100 ADTs or less). Some service uses may intermingle with the industrial uses, however, no residential uses are planned. These industrial parks are planned to promote pedestrian and bicycle movement by positioning buildings closer to streets with entrances and plazas, scaled for pedestrian movement. Planning Area 18 (Mesa Industrial Area) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop. I 215.8 215.8 OTHER TOTAL 215.8 215.8 Exhibit 74 Planning Area 18 (Mesa Industrial Area) Land Use Table Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-220 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Planning Area 18 Policies: ?? Preserve areas of significant groups of vernal pools, if present. ?? Preserve areas of steep slopes. ?? Develop a set of guidelines for architecture, signage, graphics, and landscaping at the SPA level. ?? Prohibit inclusion of Management Preserve open space within private individual lots. ?? Develop a separate SPA Plan. ?? Light and noise impacts to adjacent open space areas should be minimized. Park and Open Space Policies: ?? Provide for wildlife corridors consistent with the conclusions contained in the Wildlife Corridor Study. ?? Provide bikes and pedestrian paths through the area which connect to the trails of the Otay River Valley. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-221 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-222 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 78b 75 Heritage Road Industrial Area (Planning Area 18b) Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-223 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 75 Heritage Road Industrial Area (Planning Area 18b) Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-224 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-225 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 19. Planning Area 20 a. Planning Area 20 Setting Planning Area 20 is comprised of approximately 209 acres in two large parcels located in Otay Valley. It is part of the 400 acres of active recreation area described in the Chapter 4 as part of the Otay Valley Regional Park. This area extends from Heritage Road on the west up the valley past SR-125. The Otay River splits the two parcels. Otay Mesa is located uphill to the south and Villages Three, Four, Eigth and Nine are north of the area. (See Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Map) Open Space & Habitat: The Otay Ranch Preserve area follows the Otay Valley river channel. The planning area also contains disturbed coastal sage scrub,mule fat scrub, riparian habitat, and other sensitive biological resources on the slopes of the river valley. Land Use: The area is the site of the former Gun Club and Bird Ranch which are located on the western active recreation area. The amphetheater and a water slide park are located to the west across Heritage Road. Visual: This flat site is above the flood plain of the Otay River and has views east up the valley to the San Ysidro Mountains to the east. Relationship to Other Villages: This area is separated from the rest of the Otay Ranch by the Open Space Preserve. The villages of the Otay Valley Parcel are located to the north. Planning Area 20 Description The area is planned to provide active recreational uses that are buffered from the Otay Ranch Preserve along the Otay River. Planning Area 20 (Otay River Valley) Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park * CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Sp. Art. Total Approx. Pop. MU 15.0 15.0 OSOpen Space-Active Recreation 194.0 188.0 6.0 194.0 TOTAL 15.0 194.0 188.0 6.0 209.0 *The location of required park and community purpose facility land will be subject to review at the SPA level.Active Recreation acreage per General Plan Land Use designation Exhibit 76 Planning Area 20 (Otay River Valley) Land Use Table (Staff Alternative) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-226 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Planning Area 20 Policies: ?? Active Recreation uses shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP), the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, and the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. o Preserve areas of significant groups of vernal pools, if present. ?? Preserve areas of steep slopes. ?? Develop a set of guidelines for architecture, signage, graphics, and landscaping at the SPA level. ?? Prohibit inclusion of private individual lots within open space Preserve areas. ?? Develop a SPA Plan for the entire planning area. ?? Development adjacent to the preserve shall adhere to the guidelines and the policies of the Otay Ranch RMP and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Park and Open Space Policies: The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Planning Area 20: ?? Provide for wildlife corridors consistent with the conclusions contained in the Wildlife Corridor Study, Otay Ranch RMP, and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. ?? Provide bikes and pedestrian paths through the least environmentally sensitive area which will connect to the trails of the Otay River Valley. o Open space preserve areas adjacent to and/or affecting the Otay River Valley identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of the development area. o Pedestrian trails shall link the active recreation uses with the Otay Valley Regional Park. o Active recreation and related facilities shall be designed in a manner that is sensitive to the adjacent preserve consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. o A staging area shall be provided as a gateway to the Otay River Valley Regional Park. Other Planning Area 20 Policies: o Design guidelines which address visual quality in the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan shall apply to Planning Area 20. o Active recreation areas should be: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-227 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 o located in previously distrubed, non-sensitve areas o accessible from existing and planned public roads to the maximum extent feasible and should avoid intruding into the preserve o clustered to minimize the edge between active recreation and sensitive resources within the Preserve o Public park and recreation facilities may be operated by private commercial vendors within the active recreation areas. o Active recreation building and landscape character shall be compatible with Otay Ranch Design Plan and Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. o Active recreation building character shall express the historic theme of Bird Ranch and be compatibility with the Otay Valley Regional Park design themes. o Buffer parking from public viewshed along Heritage Road and east/west trail. Planning Area 20 Character: o The character of this area shall be guided by the following qualities: • Location adjacent to Wolf Canyon and the Otay River Valley, two scenic canyons/corridors with undulating edge conditions and areas of sensitive habitat • Views to Wolf Canyon and Rock Mountain and the mountains to the east • Location isolated by significant landforms and the Otay River • Identification of a specialized character of active recreation given its location adjacent to the existing amphitheatre and gateway to the Otay Valley Regional Park. Planning Area 20 contains: o Limited Commercial uses/activities on a maximum of 15 acres that relate to and support adjacent active recreation uses and areas consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan o Public facilities o A transit stop linkage o Link/staging area to Regional Park Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-228 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 78 77 Planning Area 20 Land Use Map (ADOPTED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-229 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 77 Planning Area 20 Land Use Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-230 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-231 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Chapter 2 Mobility Section A Introduction The Otay Ranch Mobility Plan provides a comprehensive, efficient, and safe system for a variety of transportation modes. This system completes and complements planned and existing regional systems. Otay Ranch's western boundary is within a mile of I-805 and is connected to it by three major arterials. The project will complete the connection of the Otay Mesa with Chula Vista by providing three one north-south arterials and SR-125. Links with rural county areas are provided and improved along Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road. Automobile oriented improvements do not define the entire scope of improvements. Rather, they are only one component of an integrated mobility system, which includes bicycles, low-speed electric vehicles,1 trails, pedestrian trails, Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) and other transit systems. Section B Goals, Policies and Objectives GOAL: PROVIDE A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WITHIN OTAY RANCH WITH CONVENIENT LINKAGES TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS ABUTTING THE OTAY RANCH. Objective: Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in response to planned growth, maintaining acceptable levels of service (LOS). Objective: Plan and implement a circulation system such that the operational goal of Level of Service "C" for circulation element arterial and major roads and intersections can be achieved and maintained outside village cores and town centers. Sections of Main Street within town centers and iInternal village streets/roads are not expected to meet this standard. Objective: Encourage other transportation modes through street/road design standards within the village, while accommodating the automobile. Design standards are not 1 On roads where posted speeds exceed 35 mph, separate trails will may be provided for low-speed electric vehicle travel. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-232 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 focused on achieving LOS standards or providing auto convenience. Objective: Provide an efficient circulation system that minimizes impacts on residential neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas. Implementation Measure: Require, as a condition of approval of discretionary permits, the construction of new roads, bridges, roadway improvements, demand/system management, or other measures necessary to fully mitigate traffic impacts on circulation element roads, to avoid reduction in the existing level of service below "C",. Maintain LOS “C” or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours, LOS “D” can occur for no more than two hours of the day. with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of 2 hours per day. Urban LOS standards defined by the Urban Circulation Element of the General Plan are applicable to town center arterials. If the existing level of service is below "C", require necessary mitigation measures to maintain the current LOS. Implementation Measure: Access to Circulation Element roads should be limited except within town centers to maintain through traffic flow. Policy: Otay Ranch shall contribute its fair share toward financing the transportation facilities necessary to serve the demand created by the development of Otay Ranch. Implementation Measure: To the extent that Otay Ranch contributes to the need for a facility outside of its boundaries, Otay Ranch development shall mitigate its impact by participating in impact fee programs, or other means determined at the SPA level. Policy: Otay Ranch shall contribute its fair share toward financing the transportation facilities necessary to serve the demand created by the development of Otay Ranch. Policy: Support the design and construction of a regional circulation system that will have the capacity to carry the forecasted regional demand volumes through the area. Policy: Coordinate and integrate the Otay Ranch transportation system with the transportation facilities and plans of surrounding jurisdictions. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-233 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 GOAL: ACHIEVE A BALANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH EMPHASIZES ALTERNATIVES TO AUTOMOBILE USE AND IS RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS. Objective: Study, identify and designate corridors, if appropriate, for light rail and transit facilities. Policy: Support and encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation such as public transit and car/van pools to reduce both roadway congestion and pollution. Implementation Measure: Coordinate the planning of all new transit routes with established development patterns and land use plans. Implementation Measure: No more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial use within the EUC shall be approved for the Otay Valley Parcel until such time as the funding is approved and construction assured for the light rail transit system.. Implementation Measure: Measure: Participate in programs for employers to encourage their employees to utilize alternate forms of transportation. Objective: Promote alternative forms of transportation, such as bicycle and low-speed electric vehicle paths, riding and hiking trails, and pedestrian walkways as an integral part of the circulation system. Policy: Provide a thorough and comprehensive bicycle circulation system, emphasizing bicycle paths, segregated from vehicular traffic, or Class II bike lane connections between major destinations within and adjacent to the Otay Ranch Project Area. Policy: Develop patterns of land use which will allow the elimination of automobile trips and encourage pedestrian movement through pedestrian-friendly environments and proper land use mix. Implementation Measure: Dedicate and construct bikeways as a condition of final map approvals, and require secure bicycle storage facilities at new commercial centers, public centers, industrial centers, transit centers, airports and multi-family developme nts. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-234 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Circulation Element Arterial and Major Roads These roads typically provide for completion of the regional system. In this role, they are designed to operate at maximum efficiency, and provide for automobile and bus access to regional destinations, including freeways. They cross each other at intervals of three quarters of a mile or greater. Entry onto these roads, except at the EUC, and Freeway Commercial and in Town Centers, is restricted to Village Entry Streets. The following streets/roads reflect ultimate widths, but widths may be reduced at the SPA level based on the SPA traffic analysis and in accordance with the phasing plan: Road Name From To Classification Birch Road La Media Road SR-125 6 Lane Major Birch Road SR-125 EastLake Pkwy 4-6 Lane Prime EastLake Pkwy. Olympic Parkway Hunte Parkway 6 Lane Major Olympic Pkwy. I-805 Hunte Parkway 6 Lane Prime La Media/Otay Lakes Rd. Telegraph Canyon Road Main Street/Rock Mountain 6 Lane Prime Otay Lakes Rd. Hunte Parkway Dulzura Crossing 6 Lane Prime Main Street/Rock Mountain Road I-805 Rock Mtn. Road Eastlake Parkway 6 Lane Major*, ** Otay Valley Road La Media Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Eastlake Parkway 4 Lane Major*** Hunte Parkway EastLake Parkway Olympic Parkway 6 Lane Prime Heritage Road Telegraph Canyon Rd. Palm Ave. 6 Lane Prime East Palomar St. I-805 Heritage Road 4 Lane Major Proctor Valley Road SA 1150.1 Millar Ranch Road 4 Lane Major Rock Mtn. Road Heritage SR-125 6 lane Prime Rock Mtn. Rd SR-125 Hunte Parkway 4 Lane Major * 4 lane town center arterials in Village Eight Town Center **6 lane gateway in Village Nine ***4 lane town center arterial in Village Eight West town center Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-235 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Policy: Provide a system that recognizes and is consistent with the adjacent circulation element roads. Policy: Reduce Birch Road between SR 125 and Eastlake Parkway from 6 lanes to 4 lanes in order to match travel lanes to the Village enteryentry street in Village 11 and provide a better pedestrian connection between the Freeway commercial and EUC. Policy: Provide Town Center Arterials in Village Eight West and Nine that may utilitize incorporate the use of the couplets, spindles, or a grid street system to be determined on the SPA level as a mechanism for allowing arterial and major roadways to enter and pass through the center/interior of a village to be determined on the SPA Plan. Policy: Minimize impacts on adjacent residential and environmentally sensitive areas. Policy: Minimize impacts on unique landforms by designing with the natural terrain where possible when selecting alignments. Policy: Except in Town Centers, Prohibit prohibit parking on arterial and major circulation element roads. Policy: Provide over/undercrossings linking villages where appropriate. These should accommodate pedestrians and bikes and low-speed electric vehicles. Policy: Provide bridges or culverts to allow for wildlife crossings where required by the Wildlife Corridor Study. Policy: Prohibit bisecting village cores with circulation element roads except in Town Centers. Policy: Except in Town Centers, Enhance enhance traffic flow by minimizing the number of points of ingress and egress to villages from circulation element roads. Policy: Except in Town Centers, Prohibit prohibit driveways along arterials for any residential or village commercial use and strictly limit driveways for freeway commercial and EUC uses. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-236 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Policy: Design circulation elements roads in accordance with Exhibits 79 78 through 93. Policy: Design the village road systems to provide a hierarchy of streets and alternate routes connecting to the village core area. Policy: Design village roads for human rather and automobile scale while ensuring public safety in all cases. Policy: Traffic calming devicses such as neck downs, blub-outs bulb-outs and traffic circles shall be provided in each village and town center Policy: All streets shall be tree-lined, consistent with an overall village landscape plan. Streets/Roads Each village will provide a complex integrated system of roads, low-speed electric vehicles and bike paths, and pedestrian ways. The system is defined outlined below by individual road types that may be found in all villages except for the rural standard. However, the actual pattern of roads varies within each village in response to site features, circulation element roads, topography, land use organization, etc. Actual roadway configuration and standards will be set at the SPA level. The following is a description of how these roads are located functionally within the village setting. While circulation element roads must adhere to prescribed levels of service, these interior roads are permitted to operate at less than established LOS. This is done to further encourage use of alternative modes of transportation. Town Center Arterial Town Center Arterials serve the Town Centers by bringing arterial traffic roadways into the town cneters centers within a pedestrian oriented grid system of streets. These arterials provide for pededstrians, vehicles and transit in a walkable environment. Town Center arterials Arterials are typically a pair of two lane one-way streets (couplets) providing a total of 4 lanes within a town center boundary. These roadways that provide the an equivalent capacity as an standard four lane arterial. Couplets allow for intergration of pedestrians by providing slower travel speeds and narrower street width without reducing overall travel time through the Town Center. Village Entry Streets These divided roadways provide the "gateways" into the villages and are typically two lanes on each side of a median. They provide the only primary ingress and egress Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-237 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 from the village to the arterials and/or major roads. One or more of these roads will visually focus on the village core/mixed use area. These roads extend from the Circulation Element Road to the Village Collector street, "alternate route" through the village. These roads always provide for pedestrian and alternate modes of transportation outside of the roadbed. In some villages these roads also reserve space for the future trolleytransit. Policy: Village entry streets should incorporate medians and be landscaped to reinforce village character and identity. Policy: Direct driveway access shall be precluded on primary village, promenade, or collector streets except for commercial and multiple family parking areas. Policy: Selected streets should provide direct visual access to the village core. Policy: Design streets to give balance to the needs of the various modes of transportation using the street. Intersections should be designed to encourage pedestrian movement and reduce vehicle speed while ensuring public safety and providing for emergency vehicle access. Village Core Streets These undivided roads provide the link between the some village entry entries and the mixed usemixed-use areas. These roads are always within the core of the a village. Parallel parking is provided along the sides of the roadway where residential development fronts onto the street. In areas without street fronting residential development, only emergency parking is provided. BRT Transit right-of-way is reserved adjacent to village core streets, along specified routes in Villages One, Two, Five, Six, Eight and Nine. Promenade Streets In some villages, Ppromenade streets provide the most direct route from the residential areas to the village core. The promenade designation comes from the pedestrian, double tree lined path which parallels the street. Street parking is provided along the street, wherever residential units abut. Policy: Promenade streets should accommodate adjacent or integrated pedestrian, bikeway and alternate vehicles, with a double tree row at the pedestrian element to enhance pedestrian scale. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-238 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Main Street/Plaza Streets These core area streets promote a quality urban village and pedestrian oriented character. Low-speed electric vehicles, bikes and automobiles travel slowly in the same lanes. The road is buffered from wide walks by parallel or diagonal parking. In designated villages, right-of-way is set aside for future transit use. Plaza streets may also be closed to through traffic for special events and serve as an urban plaza. Residential Collector These streets ring the village core although the core uses may be on both sides of the street. The collector is intended to provide an alternate route around the core area. Residential units usually abut both sides of the road, therefore parking occurs along both sides. Low speed electric vehicle travel and bikes are accommodated in striped lanes in the road. Residential Streets Residential streets occur throughout the each residential village. These streets have homes on one or both sides. Parking will be provided along the side orone or both sides of the street. Low-speed electric vehicles and bikes bicycles will travel in the roadway without a specially designated lane. Policy: Cul-de-sacs are permitted if, at the end of the cul-de-sacs, pedestrian, bike and lowspeed electric vehicle access remains open to a link to the village core or other desirable uses. Dead-end cul-de-sacs are permitted only in perimeter locations. Policy: Multiple points of access in a grid system shall be provided. Block primetersperimeters shall not exceed 2,000 feet. Exceptions can be made in perimeter locations where steep hillside terrain would make vehicular connections difficult. In such conditions, a pedestrian connection such as a trail or paseo shall be provided. Alleys In small lot single-family, multi-family and mixed usemixed-use areas, alleys may be appropriate. Alleys provide garage and service access. Pedestrian, bike bicycle and low-speed electric vehicles travel areas are not provided in alleys. Alleys are privately owned and maintained. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-239 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Traffic Calming Vehicular traffic, while important for the circulation in all Otay Ranch villages, is considered secondary in importance to pedestrian traffic. Streets are generally designed to be narrower to reduce vehicle speeds, and the wide-spread use of dead-end cul-de-sacs is discouraged. In addition, “traffic calming” devices such as “roundabouts,” and “neckdowns,” and “bulb-outs” are significant circulation design solutions, which are promoted in the Otay Ranch and are alternatives to the typical vehicular street system found in other planned communities. Neckdowns, and Roundabouts roundabouts, and bulb-outs promote low speeds for vehicles and present a superior design solution for typical streets. Neckdowns and bulb-outs, which decrease the number of travel lanes at intersections, or provide mid-block crossing opportunities for pedestrians, also promote easy pedestrian circulation. Neckdowns are intended to create a sense of vehicle “friction” by lowering vehicle speeds, reducing the length of pedestrian crossings, and creating pedestrian awareness for motorists. Roundabouts provide a function and design solution to ease circulation conflict and provide slower and more efficient better pedestrianvehicle movements through intersections in villages and town centers. In addition, rRoundabouts may function as a superior alternative in some cases to a stop controlled or signalized intersection. Policy: Encourage the use of Traffic Calming devices throughout the circulation mobility plans for all villages, town centers and planning areas. Rural Standards Small scale streets with tight radius turns are proposed for very low density, large lots and steeper terrain areas. These tight turning radii streets have no curbs or gutters to promote a rural character and minimize grading and terrain modifications. Objective: Large lot rural areas shall be planned using reduced width road sections, with rolled curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. All unimproved shoulders shall be provided, which could be utilized by pedestrians. Objective: Parking shall be provided to ensure convenient access to activity centers, while encouraging pedestrian activity and reduced reliance on the automobile. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-240 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 57a78 Six-Lane Prime Arterial Not to Scale Exhibit 5879 Four-Lane Major Not to Scale Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-241 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 6380 Village Entry w/Diagonal Parking Not to Scale Exhibit 6481 Village Entry Street Not to Scale Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-242 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 6982 Town Center Arterial (One Way) Not to Scale Exhibit 7383 Secondary Village Entry Not to Scale Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-243 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 7884 Parkway Residential Not to Scale Exhibit 8085 Residential Promenade Street Not to Scale Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-244 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit __86 Transit Village Entry Street Not to Scale Exhibit 8187 Alley Not to Scale Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-245 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 8288 Roundabout Not to Scale Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-246 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit __89 Neckdown Not to Scale Exhibit 8490 Bridge Crossing Not to Scale Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-247 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Exhibit 8591 Rural Collector Not to Scale Exhibit 8692 Rural Street Not to Scale Exhibit 8793 Village Industrial Class II Collector Not to Scale Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-248 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Natural Design Considerations Objective: Design roadways to follow natural contours in rural areas and steeper topography, except where safety, grading or strong design considerations suggest otherwise. Policy: Design roadways to minimize grading and the height of cut and fill slopes. Policy: Provide for wildlife as required in the Wildlife Corridor Study. Bus Transit Routes Objective: Otay Ranch land use, mobility and transit plans shall be coordinated with local and regional transit plans to ensure that Otay Ranch villages are served at the earliest stages of development. Policy: Provide areas for interconnection of various modes of transportation. Policy: Provide transit/bus stops/shelters in village core areas and close to service/commercial uses. Provide waiting and bike storage facilities at one transit stop within each village core. Policy: Coordinate bus location of transit stations with transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations as set forth in the trolley section. Policy: Coordinate transit routes and stops with light rail transit districts SANDAG/MTS. Policy: Shelter design should be compatible with village character/theme and may, therefore, vary from village to village. Shelter maintenance responsibility shall be determined during the design process. Policy: Encourage local loop bus routes connecting the villages to the Eastern Urban Center and to other regional transportation systems, parks, schools, the university and recreational areas. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-249 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Transit System Regional transportation plans envision the expansion of the bus rapid transit (BRT) system to connect the existing system to the international border and various urban areas, including Otay Ranch. Objective: The Otay Ranch land use and mobility plans shall incorporate regional plans for the expansion of the bus rapid transit system. Policy: Coordinate with SANDAG, CVT and other transit agencies to provide for the integration of the BRT line into Villages One, Two, Five, Six, Eight and Nine, Park and Ride and the Eastern Urban Center. The BRT alignment shown on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map is conceptual and will be more precisely located at the SPA level of planning. Policy: Provide for reservation of space for the BRT line within the identified villages/areas. Locate stations/stop areas, consistent with SANDAG/MTDB MTS standards, within the village cores/areas identified for transit. Policy: Bus stop locations should be coordinated with future l BRt stopsBRT stations and should follow the same design guidelines. Low Speed Electric Vehicle Travel In concert with the primary objective to reduce the number of automobile trips, the interior road systems will be designed to provide for low speed electric vehicle travel, per the previous sections. These vehicles are commonly described as "Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) and shall include an electric motor (electric is preferred for air quality reasons). Low speed electric vehicle travel is permitted on roads with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less pursuant to the California Vehicle Code. On roads where posted speeds exceed 35 mph, separate trails will may be provided for low speed electric vehicle travel. Objective: To reduce reliance on the automobile, the Otay Ranch road system shall be designed to provide for low speed electric vehicle travel. Policy: Underpasses/overpasses should be provided at strategic locations to minimize low speed electric vehicle/automobile conflicts on major arterials. Locations should be determined at the SPA/Specific Plan level. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-250 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Policy: Low speed electric vehicle parking facilities should be located within village cores/town centers. Policy: Coordinate low speed electric vehicle travel consistent with the policy contained in the village roads section. Bicycle/Pedestrian Paths A system of local and regional and local bicycle and pedestrian paths isfacilities also known as village paths and regional trails are incorporated as a critical mobility component of Otay Ranch. The village paths provide direct connections between each of the adjacent villages and the village paths connect to the regional trails beyond the village boundaries. The village paths are separated from vehicular traffic to serve both pedestrians and bicyclists. The standard width of a village path is 10 feet adjacent to a 5-foot sidewalk for a total of 15 feet. The village path may be reduced to a minimum width of 10 feet within the urban settings of a village core or town center. The local bike and pedestrian paths are within villages and connect to the regional trails. The arterial and major roadway system accommodates class II bike lanes within the right-of-way. Residential collector and local streets serve as bike routes where bicycles share the roadway with vehicles. Regional trails are generally adjacent to but grade separated from roadways. The village path also is grade separated and may be narrowed from a fifteen foot minimum width to a ten foot width within the urban setting of a village core or town center. Sidewalks are provided along all roadways depending on site conditions and adjacent land uses. The internal street systems provide bike lanes and pedestrian paths along the Village Entry Streets. These paths will serve both pedestrians and bicycles and are separated from vehicular traffic on this type of street. Residential Collector and Local Streets will serve as bike routes, where bicycles share the roadway with vehicles. Grade separated bikeways will be considered along La Media from Wolf Canyon to Southwestern College and through Wolf Canyon across the EUC to Salt Creek. A trail system shall be provided through open space areas. These shall be looped systems to provide for a variety of lengths of rides. In these areas, pedestrian, bike and equestrian trails will overlap. Objective: The bicycle and pedestrian path system should provide for a safe continuous pedestrian and bicycle circulation system to all parts of villages. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-251 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Policy: The path system should connect to the village core to encourage alternate means of travel. Policy: Bicycle lane and pedestrian Pathways pathways should provide travel in both directions. be two-way routes. Policy: Signing should be posted at intervals, directing bicyclists and pedestrians to the appropriate side of the trail. Policy: Drainage inlet grates, manhole covers, etc., on trails should be designed to provide adequate surface for tire or foot travel. Policy: At-grade trail crossings should be provided for at signalized intersections. Policy: Bicycle storage facilities should be provided within village cores, at transit and bus stops. Policy: Underpasses/overpasses will be provided at strategic locations to minimize automobile and trail user conflicts at arterial highways. Specific locations should be determined at the SPA/Specific Plan level. Bike, equestrian and other recreational trails are also planned as described in the Chapter 4, Parks, Recreation, Open Space. Scenic Corridors The Otay Ranch contains a number of valuable scenic resources such as natural landforms, rock outcroppings, unique vegetation, lakes and viewsheds, which merit protection along arterial roads. Objective: Protect and enhance valuable scenic resources and views throughout the Otay Ranch. Objective: Design roadways and/or adjacent villages to protect visual resources. Objective: Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to encourage protection of scenic corridor resources outside of Otay Ranch. Objective: Coordinate with SANDAG and other agencies regarding facilities they may need to locate within scenic corridors and suggest measures to ensure compatibility. Policy: The following Otay Ranch routes are designated scenic roadways: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-252 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Telegraph Canyon Road -provide for setbacks and landscaping along this edge. Variable setbacks, landform grading and recognition of existing swales in final grading is desirable. No existing vegetative character exists. It is recognized that modification to existing landforms will occur. Olympic Parkway -from the western property boundary to SR-125. The roadway should be sited in the canyon bottom to preserve sideslopes and vegetation wherever possible. Protect steep slopes and vegetation on the north slope (south facing) between the western property line and Heritage Road. Further east, to Otay Lakes Road, topography of the north slope should be preserved. East of Otay Lakes Road and the entire south side should be contour-graded with extra setbacks and revegetation. Main Street/Rock Mountain Road/Hunte Parkway -from the western property line to Olympic Parkway except within the boundaries of a town center. The road provides expansive views of the Otay River Valley, Rock Mountain, and Salt Creek. Protect views into the valleys and propose sensitive grading, setback and architectural controls along this edge. Otay Valley Road -from Village Eight West town center boundary to Street A in Village Nine. Otay Lakes Road -from the Mary Patrick Estate to the Daley Quarry. This stretch of road provides opportunities for views of the Otay Lakes and other landforms. Preserve corridor views to the lakes as the road passes through the resort center. Carefully site architecture and use setbacks with height controls to preserve views. Continue an open, non-urban character along this corridor. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-253 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Proctor Valley Road -from Salt Creek Ranch to Highway 94. This road passes through open space areas providing views to Jamul, the San Miguel Mountains and Proctor Valley Creek. Final alignment should seek to preserve significant rock outcroppings and landforms, and preserve views to the Upper Otay Reservoir. Design for more urban character at the village center. In the Jamul area, provide large setbacks and fencing to project the developed rural ranchette character of Jamul. Implementation Measure: Develop guidelines for setbacks, grading and landscaping along scenic corridors in conjunction with the Overall Ranch Design Planindividual SPA plans. A 75-foot average buffer along scenic corridors shall be met as noted on individual land use plan diagrams for arterials adand scenic corridors. Section C Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following: ?? SPA Requirements • Build-out transportation model analysis to the extent that SPA plan changes approved GDP/SRP system or generation. • Phased transportation model analysis to show impacts to system with planned facility construction for SPA level development (including offsite roads). • Review and refinement of land use plan for implementation of pedestrian and transit-oriented design, Transit First Plan for Otay Valley Parcel villages and Eastern Urban Center. • Phased Transit Plan. • Phased Bicycle Plan. • Phased Trail Plan. • Modification of above plans, if needed. • Prepare Public Facility Financing and Phasing Plan to assure construction of facilities concurrent with demand --include on-site and off-site facilities to maintain threshold conformance. • Develop/amend/revise financing mechanism for transportation facility construction (DIF). Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-254 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to provide on-site transportation facilities. • Conditioned to adhere to Transportation Facility Phasing Plan for on-site and off-site facility thresholds. • Conditioned to provide off-site transportation facilities as required by Public Facilities and Financing Plan. • Conditioned to participate in financing mechanism for transportation facilities (DIF). ?? Final Map • Implement tentative map conditions. • Bond and provide for construction of improvements. • Secure rights-of-way. ?? Building Permit • Payment of fees (if appropriate). Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-255 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Chapter 3 Housing Section A Introduction The Otay Ranch Community will provide a wide spectrum of housing types and styles to respond to the needs of a diverse population within the South County region of San Diego. The Housing Chapter of this General Development Plan/Subregional Plan is intended as an extension of the Goals, Objectives and Policies contained within the Housing Elements for both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. The intent of this chapter is to identify specific short term (5 years) and long term measures that will integrate the Otay Ranch affordable housing goals, objectives and policies into existing regional and subregional programs. Measures contained within the City of Chula Vista's or County of San Diego's Housing Elements apply to that portion of Otay Ranch located within each respective jurisdiction. Section B Balanced Community GOAL: CREATE A BALANCED COMMUNITY EXEMPLIFIED BY THE PROVISION OF A DIVERSE RANGE OF HOUSING STYLES, TENANCY TYPES AND PRICES. 1. Long Term Objective Objective: Provide a variety of housing opportunities sufficient to meet a proportionate share of the Regional Share allocation of housing. Policy: The Regional Share allocation shall be established for both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego through SANDAG's Regional Housing Needs Statement, and shall be adjusted every five years by SANDAG in accordance with State Housing Law. Policy: Continue to address the Otay Ranch’s proportionate share of those Regional Share allocations, as determined in the Housing Elements of the appropriate land use jurisdiction, and periodically updated. Said proportionate share determination shall be consistent with SANDAG’s Regional Share allocation methodology. Policy: Coordinate City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego housing policies pertaining to Otay Ranch in the future Housing Element updates. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-256 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 2. Five-Year Objective Objective: Each Otay Ranch Village2 will proportionately assist the appropriate land use jurisdiction to meet or exceed Otay Ranch's share of the 5-year Regional Share allocation as provided by each jurisdiction's Housing Element. Policy: Encourage each "Urban Village" to offer a variety of housing types, densities and prices which will enable affordability within each income group under Regional Share. Policy: Encourage housing opportunities for very low, low and moderate-income households, and the dispersal of such housing among Otay Ranch villages to promote a balanced community. Policy: Consider the use of mobilehome and manufactured housing as alternative building types to promote affordability. Policy: Support the exploration and use of innovative and alternate building technologies and materials which reduce costs, increase affordability, and address environmental issues such as energy and water conservation, air quality improvements and recycling. Policy: Encourage the timely provision of each village’s affordable housing component in the earliest development phase possible. Policy: Priority shall be given to satisfying each Village's Regional Share affordable housing obligation within that Village. However, when the agency of jurisdiction finds that; (1) it is infeasible to provide all the Regional Share obligation within the subject Village, and (2) a transfer of the obligation will not be significantly detrimental to achieving balanced communities, and (3) that development phasing and related provision of the subject units will not adversely affect attainment of the Regional Share allocation within the respective 5-year period, the agency may allow a portion of those 2 All “Urban Villages,” “Specialty Villages” and the “Eastern Urban Center,” as defined in the Land Use Chapter (Part II, Chapter 1, Section c.2.). The provision of affordable housing within the Rural Estate Area, or its transfer to “Urban Villages,” shall be determined by the conceptual transfer plan referenced within the Implementation Measures, as a part of the initial Otay Ranch Village Housing Plan. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-257 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 affordable housing obligations to be satisfied within another Urban Village, or Villages. Said transfer of allocation between Villages shall provide the information required by implementation measure below, and shall assure provision of the transferred units through an agreement and appropriate conditions on the land prior to approval of the SPA for the Village from which the allocation is transferred. Implementation Measures: Prior to approval of the SPA for the first Village proposing transfers, a conceptual plan shall be developed which addresses potential transfers of Regional Share affordable housing requirements from "Specialty Villages" and "Rural Estate Areas" to "Urban Villages,” which plan shall indicate the amount of proposed transfers, establish guidelines for assignment of those transfer to avoid community imbalance or an overconcentration of lowerincome housing in any Urban Village, ensure sufficient phasing of Regional Share affordable housing obligations, and demonstrate that the Village(s) can feasibly accommodate the additional percentage of affordable housing units being transferred. Implementation Measures: Prior to or concurrent with approval of a SPA for each Village, a Housing Plan for that Village shall be approved which addresses the type and location of housing to be provided pursuant to the Regional Share allocations and any related policies contained in the Housing Elements of the appropriate land use jurisdiction. As minimum content, that Village Housing Plan shall: ?? Identify how it complies with the appropriate jurisdiction’s housing programs. For the period 1992-1996, or until replaced with updated policies adopted by the applicable local jurisdiction, at least 5% of the total units within the Village shall be reserved for low-income households, and at least 5% for moderate-income households. The agency of jurisdiction will consider utilizing available resources and incentives to assist in the provision of the units as necessary and feasible. Where sufficient resources and incentives are available, minimum requirements may be exceeded by increasing the amount of low-income units provided, and/or in producing units affordable within the lower range of both low and moderateincome standards. Where sufficient subsidies, incentives and other resources are available, the land use jurisdiction and applicant shall attempt to provide very low-income affordability. After 1996, Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-258 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 reservations by income level shall be consistent with the policies and programs contained within the Housing Elements of the appropriate land use jurisdiction. ?? Identify where the affordable units will be located, by income group, number, type and tenure. ?? Identify what portion, if any, of the required affordable units will not be satisfied in the subject Village, indicate to which Village they will be transferred, and describe the specific program/project under which they will be provided. ?? Include an acceptable phasing program for the timely provision of the affordable housing component in the earliest development phase possible. The phasing program should also address a schedule for the provision of any affordable housing obligation proposed for transfer to another Village. ?? Identify all local, state and federal incentive and funding programs which will be employed to provide the reserved units, including but not limited to density bonus programs, tax exempt mortgage revenue bond financing, and the use of non-profit partners. Any density bonuses for single-family residential areas shall be achieved solely through use of accessory units pursuant to the implementation measures below. Where density bonus programs are intended, the Plan shall indicate the following: • the area or areas where such bonuses are to be applied; • the number of bonus units and total project units within those area(s); • the increased level of infrastructure necessary to accommodate the units; • the income level of affordability of the bonus units; • whether the bonus units are for families or senior citizens; • the duration of reservation. Density bonuses shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 65915 of the California Government Code, and subject to determination that such bonuses will not result in significant unmitigable adverse impacts upon public health and safety. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-259 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Consider sites where mobilehome/manufactured housing would be appropriate. ?? Provide, within the first phase In the City of Chula Vista, an Affordable Housing Agreement to satisfy the Telegraph Canyon Estates GDP and SPA Plan requirements. (City of Chula Vista Resolution No. 16960) ?? Indicate the extent to which alternate building technologies and/or materials are proposed to be used in both market rate and restricted units. If an experimental housing concept is proposed, indicate the location of project site and describe the concept. ?? In order to assure implementation of a Housing Plan, a specific program and agreement(s) shall be required to be negotiated with, and approved by the agency of jurisdiction, which guarantee the provision of the housing units described in the Plan. The formulation of such agreements shall be handled in a tiered fashion, starting at the SPA level and progressing in specificity and detail through subsequent planning processes, with final projectspecific agreements required prior to the recordation of the respective final map, or final project approval where the subdivision of land is not involved. Policy: Support the use of accessory dwelling units as an additional source of affordable housing for lower-income households. Accessory living units should conform to the following guidelines: ?? Prior to, or concurrent with, the first SPA proposing accessory units, studies shall be prepared to determine demand and generation figures for traffic, water and sewer for accessory units within the Otay Ranch, based on varying tenancies. These studies must be found acceptable to the legislative body of the agency having jurisdiction, prior to approval of the first SPA which proposes such accessory units. ?? The SPA Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall analyze community character and the service service and facility impacts of accessory units. The area permitting the accessory units may need to be limited and specifically defined in the SPA in order to mitigate impacts. Anticipated population increases which may result from the accessory units shall be taken into account in the SPA Level Service/Revenue Plan calculations performed at the time of SPA review. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-260 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 ?? Accessory units shall be designed as an integral part of the single-family residence. Accessory units may be attached to or detached from the primary dwelling. Village Design Plans shall include specific design guidelines relating to architecture and site planning for accessory units to ensure that the single-family character of the neighborhood is protected. ?? Accessory units are not intended to function as duplexes and shall not be subdivided or otherwise separated in ownership. ?? No more than one accessory unit shall be permitted per single-family lot. Each accessory unit shall be limited to one bedroom and shall provide for one off-street parking space in addition to the required parking for the main residence. Section C Fair Housing And Special Housing Needs GOAL: THE PROVISION OF SUFFICIENT HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS OF ALL ECONOMIC, ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS AND AGE GROUPS, AS WELL AS THOSE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS SUCH AS THE HANDICAPPED, ELDERLY, SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES, LARGE FAMILIES AND THE HOMELESS. Objective: Ensure that the Otay Ranch provides housing opportunities sufficient to meet a proportionate share of identified special housing needs, and applies fair housing practices for all needs groups in the sale, rental, and advertising of housing units. Policy: The level of special housing needs shall be identified for both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego through SANDAG's Regional Housing Needs Statement, and updated every five years in accordance with State Housing Law. Policy: Otay Ranch shall address a proportionate share of those identified special needs as determined in the Housing Elements of the appropriate land use jurisdiction, as updated. Policy: Consistent with Otay Ranch's identified share of special housing needs, each Otay Ranch Village shall address housing opportunities for these needs groups, consistent with the Housing Elements of the appropriate land use jurisdiction, as updated. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-261 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Implementation Measure: The Housing Plan shall, in addition to previously identified content, address the housing to be provided for persons with special needs. Policy: Ensure compliance with all State and Federal statutes regarding barrier free environments and elimination of racial, age, religious, sexual and economic bias and discrimination in housing sales, rental, advertising and lending practices. Implementation Measure: Each SPA Housing Plan shall be accompanied by an Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan which describes the various outreach efforts and lending practices which will be undertaken to attract prospective homebuyers and/or tenants in the proposed housing marketing area, regardless of gender, age, race, religion, handicap or economic status. Policy: Include an adequate amount of land designated for community purpose facilities within Otay Ranch to provide for the location of facilities to shelter the homeless. Implementation Measure: Each Village shall include land designated for community purpose facilities, upon which it is permitted that emergency shelters for homeless persons may be located. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-262 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-263 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Chapter 4 Parks, Recreation, Open Space Section A Introduction The park, recreation and open space system is the unifying fabric of the Otay Ranch. This system is designed to meet or exceed the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego requirements, and enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors by providing active and passive recreational amenities at all levels. The Otay Ranch park, recreation and open space system is comprised of a hierarchy of elements intended to respond to specific community and location needs and physical site conditions. The size and diversity of the Otay Ranch Project Area allows for creative approaches to planning park and open space areas and recreational services and facilities. Section B Goals, Objectives and Policies The Otay Ranch Parks, Recreation and Open Space goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures provide for a variety of parks, recreation and open space amenities. Otay Ranch provides the opportunity for a full range of passive and active recreational opportunities. GOAL: PROVIDE DIVERSE PARK AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN OTAY RANCH WHICH MEET THE RECREATIONAL, CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION, CULTURAL AND AESTHETIC NEEDS OF PROJECT RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES AND PHYSICAL ABILITIES. Objective: Identify park, recreational and open space opportunities, where appropriate, to serve the South County region and San Diego County as a whole. Policy: Provide local and regional trails which run through and/or connect open space areas in: Otay River Valley, Poggi Canyon, Wolf Creek Canyon, Salt Creek Canyon, Mt. Miguel, Jamul Mountain, Otay Mountain, Otay Lakes and BLM land. Implementation Measure: Otay Ranch shall develop a local and regional trail system for riding, hiking and biking. The system should provide equestrian facilities, staging areas, local connections and regional throughroutes grade separated from conflicting vehicular traffic where appropriate. Trail systems should have regional and local through-routes connected to other off-site areas such as city parks, greenbelts and BLM land. Trails may be separated for each activity. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-264 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Implementation Measure: Bicycle trails, paths and lanes should interconnect through a bicycle master plan. Policy: Encourage joint use of utility easements with appropriate and compatible uses, including, but not limited to, open space, agriculture, parking and trails. Policy: Planning for the Otay Ranch Regional Park System shall be coordinated with the planning for the Otay Valley Regional Park through the Otay Valley Regional Park Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force to ensure that the regional parks include both active and passive recreation areas and trails, and consider adjacent development, community character, land use, conservation, preservation and citizen recreational needs are compatible with each other. Policy: Create a large-scale open space and regional park system with components in the Otay River Valley, Jamul Mountain and San Ysidro Mountains including regional parkland, open space, environmental preserves and local parks. This system shall connect to off-site parks and open spaces such as the Sweetwater River Valley, the western Otay River Valley and the San Ysidro Mountains BLM open space. Policy: Provide 15 acres of regional park and open space per 1,000 Otay Ranch residents. Policy: Plan for the development of multi-use trail facilities in the regional park and open space setting with appropriate connections to adjacent parks and facilities. Objective: Maximize conservation, joint uses and access and consider safety in the design of recreational facilities. Policy Encourage public transit service to regional parks and provide access to handicapped and disabled persons, in accordance with the latest federal guidelines. Policy: Commercial recreation opportunities may be permitted within town square, community and regional parks to generate revenue to defray park operational expenses. Policy: Utilize conservation measures including reclaimed water, efficient irrigation systems Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-265 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 and drought tolerant plant material in the development of public and private parks where allowed. Policy: Minimize park operation and maintenance costs and identify funding sources for continued operation and maintenance of all Otay Ranch parks and open space land. Objective: Provide neighborhood and community parks and recreational facilities to serve the recreational needs of local residents. Policy: For the purpose of calculating the County’s local open space requirement, parks, open spaces and golf courses with public access may be appropriate greenbelt areas. Policy: Provide a minimum of three acres3 of neighborhood and community parkland (as governed by the Quimby Act) and 12 acres per 1,000 Otay Ranch residents of other active or passive recreation and open space area. Policy: Encourage the design of park sites adjacent to public schools and other public lands where co-location of facilities is feasible. Joint use agreements with school districts are encouraged. Section C Park Facility System A four-tiered system of public parks is provided through town squares and neighborhood, community and regional parks. This system will provide: 1. compatible park amenities within the town square parks; 2. active play facilities within the neighborhood parks; 3. community-level playing fields and complexes within the community parks; and 4. region-wide active and passive recreational areas within the Otay Valley Regional Park and San Ysidro Mountain Regional Park. 3 This policy is intended to be implemented within each village. That is, each village should provide a sufficient neighborhood and/or community parkland to enable Otay Ranch to meet the standard. However, community parks cannot be provided incrementally within each village because of the size and location of the planned community parks. The GDP/SRP identifies community parks, averaging 25 acres, in three Villages (Village Two, Ten and 12). Accordingly, it is recognized that during the build-out of Otay Ranch the actual provision of neighborhood and community park will temporarily exceed or lag behind the requirements of the policy, depending on the timing of the provision of community parks. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-266 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 The Otay Ranch trail network connects the park system and the villages of Otay Ranch. This network of pedestrian walks, hiking/biking trails and equestrian trails links parks with each village. This linkage is a key design concept for Otay Ranch and will further reduce reliance on the automobile for local transportation needs. The location of parks requires consideration of the amount and location of physical spaces, service standards, service radius, co-location of land uses and other design issues. Usable park acreage, for local parks, should generally conform to the following criteria: playing fields and areas designated for built facilities should be graded to a 2% slope; recreational lawn areas should not exceed a 4% slope; perimeter areas should not exceed a 3:1 slope; and unique or desirable land forms should be retained and integrated into the park design, with credit toward park requirements. A total of 13,789.94 acres of open space is provided throughout the Otay Ranch, consisting of local and regional open space. The County of San Diego park standards require 15 acres per 1,000 population of regional parkland and 15 acres per 1,000 population of local parkland. The City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego require the dedication of 3 acres per 1,000 population of local parks. In accordance with the 3 acres per 1,000 population park dedication requirement and a projected build-out of approximately 78,55589,092 residents, the Otay Ranch will provide 236 acres of local parks. Pursuant to the County of San Diego standard of providing an additional 12 acres of local parklands and open space, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP provides in excess of 12 acres per 1,000 population of local open space. The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP meets this requirement through the provision of 942 acres on a ranch-wide basis, exclusive of regional park facilities, by providing the following: open space buffers along arterials, open space corridors through Village Seven, Ten, Eleven and the Eastern Urban Center, and hiking and riding trails in the villages, the Management Preserve, town squares, and other areas designed to provide recreational opportunities and visual relief to the Otay Ranch residents. In addition, pursuant to the County of San Diego standard of 15 acres of regional park per 1,000 population, Otay Ranch will provide a minimum of 1,178 acres of regional park land. The local and regional parks are defined below: 1. Town Squares: Town Squares are located in some village center areas to serve the village residents. These parks average one acre in size. Town Square park facilities may include tot lots, playground equipment, turf areas, picnic areas and similar active and passive recreation areas and improvements. 4 13,789,9 acres of open space is based on residential development in all the Otay Valley Parcel villages. If Village Three develops industrial and Villages Nine and Ten develop as university, this open space number would be revised. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-267 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Town Square parks will provide a focal point for the village center and reflect a pedestrian design and urban character due to their proximity to higher density residential and commercial uses. These parks will be private parks and will be owned and maintained by a central business district (or similar private maintenance entity). Alternatively, these parks may be public, in those cases where the park is maintained as part of a Community Facilities District, subject to approval of the Development Services Director. Guidelines for these parks shall be developed at the SPA level. Park dedication credit will be permitted for these parks. 2. Pedestrian Parks: Pedestrian parks are provided in the secondary single-family neighborhoods. They are 1/2-acre to 2 acres in size and have a 1/8-to 1/4-service radius. These parks are necessary due to the small lot nature of the single-family neighborhoods. Because these parks do not meet public park size standards, they will not receive park dedication credit. However, pedestrian parks satisfy a recreation need in the neighborhoods and therefore are eligible for Community Purposes Facility (CPF) credit. 3. Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks are located to serve people within a 1/2-to 3/4-mile radius within each residential village. These parks serve the day-to-day recreational needs of local residents. Each neighborhood park should be sited in conjunction with a school site wherever feasible. The size and location of neighborhood parks shall be determined at the SPA level of planning. Neighborhood park facilities typically include tot lots, parking, restrooms/maintenance buildings, play ground equipment and play areas. The neighborhood parks are located in or adjacent to the village core, within the residential areas of the village. Pedestrian trails are provided to link these neighborhood parks to the residential neighborhoods. In the more populated villages, neighborhood parks may be supplemented by town squares. 4. Community Parks: Community parks are located to serve the residents of multiple villages within an approximately 1-to 2-mile radius. Each park should be a minimum of 25 acres and offer intense recreational facilities such as athletic complexes, multipurpose fields, court activities, large swimming pools and areas for outdoor active and passive recreation. Activities and amenities may include softball, youth baseball, soccer, tennis, basketball, volleyball, racquetball, community buildings/facilities, family and group picnic areas, and other large-scale areas for organized active and passive recreation. They are planned to serve the active recreational needs of multiple villages. Three community parks are planned for Otay Ranch within Village Two, Village Ten and the EUC. These park locations are linked to regional parks and open spaces. 5. Regional Parks: Regional parks are areas of natural quality used for nature oriented outdoor recreation. The primary purpose of these parks is to preserve and interpret sensitive environmental resources, and make these resources available for public recreational activities and enjoyment. Regional parks may include recreational Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-268 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 activities such as camping, riding and hiking trails, nature and interpretive centers, picnic areas, golf courses, active and informal play areas and natural open areas. A regional park should be a minimum of 200 acres, with a minimum of 50 usable acres for active recreation. Regional parks achieve two important objectives: ?? Provide residents of both the local community and region with broad-scale recreation, trail opportunities interpretive educational facilities; and ?? Protect regionally significant environmental resources (e.g., biological habitats, historic sites, etc.). Regional park sites are selected because they are areas of natural quality worthy of preservation and public enjoyment, and also because they are areas which can be utilized and enhanced for largescale, nature-oriented and interpretive outdoor recreation. Regional parks may include active recreational uses such as golf courses, equestrian centers, and sports complexes (e.g., adult softball facility), and may also include camping, picnicking, nature centers, museums, informal play areas, and natural open space and preserves areas. Regional parks have parking, restroom, and other support facilities. The Otay Valley Regional Park will be the first priority site for providing the required Regional Park acreage. If 100% of the requirement cannot be accommodated here, then areas within the eastern parcels and within the Management Preserve boundaries may be designated to achieve this standard. a. Otay Valley Regional Park A regional park can be established in the Otay River Valley to provide for a range of active and passive recreation uses. These active park uses should be concentrated in easily accessible nodes and located primarily in upland areas north of the Otay River and toward the western portion of the river valley. Active recreational areas may comprise up to 400 acres of the regional parkland. Active recreation areas shall be located a minimum of 100 feet away from areas occupied by sensitive biological features. The City of San Diego, County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista have formed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA), which is in the process of developing park concept plans, including activity areas, for the Otay Valley Regional Park. Recommended policies call for coordinated planning between the JEPA and Otay Ranch planners and the manager of Otay Management Preserve. b. San Ysidro Mountain Regional Park A second regional recreation area may be established in the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel. This regional park can provide passive recreation opportunities and facilities for hiking, picnicking, camping, nature appreciation, natural and cultural history education and interpretation, and other passive uses. Appropriate trail linkages Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-269 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 to the BLM Wildlife Management Area and the County trail system will also be provided. The San Ysidro Mountain Regional Park would have limited improvements, focused on public opportunities for nature interpretation and education and passive facilities. This park could be improved in conjunction with a larger 2,700-acre Resource Management Area, and could include not only an interpretive/educational center, but also passive facilities such as hiking and riding trails, camping, low intensity play fields and picnic areas and wildlife observation. Section D Private and Commercial Recreation Private recreational facilities can supplement the public parks and recreation system. The size of private recreation facilities may range from an individual amenity such as a swimming pool serving a portion of a project, to a multi-use recreation center serving an entire neighborhood or community. Private recreational facilities may receive up to a 50% credit toward satisfying the local park requirements within County areas. Commercial recreation activities are encouraged to augment and enhance services available to the future residents of Otay Ranch and other residents in the region. Commercial recreation uses such as golf courses, riding stables, model airplane ports, skating rinks, etc. may be appropriate for location within Otay Ranch. Certain commercial operations may also be appropriate for location in town square, community or regional parks. Consideration should be given to special purpose parks such as nature interpretive centers, bicycle parks, botanical gardens and privately operated amusement parks such as water slides and miniature golf courses. Criteria for the location of commercial ventures in town squares, community and regional parks will be developed in conjunction with the appropriate agency. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-270 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 Section E Open Space Natural Open Space The majority of natural open space and regional parks within Otay Ranch are the subject of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) (See Part II, Chapter 10: Resource Protection, Conservation, and Management). Areas within the RMP's management preserve include wildlife corridors, open space areas, trails, nature interpretive centers and other natural amenities. The RMP provides for the preservation and enhancement of natural resources, and creates unique opportunities for recreational activities as well. Both the Jamul Mountain and San Ysidro Mountain areas have been identified as areas suited for low intensity, passive recreational uses. Permitted uses would include hiking, camping, picnicking, equestrian trail and nature appreciation. Precise acreage and plans have not been formulated for for any of the areas, but it is clear these resources can respond to the need for regional open space and limited recreational opportunities. Permitted construction within open space areas could include: (1) public interpretive centers for habitat, cultural, and paleontological resources; (2) botanical gardens and a native plant nursery; (3) on-site research facilities (as defined in the RMP); (4) limited active regional recreational facilities; (5) public infrastructure; and (6) low intensity camping and equestrian facilities. Other Open Space Other open space is defined as a combination of neighborhood and community parks, riding and hiking trails, school playgrounds, utility easements, open space scenic corridors, pedestrian walk ways, buffers, golf courses and other public recreational facilities and "green spaces" which meet open space and local park needs. Section F Park and Recreation Facilities 1. Facilities Local Park Acreage: Park facility improvement standards are identified in the Otay Ranch Parks and Recreation Facilities Implementation Plan5. The final determination of the types, quantities and locations of the specific facilities to be provided at each park will be based upon a needs analysis and the subsequent Park Master Plan for each park type and size. 5 Consideration should be given to specialized uses other than recommended standards, which may better serve the community. It is recommended new residents assist in selecting special amenities such as casting ponds, shuffle board, boccie ball courts, velodromes, disk golf courses, recreational gardens, miniature trains, carrousels, lawn bowling and other unique facilities which can be included in some community parks. Opportunities to lease certain facilities to commercial businesses should also be explored. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-271 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 2. Riding and Hiking Trails The mobility and recreational trail network provides a link between the various Otay Ranch parks, village cores, activity areas, open space and points of interest; forming a comprehensive network. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has a 20-foot easement for the California Hiking and Riding Trail that runs from Savage Dam along the south short of Lower Otay Lake and along Otay Lakes Road to SR-94. This system is augmented by an alternative transportation network and road system that is more fully described in Part II, Chapter 2: Mobility. The following are the elements of this comprehensive trail network. Regional Trails: Regional trails will accommodate hiking, biking and equestrian travel depending upon gradient and adjacent environmental sensitivity. They are located within all the major open space systems (Management Preserve and Regional Park) and will link to off-site regional trails. Within the larger open space areas, trails will accommodate loop trips of 1/2 hour, 1-hour and 2-hour trips. Regional trails are intended to link open space areas to the urban core. Where trails take on a more urban character, horses may be prohibited. South of the resort site, along the northern edge of Otay Lake, the existing roadbed will be converted to a bike and walk way. Regional Bike Ways: Regional bikeways will be designated in each direction, along all circulation element roads in Otay Ranch, to carry bicycle traffic. These will connect to existing and proposed offsite bike lanes and access each Village. Village Trails: Within each village, a complete system of trails and walks will connect the major areas of each village and provide access to adjacent villages and regional trails and bike systems. These village trails provide a direct link to the village core. Trails and walks for pedestrians, pedestrians, bikes and alternative transportation will occur within and outside of the roadbed as more fully illustrated in the Mobility Chapter. 3. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Provide a Parks Master Plan. • Specific facility site identified and reserved including areas adjacent to public schools and other public lands where colocation is feasible and desirable. • Equipment needs identified. • SPAs processing parks along SR-125 shall be submitted to CALTRANS for review and comment concerning the desirability of dedicated park land near the SR-125 corridor. • Alternative financing methods refined. • Alternative maintenance entities and funding identified. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-272 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 • Timing of construction consistent with Otay Ranch Park and Recreation Implementation Plan identified. • Sites for special purpose parks reviewed. • Develop plans for the use of reclaimed water, as appropriate. • Design criteria for land adjacent to regional parks prepared. • Request recommendations from County Transit System regarding transit facility needs. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to provide local park sites. • Funding identified for local parks. • Review existing or proposed trails on adjacent properties to ensure linkages. ?? Final Map Requirements • Local park sites dedicated. • Funding assured for local parks. • Implement design guidelines. ?? Building Permit Requirements • Payment of impact fee (if established). Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-273 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-274 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended September 2012 (EXISTING) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-275 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Exhibit 94 Otay Valley Parcel Park and Trail Map (PROPOSED) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-276 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-277 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Exhibit 96: San Ysidro Mountains Parcel Park and Trail Map Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-278 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-279 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Chapter 5 Capital Facilities Section A Introduction The purpose of this Chapter is to identify the public facilities necessary to serve the Otay Ranch, and to establish policies and processing requirements to govern the provision of these facilities. Twenty two facilities are presented. The Chapter is divided into four section. The Introduction Section provides an overview and summary of the Chapter and a discussion of the relationship between Capital Facility Plans and the Growth Management Plan. Section B identifies the Goals, Policies and Objectives which generally apply to all capital facilities. Facility specific Goals, Policies, Objectives and Implementation Measures are contained in Sections C, D and E, as outlined below. Public Facilities are addressed in Section C: Drainage Facilities Sewerage Facilities Integrated Solid Waste Management Urban Runoff Facilities Water Facilities Water Reclamation Facilities Social Facilities are addressed in Section D: Arts and Cultural Facilities Cemetery Facilities Child Care Facilities Health and Medical Facilities Community and Regional Purpose Facilities Social and Senior Services Facilities Community Facilities are addressed in Section E: Animal Control Facilities Civic Facilities Correctional Facilities Fire Protection and Emergency Services Facilities Justice Facilities Law Enforcement Facilities Library Facilities School Facilities Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-280 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Each subsection is a summary of a more in-depth analysis contained in the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, a GDP/SRP support document (see Part I, Chapter 7). The Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan reviews applicable public goals, objectives and policies, by facility, and identifies the policies and processing requirements contained in the GDP/SRP. The methodologies for determining demand for specific facilities are fully explained in the Facility Implementation Plan document. The document also evaluates the existing facilities which serve the Otay Ranch planning area, and the demand for, and costs of, new facilities. Chapter 5 is closely associated with, and must be implemented in conjunction with, Growth Management -Chapter 9. While this Capital Facility Chapter establishes facility-specific policies and requirements, the Growth Management Chapter establishes the procedural framework to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, specific policies and requirements. The Growth Management Chapter establishes phasing policies and crucial implementation programs, including annual facility monitoring, SPA facility phasing and financing requirements. Furthermore, the Growth Management Chapter requires the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan be updated concurrent with the processing and consideration of SPA applications. Section B Goals, Objectives, Policies Facility specific Goals, Policies, Objectives and Implementation Measures are contained in Sections C, D and E. The following Goals, Policies and Objectives generally apply to all capital facilities. GOAL: ASSURE THE EFFICIENT AND TIMELY PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO DEVELOPABLE AREAS OF OTAY RANCH CONCURRENT WITH NEED. Coordinate Facilities with Pace of Development Objective: Ensure that the pace and pattern of residential, commercial and other non-residential development is coordinated with the provision of adequate public facilities and services. Policy: Promote the joint siting, planning, development and operation of complementary public functions in the SPA Public Facility Financing and Phasing Plans. Policy: Permit patterns of development that will allow growth to proceed in rational increments that preserve the village form and desired open space. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-281 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Provide Facilities Concurrent with Need Objective: Permit development only through a process that phases construction with the provision of necessary infrastructure prior to or concurrent with need. Policy: Require SPAs to plan for the siting and funding of necessary public facilities. New Development Pays Its Own Way Objective: Development projects shall be required to provide or fund their fair share of all public facilities needed by the development. Policy: Require, as a basis of approval, discretionary development projects to provide or contribute toward the provision of all public facilities necessary to serve the development concurrent with need. Residential and nonresidential land uses that necessitate and benefit from new capital facilities should pay the proportionate cost of constructing those facilities. However, However, residents of Otay Ranch should not be expected to pay exactions for capital facilities unless the facility costs are spread to other new development which will be served by the facility, regardless of whether that development occurs within or outside of Otay Ranch. Policy: Promote the use of turn-key programs, reimbursement agreements and other means of requiring new development to ensure that facilities are constructed and available concurrent with need. Policy: Consider the use of development agreements/public benefit agreements and other vesting mechanisms to assure the timely provision of needed public facilities and services. Policy: Require development projects to participate in established regional development impact fee programs for the funding of that portion of the regional facilities needs created by new development. Objective: “Enhanced Services” may be provided to specified geographic areas of the Otay Ranch. These are services that exceed the normal or standard level of services provided to the jurisdiction as a whole. Policy: To the extent that property owners and/or residents within Otay Ranch receive enhanced service levels, those benefitting Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-282 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 properties shall pay the added service costs (both direct and indirect) through an ongoing benefit asessment mechanism. Any additional fees or taxes levied against property in order to pay for enhanced services will not be included toward the 2.00 percent limit mentioned below. Revenue Sharing Objective: The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego shall enter into a Master Property Tax Agreement covering all annexations within an agreed-upon geographic area in Otay Ranch. That Agreement shall consider the distribution of property tax revenues, as well as the allocation of total project revenues between the City and the County in accordance with the following policies. Policy: All County local services provided to the unincorporated portions of Otay Ranch, including direct and indirect costs, and including capital and and operating costs, shall be covered by project revenues and project exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially designated fund established by the developer and through an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Policy: All City local services provided to the incorporated portions of Otay Ranch, including direct and indirect costs, and including capital and operating costs, shall be covered by project revenues and project exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially designated fund established by the developer and through an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Capital costs for regional facilities shall also be covered by project revenues, except for any regional capital costs being paid for through an equitable financing plan as described below. Policy: All County regional services, including direct and indirect costs, shall be covered by project revenues. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially designated fund established by the developer and through an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Policy: When the County determines that a need for regional capital facilities is anticipated to serve residents of Otay Ranch, an equitable Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-283 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 financing plan will be established by the County. The financing plan shall be based on the best estimate of the future need and the costs created by various developments including Otay Ranch and the costs that are created from changes in demographic patterns within existing development. At that time, the property owners and residents of Otay Ranch shall be expected to pay the fair share of the costs of those regional facilities according to the nexus. Implicit in this is that other property owners within the benefit area also pay their fair share apportionment of costs. Implementation Measure: An annual fiscal review will be conducted to evaluate, revise and amend the assumptions related to (a) land use types, intensity, density, and timing; (b) economic conditions; (c) market conditions; (d) demographic factors affecting cost and revenue estimates; (e) allocation of local, regional, state, and federal funds; and (f) any other factors mutually deemed relevant. These adjustments will be incorporated into the Fiscal Impact for New Development (FIND) model to determine the need for applicable adjustments in revenue allocations to assure that the policies above are fulfilled. The developer's flexibility to control buildout shall not be constrained by the FIND model nor by the City's or County's revenue needs as long as the above policies are fulfilled. Implementation Measure: A reserve fund program shall be established concurrent with the approval of the first SPA, to correct any annual operating deficiencies incurred by the applicable jurisdiction. The reserve fund program shall finance the cost of an annual review and updated fiscal impact analysis, and be the basis for any transfer of monies from the reserve fund. The following issues shall be addressed at the time of the determination of the content of the reserve fund: the number of reserve fund program agreements; funding sources for the reserve fund; duration and termination of the reserve fund agreement(s); responsibility for operating deficiencies; and present value analysis methodology. Objective: As a general guideline, efforts should be made to keep the effective tax rate (ETR), including all property taxes and special assessments, not to exceed 2% of the assessed value of the property. Policy: The total ETR consists of the basic 1% ad valorem property tax levy mandated by Proposition 13, plus the following: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-284 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 • Ad valorem property tax overrides for retirement of voter-approved bonded indebtedness; • Existing non-ad valorem tax overrides--including special taxes, assessment installment payments, and parcel charges--for public facilities or services (expressed as a percentage of market value); and new or proposed non-ad valorem tax overrides (expressed as a percentage of market value). Examples are charges for community facilities districts (Mello-Roos), assessment districts, open space, and lighting and landscaping districts. Monitor Development to Ensure Facility Adequacy Objective: Monitor the impacts of growth and development on critical facilities and services to ensure that necessary infrastructure is provided prior to or concurrent with need. Policy: Require SPAs to prepare a fiscal impact report discussing a project's individual and cumulative effects on the fiscal wellbeing of impacted public entities and discussing a project’s impacts on service/capacity levels of existing facilities. (See Part II Chapter 9 for the contents of the SPA level fiscal anlysis) Policy: Apply and annually monitor public facility threshold standards in order to: • Define public facilities and services integral to accepted definitions of a quality living environment; • Define acceptable levels of service or operation; and • Provide a means for monitoring the impacts of development in these critical facilities and services on a project-byproject basis. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-285 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Section C Public Facility Plans 1. Drainage Facilities a. Introduction Drainage facilities control excess flows so that peak runoffs and velocities do not threaten the public health or safety. The purpose of this section is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Implementation Measures to ensure the timely provision of local drainage facilities. The Otay Ranch planning area primarily impacts two major drainage basins, the Telegraph Canyon Basin and the Otay River Basin. Drainage facilities will be provided to control runoff from Otay Ranch in accordance with the Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures stated below. b. Threshold Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed Engineering Standards of the governing land use jurisdiction. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures GOAL: PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES FROM FIRE, FLOODING AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS. Objective: Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program, Drainage Master Plan(s) and Engineering Standards. Policy: Storm drain runoff should be managed to minimize water degradation, to reduce the waste of fresh water, to protect wildlife and to reduce erosion. Objective: Storm water flows shall be controlled and conveyed based on statistical models and engineering experience, as specified in City Engineering Standards, consistent with NPDES Best Management Practices Objective: Reduction in the need for construction of flood control structures. Policy: Development within floodplains will be restricted to decrease the potential for property damage and loss of life from flooding and to avoid the need for channels and other flood control facilities. Objective: Preservation of the floodplain environment from adverse impacts due to dev elopment. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-286 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Policy: The use of natural watercourses will be required except in cases where no less environmentally damaging alternative is appropriate. Implementation Measure: Ensure that the design, siting and location of new development does not create a need for flood control facilities that result in negative environmental impacts. Policy: The costs of constructing needed flood control facilities shall be shared by property owners who create the need for, and benefit from, the facilities. Objective: Require on-site detention of storm water flows such that existing downstream structures will not be overloaded. Policy: Require measures to decrease the adverse impacts created by increased quantity and degradation in the quality of runoff from urban areas. Policy: Comply with the appropriate jurisdiction's Flood Insurance Program. d. Facilities As the future peak flows increase with proposed new development, it is recommended storm water detention facilities be provided to detain these excess flows so that peak runoffs and velocities in the main channels do not exceed the existing storm conditions. This will eliminate additional flooding due to increased discharge as a result of urbanization. The criteria to attenuate storm water discharges from new development to pre-developed quantities, however, is based on the assumption that the channels and crossing structures downstream can handle the existing storm runoffs. Existing downstream facilities in the Poggi, Telegraph Canyon and Otay Valley drainage basins have been identified as being inadequate to handle existing storm runoffs. Basin-wide improvement districts should be established (as has been done for the Telegraph Canyon drainage basin) to improve the existing deficiencies in a timely manner. Recommended improvements for existing urban areas could be facilitated by local government agencies through the establishment of subzones for funding installation and maintenance costs with tax bases adequate to service bond issues for such improvements. Feasibility of obtaining financial assistance through Federal and State programs should also be considered as a potential funding source for drainage improvements in existing urban areas. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-287 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 • Basin specific drainage improvement plan will be submitted with the first SPA impacting each drainage basin and the plan will also address the adequacy of existing facilities. • Specific facility site(s) identified and reserved. • Equipment needs identified. • Alternative financing methods refined. • Timing of construction consistent with GDP/SRP project requirements. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to provide drainage improvements. • Funding identified. • Identify easements for dedication. ?? Final Map Requirements • Funding assured. • Implement conditions. ?? Building Permit • Payment of impact fee (if established). 2. Sewerage Facilities a. Introduction The provision of sewerage facilities is essential for the health and safety of future residents of the community. Engineering standards and criteria are used used to size, locate and design sewerage facilities. The Otay Ranch planning area will generally be divided into three sewerage basins. Telegraph Canyon, Poggi Canyon and Otay Valley basins will provide the major drainage courses for sewerage facilities. b. Threshold Provide a healthful and sanitary sewerage collection and disposal system for the residents of Otay Ranch, including a system designed and constructed to use reclaimed water and ensure that sewer connections not exceed capacity. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Sewerage Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of sewerage facilities. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-288 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 GOAL: PROVIDE A HEALTHFUL AND SANITARY SEWERAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR THE RESIDENTS OF OTAY RANCH AND THE REGION, INCLUDING A SYSTEM DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE USE OF RECLAIMED WATER. Objective: The ongoing planning, management and development of sewerage conveyance, treatment and disposal facilities to adequately meet future demands. Policy: Land use planning will be coordinated with sewerage system planning, which is the responsibility of facility providers. Implementation Measure: Work with the applicable sewer agencies to obtain their input on the impact of proposed land uses changes. Implementation Measure: Phase development with the extension/expansion of sewerage facilities. Implementation Measure: Furnish data to the facility providers about planned development. Implementation Measure: Work with sewer service agencies to provide recycling and disposal alternatives for sludge materials. Implementation Measure: Site sewerage facilities in the locations most suited to the needs of present and projected residents. Policy: Ensure that the Otay Ranch Project will not use all available regional facility capacity, such as sewer, water and roads, and thus compromise the ability of other South County and East County parcels to develop as planned. Implementation Measure: Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed applicable Engineering Standards; or shall when applicable, require approval from the Department of Health Services of private subsurface sewage disposal systems. Implementation Measure: Secure letter of availability for sewer service from the applicable sewer district before a subdivision map can record. Implementation Measure: Require, as a condition of development approval, that projects requiring sewer service annex to the special district or jurisdiction responsible for providing the service. Implementation Measure: Prior to the issuance of a permit for building or for grading a site in preparation Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-289 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 for construction, require permanent commitment to serve from the applicable sewer district. Policy: The placement of new septic systems will be controlled to ensure the health and safety of the public. Implementation Measure: Avoid placement of septic systems in areas where soils are too dense or where leachate may contaminate ground water or surface water. Objective: Assure that wastewater treatment plants are consistent with sewerage master plans. Policy: Ensure that wastewater treatment plants are properly located, meet the sewer needs of the project, do not cause premature urbanization, create no unmitigable environmental effects, and minimize the need for sewer pump stations. Objective: Sewage disposal systems should maximize the provision and utilization of reclaimed water. Policy: Implement development regulations that require water conservation, wastewater reclamation, and drought-tolerant landscaping requirements. d. Facilities The logical choice to provide sewer service to Otay Ranch is the City of Chula Vista in areas to be annexed, and the Otay Water District in the unincorporated area. Chula Vista has existing Metro capacity and conveyance facilities, which could be utilized. If Otay Ranch is not annexed to the City of Chula Vista, other jurisdictional alternatives would need to be considered. Review of sewer plans and issuance of discharge permits are to be provided by the appropriate agency. The construction of a water reclamation plant in Otay Valley is also a key component in the facility planning for Otay Ranch. The water reclamation plant will serve two needs of the future development: sewage processing; and creation of reclaimed water. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Identify phased demands of sewer trunk lines. • Identify location of facilities for on-site improvements, including reclaimed water facilities. • Provide estimated costs for all facilities. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-290 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 • Identify financing methods. • For septic systems, preliminary soils testing to determine both suitability and reasonable density. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to provide on-site and off-site facility improvements by phase development. • Identify easements for dedication. • Obtain agreements to pay for permanent trunk line facilities outside of the basin. • For septic systems, 100% percolation testing and system design approved by the Department of Health Services. • Obtain agency capacity letter. ?? Final Map Requirements • Post secured financing for improvements or construct facility improvements. • Funding assured. • Dedicate easements. • Obtain will serve letter. ?? Building Permit • Payment of impact fees (if established). 3. Integrated Solid Waste Management Facilities a. Introduction The purpose of this section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Implementation Measures to divert and reduce potential waste generated from within the Otay Ranch from entering and impacting the existing waste management system. It also provides a method of compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which requires a 25% waste recycling and diversion goal attainment by 1995 and an additional 25% by the year 2000. This subsection addresses source reduction, recycling and composting to meet or exceed the state recycling/waste reduction mandates. b. Threshold Provide solid waste facilities and services, which emphasize recycling of reusable materials and disposal of remaining solid waste so that the potential adverse impacts to the public health are minimized. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-291 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Integrated Solid Waste Management Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local facilities. GOAL: PROVIDE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES AND SERVICES WHICH EMPHASIZE RECYCLING OF REUSABLE MATERIALS AND DISPOSAL OF REMAINING SOLID WASTE SO THAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH ARE MINIMIZED. Objective: Reduce the volume of waste to be landfilled by 30% by 1995 and by 50% by 2000. Policy: Promote waste management techniques that are alternative to landfilling. Policy: Utilize landfills primarily for wastes that cannot be recycled or processed and for the residual from processing facilities. Implementation Measure: Consider public convenience when designing storage for solid waste recycling within Otay Ranch. Implementation Measure: Include within Otay Ranch recycling and storage capacity for the waste generated by Otay Ranch residents and require residential, commercial and industrial projects to provide separated waste storage facilities. Policy: Cooperate with regional programs to identify markets for recyclable goods and solid waste disposal sites to accommodate existing and future need including disposal of inert materials and special wastes such as sludge and non-hazardous liquids. Implementation Measure: Cooperate with agencies providing sewer service to identify appropriate recycling and disposal alternatives for sludge materials, including oil recycling. Policy: Cooperate with regional programs to identify sites appropriate for the disposal of waste products and waste residuals, which cannot be recycled, converted to energy, or otherwise used. Implementation Measure: Review discretionary projects planned for sites adjacent to the existing solid waste landfill for compatibility with the landfill site to minimize, or mitigate, the environmental impacts of sanitary landfills. Policy: To support State and Federal legislation that encourages recycling, removes barriers to Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-292 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 recycling, promotes funding for local recycling programs or promotes waste reduction. d. Facilities In order to meet the State mandated recycling goal of 50% by the year 2000, a totally integrated waste management system is required. The achievement and maintenance of the 50% reduction goal requires simultaneous implementation of multiple systems. These systems should include: (1) curbside recycling; (2) neighborhood recycling/buy-back centers; (3) a materials recovery facility; (4) a composting facility; (5) a household hazardous waste collection facility; and (6) landfill capacity. Neighborhood Recycling/Drop-Off Centers: At least one Neighborhood Recycling/Drop-Off Facility should be sited in each village. These facilities should be sited on 5,000 to 12,000 square foot lots. Materials Recovery Facility: One Materials Recovery Facility should be located on a parcel centralized to the waste shed area served. The site should be located in an industrial or light manufacturing zone, compatible with surrounding land uses. This facility should have the ultimate capacity to process approximately 200 TPD. Composting Facility: One or more composting facilities should be located in Otay Ranch to compost the estimated green waste generated. These facilities should be located on approximately 30 acres. Household Hazardous Waste Facility: Otay Ranch should contain one facility to collect hazardous waste generated from South County residents. This facility should be sited in cooperation with the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego and the County Solid Waste Technical Advisory Board. Landfills: The development of Otay Ranch should be coordinated with the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista to utilize the existing Otay Landfill until a new South County landfill is opened.6 e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Specific facility sites identified and reserved. • Alternative financing methods refined. • Timing of construction consistent with GDP/SRP project requirements identified. • Determine, in cooperation with the County Solid Waste Division, that adequate capacity exists for South County area 6 There are two potential landfill sites identified in Otay Ranch. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-293 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 solid waste to serve the proposed development. Adequate capacity shall be that which allows the County and/or the City of Chula Vista to maintain compliance with solid waste programs, laws and regulations. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to reserve site. • Funding identified. ?? Final Map Requirements • Site reserved. • Funding assured. 4. Urban Runoff Facilities a. Introduction The timely provision of Urban Runoff Facilities is essential to the preservation of water quality in Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. The purpose of the Urban Runoff Facility section is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Implementation Measures to ensure the timely provision of these facilities. The Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Parcels of Otay Ranch drain into the Otay Reservoirs. Development in these areas will change the quality of the natural runoff and may impact the quality of the water stored in the reservoirs. b. Threshold An urban runoff diversion system shall be designed to ensure the protection of water quality within Otay Lakes. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Urban Runoff Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local urban runoff facilities. GOAL: ENSURE THAT WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA IS NOT COMPROMISED. GOAL: ENSURE THAT THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THE OTAY RIVER WATERSHED SHALL NOT DIMINISH. Policy: An urban runoff diversion system shall be designed to ensure the protection of water quality within Otay Lakes. Policy: Best Management Practices (BMP) including, but not limited to urban runoff diversion Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-294 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 systems, shall be developed to protect water quality within Otay Lakes. Policy: Integrated Pest Management should be used for all public places. Policy: Use of chemical pesticides should be avoided along streets and highways. d. Facilities There are treatment technologies available which can remove virtually any pollutant from a water supply. Salt content can be decreased through reverse osmosis systems. Organics, including tastes and odors, can be removed through chemical oxidation such as ozonation, or activated carbon absorption. Suspended solids can be removed through conventional water treatment processes. Therefore, it is feasible to maintain the level of potable water quality at the discharge of the Otay Filtration Plant before and after urbanization. The cost of installing and operating upgraded treatment processes must be borne by the development impacting water quality. Pre-treatment of polluted urban/irrigation runoff may also be necessary prior to reaching Otay Reservoirs to protect fisheries and recreational use of the lakes. General mitigation measures will be pursued in the course of planning and design of the future development, which will take place in the Lower Otay Drainage Basin. The ultimate approval of the urban runoff protection system design will be given by appropriate agencies at the time of the first SPA or Specific Plan in the drainage basin of the reservoirs. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Identify potential drainage basin impacts on the reservoir system. • Identify cost of potential runoff protection system by phase. • Identify area of benefit from provision of system phase. • Provide a Reservoir Protection Plan (as detailed in City of San Diego correspondence dated October 25, 1991). • Select urban runoff protection system prior to or concurrent with first SPA in a drainage basin for the reservoirs. The system will include: » Structural control device recommendations. » Preparation of Watershed Impact and Protection Report. » Urban runoff protection system to be recommended. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-295 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 » Nonstructural controls defined. » Watershed Inspection Program. » Open space and drainage course management. » Public education. » Zoning controls. » Landscape maintenance district. » Interagency agreements (to finance and maintain system). ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Condition to provide specific phased improvement. • Condition easements where appropriate. • Specify system design parameters. • Identify specific financing plan for improvement construction. • Refinement of recommended urban runoff protection system and update to watershed impact and protection report, as needed. • Condition maps for recommended structural and nonstructural controls. ?? Final Map Requirements • Implement conditions • Establish financing plan. • All ordinances and agreements for structural and nonstructural controls complete. • Design of all permanent structural controls complete. • Design of all temporary structural controls complete. ?? Building Permit • Pay appropriate fee, if urban run-off facility is previously constructed by other surrounding property owner. 5. Water Facilities a. Introduction The timely provision of water facilities is critical to the development of Otay Ranch. The purpose of the Water Facilities section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures to ensure the timely provision of local water facilities. The Water Facilities Implementation Plan describes the current situation with regard to boundaries for water purveyors to Otay Ranch and makes Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-296 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 recommendations regarding facility planning, sizing and construction phasing. (Part II, Chapter 10, Section G contains goals, objectives and policies related to water conservation.) b. Threshold Ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis, prior to the development of each Otay Ranch SPA. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Water Facilities Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local water facilities. GOAL: ENSURE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF WATER FOR BUILD-OUT OF THE ENTIRE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA; DESIGN THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA TO MAXIMIZE WATER CONSERVATION. Objective: Ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis prior to the development of each phase of the Otay Ranch Project Area. Objective: Ensure infrastructure is constructed concurrently with planned growth, including adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities, which are consistent with development phasing goals, objectives and policies, and the Service/Revenue Plan. Objective: Ensure that water quality within the Otay Ranch Project Area is not compromised, consistent with NPDES Best Management Practices, and the RWQCB Basin Plans. Policy: Coordinate Otay Ranch land planning with the applicable water district provider. Implementation Measure: Where feasible, site water facilities in the locations most suited to the needs of present and projected future residents. Policy: Discretionary land development applications dependent on imported water will only be approved if the service provider reasonably expects that water facilities will be available concurrent with need, and that all appropriate requirements will be met through conditions placed on project approval. Implementation Measure: Require, as a basis of approval of specific plans, that the applicant obtain an indication from the water district that facilities are available, or are reasonably expected to be available, to serve that project concurrent with need. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-297 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Implementation Measure: Require commitment of availability of water facilities from the applicable water district before a subdivision map can record. Objective: Promote water conservation through increased efficiency in essential uses and use of low water demand landscaping. Objective: Encourage suppliers to adopt a graduated rate structure designed to encourage water conservation. d. Facilities The total water demand for the Otay Ranch has been estimated at approximately 22 MGD. Water conservation and reclamation could reduce potable water demand by over 16%. Additional savings would be possible if reclaimed water use is allowed in the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountains Parcels. The creation of new storage facilities onsite, coupled with open reservoir storage (leased or purchased) from the City of San Diego or Sweetwater Authority will be required. The best water facility plan for Otay Ranch includes open reservoir storage and water filtration plant capacity to provide the system with redundancy and back-up delivery capability. System expansions will be required in all pressure zones from 624 to 1620. These expansions will require new transmission and distribution mains, pump stations and pressure reducing facilities. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Identify phased demands in conformance with street improvements and in coordination with the construction of sewer facilities. • Identify location of facilities for on-site and off-site improvements in conformance with the master plan of the water district serving the proposed project. • Provide cost estimates. • Identify financing methods. • Provide a Water Conservation Plan. • Annexation of property to MWD/CWA/water district, if appropriate. • Assure adequate water supply in accordance with the phasing plan. • Prepare a Water Master Plan in conformance with the water standards of the appropriate district. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-298 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Condition to provide on-site and off-site facility improvements for a separate reclaimed water distribution and storage facility by phase of development. • Condition to provide required easements. • Identify specific financing for each improvement. • Obtain letter from the appropriate water district indicating capacity to serve the phased development. ?? Final Map Requirements • Implement conditions. • Obtain water district's will serve letter for the project. ?? Building Permit • Payment of impact fees (if established). 6. Water Reclamation Facilities a. Introduction The timely provision of Water Reclamation Facilities is necessary to the implementation of the water conservation plan. The purpose of the Water Reclamation Facilities section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures to ensure the timely provision of water reclamation facilities. (Part II, Chapter 10, Section G contains goals, objectives and policies related to water conservation.) The Water Reclamation Facilities Implementation Plan describes the current and proposed reclamation facilities. The plan outlines a facility program to deliver reclaimed water to the Otay Valley Parcel and discusses the current problems with the use of reclaimed water upstream of the Otay Reservoirs. b. Threshold Design a sewerage system, which will produce reclaimed water. Ensure a water distribution system will be designed and constructed to use reclaimed water. Construction of a "dual system" of water supply will be required for all development where reclaimed water is used. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Water Reclamation Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of facilities. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-299 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 GOAL: DESIGN A SEWERAGE SYSTEM, WHICH WILL PRODUCE RECLAIMED WATER. ENSURE A WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO USE RECLAIMED WATER. CONSTRUCTION OF A "DUAL SYSTEM" OF WATER SUPPLY WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WHERE RECLAIMED WATER IS USED. Objective: Encourage development of public and private recreational uses that could utilize reclaimed water. Policy: Sewage treatment within the community should be oriented toward reclamation and reuse of wastewater for public and private landscape controlled by a public agency or homeowner's association and golf course irrigation purposes. Implementation Measure: Implement development regulations that require water conservation, wastewater reclamation, and drought-tolerant landscaping. d. Facilities The Otay Valley Water Reclamation Plant is currently designed to provide an ultimate output of 18 MGD. The current restrictions on the use of reclaimed water would limit Otay Ranch to utilizing about 3 MGD. The construction of a reclamation plant in Otay Valley is the major facility requirement under the Water Reclamation Facility Implementation Plan. Transmission and distribution mains, pumps and pressure reducing stations will be required for the delivery of reclaimed water throughout Otay Ranch. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Identify phased demands in conformance with the construction of sewerage facilities. • Identify location of facilities for on-site and off-site improvements in conformance with the master plan of the water district serving the proposed project. • Provide cost estimates. • Identify financing methods. • Ensure compliance with RWQCB and County Health Department Rules and Regulations for the use of reclaimed water. ?? Tentative Map Requirements Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-300 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 • Condition to provide on-site and off-site facility improvements for a separate reclaimed water distribution and storage facility by phase of development. • Condition to provide required easements. • Identify specific financing for each improvement. ?? Final Map Requirements • Implement conditions. ?? Building Permit • Approval by County Health Department of plans showing use of reclaimed water. • Payment of impact fee (if established). Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-301 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Section D Social Facilities 1. Arts and Cultural Facilities a. Introduction The provision of art and cultural facilities for performance, education and exhibition enhances a community. The purpose of the Art and Cultural Facility section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to ensure the consideration of arts and cultural facilities and venues, which can serve the residents of Otay Ranch and the region. The South County has few artistic and cultural organizations, programs or facilities to meet the current and growing needs and interests of South County residents. Art and cultural activities are now provided by a few small dance companies, visual arts guilds, community theaters, the City of Chula Vista and area schools. The development of Otay Ranch will make additional arts and cultural amenities, programs and facilities desirable. desirable. b. Threshold Plan sites for facilities for the enhancement of the arts at the community level, that can contain facilities capable of supporting community theater, training and exhibition of art and sculpture, musical training and concerts, and public meetings. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Art and Cultural Facility Goal will ensure such facilities are considered in the development of the community. GOAL: PLAN SITES FOR FACILITIES DEDICATED TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ARTS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL, THAT CAN CONTAIN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FACILITIES CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING COMMUNITY THEATER, TRAINING AND EXHIBITION OF ART AND SCULPTURE, MUSICAL TRAINING AND CONCERTS, FILM AND CULTURAL FESTIVALS, PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY EVENTS. c. Facilities Otay Ranch should encourage artistic and cultural expression through: ?? development of an art and cultural complex; ?? village art and cultural facilities; and ?? placement of public art and design elements. These amenities should incorporate and preserve the area's heritage, while promoting the rich multi-cultural and artistic diversity represented in the South County. Consideration should be given to artistic and Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-302 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 cultural expression through public art at parks and recreational facilities, libraries and other public buildings. Multi-Use and Cultural Complex: One multi-use cultural complex should be constructed in Otay Ranch. The preferred location for this facility is within the Eastern Urban Center. This location adds to the vitality of the urban community and takes advantage of shared parking and complementary services with adjacent uses. A second siting option is to locate the multi-use cultural arts facility on a site that can link the Eastern Urban Center and the university site. This location could be a prominent one, which visually and functionally ties the university to the Eastern Urban Center and is symbolic of the cultural link between the university and the Community of Otay Ranch. Multi-Use Village Facilities: Multi-use village facilities should be constructed to serve the villages of the Otay Ranch. These facilities could promote art and cultural activities, increase community access and participation in the arts, educate residents, and develop audiences for art and cultural organizations. Local institutions should select artistic and cultural activities, which are responsive to the interests of residents. A multi-use public space in each village should be available for various artistic and cultural exhibitions and educational activities. This space should be housed in public buildings such as a library, school, community park, senior citizens center, fire station, or public safety storefront. Public Art and Architectural Design: Site-specific art locations and public performance space should be provided in public spaces such as squares and medians. Architectural design of buildings can be considered a form of artistic expression when it helps to create or influence the cultural "theme" for a community. Creative architectural elements and design should be used to create unique, distinctive and diverse buildings whose character will help provide a "sense of place" and further differentiate one village from another. Public art and artistic public improvements should be visible in the design of community elements such as landscaping, gateways, signage, street lights, paving materials, fencing, bulletin boards, transportation stops, street furniture and other key focal points. Site Specific Art: Another way to meet the desire for increased public art is through the placement of "site-specific art." This form of artistic expression should reflect the interests and tastes of the residents of that particular community as it grows and matures. Sites in each village should be reserved within public areas such as parks, pedestrian walkways, squares, and other appropriate spaces for the future placement of art work. Other locations will be created or used as the community develops. The placement of public art can be permanent, rotating or temporary. Areas where the public can congregate within village centers and within the Eastern Urban Center should have places for "street" performances. Spaces such as raised platforms and walkways, partially enclosed areas and pedestrian malls afford performers places to express their artistic form to the public. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-303 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Specific land and space requirements identified for arts and cultural facilities as part of the EUC SPA processing. • Specific multi-use cultural facility site identified and reserved (if appropriate). • Alternative financing methods explored. • Establish design guidelines. • Develop design review criteria and process. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Land reserved consistent with SPA plan and financing/funding program. • Funding identified. • Implement design guidelines. ?? Final Map Requirements • Implement conditions. ?? Building Permit • Payment of impact fee (if established). 2. Cemetery Facilities a. Introduction The provision of cemeteries and other memorial facilities must be considered for sizable developments such as Otay Ranch. The purpose of the Cemetery Facility section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to ensure the ongoing consideration of the projects need for cemetery sites to serve residents. The City of San Diego, private corporations, and various religious institutions, currently provide cemetery and mausoleum services for South County residents. There are three privately owned and two publicly owned cemeteries in the South County region. The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP will not generate enough demand to require cemetery facilities within Otay Ranch for a period of 100 years after build-out. b. Threshold No threshold. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-304 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Cemetery Objective will ensure cemetery sites can be identified if needed. Objective: Identify and preserve adequate cemetery sites to serve the Otay Ranch Project Area. d. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Re-affirm the GDP/SRP conclusion that there is existing cemetery space available to serve Otay Ranch residents. • Determine the desirability of a memorial garden in conjunction with church siting. 3. Child Care Facilities a. Introduction The provision of a wide-range of childcare opportunities is important to the development of families with children and for the general health and welfare of the community. The purpose of the Child Care Facility section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Implementation Measures and Processing Requirements to govern the provision of child care facilities and programs for the residents of Otay Ranch. There are currently 24 large private childcare facilities located in the South County region. The existing facilities provide a wide range of childcare services, including infant care, toddlers ages 2-4, preschool, and after school child-care for children ages 5-13. Facilities range in size to serve 60 to 120 children per center. Private in-home child care services average 4-6 children per home and also provide full-service childcare for all ages. Childcare facilities are also found within numerous religious institutions throughout the South County area. Both formal large facility and home-based (paid) types of childcare and informal (non-paid) methods are necessary to meet the needs of children and their families. This diversity of care represents the varied interests and abilities of parents to provide for their child's development. Build-out of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP generates about 3,350 children ages 0-13 years who will be in need of childcare. This results in a demand for approximately 12 formal child care facilities, 50 large family child care homes and 200 small child care homes, so that the child care need would be met half in formal center based child care and half accommodated through child care homes. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-305 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 b. Threshold Identify sites for childcare and pre-school facilities adjacent to or as part of public and private schools, religious assembly uses, village center employment areas, residential areas, and other locations deemed appropriate. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Child Care Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local childcare facilities. GOAL: PROVIDE ADEQUATE CHILD CARE FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO SERVE THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA. Objective: Identify sites for childcare and pre-school facilities adjacent to or part of public and private schools, religious assembly uses, employment areas, and other locations deemed appropriate. Policy: Site child care facilities compatible with community needs, land use and character, and encourage such facilities to be available, accessible, and affordable for all economic levels. Implementation Measure: Site childcare centers near "Park and Ride" sites, transit centers or other locations accessible to public transportation, where feasible. Implementation Measure: Site childcare facilities and before and after-school programs within and near new school facilities. Implementation Measure: Participate in exaction for childcare facilities if imposed by land use jurisdiction. d. Facilities The total number of facilities necessary will vary due to population distribution, mix of in-home and facility-based child care, employer operated facilities, work place changes, and changes in the public education system. The most responsive approach will take into account the varying needs of diverse families, and respond with the development of facilities operated by church, non-profit and commercial vendors, as well as village plans, which are conducive to the supervision of schoolage children by school and community programs. Presently, childcare facilities are operated through family day care homes, private and public operators. Otay Ranch should consider that public childcare facilities may be developed in the future, and therefore, recommendations for locations, facility requirements, and guidelines are included in the Child Care Facilities Implementation Plan. Secondly, employer-assisted or operated, childcare facilities and services should be encouraged within Otay Ranch. Employer assisted childcare Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-306 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 services have been shown to increase productivity by decreasing absenteeism and turnover, improving recruitment and retention of good employees and increasing employee moral. Moreover, these services may enhance a company's public image and community visibility. Family day care homes should be encouraged to locate in residential areas in Otay Ranch, both large and small licensed homes at a ratio of two small to one large family day care home. e. Site Design Criteria Site design criteria should include: • Access to and potential for sharing services with existing community resources, such as schools, libraries, parks, offices and industry complexes, neighborhood centers, and shopping areas. • Ease for transit, vehicular and pedestrian access and approach to the facility, with access for parents to drop-off and pick-up children, without cross traffic conflicts. • Buffering or screening out unpleasant or dangerous aspects of the surrounding environment. • Outdoor play area landscaped, secure with adequate sun and shade protection for outdoor play activities and equipment. • Designated fire and emergency services readily accessible. • On the a.m. traffic flow side of a major road. • Assurance of adequate parking spaces in accordance with zoning and design requirements. f. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Specific acreage requirements identified, design/co-location guidelines developed and land designated for Community Purpose Facility uses. • Develop further implementation guidelines for family child care homes within residential neighborhoods for the first SPA for use on the entire project. • Develop design guidelines that address child care facilities in the design of public and private buildings for the first SPA for use on the entire project and facilitate the development of family day care homes in residential planning. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Land zoned Community Purpose Facility consistent with the SPA designation. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-307 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 • Implement design guidelines. ?? Final Map • Implement conditions. ?? Building Permit • Payment of impact fees (if established). 4. Health and Medical Facilities a. Introduction The provision of health and medical facilities by public agencies and private service organizations provide necessary services for Otay Ranch residents. The purpose of the Health and Medical Facilities section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Implementation Measures and Processing Requirements to guide the timely provision and careful siting of health and medical facilities and services. Medical and health programs are provided by the public sector, private non-profit organizations and commercial businesses. The public sector provides basic medical services to needy segments of the population, public health services, physical and mental health services, environmental health services, rehabilitation, and alcohol and drug services. Non-profit organizations augment the services provided by government through government contracts, grants, fees-for-service, third party reimbursements, and charitable contributions. Non-profit health and medical services include hospitals, mental health facilities, community clinics, nursing facilities, home health services, and community health education and research organizations. Commercial health and medical service providers include physicians, chiropractors, dentists, allied health professionals (counselors, psychologists, social workers etc.), and preferred provider organizations. b. Threshold Identify a general location within Otay Ranch for public and private health organizations, charities, and private adult care and mental care facilities. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Health and Medical Facilities Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will guide the timely provision of local health and medical facilities. GOAL: ENSURE PROVISION OF AND ACCESS TO FACILITIES WHICH MEET THE HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF OTAY RANCH RESIDENTS. Objective: Identify a general location within Otay Ranch for public and private health service organizations, charities, and private adult care and mental care facilities. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-308 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Implementation Measure: Establish a cooperative process among land use jurisdictions to assure that County health facilities are sited in locations that best serve the region's population irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries, while considering city general plans and community standards. Implementation Measure: Health service facilities will be sited in the most appropriate location based on appropriate criteria. Implementation Measure: General location for public health facilities within the plan area should be convenient to public transit. Implementation Measure: Encourage areas for smallscale medical services, such as physician offices and clinics in appropriate residential "villages." Implementation Measure: In siting health service facilities, consideration shall be given to proximity to potential clients, adequacy of public and private transportation and parking at facilities, potential for cositing facilities, acceptability to the host community, safety of staff and clients, and ease of referral to frequently used services. These criteria should be applied irrespective of city/county jurisdictional boundaries. Policy: The opportunity should be provided to health care providers to coordinate health facilities as part of the SPA review process. Implementation Measure: Encourage service providers to work together to jointly use facilities. Policy: Designation of land and/or space for regional purpose facilities shall be considered in conjunction with the Eastern Urban Center SPA. Policy: Regional purpose facilities are structures within which the public gathers to secure public goods or services provided on a regional basis, such as: general public offices, justice, court, detention, laboratory, health, medical and social facilities. Policy: Designation of land for regional purpose facilities does not relieve an applicant of any independent requirement to pay fees and/or reserve or dedicate land for a public facility. Policy: Mitigate the impacts of new growth on the need for County health facilities. Implementation Measure: Participate in a development impact fee for health facilities, if established. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-309 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 d. Facilities Build-out of Otay Ranch requires the construction of commercial office, commercial storefront, nursing homes and other medical facilities. The future residents of Otay Ranch will generate a demand for a "continuum" of health care services including public health, hospitals, mental health, nursing facilities, home health care, community health education and research, and medical practitioner services. Most services require location of commercial, non-profit and government service offices within Otay Ranch to meet the needs of area residents. Services such as hospice and trauma care may be available to Otay Ranch residents, but be located off-site. It is estimated that the following types of facilities could be needed to serve the residents of the Otay Ranch at build-out: • public health satellite offices • nursing homes • commercial home health care offices • Drug and alcohol County-contracted, community-based organizations providing prevention, education, early intervention, recovery services and aftercare • public and private community meeting spaces • commercial ambulatory pavilions • commercial physician, dentist, chiropractic, therapeutic, laboratory, and medical services and supply offices • 6-12 bed group homes for developmentally or physically challenged persons and seniors. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Specific space requirements identified and land designated for Community Purpose Facility and Regional Purpose Facility uses. • Conduct facility planning with input from the County Department of Health Services, City of Chula Vista and Area Agency on Aging. • Encourage cooperation of affected jurisdictions in joint siting of programs and facilities. • Circulate SPA plans to the Commission on Aging, County Department of Health Services, Area Agency on Aging, Human Services Council and Chula Vista 21 for review and to determine needs for facility siting (if any). Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-310 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 • Consider co-location of services in or at school sites. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Land zoned Community Purpose Facility or Regional Purpose Facility consistent with the SPA determination. ?? Final Map • Implement conditions. ?? Building Permit Requirements • Pay impact fee, if established for the appropriate benefit area. 5. Community and Regional Purpose Facilities a. Introduction Public and private institutions, such as religious, benevolent, fraternal, civic, human service and charitable organizations, represent a vital component within the fabric of a viable community. Residents depend upon these institutions for the services they provide. Institutions contribute to a neighborhoods identity as well as to its character and general welfare. The purpose of the Community and Regional Purpose Facilities Section of the the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies and Processing Requirements to plan for these “community and regional purpose” land uses. The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code requires new planned communities to identify 1.39 acres of net usable land (including setbacks) per 1,000 proposed residents for community purpose facilities. The total acreage requirement may be reduced, if approved at the SPA level, based on the availability of guaranteed shared parking with other facilities or other community purpose facilities that are guaranteed to be made available to the community7. The Code also requires annual review of individual SPAs to determine the actual market interest and activity. Community purpose facilities may also be permitted in other zones through the Conditional Use Permit process. The County estimates that it currently provides about 0.14 acres of "regional purpose facility" space per 1,000 residents.8 The County defines regional purpose facilities as "County functions and activities including: general offices, courts, detention, warehouse, shop, storage, laboratory, residential, recreation, medical, mechanical, special uses, public common areas and modular units." 7 Site acreage requirements may be reduced through the use of multi-story structures, if appropriately sited and floor space is guaranteed for community purpose use. 8 This equates to about 2,350 sq. ft. of floor area per 1,000 residents. Accordingly, the County notes that a "regional purpose facility” factor could range between 0.5 acres per 1,000 population to 0.14 acres, depending on the type of facility (number of floors, parking structure, etc.). Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-311 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 b. Threshold Implement a Community Purpose Facility zone and a Regional Purpose Facility zone to provide land for religious, day care, health, social, and senior and youth recreation facilities. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Community and Regional Purpose Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will guide the provision of land for community and regional purpose institutions. GOAL: DESIGNATE AREAS WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA FOR RELIGIOUS, ANCILLARY PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL, DAY CARE, BENEVOLENT, FRATERNAL, HEALTH, SOCIAL AND SENIOR SERVICES, CHARITABLE, YOUTH RECREATION FACILITIES, AND OTHER COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICES. Policy: Implement a Community Purpose Facility and Regional Purpose Facility land use designation to provide land for religious, ancillary day care, health, social and senior services, and youth recreation facilities and other County regional facilities. Policy: Each SPA shall specifically designate land and/or space for community purpose facilities and regional purpose facilities, sufficient to satisfy community purpose facility requirements. Policy: The land designated may vary from the acreage standard if the land designated is equivalent to the facility square footage assumption underlying the applicable acreage standard due to shared parking, shared facilities, or development intensity, subject to approval by the appropriate jurisdiction. Policy: Community Purpose Facility land may be transferred between villages or combined within villages as long as the space requirements are satisfied within each phase. Policy: Regional Purpose Facility land may be transferred, as needed, throughout the project, with the intent that sufficient land will be designated in the Eastern Urban Center to concentrate uses in an efficient core. There may be some residual need for Regional Purpose Facility land in individual villages for services where decentralized service delivery is advantageous. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-312 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Policy: Disperse Community Purpose Facility uses throughout the project so that an overconcentration of such uses (e.g., traffic, parking) does not impact any one portion of the plan area, however permit consolidation of Community Purpose Facility uses where they complement each other and improve service to the community through economies of scale. Policy: The following criteria shall be employed during the SPA process to locate Community Purpose Facility and Regional Purpose Facility uses: • facilities shall be located within the village cores; • facilities shall be encouraged to share parking with adjacent public and private uses. • facilities and corresponding parking within village cores shall be located and sized to avoid obstruction of pedestrian circulation. • facilities and other public structures may exceed height, bulk, or set back requirements generally applicable to private uses if such deviations are necessary to enable the structure to become the focal point, "signature piece" or "point of ceremony" of a given village. • facilities may locate in traditional commercial and retail facilities. d. Facilities For planning purposes, the City of Chula Vista Community Purpose Facility Ordinance shall be utilized to calculate the amount of land identified within villages for community purpose facility purposes. The existing County-wide ratios for Regional Purpose Facility uses shall be used for planning purposes, unless they are superseded by the adoption of a Regional Facility Master Plan. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Specific space requirements identified and land designated for Community Purpose Facility and Regional Purpose Facility uses. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-313 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Land zoned Community Purpose Facility and Regional Purpose Facility consistent with the SPA Plan. ?? Final Map • Implement conditions. • Provide, within the first phase in the City of Chula Vista, Community Purpose Facility land to satisfy the Telegraph Canyon Estates Specific Plan requirement (City of Chula Vista Resolution No. 16960). 6. Social and Senior Services Facilities a. Introduction The provision of social and senior service facilities by public agencies, private service providers, volunteer and service groups, churches, quasipublic organizations and self-help groups is vital to the development of a safe and healthy community. The purpose of the Social and Senior Services Facilities section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Implementation Measures Measures and Processing Requirements to govern the timely provision, and careful siting of social and senior facilities and services. The response to human care needs includes a wide spectrum of organizations such as social service agencies, volunteer and service groups, churches, commercial businesses, government agencies and self help groups. Within government, the County of San Diego has the primary mandate to provide social and senior services to County residents. Facility needs vary by program and are directly related to the distinct population served and the type of service provided. Social and senior services are also offered by private, non-profit organizations and private practitioners, which augment the services available from government. Services are supported through contracts with government agencies, grants, fees-for-services and charitable contributions. It is estimated that, the build-out the Otay Ranch will generate a demand for storefront, 6-bed residential facilities, and public agency offices. Community meeting spaces are desirable for prevention programs, community education, and self-help meetings. b. Threshold Ensure that Otay Ranch Project Area residents have adequate access to sources of governmental and private social and senior services programs. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-314 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Social and Senior Services Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will guide the timely provision of local social and senior services facility. GOAL: ENSURE THAT OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA RESIDENTS HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO SOURCES OF GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE SOCIAL AND SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAMS. Objective: Social and senior service facilities should be sited within Otay Ranch to either provide direct service access or to provide community service information to each village to educate the public regarding available services. Policy: The needs for social and senior service facilities shall be addressed on a regional basis. Implementation Measure: Participate within cooperative processes among land use jurisdictions to assure that County social and senior service facilities are sited in locations that best serve the region's population irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries while considering local and County general plans and community standards. Implementation Measure: Consider the following factors in siting social service facilities: convenience to potential clients, adequacy of transportation and parking at facilities, potential for co-siting services, acceptability to the affected community, safety of staff and clients and ease of referral to frequently used services. Implementation Measure: Site senior service facilities in locations close to the service population, transportation, and other compatible uses. Objective: Siting of new facilities and expansion of existing social or senior services facilities will be planned to most effectively serve the clients of each social and senior service activity as part of a comprehensive social and senior service delivery system. Policy: Assure that social and senior service facilities are included in land use plans at the earliest possible stage to minimize conflicts with surrounding land uses. Implementation Measure: Ensure the cooperation of other jurisdictions, including school districts, in joint siting of compatible programs and joint use of facilities to provide services to mutual clients. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-315 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Implementation Measure: Encourage service providers to jointly use facilities. Implementation Measure: Promote public transit access from the Otay Ranch plan area to existing sources of governmental social and senior services offsite, which serve Otay Ranch residents. Implementation Measure: Where off-site sources of governmental social and senior services are too distant or inaccessible via public transit, identify a suitable location for the provision of such services within the Otay Ranch or other accessible areas. Policy: The impact of new development on the need for County social and senior service facilities shall be mitigated. Implementation Measure: Participate with programs that require new development to contribute its fair share of funding for County social and senior service facilities related to the needs of new new development, if adopted. d. Facilities Otay Ranch needs non-profit organizations and government service offices to meet the needs of residents. The majority of government services can be maintained in centralized locations for the convenience of South County residents. Villages within Otay Ranch should have "receptor" and/or kiosk information areas for public and non-profit social services, as well as services appropriately provided at the neighborhood level. County-wide health and human service related offices may require additional future sites, but specific locations have not yet been determined. Most of the services provided to South County residents are currently located in leased office space. Although some services must be provided from a centralized office on a County-wide basis, the preferred method is to provide direct social and senior services to residents is on the local level. The Community of Otay Ranch has a large commercial office area in the Eastern Urban Center, as well as numerous village centers. Non-profit organizations can locate in business areas such as the village centers or Eastern Urban Center, close to public transportation and other businesses. Exceptions are 6-bed residential facilities such as group homes for developmentally disabled, shelters for homeless teenagers, and non-ambulatory senior housing, which should be integrated into the residential fabric of the community. Residences should be located within the village core to facilitate easy access to local services and commercial businesses. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-316 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 • Specific space requirements identified for social and senior services facilities, including designation of Community Purpose Facility and Regional Purpose Facility space. • Conduct facility planning with input from the County Department of Social Services, City of Chula Vista and Area Agency on Aging. • Encourage the cooperation of all affected jurisdictions in joint siting of programs and facilities. • Circulate SPA plans to the Commission on Aging, County Department of Social Services, Area Agency on Aging, Human Services Council and Chula Vista 21 for review and to determine needs for facility siting (if any). • Consider co-location of services in or at school sites. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Land zoned Community Purpose Facility or Regional Purpose Facility consistent with the SPA determination. ?? Final Map Requirements • Implement conditions. ?? Building Permit Requirements • Pay impact fee, if established for the appropriate benefit area. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-317 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Section E Community Facility Plans 1. Animal Control Facilities a. Introduction Animal control facilities protect the health and welfare of both Otay Ranch residents and domestic animals. The purpose of the Animal Control Facility section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Implementation Plans, and Processing Requirements for the timely provision of animal control facilities. Both the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista provide animal control services. The County of San Diego Department of Animal Control provides animal health and regulatory services to over 3/4 of the residents of San Diego County. Services are provided in all unincorporated portions of the county and in 10 cities within San Diego County by contract. The South Shelter, located in Bonita, currently provides services in the South County region. The City of Chula Vista currently has one animal shelter facility located on Otay Valley Road and the City has plans to build a new facility in the Sunbow Development. Build-out of Otay Ranch GDP/SRP generates the need for additional animal control facility space and additional acreage for large animals. Additional space will be provided through expansion of existing animal control facilities operated by the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego. b. Threshold Participate in programs to provide animal control facilities sufficient to provide adequate square feet of shelter space per Otay Ranch dwelling unit. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Animal Control Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will guide the timely provision of local animal control facilities. GOAL: ENSURE THAT THE COMMUNITY OF OTAY RANCH IS SERVED BY AN EFFECTIVE ANIMAL CONTROL PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES FOR THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF THE DOMESTIC ANIMAL POPULATION, SAFETY OF PEOPLE FROM DOMESTIC ANIMALS, AND THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING RESPONSIBLE ANIMAL OWNERSHIP. Objective: Participate in programs to provide animal control facilities sufficient to provide adequate shelter space per Otay Ranch dwelling unit. Policy: Fund animal control facilities either by contributions to a comprehensive impact fee Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-318 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 program or other provisions to be determined at the SPA level. d. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirement • Establish method of funding the expansion of animal control facilities needed to serve Otay Ranch. ?? Building Permit • Payment of impact fee (if established). 2. Civic Facilities a. Introduction Civic facilities, both operational and administrative are a necessary component of all communities. The purpose of the Civic Facility Section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies and Processing Requirements to ensure the timely provision of civic facilities. The County of San Diego in conjunction with special districts, are the current providers of municipal-type services to unincorporated areas, including Otay Ranch. The City of Chula Vista provides municipal services within its jurisdictional boundaries north and east of Otay Ranch’s Otay Valley Parcel. The City of San Diego is the service provider to much of the Otay Mesa area south of the Otay Valley Parcel. The ultimate provider of civic services to all or parts of Otay Ranch will be determined after the adoption of the GDP/SRP. Regardless of this jurisdictional determination, build-out of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP will create demand for enhanced municipal services and facilities within the planning area, as well as off-site. b. Threshold Make provisions for general governmental facilities, including regional and municipal administrative facilities and operation center(s). c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Civic Facility Goals and Policies will ensure the timely provision of local civic facilities. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-319 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 GOAL: ASSURE THE EFFICIENT AND TIMELY PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO DEVELOPABLE AREAS OF THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA CONCURRENT WITH NEED, WHILE PRESERVING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF THE SITE AND ENSURING COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. INTEGRATE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PUBLIC FACILITIES WHERE SUCH FACILITIES ARE COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY. Policy: Assure the location of regional and local government administrative offices and service facilities within the Eastern Urban Center. Policy: Locate a central post office within Otay Ranch, as well as smaller public or private postal facilities in village centers. d. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Specific space and facility sites identified for civic uses necessary to serve Otay Ranch in conjunction with the government structure determination and/or the EUC SPA plan. • Alternative financing methods refined. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to zone, dedicate or reserve site, as appropriate. • Funding identified. ?? Final Map Requirements • Site dedicated, zoned or reserved, as appropriate. • Funding assured. ?? Building Permit • Payment of impact fee (if established). 3. Correctional Facilities a. Introduction The provision of correctional facilities is critical to law enforcement and justice efforts to protect community residents from crime. The purpose of the Correctional Facilities section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies and Processing Requirements to guide the provision of correctional facilities needed to serve the residents of Otay Ranch. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-320 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 There are currently five detention facilities operated by both the County of San Diego and State of California within the South County area. All five facilities provide detention and correctional services for the residents of San Diego County. In addition to detention facilities, the community is served by probation department facilities and offices. b. Threshold Make provisions for criminal justice facilities, including jails and courts, adequate to serve the Otay Ranch Project Area. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Correctional Facilities Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local correctional facilities. GOAL: PREVENT INJURY, LOSS OF LIFE AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY RESULTING FROM CRIME OCCURRENCE THROUGH THE PROVISION OF JUSTICE FACILITIES. Objective: Make provisions for justice facilities, including jails, courts, and police facilities adequate to serve the Otay Ranch Project Area. Policy: Otay Ranch shall participate in a development impact fee program for correctional facilities to meet the facility needs generated by Otay Ranch residents, if established d. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Determine the size, location, timing and need for correctional facilities as part of the EUC SPA plan processing. ?? Tentative Map • Land zoned consistent with the SPA designation. ?? Final Map • Implement conditions. ?? Building Permit Requirements • Pay impact fee if established for the appropriate benefit area. 4. Fire Protection and Emergency Services Facilities a. Introduction The timely provision of fire protection and emergency service facilities is critical for the protection of life and property. The purpose of the Fire Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-321 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Protection and Emergency Facility section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Standards and Processing Requirements for the timely provision of these facilities. Currently the County of San Diego Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD), Chula Vista Fire Department, San Diego Fire Department and the California Division of Forestry, provide fire protection services in and around Otay Ranch. Hartson Medical ServicesAmerican Medical Response provides emergency medical services in the western portion of Otay Ranch. Certain parts of the unincorporated areas of the county are not covered by contracted paramedic services. b. Threshold City of Chula Vista: Provide sufficient fire and emergency services facilities to respond to calls within the Otay Ranch urban communities within a 7-minute response time in 85% of the cases; within a 10-minute travel time in the Otay Ranch estate communities with lots averaging 1 or more acres (and attendant neighborhood serving commercial); and within a 12-minute travel time in the Otay Ranch rural communities with 4-acre lots or larger. County of San Diego: Provide sufficient fire and emergency services facilities to respond to calls within: Otay Ranch single-family communities with residential lots of less than 2 acres, or more intensive uses such as multi-family residential, including industrial development and all commercial development except neighborhood commercial, in a 5-minute travel time; Otay Ranch single-family residential lots from 2 acres to 4 acres, including neighborhood commercial development, in a 10-minute travel time; and Otay Ranch large lot single-family residential and agricultural areas with lot sizes greater than four acres in a 20-minute travel time. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Fire Protection and Emergency Services Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local fire protection and emergency services facilities. GOAL: PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES FROM THE LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY DUE TO FIRES AND MEDICAL EMERGENCIES. Objective: City of Chula Vista: Provide sufficient fire and emergency services facilities to respond to calls within the Otay Ranch urban communities: within a 7-minute response time in 85% of the cases. Objective: County of San Diego: Provide sufficient fire and emergency services facilities to respond to calls within: Otay Ranch single-family communities with residential lots of less than 2 acres, or more intensive uses such as multi-family residential, including industrial development and all commercial development except neighborhood commercial, in a 5-minute travel time) Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-322 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Otay Ranch single-family residential lots from 2 acres to 4 acres, including neighborhood commercial development, in a 10-minute travel time; and Otay Ranch large lot single-family residential and agricultural areas with lot sizes greater than 4 acres in a 20-minute travel time. Policy: Otay Ranch SPA plans shall include Emergency Disaster Plans to become operative during periods of major emergency. Policy: Otay Ranch shall participate in cooperative agreements with urban and rural emergency services providers. Policy: Incorporate the Otay Ranch Project Area into existing regional disaster preparedness programs. Policy: Otay Ranch shall site fire and emergency services facilities consistent with the following factors: (a) Ability to meet travel/response time policies; (b) Proximity to a pool of volunteer firefighters for service within the unincorporated areas, when appropriate; (c) Ability of the site to support the appropriate facility to serve current and future development in the intended service area; (d) Distances from other fire stations, including those operated by neighboring districts; (e) Safe access to roadways in emergency responses; (f) Special needs for fire suppression, and emergency services, including needs created by recreation areas and industrial land uses; (g) avoid close proximity to fault traces; and (h) Ability to meet any adopted local community facility level standard, if appropriate. Policy: Consideration shall be given to shared law enforcement and fire service facilities such as public safety "storefronts" within village centers, training rooms and equipment storage. Policy: Otay Ranch shall evaluate the provision of fire suppression sprinkler systems for residential development within the project area as part of SPA plans. Policy: Fire protection and emergency services facilities shall be available or will be available concurrent with need. Policy: In areas lacking local public structural fire protection and within the sphere of influence of a fire protection agency, approval of Otay Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-323 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Ranch discretionary applications shall be conditioned on the annexation to that agency. Policy: Otay Ranch shall cooperate in the development of a strategy to address emergency medical service facilities and responsibilities in areas lacking a local provider of these services. Policy: Otay Ranch shall work with affected fire protection agencies to cooperatively develop guidelines for appropriate water provision requirements necessary for fire protection in ground water dependent areas. Policy: Otay Ranch shall participate in fire mitigation fee or development impact fee programs to enable fire protection agencies to meet the facility and equipment needs generated by Otay Ranch. d. Facilities Fire Protection Services: Four new fire stations are necessary to serve the Otay Ranch Project Area at build-out, in conformance with the Otay Ranch goals, policies and objectives. Fire facility and apparatus studies (trigger analysis and the like) may be required from time to time to ensure that emergency services are adequate. Emergency Facilities: It is likely that each public or private agency will have its own dispatch center. The need for additional dispatch centers will be determined in accordance with the policies of the agencies serving the area. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Specific facility site refined. • Equipment needs identified. • Alternative financing methods identified by the appropriate fire agency and implementation method assured. • Fire suppression (sprinkler plan) analysis prepared and jurisdictional requirements applied. • Demonstrate ability to provide facilities in conjunction with sewer, water and road facilities. • Timing of construction consistent with GDP/SRP project requirements. • Determine that response time standards have been met. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-324 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 • Identify radio communication problems associated with the project area (if any). • Develop project specific guidelines. • Consider HAZMAT service location, if appropriate and warranted. • Review of fire protection and fuel modification plans by fire department(s). • Assure appropriate water pressures and supply for fire control. • Include design guidelines that implement the concept of "municipal fire insurance," if appropriate. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to dedicate or reserve site, as appropriate. • Funding identified. ?? Final Map Requirements • Site dedicated or reserved, as appropriate. • Funding assured. ?? Building Permit • Payment of impact fee (if established). • Apply sprinkler plan requirements. 5. Justice Facilities a. Introduction The purpose of the Justice Facility Section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Implementation Measures, and Processing Requirements to guide the timely provision of justice facilities. The County of San Diego provides judicial services for the area west of Otay Lakes, at the South Bay Regional Center located in Chula Vista. The South Bay Regional Center provides Municipal and Superior Court services for the South Bay Judicial District. Along with the Municipal and Superior Courts, office space for the District Attorney, Defenders Services, Law Library, Revenue and Recovery, Probation and the Marshall are located at the Regional Center. Build-out of the Otay Ranch will create a demand for an additional 2.3 Municipal Court positions, 2.8 Superior Court positions, 43.7 District Attorney and Clerk positions, and 10.1 Public Defender positions. b. Threshold Cooperate with the County to identify an equitable funding method for the development of criminal justice facilities based on the needs of Otay Ranch and their benefit to Otay Ranch resi dents. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-325 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Justice Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local justice facilities. GOAL: PREVENT INJURY, LOSS OF LIFE AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BY HAVING ADEQUATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITIES TO SERVE OTAY RANCH RESIDENTS. Objective: Cooperate with the County to identify an equitable funding method for the development of criminal justice facilities based on the needs of Otay Ranch and their benefit to Otay Ranch residents. Objective: Justice facilities serving Otay Ranch residents will be sited in appropriate locations and in a timely manner, irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. Policy: Cooperate with the County and adjacent jurisdictions to develop plans for the siting of justice facilities to serve the needs of the entire region. Implementation Measure: Participate with a cooperative process among land use jurisdictions to ensure justice facilities are sited in locations which best serve the region's population and take into consideration jurisdictional general plans and community standards. Objective: Enhance public safety by utilizing land use and site design techniques to deter criminal activity. d. Facilities The South Bay Regional Center may not have adequate expansion capacity to serve the projected needs of the South County region for major municipal and superior court activities. The court administrator has determined a centralized location for the majority of court functions are preferable from an economic and efficiency perspective. Satellite courtroom facilities are effective in accommodating traffic and small claims hearings, while improving the overall operational efficiency. Additionally, satellite facilities provide more convenient access and reduced travel times for local residents. Additional courts and offices may be located adjacent to or proximate to the existing South Bay Regional Center and a traffic court and small claims court facility should be considered for siting in the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center. Courts and offices should be located adjacent to other municipal and civic functions. Such a central location on the site provides access for all Otay Ranch residents to conduct court activities. Commercial or retail services are compatible land uses and could share parking areas. The court should also have access to public transportation and major or minor arterials for easy accessibility. Courtroom facilities should include waiting rooms, space for bailiff/clerk, court reporter, secretaries and Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-326 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 court clerks, copy, storage and records room, client conference rooms, chambers, public restrooms and parking. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Determine the size, location and timing of justice facilities needed to serve Otay Ranch, as part of the SPA plan for the Eastern Urban Center. • Develop design guidelines to deter criminal activity. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Land zoned for regional purpose facilities, consistent with the SPA Plan. • Apply design guidelines. ?? Final Map • Implement conditions. ?? Building Permit Requirements • Pay impact fee, if established for the appropriate benefit area. 6. Law Enforcement Facilities a. Introduction The provision of adequate law enforcement facilities is critical for the protection of life and property. The purpose of the Law Enforcement Facility section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Standards and Processing Requirements for the timely provision of law enforcement facilities. The County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego provide law enforcement services to the Otay Ranch and surrounding communities. The County Sheriff's Office provides public safety and protection services for all unincorporated areas of the County. The city police departments provide law enforcement services within their jurisdictions. b. Threshold Urban Service: Properly equipped and staffed law enforcement units shall respond to 84% of "Priority One" emergency calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average response time for all "Priority One" emergency calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Urban Service: Properly equipped and staffed law enforcement units shall respond to 62% of "Priority Two Urgent" calls within 7 minutes and and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7 minutes or less. Rural Service: Properly equipped and staffed law enforcement units shall maintain an average Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-327 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 response time for "Priority One" calls of 12 minutes, and 24 minutes for low priority calls. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Law Enforcement Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local law enforcement facilities. GOAL: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY AND PREVENTION OF CRIME OCCURRENCE. Objective: Make provisions for criminal justice facilities, including jails, courts, and police facilities adequate to serve the Otay Ranch Project Area. Objective: Enhance conditions for public safety by utilizing land use and site design techniques to deter criminal activity and promote law enforcement. Objective: Site law enforcement facilities in appropriate locations in order to serve the population. Policy: Otay Ranch shall finance its full and fair share of the facility needs that it generates. Policy: Urban Service: Provide properly equipped and staffed law enforcement units to respond to 84% of "Priority One" emergency calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average response time of all "Priority One" emergency calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Policy: Urban Service: Provide properly equipped and staffed law enforcement units to respond to 62% of "Priority Two Urgent" calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7 minutes or less. Policy: Rural Service: Provide facilities for properly equipped and staffed law enforcement units to maintain an average response time for "Priority One" calls of 12 minutes, and 24 minutes for low priority calls. d. Facilities One "central" police station located in the Eastern Urban Center is necessary to serve the Otay Ranch Project Area at build-out, in conformance with the goals, objectives and policies. Additional facilities within villages or shared use of other public facilities may be considered at the SPA level. The size and character of these facilities will be determined, in part, by the necessary operation structure and cost by jurisdictional arrangement. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-328 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Storefronts can serve as "outlets" for multiple civic services, such as fire safety or public information, in addition to law enforcement services. e. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Facility site identified, with consideration of SPA plan for the Eastern Urban Center. • Equipment needs identified. • Financing methods identified by the appropriate law enforcement agency and implementation method assured. • Develop site design techniques and guidelines to deter crime. • Develop "Project Specific Guidelines" consistent with thresholds of the appropriate jurisdiction. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to reserve or dedicate site, as appropriate. • Funding identified. • Implement project specific design guidelines. ?? Final Map Requirements • Site dedicated or reserved, as appropriate. • Funding assured. ?? Building Permit Requirement • Payment of impact fee (if established). 7. Library Facilities a. Introduction The provision of library facilities ensures the residents of Otay Ranch will have access to a wide range of educational and cultural experiences. The purpose of the Library Facility section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies, Standards and Processing Requirements for the timely provision of these facilities. The County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego provide library and media services in the Otay Ranch area. The County of San Diego currently has 31 branch libraries and two bookmobiles to serve all of the unincorporated areas and 11 cities in the County. The City of Chula Vista has three library facilities including a 55,000 square foot central library and smaller "branch" libraries. Chula Vista is constructing a new library in the Montgomery area, which will result in a regional library system in Chula Vista. The City of San Diego has one main library downtown and 31 branch libraries throughout the City. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-329 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Build-out of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP generates a demand for a "main" library facility located in the Eastern Urban Center and possible expansion of other libraries. b. Threshold City of Chula Vista: 500 square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and staffed regional library facilities per 1,000 population. County of San Diego: Provide 350 square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and staffed library facilities per 1,000 population. c. Goals Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch Library Facility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures will ensure the timely provision of local library facilities. GOAL: SUFFICIENT LIBRARIES TO MEET THE INFORMATION AND EDUCATION NEEDS OF OTAY RANCH RESIDENTS. Objective: Provide high quality and contemporary library facilities and services, which meet the needs of the entire Otay Ranch Project Area. Objective: City of Chula Vista: 500 square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and staffed library facilities per 1,000 population. Objective: County of San Diego: 350 square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and staffed regional/area library facilities per 1,000 population. Policy: Assure that Otay Ranch libraries have sufficient funding for operation and maintenance. Objective: Otay Ranch libraries will be equitably financed by all new development that will benefit from the facilities. Policy: Participate in development impact fee programs, or provide adequate books and library space as “turn-key” facilities. Policy: Include the following factors in the determination of the best sites for branch libraries: (a) Access to the intended service population; (b) Existing library deficiency in intended service area; (c) Suitability of site to meet identified needs; and (d) Location of the site relative to complementary facilities, such as schools, parks, and civic centers. Policy: When feasible, participate in joint powers agreements with the Department of Park and Recreation, school districts and other appropriate agencies for the development and operation of their respective facilities. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-330 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Policy: The library facility standard may be satisfied through the provision of decentralized facilities within villages. The size and character of these facilities will be determined, in part, by the necessary operation structure and cost by jurisdictional arrangement at the SPA level. d. Facilities One library facility located in the Eastern Urban Center is necessary to serve the Otay Ranch at build-out, in conformance with goals, objectives and policies. This facility would serve as a "main" library for all residents of Otay Ranch, and could offer a full range of research, reference, periodicals, gallery space, storage, binding and repair, distribution, and translation services. The design of the facilities should allow for multi-use functions and should provide portable seating and walls for small meeting rooms, display, display, and exhibit space for cultural arts. c. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Specific library facility site identified with consideration of SPA plans. • Equipment needs identified. • Timing of construction consistent with the Public Facility Financing and Phasing Plan. • County library requirements determined with the first SPA processed in the unincorporated area. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Conditioned to dedicate, zone or reserve site, as appropriate. • Funding identified. ?? Final Map Requirements • Site dedicated, zoned or reserved, as appropriate. • Funding assured. ?? Building Permit Requirements • Payment of impact fee (if established). Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-331 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 8. School Facilities a. Introduction The timely provision of elementary, middle and high school facilities is essential to creating a viable community. The purpose of the School Facility Section of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP is to establish Goals, Objectives, Policies and Processing Requirements to ensure the timely provision of local school facilities. The Otay Ranch planning area is located within the jurisdiction of four elementary and two high school districts; Cajon Valley Union School District (K-8); Chula Vista Elementary School District (K-6); Jamul/Dulzura Union School District (K-8); San Ysidro School District (K-8); Grossmont High School District (9-12); and Sweetwater High School District (7-12). Students in these districts attend one of 56 elementary, 15 middle/high or 18 senior high schools. Build-out of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP generates a demand for 13 elementary schools, two middle schools and two high schools. b. Threshold Additional facilities needed to serve children generated by the new development shall be provided concurrent with need, and shall be of the quality and quantity sufficient to meet, at a minimum, State Department of Education standards. c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures The following Otay Ranch School Facility goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures will ensure the timely provision of local school facilities. GOAL: PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY, K-12 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR OTAY RANCH RESIDENTS BY COORDINATED PLANNING OF SCHOOL FACILITIES WITH THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT. GOAL: COORDINATE THE PLANNING OF ADULT EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES WITH APPROPRIATE DISTRICT. Policy: Provide for the reservation of one or more sites for adult educational facilities to serve the residents of Otay Ranch. Implementation Measure: Provide for the reservation of sufficient land/floor floor space within the EUC for the Sweetwater Union High School District adult education facility. Policy: Locate schools in areas free of disturbing factors such as traffic hazards, airports or other incompatible land uses. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-332 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 Policy: Ensure that schools are integrated into the system of alternative transportation corridors, such as bike lanes, riding and hiking trails, and mass transit where appropriate. Policy: Provide general locations for private elementary and secondary schools within the plan area, spaced far enough from public schools and each other to prevent an overconcentration of school impacts. Objective: School facilities shall be provided concurrently with need and integrated with related facility needs, such as childcare, health care, parks, and libraries, where practical. Policy: Coordinate the planning and siting of schools, recreational facilities, childcare centers, libraries and other related public facilities. Policy: Additional facilities needed to serve children generated by the new development shall be provided concurrent with need, and shall be of the quality and quantity sufficient to meet, at a minimum, State Department of Education standards. Objective: Provide school district with 12-to 18-month development plan and 3-to 5-year development forecasts so that they may plan and implement school building and/or allocation programs in a timely manner. Implementation Measure: Request school districts to indicate the level of facilities available to serve development projects requiring discretionary review. Implementation Measure: Condition the approval of general plan amendments, specific plans, and other legislative land decisions on the developers' responsibility to mitigate funding of school facilities and the availability of school sites and facilities at the time of need. d. Facilities Within the Chula Vista Elementary School District, 13 elementary schools will be located in the EUC, each of the Urban Villages, and Specialty Villages (except Villages Three and 13). The Sweetwater Union High School District would require two middle schools located in Villages Ten and Seven, and two high schools in Villages Eleven and Seven. The Grossmont High School District and the Jamul/Dulzura Elementary School District serve the Rural Estate Areas. The obligation to provide Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-333 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 K-12 school facilities for the Rural Estate Areas would be satisfied through the payment of fees for off-site facilities. e. Siting of Schools School facilities should be sited according to the following criteria. While it is unlikely that every site can meet all criteria, every site should meet most of these criteria. The ideal site should be: ?? at least 10 usable acres for an elementary school, 25 usable acres for a middle/junior high school, and 50 usable acres for a senior high school, to adequately accommodate the loading and unloading of students, future expansion of facilities and offer design flexibility. ?? centrally located to residential development to reduce bussing requirements, reduce walking distances for young children, encourage after-hours use of facilities by the public and discourage vandalism. ?? adjacent to a street or road which can safely accommodate bike, foot and vehicular traffic. Sites should have no more than two sides with street frontage. Urban high schools are best located adjacent to collectors that can handle the increased traffic volume of student drivers and the entrance to the school should be signaled. ?? topographically and environmentally safe and suitable to reduce site preparation costs and permit maximum use of the site for physical activities. ?? of sufficient usable acreage on one level and configured to not limit the design of buildings and provide field and parking space. ?? surrounded by land uses that produce a minimum of noise and traffic, often associated with commercial and heavy industrial areas. ?? located adjacent to parks to enable joint field and recreation facility uses. ?? vacant and undeveloped to reduce financial and political costs of site acquisition. ?? located such that utilities and services (e.g., cable television, fire protection, emergency medical services) are or will be readily available, to reduce site development costs. ?? near imminent development of adjacent properties to insure road and other necessary off-site improvements are available in a timely manner. ?? with regard to distance from Brown Field, in a location acceptable to the State Division of Aeronautics. ?? a safe distance (i.e., as required by law) from contaminants or toxins in the soil or ground water from landfills, fuel tanks, agricultural areas, power lines, utility easements, et. al. ?? outside of floodplains; on stable soils; away from fault lines. ?? integrated into the system of alternative transportation corridors (i.e., bike lanes, riding and hiking trails, and mass transit) where appropriate. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP ¤ Part II Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page II-334 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended March 9, 2012 f. Processing Requirements Future Otay Ranch applications for development approvals shall comply with the following processing requirements: ?? SPA Requirements • Identify and process school district boundary adjustments, as appropriate, through approval by the appropriate governing body. • Select school site areas within each village from which eventual school sites could be developed. • Prepare preliminary studies of general site areas showing relationships to existing and proposed circulation systems. • Provide phasing schedule for school facilities. • Obtain preliminary approval, via field reviews of each general school site area from the State. • Determine the appropriate facility financing mechanism. • Obtain site review from the State. ?? Tentative Map Requirements • Implement appropriate facility financing mechanism. mechanism. • Select specific candidate sites. • Prepare a land use map, which shows the specific location of the candidate sites. • Prepare Environmental Impact Reports for candidate sites. • Finalize district boundaries. ?? Final Map Requirements • Dedicate school site. ?? Building Permit • Pay impact fees (if appropriate) APPENDIX C Traffic Technical Report TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN & GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR OTAY LAND COMPANY Chula Vista, California May 11December 7, 2012 LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Prepared by: Under the Supervision of: Cara Leone John Boarman, P.E. Transportation Planner II Principal LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Location and Background ........................ .............................................................. 2 2.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1 General Plan Amendment (GPA) ........................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) ......................... .... 4 3.0 Existing Conditions Discussion ............................................................................................... 11 3.1 Existing Street Network .............................. ..................................................................... 11 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 14 3.2.1 Daily Segment Volumes ....................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Freeway Mainline Counts .............................................. ...................................... 15 4.0 Study Area, Analysis Approach & Methodology .................................................................. 19 4.1 Study Area ........................ ............................................................................................... 19 4.2 Analysis Approach .............................................................................. ............................. 22 4.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 26 4.4 Street Segments ................................................................................................................. 26 4.5 Freeway Segments ............................................................. .............................................. 26 4.6 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 27 5.0 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................................ 29 5.1 City of Chula Vista .............................. ............................................................................ 29 5.2 City of San Diego.................................................................................................. ........... 30 5.3 County of San Diego ......................................................................................................... 32 6.0 Analysis of Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 34 6.1 Street Segments ................................................................................. ............................... 34 6.2 Freeways ........................................................................................................................... 36 7.0 Traffic Modeling Process ........................................................................................................ 37 7.1 Trip Generation ...................................................... .......................................................... 37 7.2 Trip Capture ...................................................................................................................... 37 7.3 Year 2030 Roadway Network ........................................................................................... 38 7.4 Year 2030 Forecast Volumes ........................................ ................................................... 41 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 8.0 Year 2030 Direct & Cumulative Analysis .............................................................................. 45 8.1 Year 2030 Alternative 1 – Adopted General Plan ............................................................ 45 8.1.1 Segment Operations ......................................................................... .................... 45 8.1.2 Freeway Mainline Operations ............................................................................... 45 8.2 Year 2030 Alternative 3 – Direct Project ......................................................................... 46 8.2.1 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 46 8.2.2 Freeway Mainline Operations ............................................................................... 46 8.3 Year 2030 Alternative 7 – Cumulative Project .............................. .................................. 47 8.3.1 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 47 8.3.2 Freeway Mainline Operations ............................................................................... 47 8.4 Deficient Roadway Segment Intersection Analysis ..................................................... .... 65 8.4.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 65 8.4.2 Year 2030 Network Assumptions & Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ............... 66 8.4.3 Year 2030 Intersection Analysis ..................................................................... ..... 67 8.5 Caltrans Interchange Analysis .......................................................................................... 69 8.5.1 Methodology ............................................ ............................................................ 69 8.5.2 Year 2030 Alternative 7 Network Assumptions & Peak Hour Intersection Volumes .................................................... ....................................................................... 69 8.5.3 Year 2030 Alternative 7 Interchange Analysis ..................................................... 70 9.0 Discussion of Proposed Circulation Element Changes ......................................................... 72 10.0 Main Street/La Media Road Town Center Arterial Operations .................... .................... 73 11.0 SR-125 Mid-Arterial Crossing Between Main Street & Otay Valley Road ....................... 75 12.0 Congestion Management Program Compliance ............................. ..................................... 76 13.0 Existing + Project Scenario ..................................................................................................... 77 13.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 77 13.2 Analysis.................................................. ......................................................................... 77 13.2.1 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 77 13.2.2 Freeway Mainline Operations ............................................................................... 78 14.0 City of Chula Vista Growth Management Program ........................... ................................ 82 15.0 Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 83 15.1 Significance of Impacts.............. ...................................................................................... 83 15.1.1 Direct Impacts ....................................................................................... ............... 83 15.1.2 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 83 15.1.3 Existing + Project Impacts ...................... ............................................................. 85 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 15.2 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 85 15.2.1 Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................... 85 15.2.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................... .......................................... 86 15.2.3 Existing + Project Impacts .................................................................................... 87 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. City of Chula Vista Volumes Book, Segment Manual Count Sheets, & 2008 Caltrans Volumes B. City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego Roadway Classification Tables C. Caltrans Freeway K & D Percentages and Truck Factors D. Land Use Inventory Tables used in the SANDAG Models E. SANDAG Model Traffic Volumes Plots and Post-Modeling Reports for Alternatives 1, 3 and 7 F. Excerpts from Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. March 2009 Traffic Study and LLG Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, & PA 18 B October 2005 Traffic Study G. Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes and Intersection Analysis Worksheets – Alternatives 3 and 7 H. Excerpts from the Katz, Okitsu, & Associates SR-125 South Corridor Study, March 2005 and Caltrans SR-905 PSR, February 2007 I. Peak Hour Volumes and Interchange Analysis Worksheets – Alternative 7 J. Main Street/La Media Road Couplet Year 2030 Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes and Intersection Analysis Worksheets K. SR-125 Mid-Arterial Crossing Location Map LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc iv LIST OF FIGURES SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE Figure 2–1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2–2 Project Area Map .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2–3 Proposed General Plan Land Use ........................... ..................................................... 8 Figure 2–4 Proposed General Development Plan Land Use ........................................................... 9 Figure 2–5 Proposed GPA & GDPA Circulation Changes ........................................................... 10 Figure 3–1 Existing Roadway Conditions Diagram ................................................. .................... 17 Figure 3–2 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 18 Figure 7–1 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes Alternative 1 (Adopted General Plan) ........................... 42 Figure 7–2 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes Alternative 3 .................................................................. 43 Figure 7–3 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes Alternative 7 .................................................................. 44 Figure 8–1 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Level of Service Alternative 1 (Adopted General Plan) .. 62 Figure 8–2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Level of Service Alternative 3 ................................... 63 Figure 8–3 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Level of Service Alternative 7 ................................... 64 Figure 8–4 Year 2030 Intersection Lane Geometry ...................................................................... 71 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc v LIST OF TABLES SECTION—TABLE # PAGE Table 2–1 Year 2030 Adopted and Proposed General Plan & General Development Plan Land Use For The Proposed Project .............................................. ....................................... 5 Table 3–1 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 14 Table 3–2 Freeway Mainline ADT Counts .................................................................................. 16 Table 4–1 City of Chula Vista Land Use & Network Assumptions ........................ ................... 25 Table 4–2 Caltrans District 11 Freeway Segment Level Of Service Definitions ........................ 28 Table 5–1 City of San Diego Traffic Impact Significant Thresholds .......................................... 31 Table 5–2 Measures of Significant Project Impacts to Congestion on Circulation Element Road Segments Allowable Increases on Congested Road Segments ................................... 32 Table 6–1 Existing Street Segment Operations ........................................................................... 34 Table 6–2 Existing Freeway Mainline Operations ...................................................................... 36 Table 7–1 Year 2030 Land Use ....................................................... ........................................... 37 Table 7–2 Year 2030 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................. 38 Table 7–3 Year 2030 Roadway Network ..................................................................................... 39 Table 7–4 Year 2030 Freeway Conditions ............................................. .................................... 40 Table 8–1 Year 2030 Street Segment Operations Direct Impact Determination Alternative 1 vs. 3 ................................................................. ..................................... 49 Table 8–2 Year 2030 Street Segment Operations Cumulative Impact Determination Alternative 1 vs. 7 ............................................................ .......................................... 53 Table 8–3 Year 2030 Freeway Mainline Analysis Inputs ............................................................ 57 Table 8–4 Year 2030 Freeway Mainline Operations Direct Impact Determination Alternatives 1 vs. 3 ..................................................................................................... 58 Table 8–5 Year 2030 Freeway Mainline Operations Cumulative Impact Determination Alternatives 1 vs. 7 .................................................................................................. .. 60 Table 8–6 City of Chula Vista Segment Impacts & Intersection Analysis Significant Impact Determination .......................................................................................... .................. 68 Table 8–7 Interchange Operations Alternative 7 ......................................................................... 70 Table 10–1 Main Street/La Media Road Couplet Operations ........................................................ 74 Table 13–1 Existing + Project Street Segment Operations ........................................................... 79 Table 13–2 Existing + Project Freeway Mainline Operations ....................................................... 81 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\Final Submittal\1885 Report.docN:\1885\S bmittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN & GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR OTAY LAND COMPANY Chula Vista, California May 11December 7, 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) has been retained to prepare a traffic study for the South Otay Ranch Villages General Plan/General Development Plan Amendment Project. The purpose of this study is to assess the potential impacts to the local circulation system as a result of the plan amendment. The Project consists of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and an Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) associated with approximately 728 acres within the Otay Ranch GDP in the City of Chula Vista. A more detailed Project description is presented in Section 2.0 of this report. The traffic analysis presented in this report includes the following: ? Project Description ? Existing Conditions Discussion ? Study Area, Analysis Approach & Methodology ? Significance Criteria ? Analysis of Existing Conditions ? Traffic Modeling Process Description ? Analysis of Year 2030 Conditions ? Circulation Element Changes Discussion ? Main Street/La Media Road Town Center Arterials ? SR-125 Mid-Arterial Crossing ? Congestion Management Compliance ? Existing + Project Analysis ? Significance of Impacts & Mitigation Measures LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location and Background The Project site is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego. The Project Area is comprised of multiple existing villages and planning areas as follows: ?? Portions of Villages 4 and 7; ?? Village 8; ?? Village 9; ?? Planning Area 10, which includes the University site and a proposed 85-acre Regional Technology Park (RTP); ?? A portion of the southern edge of the Eastern Urban Center (the portion to be added to the proposed Village 9) The City’s General Plan Update (GPU) was approved along with the associated environmental document in December 2005. The GPU presented a long-term strategy to address planning issues for the growth and development of the City outlining the community’s vision vision for the future through land use designations, goals, and policies. The 2005 GPU/GDP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressed the entire City, including the Project Area; however, the City Council did not approve the proposed land use designations within an area known as the “deferral area.” The deferral area corresponds generally to the Project Area. As a result, land use designations within the deferral area are subject to pre-2005 GPU designations. Specifically, the land use designations applicable to this area are those approved in 2001 (October 2001 GDP). The GPU EIR (EIR 05-01) certified on December 12, 2005 (GPU EIR 2005), analyzed the impacts of the General Plan Preferred Alternative that included the land uses, densities, trip generation and circulation plan that were proposed for the deferral area (that included all of Villages 8 and 9 and Planning Area 10). Although such land uses for the deferral areas were not adopted, the circulation plan that was analyzed in the GPU EIR 2005 was adopted as part of the GPU 2005. Subsequent to approval of the GPU, the City entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with the Otay Land Company (OLC) on April 9, 2008. The LOA is an agreement between the OLC (owners of property within portions of the deferral area) and the City, which allowed for the future conveyance of land within the Project Area to the City. A second LOA was entered into between the City and James P. Baldwin (JPB), another property owner within the deferral area, but whose property is not included as a part of this proposed Project. This traffic study addresses land uses and densities that are part of the proposed Project and incorporates amendments to Circulation Plan – East. The majority of the Project Area is currently vacant. There is an existing water reservoir that is not part of the proposed Project in the center of the Project Area. Water pipelines pass through the Project Area on the east side of the reservoir. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 3 Figure 2–1 shows the general Project vicinity, and Figure 2–2 is a more detailed map showing the Project Area, associated land use change area, and the City’s “deferral area”. 2.2 Project Description The “Project” consists of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and an Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) associated with approximately 1,200 acres within the Otay Valley Parcels of the Otay Ranch Planned Community. The Project would redefine village boundaries to create Village 8 West and Village 9, add an 85-acre RTP within the Planning Area 10/University Site, and change land uses within a 728.2-acre land use change area. Policy and circulation changes would affect this entire area. The GPA proposes adoption of new General Plan text, policies and supporting exhibits including revised General Plan Land Use and and revised Circulation Plan – East diagrams. The GDPA proposes amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP consisting of revisions to text, maps and tables that would assure that the GDP is consistent with the GPA. The proposed Project analyzed in this report are the land uses proposed by OLC that would result in an increase of approximately 880 single-and multi-family dwelling units and 1.8 million square-feet of commercial use beyond the land use designation applicable to the Project Area (2001 adopted General Plan). 2.2.1 General Plan Amendment (GPA) Proposed Land Use The Project seeks to modify Land Use provisions of the General Plan within the Project Area as follows: 1. Eliminate the area of Residential Low (RL) land use and its unit count. 2. Reduce the area of Residential Low/Medium (RLM) land use and its unit count. 3. Add an area of Residential Medium (RM) land use and its unit count. 4. Add an area of Residential Medium/High (RMH) land use and its unit count. 5. Increase the area of Mixed Use Residential land use and its unit count. 6. Add an area of Town Center (TC) land use and its unit count. 7. Allocate a portion of the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) to Village 9 and increase its unit count. 8. Increase the area of Park (PRK) land use. 9. Reduce the area of Public/Quasi Public (PQ) land use. 10. Refine the area of Open Space (OS) land use. 11. Locate a Regional Technology Park (RTP) within the Planning Area 10/University site and accordingly adjust University land use acreages. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 4 Table 2–1 shows a detailed comparison of the Adopted and Proposed land use quantities. Figure 2–3 shows the Proposed General Plan Land Uses within the Project’s land use change area. Proposed Street Network The Project seeks to amend the existing General Plan Transportation Element (Circulation Plan-East) as follows: 1. Eliminate southerly extension of La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley. 2. Reclassify a portion of La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 extending south to the Active Recreation area from a six lane arterial to “Other Roads”. 3. Change name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway. 4. Reclassify Main Street from a Town Center Arterial (Couplet) easterly of SR-125 to a Six-Lane Gateway. 5. Reclassify the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet from a Six-Lane Town Center Arterial (Couplet) to a Four-Lane Town Center Arterial (Couplet) within Village 8 West. 6. Reclassify and realign the segment of La Media Road from the Town Center Arterials at the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet south easterly to SR-125 as a Four-Lane Major. 7. Provide that LOS D is acceptable for Town Center Arterials. A more detailed discussion of Town Center Arterial level of service is included in Section 10.0. 8. Eliminate requirement for park and ride facilities at the Village 9/University Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop. 9. Clarify that the mid-arterial SR-125 crossing between Villages 8 East and 9 is pedestrian only. 2.2.2 Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) The Project seeks to amend the existing Otay Ranch GDP as follows: 1. The current GDPA includes revised text, graphics, and an update of the GDP maps and statistics to reflect the following revisions and assure conformance with the GPU. 2. Revise the statistical description and policy standards for the proposed villages and the EUC; 3. Locate an 85-acre RTP within Planning Area 10/University Site, and accordingly adjust University acreage; and 4. Add detail regarding the requirement for the University Strategic Framework Policies; and 5. Reflect land uses previously approved in 2001 within the Village 8 East area. Table 2–1 shows a detailed comparison of the Adopted and Proposed land use quantities. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 5 Figure 2–4 shows the Proposed General Development Plan Land Uses within the Project’s land use change area. Figure 2–5 shows the proposed changes to the Adopted Circulation Element as a result of the GPA and GDPA. TABLE 2–1 YEAR 2030 ADOPTED AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use a Units Proposed Project Land Use 2001 Adopted General Plan Land Use Single Family du 887 642 Multi-Family du 5,163 656 Commercial acres 32.3 15.6 Community Purpose Facility acres 10.8 3.1 Middle School acres 20.2 25.6 Elementary School acres 31.2 10.0 Park acres 55.4 3.0 Future University acres 50 215.0 Industrial/Regional Technology Park acres 85.0 0.0 Footnotes: a. The General Plan Land Use assumptions in this table are gross estimated and are subject to further review and refinement. refinement. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 11 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS DISCUSSION The following streets are located within the Project study area and are listed as east/west or north/south streets. Brief descriptions of each street are given below. Roadway classification was determined from a review of the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego and County of San Diego Circulation Elements and field observations. Figure 3–1 depicts the existing roadway conditions for the study area street segments and freeway segments. 3.1 Existing Street Network City of Chula Vista Roadways Telegraph Canyon Road is classified in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan and functions as a 7-Lane Expressway from I-805 to Oleander Avenue and a 6-Lane Prime Arterial continuing east. Bike lanes exist on both sides of the road and bus stops are located intermittently intermittently along the roadway. On-street parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph) from I-805 to Oleander Avenue, 45 mph from Oleander Avenue to Old Telegraph Canyon Road, and 50 mph from Old Telegraph Canyon Road to Hunte Parkway. Olympic Parkway is classified in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan and functions as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial in the study area from I-805 to Hunte Parwkay, except for the segment between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway, which functions as an 8-Lane Expressway. Between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road, Olympic Parkway transitions to a 4-Lane Major Arterial. Bike lanes and sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. Parking is not provided on either side of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph between I-805 and Brandywine Avenue and 50 mph between Brandywine Avenue and Hunte Parkway. Continuing east of Hunte Parkway it slows to 45 mph. Birch Road is classified in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan and functions functions as a 6-Lane Major Arterial between La Media Road and SR-125 and as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway. Bike lanes and sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. There is currently no posted speed limit. Main Street is classified in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan and functions as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial between I-805 and Heritage Road. Main Street currently terminates at Heritage Road. In the future, Main Street would be extended to Hunte Parkway by connecting to Rock Mountain Road. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) is a planned future roadway connecting from Main Street in the west to Hunte Parkway in the east. It is currently classified as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial from Heritage Road to the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet where it transitions to a Town Center Arterial with three lanes of travel in each direction through the length of the Couplet. Continuing past the Couplet’s terminus, it is classified as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial to SR-125 and again as a Town Center Arterial from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 12 Hunte Parkway is classified in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan and functions as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial between Eastlake Parkway and Olympic Parkway with a proposed future interchange with SR-125. Bike lanes and sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. In the future, Hunte Parkway would be extended to Main Street by connecting to Rock Mountain Road at SR-125. The planned speed limit is 45 mph. Otay Valley Road is a planned future roadway connecting from La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway, with a proposed future interchange with SR-125. It is currently classified as a 4-Lane Major Arterial in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. Eastlake Parkway is classified in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan and functions as a 6-lane Major Arterial between Olympic Parkway and Hunte Parkway. It is classified as a 4-Lane Major Arterial from Hunte Parkway to the future crossing with Otay Valley Road. Bike lanes and sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Heritage Road is currently not constructed to the south of Olympic Parkway. It is planned to be classified as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial from Olympic Parkway to the future connection with Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. South of Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) to just north of Avenida de las Vistas, Heritage Road is currently built as a 2-Lane Collector roadway with a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). Continuing south into the City of San Diego jurisdiction, it is classified as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial just north of Avenida de las Vistas. From the City of San Diego Boundary to Otay Mesa Road it is currently classified as a 6-Lane Major Arterial in the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan and is currently built as a 2-Lane Collector. La Media Road is classified in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan and functions as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial from Olympic Parkway to Birch Road. Just south of Birch Road it is currently built as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial. Bike lanes and sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. It is classified as a Town Center Arterial at the commencement of the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet where it continues as a six-lane divided roadway with three lanes of travel in each direction through the length of the Couplet in the adopted City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. Continuing south from Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) to Lonestar Road, La Media Road is within both the City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego jurisdiction and is planned to be a 6-Lane Prime Arterial functioning as a bridge crossing the Otay River Valley in the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan. From Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road it is an existing roadway currently built as a 2-Lane Collector and south of Otay Mesa Road to SR-905 it is built as a 4-Lane Collector City of San Diego Roadways Heritage Road – See City of Chula Vista Roadways. La Media Road – See City of Chula Vista Roadways. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 13 State Route 905 (SR-905)/Otay Mesa Road (SC-1120) is classified in the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan as a 6-Lane Expressway which extends from Interstate 5 to the east of SR-125. Approximately one mile east of I-805, there is a break in the route and SR-905 becomes Otay Mesa Road. The posted speed limit on Otay Mesa Road is 55 miles per hour (mph). Otay Mesa Road is improved to 6-Lane Prime Arterial standards from west of Caliente Avenue to approximately 1,000 feet east of La Media Road. From just east of La Media Road to just east of SR-125, Otay Mesa Road is a 5-Lane Major Arterial within the study area. Airway Road is classified on the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan as a 4-Lane Major Arterial from Cactus Road to La Media Road. It is currently built as a two-lane roadway along this portion. Bike lanes are not provided, parking is prohibited, and there is no posted speed limit. Siempre Viva Road is classified on the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan as a 6-Lane Primary Arterial from Cactus Road to SR-905. Currently, the portion of the roadway from Cactus Road to its current terminus just east of Britannia Boulevard is a two to three-lane undivided roadway with construction underway to expand to a six-lane divided roadway. From La Media Road to Melksee Street, Siempre Viva Road is built with three lanes in the eastbound direction and one lane in the westbound direction. Continuing from Melksee Street, it is built as a six-lane divided roadway to SR-905. Bike lanes are provided and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Piper Ranch Road is a classified in the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan as 4-Lane Collector Road north of Otay Mesa Road within the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Sub Area 1. It is currently built as a two-lane undivided roadway and under construction to widen it to its ultimate classification. There is no posted speed limit. County of San Diego Roadways Bonita Road is classified as a Major Roadway in the County of San Diego Circulation Element within the study area. The portion of the roadway from Central Avenue to Frisbie Street is currently built as three-lane roadway (consisting of two travel lanes in the northbound direction and one travel lane in the southbound direction) with a two-way left-turn lane. From Frisbie Street to San Miguel Road it transitions to a two-lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane. Bike lanes are provided and curbside parking is not permitted. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Sweetwater Road is classified as a Major Roadway in the County of San Diego Circulation Element within the study area. The portion of the roadway from Bonita Road to Pray Street is currently built as a two-lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane. From Pray Street, it transitions into a two-lane undivided roadway up to its commencement at Worthington Street. Bike lanes are provided and curbside parking is not permitted. There is currently no posted speed limit. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 14 Caltrans Facilities Interstate 805 is a north-south freeway, which originates in South County and terminates at its connection with the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway near Del Mar, California. I-805 is generally an 8-Lane Freeway between I-805 and State Route 54 (SR-54) with auxiliary lanes present between some interchanges located within the study area. State Route 125 is a north-south tollway between SR-54 and SR-905. SR-125 is generally a 4-Lane Tollway with several interchanges located within the study area. Future State Route 905 is an east-west freeway, which originates in South County at I-805 and is proposed to be built as an 8-Lane Freeway with auxiliary lanes present between some interchanges up to its terminus at the international border. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 3.2.1 Daily Segment Volumes Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) obtained 2008 traffic volumes from the City of Chula Vista Volume Book dated June 16, 2009. For data not included in this document, LLG commissioned 24-hour average daily traffic (ADT) counts in December 2009. Table 3–1 is a summary of the data collected. TABLE 3–1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES City of Chula Vista Street Segments Existing ADT a Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 to Oleander Ave 61,900 Heritage Road to La Media 40,300 Olympic Parkway I-805 to Brandywine Ave 47,000 Brandywine Ave to Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero 48,700 Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero to La Media 50,500 La Media Rd to SR-125 43,600 SR 125 to Eastlake Pkwy 40,500 Eastlake Pkwy to Hunte Pkwy 13,900 Birch Road La Media Rd to SR-125 10,200 Main Street I-805 to Brandywine Ave 26,400 Brandywine Ave to Maxwell St 18,700 Hunte Parkway Eastlake Parkwy to Exploration Falls Dr 700 Exploration Falls Dr to Olympic Pkwy 800 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 15 TABLE 3–1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Heritage Road Main St to City Boundary 10,000 La Media Road Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 11,000 Birch Rd to future Main St (Rock Mountain Rd) 1,000 Eastlake Parkway Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 9,200 Birch Rd to Hunte Pkwy 1,300 Hunte Pkwy to Otay Valley Rd DNE City of San Diego Street Segments Existing ADT Heritage Road City Boundary to Avenida de las Vistas 9,800 Avenida de las Vistas to Datsun St/Otay Valley Rd 4,800 Datsun St/Otay Valley Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 10,000 La Media Road Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 4,400 Otay Mesa Rd to Future SR-905 16,500 Otay Mesa Road Otay Mesa Rd to Corporate Center Dr 67,000 Corporate Center Dr to Heritage Rd 67,500 Heritage Rd to Britannia Blvd 70,900 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd 71,100 La Media Rd to Piper Ranch Rd 59,000 Piper Ranch Rd to SR-125 44,500 SR-SR-125 to Harvest Rd 9,700 Footnotes: a. Average Daily Traffic Volumes, where available. General Notes: DNE = Does not exist. 3.2.2 Freeway Mainline Counts The latest available freeway mainline counts obtained from the Caltrans count records are summarized in Table 3–2 below. Traffic volumes for SR-125 are currently not available to the public. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 16 TABLE 3–2 FREEWAY MAINLINE ADT COUNTS Freeway Segment Volume Interstate 805 Olympic Pkwy/Orange Ave to Main St/Auto Park Dr 151,000 Main St/Auto Park Dr to Palm Ave 149,000 Palm Ave to SR-905 113,000 State Route 905 I-805 to Otay Mesa Road 60,000 Source – Caltrans 2008 Figure 3–2 shows the existing daily traffic volumes. Appendix A contains a copy of the Chula Vista Volumes Book, manual segment count sheets, and a copy of the 2008 Caltrans volumes. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 19 4.0 STUDY AREA, ANALYSIS APPROACH & METHODOLOGY 4.1 Study Area The study area was determined based on SANDAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) which requires that a Project study area be established as follows: ?? All Regional Significant Arterial system street segments where the Project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (500 ADT) in either direction. ?? Mainline freeway locations where the Project will add 150 or more peak hour trips in either direction. In order to determine which segments are forecasted to carry 500 Project ADT, the difference between the Year 2030 ADT from Alternative 3 and Alternative 1 was calculated. (Alternative 3 – Alternative 1 = Project ADT). If this volume was greater than 500 ADT, the road segment was included in the analysis. Section 11.0 further discusses the CMP Compliance. The following is a list of the study area street and freeway segments: Street Segments City of Chula Vista Roadways Telegraph Canyon Road 1. I-805 to Oleander Avenue 2. Heritage Road to La Media Road Olympic Parkway 3. I-805 to Brandywine Avenue 4. Brandywine Avenue to Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero 5. Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero to La Media Road 6. La Media Road to SR-125 7. SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway 8. Eastlake Parkway to Hunte Parkway 9. Hunte Parkway to Wueste Road Birch Road 10. La Media Road to SR-125 11. SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway Main Street 12. I-805 to Brandywine Avenue 13. Brandywine Avenue to Maxwell Road 14. Maxwell Road to Heritage Road Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) 15. Heritage Road to Main Street/La Media Road Couplet LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 20 16. Main Street/La Media Road Couplet 17. Main Street/La Media Road Couplet to SR-125 18. SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway Hunte Parkway 19. Eastlake Parkway to Exploration Falls Drive 20. Exploration Falls Drive to Olympic Parkway Otay Valley Road 21. La Media Road to SR-125 22. SR-125 to Street “A” 23. Street “A” to Eastlake Parkway Heritage Road 24. Olympic Parkway to Main Street 25. Main Street to City Boundary La Media Road 25. Olympic Parkway to Birch Road 26. Birch Road to Main Street/La Media Road Couplet 27. Main Street/La Media Road Couplet 28. Main Street/La Media Road Couplet to Otay Valley Road 29. Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road Eastlake Parkway 30. Olympic Parkway to Birch Road 31. Birch Road to Hunte Parkway 32. Hunte Parkway to Otay Valley Road City of San Diego Roadways Heritage Road 33. City Boundary to to Avenida de las Vistas 34. Avenida de las Vistas to Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road 35. Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road to Otay Mesa Road 36. Otay Mesa Road to future SR-905 La Media Road 37. Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road 38. Otay Mesa Road to SR-905 Otay Mesa Road 39. Otay Mesa Road to Corporate Center Drive 40. Corporate Center Drive to Heritage Road LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 21 41. Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard 42. Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road 43. La Media Road to Piper Ranch Road 44. Piper Ranch Road to SR-125 45. SR-125 to Harvest Road Airway Road 46. Cactus Road to Britannia Boulevard 47. Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road Siempre Viva Road 48. Cactus Road to Britannia Boulevard 49. Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road 50. La Media Road to Avenida de la Fuente 51. Avenida de la Fuente to SR-905 Piper Ranch Road 52. Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road County of San Diego Roadways Bonita Road 53. Central Avenue to San Miguel Road Sweetwater Road 54. Bonita Road to Park Drive Freeway Segments Interstate 805 1. Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive 2. Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue 3. Palm Avenue to SR-905 State Route 125 4. Olympic Parkway to Birch Road 5. Birch Road to Main Street 6. Main Street to Otay Valley Road 7. Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road 8. Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road 9. Otay Mesa Road to SR-905 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 22 State Route 905 10. I-805 to Ocean View Hills 11. Ocean View Hills to Heritage Road 12. Heritage Road to Britannia Road 13. Britannia Road to La Media Road 14. La Media Road to SR-125 It should be noted that based on the State Route 11 and the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry EIR, dated November 2010, LOS C or better operations are forecasted on the future SR-11. Since the addition of Project-related ADT to this facility would not result in a change in the forecasted acceptable LOS C operations, a freeway mainline analysis of SR-11 was not addressed in the level of service analyses included in this report. 4.2 Analysis Approach The Project is a General Plan and General Development Plan Amendment. No specific development is being analyzed in the traffic study. The standard of practice in transportation planning is to analyze such a Project in the 20-year horizon time frame (i.e. Year 2030), since development will occur over a long period. The source for Year 2030 volumes in the South Bay region is the SANDAG traffic model. Furthermore, the standard of practice to analyze potential impacts in 2030 is to focus the analysis on street segments and conduct the analysis on an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) basis. For the purpose of this study, a limited peak hour intersection analysis was also conducted and is discussed later on in the report There are several different land use and network options that could potentially be implemented in the future and therefore, several different traffic models were run with different assumptions. A total of nine (9) alternatives were run with different assumptions for the Project land uses, City/County of San Diego land uses, La Media Road bridge (in or out) and SR-125 (free or toll). The following is a description of the nine Traffic Model Alternatives. Year 2030 Alternative 1 (Adopted General Plan) refers to the conditions and traffic volumes that will be implemented under build out of the adopted General Plan land uses and network in the Year 2030 with the exception of the deferral area (Villages 8 West, 8 East, 9, 10/University and the RTP) which uses 2001 adopted General Plan land uses. The future land uses and roadway network were assumed to include the adopted City of San Diego and County of San Diego General Plan land uses, and the La Media Road bridge crossing constructed with the SR-125 remaining a tollway. Year 2030 Alternative 2 refers to the conditions that will exist under Alternative 1 conditions with the addition of the Project land uses for Otay Land Company Village 8 West and Village 9. All roadway segments were assumed to be built out to their classifications as identified in the adopted City of Chula Vista General Plan, County of San Diego General Plan, and the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan with the exception of the proposed network changes described in Section 2.2.1. The future land uses and roadway network were assumed to include the proposed LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 23 changes to the University and RTP land uses, the adopted City of San Diego and County of San Diego General Plan land uses, and the La Media Road bridge crossing constructed with the SR-125 remaining a tollway. Year 2030 Alternative 3 refers to the conditions that will exist under Alternative 2 conditions, with the exception of the deletion of the La Media Road bridge crossing. Year 2030 Alternative 4 refers to the conditions that will exist under Alternative 2 conditions, with the exception of the changes proposed for the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan Update Alternative 3B and County of San Diego GP Update land uses, which were coded as proposed. Year 2030 Alternative 5 refers to the conditions that will exist under Alternative 3 conditions, with the exception of the changes proposed for the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan Update Alternative 3B and County of San Diego GP Update land uses, which were coded as proposed. Year 2030 Alternative 6 refers to the conditions that will exist under Alternative 4 conditions, with the inclusion of the remaining LOA (JPB) land uses, which were coded as proposed. Year 2030 Alternative 7 refers to the conditions that will exist under Alternative 5 conditions, with the inclusion of the remaining LOA (JPB) land uses, which were coded as proposed. Year 2030 Alternative 8 refers to the conditions that will exist under Alternative 7 conditions, with the exception of SR-125 changing from a tollway to a freeway. Year 2030 Alternative 9 refers to the conditions that will exist under Alternative 8 conditions, with the exception of the completion of the La Media Road bridge crossing. Alternative 1 assumes build out of the GPU Preferred Alternative land uses and network in the Year 2030 with the exception of the deferral area (Villages 8 West, 8 East, 9, 10/University and the RTP) which uses 2001 adopted General Plan land uses. Of the eight remaining alternatives, a focused analysis was conducted for Alternatives 3 and 7. Alternative 3 measures the direct impacts of the Project against Alternative 1 conditions. The Project itself consists of the proposed network changes listed in Section 2.2.1 and the proposed Project land uses. Alternative 7 measures the cumulative impacts of the Project. In addition to the Project network conditions and land uses, Alternative 7 includes the remaining land uses within the Project Area (Village 8 East and the Planning Area 10/University Site) and City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan Update and County of San Diego proposed General Plan Update land uses as reasonably foreseeable projects. For purposes of identifying impacts and providing mitigation, a detailed level of service analysis was conducted for both Alternatives 3 and 7 as compared to Alternative 1. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 24 Table 4–1 shows the land use and network assumptions matrix prepared by the City of Chula Vista for each of the nine scenarios. It should be noted that references in the table to “JPB” refer to the other remaining party and their independent LOA. In addition, an Existing + Project analysis is included in this study. Section 13.0 discusses this scenario in further detail. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 25 TABLE 4–1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA LAND USE & NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS EIR ALT Study Year Horizon Transit Assumptions 6 Project Land Uses University & RTP Land Uses Circulation Element La Media Rd Xing City of San Diego (Alt 3B)+County Land Uses 4 SR-125 Tollway or Freeway Select Zone Analysis by TAZ Note/Filename The Plan 1 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Adopted 1 2001 Adopted Adopted Bridge is IN Adopted Toll 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) Adopted Plans (SANDAG Modeling) CEQA Review Analyze the Proposed Project’s Land Uses for Direct and Cumulative Impacts with Various Permutations of Circulation Element and Land Use Proposals Direct Impacts 2 2 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Proposed OLC V.8W & 9 Only Blended Remainder Proposed 5 Proposed Bridge is IN Adopted Toll 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) Alt 1 vs. 2 Analyzes the Impacts of OLC Proposed Project Changes for Direct Impacts – La Media Rd Bridge IN Direct Impacts 2 3 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Proposed OLC V.8W & 9 Only Blended Remainder Proposed 5 Proposed Bridge is OUT Adopted Toll 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) Alt 1 vs. 3 Analyzes the Impacts of OLC Proposed Project Changes for Direct Impacts – La Media Rd Bridge OUT Direct Impacts 2 4 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Proposed OLC V.8W & 9 Only Blended Remainder Proposed 5 Proposed Bridge is IN City Alt 3B/County Referral Proposed Toll 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) Alt 2 vs. 4 Analyzes the Impacts of Proposed City/County – La Media Rd Bridge IN Direct Impacts 2 5 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Proposed OLC V.8W & 9 Only Blended Remainder Proposed 5 Proposed Bridge is OUT City Alt 3B/County Referral Proposed Toll 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) Alt 3 vs. 5 Analyzes the Impacts of Proposed City/County – La Media Rd Bridge OUT Cumulative Impacts 3 6 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Proposed JPB + OLC V.8W & 9 Only Blended Remainder Proposed 5 Proposed Bridge is IN City Alt 3B/County Referral Proposed Toll 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) [Cumulatively] Alt 4 vs. 6 Analyzes the Impacts of Proposed Project – La Media Rd Bridge IN Cumulative Impacts 3 7 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Proposed JPB + OLC V.8W & 9 Only Blended Remainder Proposed 5 Proposed Bridge is OUT City Alt 3B/County Referral Proposed Toll 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) [Cumulatively] Alt 5 vs. 7 Analyzes the Impacts of Proposed Project – La Media Rd Bridge OUT Cumulative Impacts 3 8 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Proposed JPB + OLC V.8W & 9 Only Blended Remainder Proposed 5 Proposed Bridge is OUT City Alt 3B/County Referral Proposed Free 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) [Cumulatively] Analyzes the Impacts of Toll Removal Against All Previous Proposals – La Media Rd Bridge OUT Cumulative Impacts 3 9 2030 Reasonably Expected RTP Proposed JPB + OLC V.8W & 9 Only Blended Remainder Proposed 5 Proposed Bridge is IN City Alt 3B/County Referral Proposed Free 4391 & 4614 & 4373 (optional) [Cumulatively] Analyzes the Impacts of Toll Removal Against All Previous Proposals – La Media Rd Bridge IN Source: Agreement for Services Between the SANDAG Service Bureau and City of Chula Vista November 30, 2009 Footnotes: 1. Adopted here is defined as the 2005 GPU citywide land uses with an overlay of the 2005 hash marked area that includes land uses as determined by the 2001 City Council Adoption. 2. Direct Impacts are defined as Proposed OLC V. 8W & 9 land uses and impacts ONLY. Blended remainder. The analysis will follow and determine exclusive impacts of OLC V.8 W & 9 traffic. 3. Cumulative includes the remaining land uses within the Project Area (Village 8 East and the Planning Area 10/University Site) and City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan Update and County of San Diego proposed General Plan Update land uses as reasonably foreseeable projects. Proposed Project plus proposed OLC V. 8W & 9 traffic analysis plus blended remainder. These models will follow and determine traffic impacts of JPB & OLC V.8W & 9 traffic. 4. County land uses are at 100% buildout for all analyses. 5. Proposed University and RTP land uses are defined as part of the proposed Project 6. Transit assumptions are the Reasonably Expected RTP which includes only SBBRT as funded route. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 26 4.3 Methodology Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments. 4.4 Street Segments Street segment analysis is based upon the comparison of daily traffic volumes (ADTs) to the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego and County of San Diego roadway classification and capacity tables. These tables provide segment capacities for different street classifications, based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics. The roadway classification and capacity tables are attached in Appendix B. 4.5 Freeway Segments Freeway segments were analyzed during the AM and PM peak hours based on the methodologies developed by CALTRANS District 11. The assessment of key freeway segments is necessary to satisfy the requirement of the CMP, as outlined later in the report. Freeway segment LOS is based on the volume to capacity ratio on the freeway. The analysis of freeway segment LOS is based on the procedure developed by Caltrans District 11 based on methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual. The procedure involves comparing the peak hour volume of the mainline segment to the theoretical capacity of the roadway (V/C). The procedure for calculating calculating freeway LOS involves the estimation of volume to capacity (V/C) ratio using the following equation: V/C = ((AADT x Peak Hour Percent x Directional Factor)/(Truck Terrain Factor)) Lane Capacity AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic Peak Hour Percent = Percentage of ADT occurring during the peak hour. Directional Factor = Percentage of peak hour traffic occurring in peak direction. Truck Factor = Truck/terrain factor to represent influence of heavy vehicles & grades. Capacity = 2,000 vehicles/lane/hour/lane for mainline, and 1,200 for auxiliary lanes. The resulting V/C is then compared to accepted ranges of V/C values corresponding to the various Levels of Service for each facility classification, as shown in Table 4–2. The corresponding Level of Service represents an approximation of existing or anticipated future freeway operating condition in the peak direction of travel during the peak hour. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 27 Appendix C contains the relevant K and D factors listed in the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Data and the truck factors from the 2007 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System utilized in the analysis. 4.6 Intersections Signalized Intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 7) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection LOS. Although intersections are not the main focus of this analysis, certain locations are analyzed in subsequent sections of this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 28 TABLE 4–2 CALTRANS DISTRICT 11 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS LOS V/C Congestion/Delay Traffic 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. C 0.63-0.80 None to minimal Stable flow, moderate volumes, freedom to maneuver noticeably restricted D 0.81-0.92 Minimal to substantial Approaches unstable flow, heavy volumes, very limited freedom to maneuver. E 0.93-1.00 Significant Extremely unstable flow, maneuverability and psychological comfort extremely poor. USED FOR FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS F(0) 1.01-1.25 Considerable 0-1 hour delay Forced flow, heavy congestion, long queues form behind breakdown points, stop and go. F(l) 1.26-1.35 Severe 1-2 hour delay Very heavy congestion, very long queues. F(2) 2) 1.36-1.45 Very Severe 2-3 hour delay Extremely heavy congestion, longer queues, more numerous breakdown points, longer stop periods. F(3) >1.46 Extremely Severe 3+ hours of delay Gridlock Source: Caltrans District 11 Notes: LOS = Level of Service V/C = Volume/Capacity LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 29 5.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA This report analyzes each study area location utilizing the appropriate jurisdictions’ significance criteria. Therefore, City of Chula Vista roadways were analyzed using City of Chula Vista significance criteria, City of San Diego roadways were analyzed using its own significance criteria, and County of San Diego roadways were analyzed using County significance criteria. Traffic impacts are defined as either “direct Project” impacts or “cumulative Project” impacts. Direct Project impacts are those impacts for which the addition of Project trips results in an identifiable degradation in level of service on freeway segments or roadway segments triggering the need for specific Project-related improvement strategies. Cumulative impacts are those in which the Project trips contribute to a poor level of service, at a nominal level. Again, for purposes of this report, Alternative 3 is analyzed using the “direct Project” impact criteria and Alternative 7 is analyzed using the “cumulative Project” impact criteria. The following is a description of the various jurisdictions’ significance criteria. 5.1 City of Chula Vista Street Links/Segments a. Project specific (direct) impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of total segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. It should be noted that roadways classified as Gateway Streets, Urban Arterials, Commercial Boulevards, and Downtown Promenades allows for a minimum performance standard of LOS D. Intersections a. Project specific (direct) impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 30 5.2 City of San Diego According to the City of San Diego’s Significance Determination Thresholds report dated January 2007, a Project is considered to have a significant impact if the new Project traffic has decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by a City defined threshold. For projects deemed complete on or after January 1, 2007, the City defined threshold by roadway type or intersection is shown in Table 5–1. The impact is designated either a “direct” or “cumulative” impact. According to the City’s Significance Determination Thresholds report, “Direct traffic impacts are those projected to occur at the time a proposed development becomes operational, including other developments not presently operational but which are anticipated to be operational at that time (near term).” “Cumulative traffic impacts are are those projected to occur at some point after a proposed development becomes operational, such as during subsequent phases of a Project and when additional proposed developments in the area become operational (short-term cumulative) or when affected community plan area reaches full planned buildout (long-term cumulative).” It is possible that a Project’s near term (direct) impacts may be reduced in the long term, as future projects develop and provide additional roadway improvements (for instance, through implementation of traffic phasing plans). In such a case, the Project may have direct impacts but not contribute considerably to a cumulative impact.” For intersections and roadway segments affected by a Project, level of service (LOS) D or better is considered acceptable under both direct and cumulative conditions.” If the Project exceeds the thresholds in Table 5–1, then the Project may be considered to have a significant “direct” or “cumulative” Project impact. A significant impact can also occur if a Project causes the Level of Service to degrade from D to E, even if the allowable increases in Table 5–1 are not exceeded. A feasible mitigation measure will need to be identified to return the impact within the City thresholds, or the impact will be considered significant and unmitigated. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 31 TABLE 5–1 CITY OF SAN DIEGO TRAFFIC IMPACT SIGNIFICANT THRESHOLDS Level of Service with Project b Allowable Increase Due to Project Impacts a Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections V/C Speed (mph) V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec.) E 0.010 1.0 0.02 1.0 2.0 F 0.005 0.5 0.01 0.5 1.0 Footnotes: a. If a proposed Project’s traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are determined to be significant. The Project applicant shall then identify feasible improvements (within the Traffic Impact Study) that will restore/and maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed Project becomes unacceptable (see note b), the Project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating the Project’s direct significant and/or cumulatively considerable traffic impacts. b. All LOS measurements are based upon Highway Capacity Manual procedures for peak-hour conditions. However, V/C ratios for roadway segments are estimated on an ADT/24-hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 of the City’s Traffic Impact Study Manual). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally “D” (“C” for undeveloped locations). General Notes: Delay = Average control delay per vehicle measured in seconds for intersections LOS = Level of Service V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio (capacity at LOS E should be used) Speed = Arterial speed measured in miles per hour for Congestion Management Program (CMP) analyses Also, according to the City of San Diego’s Significance Determination Thresholds report, other possible significant impacts that are not accounted for in Table 5–1 include the following: ?? If a Project would increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians due to proposed non-standard design features (e.g., poor sight distance, proposed driveway onto an access-restricted roadway), the impact would be significant. Note: analysts should refer readers to a discussion of this issue in the Health and Safety section of the environmental document. ?? If a Project would result in the construction of a roadway which is inconsistent with the General Plan and/or a community plan, the impact would be significant if the proposed roadway would not properly align with other existing or planned roadways. ?? If a Project would result in a substantial restriction in access to publicly or privately owned land, the impact would be significant. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 32 5.3 County of San Diego The following criterion was utilized to evaluate potential significant impacts, based on the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance—Transportation and Traffic, dated June 30, 2009. Road Segments Pursuant to the County’s General Plan Public Facilities Element (PFE), new development must provide improvements or other measures to mitigate traffic impacts to avoid: a. Reduction in Level of Service (LOS) below "C" for on-site Circulation Element roads; b. Reduction in LOS below "D" for off-site and on-site abutting Circulation Element roads; and c. "Significantly impacting congestion" on roads that operate at LOS "E" or "F". If impacts cannot be mitigated, the Project cannot be approved unless a statement of overriding findings is made pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. The PFE, however, does not include specific guidelines for determining the amount of additional traffic that would “significantly impact congestion" on such roads. The County has created the following guidelines to evaluate likely traffic impacts of a proposed Project for road segments and intersections serving that Project site, for purposes of determining whether the development would "significantly impact congestion" on the referenced LOS E and F roads. The guidelines are summarized in Table 5–2. The thresholds in Table 5–2 are based upon average operating conditions on County roadways. It should be noted that these thresholds only establish general guidelines, and that the specific Project location must be taken into account in conducting an analysis of traffic impact from new development. TABLE 5–2 MEASURES OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS TO CONGESTION ON CIRCULATION ELEMENT ROAD SEGMENTS ALLOWABLE INCREASES ON CONGESTED ROAD SEGMENTS Level of Service Two-Lane Road Four-Lane Road Six-Lane Road LOS E 200 ADT 400 ADT 600 ADT LOS F 100 ADT 200 ADT 300 ADT General Notes: 1. By adding proposed Project trips to all other trips from a list of projects, this same table must be used to determine if total cumulative impacts are significant. If cumulative impacts are found to be significant, each project that contributes additional trips must mitigate a share of the cumulative impacts. 2. The County may also determine impacts have occurred on roads even when a project’s traffic or cumulative impacts do not trigger an unacceptable level of service, when such traffic uses a significant amount of remaining road capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 33 Off-Site Circulation Element Roads—PFE, Transportation, Policy 1.1 also addresses off-site Circulation Element roads. It states that “new development shall provide off-site improvements designed to contribute to the overall achievement of a Level of Service D on Circulation Element Roads.” Implementation Measure 1.1.3 addressed projects that would significantly impact congestion on roads operating at LOS E or F. It states, “new development that would significantly impact congestion on roads operating at LOS E or F, either currently or as a result of the Project, will be denied unless improvements are scheduled to attain a LOS to D or better or appropriate mitigation is provided.” The following significance guidelines define a method for evaluating whether or not increased traffic volumes generated or redistributed from a proposed Project will “significantly impact congestion” on County roads, operating at LOS E or F, either currently or as a result of the Project. Traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one or more of the following criteria will have a significant traffic volume or level of service impact on a road segment: ?? The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed Project will significantly increase congestion on a Circulation Element Road or State Highway currently operating at LOS E or LOS F, or will cause a Circulation Element Road or State Highway to operate at a LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed Project as identified in Table 5–2, or ?? The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed Project will cause a residential street to exceed its design capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 34 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The analysis of existing conditions, where data collection was available, includes the assessment of the study area street segments and freeway segments. 6.1 Street Segments Table 6–1 shows that under existing conditions, the study area street segments are calculated to currently operate at a LOS C or better on a daily basis except where noted below in bold typeface. TABLE 6–1 EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS C/E) a Existing ADT b LOS c City of Chula Vista Roadways Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 to Oleander Ave 70,000 61,900 C Heritage Road to La Media 50,000 40,300 B Olympic Parkway I-805 to Brandywine Ave 50,000 47,000 C Brandywine Ave to Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero 50,000 48,700 C Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero to La Media 50,000 50,500 D La Media Rd to SR-125 50,000 43,600 B SR 125 to Eastlake Pkwy 70,000 40,500 A Eastlake Pkwy to Hunte Pkwy 50,000 13,900 A Birch Road La Media Rd to SR-125 40,000 10,200 A Main Street I-805 to Brandywine Ave 50,000 26,400 A Brandywine Ave to Maxwell St 50,000 18,700 A Hunte Parkway Eastlake Pkwy to Exploration Falls Dr 50,000 700 A Exploration Falls Dr to Olympic Pkwy 50,000 800 A Heritage Road Main St to City Boundary 12,000 10,000 B La Media Road Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 50,000 11,000 A Birch Rd to Main St (Rock Mountain Rd) 50,000 1,000 A Eastlake Parkway Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 40,000 9,200 A Birch Rd to Hunte Pkwy 40,000 1,300 A LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 35 TABLE 6–1 EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS C/E) a Existing ADT b LOS c City of San Diego Roadways Heritage Road City Boundary to Avenida de las Vistas 15,000 9,800 C Avenida de las Vistas to Datsun St/Otay Valley Rd 10,000 4,800 B Datsun St/Otay Valley Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 10,000 10,000 E La Media Road Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 10,000 4,400 B Otay Mesa Rd to Future SR-905 15,000 16,500 F Otay Mesa Road Otay Mesa Rd to Corporate Center Dr 60,000 67,000 F Corporate Center Dr to Heritage Rd 60,000 67,500 F Heritage Rd to Britannia Blvd 60,000 70,900 F Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd 60,000 71,100 F La Media Rd to Piper Ranch Rd 45,000 59,000 F Piper Ranch Rd to SR-125 45,000 44,500 E SR-125 to Harvest Rd 40,000 9,700 A Footnotes: a. LOS “C” Capacity based on City of Chula Vista Roadway Classification Table. City and County of San Diego utilizes LOS “E” capacity thresholds. Chula Vista and San Diego Roadway Classification Tables are shown in Appendix B. b. Average Daily Traffic. c. Level of Service. General Notes: Bold typeface represents poor level of service. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 36 6.2 Freeways Table 6–2 summarizes the freeway mainline operations on Interstate 805 and State Route 905. As seen in Table 6–2, all segments are calculated to currently operate at acceptable levels of service. TABLE 6–2 EXISTING FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATIONS Freeway Segment Dir. # of Lanes Hourly Capacity a ADT b % K c % D c Truck Factor d Peak Hour Volume e V/C f LOS AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Interstate 805 Olympic Pkwy/Orange Ave to Main St/Auto Park Dr NB 4M+1A 9,200 151,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 6,193 5,890 0.673 0.640 C C SB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 5,485 7,101 0.596 0.772 B C Main St/Auto Park Dr to Palm Ave NB 4M+1A 9,200 149,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 6,111 5,812 0.664 0.632 C C SB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 5,412 7,007 0.588 0.762 B C Palm Ave to SR-905 NB 4M 8,000 113,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 4,634 4,408 0.579 0.551 B B SB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 4,105 5,314 0.446 0.578 B B State Route 905 I-805 to Otay Mesa Road EB 3M 6,000 60,000 0.0782 0.0864 0.6524 0.3353 0.935 3,274 1,859 0.546 0.310 B B WB 3M 6,000 0.0782 0.0864 0.3476 0.6647 1,744 3,685 0.291 0.614 B B Footnotes: a. Capacity calculated at 2000 vph per lane and 1200 vph per auxiliary lane b. Existing ADT Volumes from CALTRANS 2008 c. Peak Hour Percentage (K) and Direction Split (D) from CALTRANS "2007 Traffic Volumes", June 2008 d. Truck Factor from "2007 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System", Sept 2008 e. Peak Hour Volume = ((ADT)(K)(D)/Truck Factor) f. V/C = ((ADT)(K)(D)/Truck Factor/Capacity) General Notes: Truck Factor data contained in Appendix C. K and D percentages are contained in Appendix C. M = Mainline A = Auxiliary Lane LOS V/C A <0.41 B 0.62 C 0.8 D 0.92 E 1 F(0) 1.25 F(1) 1.35 F(2) 1.45 F(3) >1.46 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 37 7.0 TRAFFIC MODELING PROCESS In order to analyze the effects of the General Plan and General Development Plan Amendment, nine scenarios were established, as described in detail in Section 4.2. The SANDAG Series 11 “South Bay” transportation model was used for the Year 2030 to provide one base year model run and eight alternative model runs. Different land use and network forecasts were assumed for each of the alternatives as described previously in Section 2.2. This information was provided by the City of Chula Vista in direct coordination with SANDAG. Those alternatives identified as the “direct Project” and “cumulative Project”, Alternatives 3 and 7, are further discussed in this section. 7.1 Trip Generation The trip generation for the adopted General Plan and the Project alternatives was calculated based on the proposed changes in land use to the existing Chula Vista General Plan, University & RTP, and City and County of San Diego General Plans. Table 7–1 shows the land use assumptions used for each of these scenarios. TABLE 7–1 YEAR 2030 LAND USE Scenario General Plan Land Use University and RTP Land Use City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan Alt 3B + County of San Diego GP Update Land Use Alternative 1 (Adopted General Plan) Adopted Adopted Adopted Alternative 3 (Direct) Proposed Project (OLC) Proposed Adopted Alternative 7 (Cumulative) Proposed Project (OLC) & JPB Proposed Proposed Source: City of Chula Vista SANDAG Modeling List, Nov. 30, 2009 General Notes: A more detailed list of Project land uses is shown in Table 2–1 and the complete list of land use inputs used in calculating the trip generation is included in Appendix D. 7.2 Trip Capture The SANDAG model accounts for multi-modal means of transport, public transit, and mixed-use reductions when calculating traffic volumes. For instance, the model accounts for the synergy between the various uses and will match trips between nearby uses (such as residential and retail). This results in many trips remaining internal to the GPA and GDPA area and therefore, limits trips to the regional network. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 38 The results output by the SANDAG model accounting for trip generation and trip capture calculated the Project (Villages 8 West, 9 and the RTP) to generate 113,073 total trips as shown in Table 7–2. In addition, it should be noted that there is a Bus Rapid Transit route planned through Village 9, which is included in the traffic model, and Village 8 West is transit ready as required by the General Plan. TABLE 7–2 YEAR 2030 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Project Area Alternative 3 Volume (ADT) Village 8 West 43,564 Village 9 56,123 Regional Technology Park 13,386 Total Trips 113,073 Source: City of Chula Vista SANDAG Model, Nov. 30, 2009 General Notes: 1. Volume represents Average Daily Traffic volume generated by the SANDAG model. 2. A more detailed list of Project land uses is shown in Table 2–1 and the complete list of land use inputs inputs used in calculating the trip generation is included in Appendix D. 3. Alternative 7 contains no change in the Project trip generation. Appendix D contains the Land Use Inventory Tables used in the SANDAG models. 7.3 Year 2030 Roadway Network For the purpose of the Year 2030 analysis, all roadway segments were assumed to be built out to their classifications as identified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan, County of San Diego General Plan, and City of San Diego General Plan. The exceptions are the proposed specific changes listed below, as described in Section 2.2.1. 1. Eliminate southerly extension of La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley. 2. Reclassify a portion of La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 extending south to the Active Recreation area from a six lane arterial to “Other Roads”. 3. Change name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway. 4. Reclassify Main Street from a Town Center Arterial (Couplet) easterly of SR-125 to a Six-Lane Gateway. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 39 5. Reclassify the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet from a Six-Lane Town Center Arterial (Couplet) to a Four-Lane Town Center Arterial (Couplet) within Village 8 West. 6. Reclassify and realign the segment of La Media Road from the Town Center Arterials at the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet south easterly to SR-125 as a Four-Lane Major. 7. Provide that Urban LOS D is acceptable for Town Center Arterials. A more detailed discussion of Town Center Arterial level of service is included in Section 910.0. 8. Eliminate requirement for park and ride facilities at the Village 9/University Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop. 9. Clarify that the mid-arterial SR-125 crossing between Villages 8 East and 9 is pedestrian only. Table 7–3 summarizes the network assumptions for each of the analyzed scenarios. TABLE 7–3 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY NETWORK Scenario Circulation Element La Media Road Bridge SR-125 Alternative 1 (Adopted General Plan) Adopted In Tollway Alternative 3 (Direct) Proposed Out Tollway Alternative 7 (Cumulative) Proposed Out Tollway Source: City of Chula Vista SANDAG Modeling List, Nov. 30, 2009 In addition, the number of freeway mainline lanes, auxiliary lanes, and managed lanes were taken from the network assumptions used in the SANDAG South Bay model. Changes proposed to the freeway network for future conditions are shown below in Table 7–4: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\Final Submittal\1885 Report.docN:\1885\Submittals\1 th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 40 TABLE 7–4 YEAR 2030 FREEWAY CONDITIONS Freeway Segment Dir. # of Lanes Existing Year 2030 Interstate 805 Olympic Pkwy/Orange Ave to Main St/Auto Park Dr NB 4M+1A 4M+1A+2ML SB 4M+1A 4M+1A+2ML Main St/Auto Park Dr to Palm Ave NB 4M+1A 4M+1A+2ML SB 4M+1A 4M+12ML Palm Ave to SR-905 NB 4M 4M+1A+2ML SB 4M+1A 4M+1A+2ML State Route 125 Olympic Pkwy to SR-905 NB 2M 2M SB 2M 2M State Route 905 I-805 to Ocean View Hills Pkwy EB 3M 4M+1A WB 3M 4M+1A Ocean View Hills Pkwy to Heritage Rd EB 3M 4M WB 3M 4M+1A Heritage Rd to Britannia Blvd EB 3M 4M+1A WB 3M 4M+1A Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd EB 3M 4M+1A WB 3M 4M La Media Rd to SR-125 EB 3M 4M WB 2M 4M General Notes: M = Mainline A = Auxiliary Lane ML = Managed Lanes LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 41 7.4 Year 2030 Forecast Volumes All of the traffic volumes for the adopted General Plan conditions and Project alternatives were obtained from the SANDAG South Bay model. Figures 7–1, 7–2 and 7–3 depict the Year 2030 average daily traffic volumes for Alternatives 1, 3 and 7, respectively. Minor adjustments were made to reflect the most accurate possible travel patterns within the study area. Street segments affected by these adjustments are those in close proximity to Interstate 805 along Main Street and Olympic Parkway. The initial results from the traffic model indicated very high volumes utilizing the Main Street interchange at I-805 while significantly less vehicles were assumed to use Olympic Parkway, a parallel roadway less than one mile north of Main Street, which would be forecasted to operate at LOS B. It would not be practical to assume drivers would utilize a roadway operating at LOS F conditions when a parallel roadway located less than one mile away operates at LOS B conditions. It was therefore agreed upon with City Staff to shift 10,000 vehicle trips from Main Street to Olympic Parkway between I-805 and Heritage Road. Additionally, it should be noted that some roadways experience either no change in daily trips or a decrease in daily trips under Alternatives 3 and 7 as compared to Alternative 1. This occurrence can partially be attributed to the proposed deletion of the La Media Road bridge. Due to the removal of this bridge, vehicles which would otherwise have used the bridge would be rerouted to parallel streets. This therefore results in no change or a decrease in volumes on roadways such as portions of Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Main Street (Rock Mountain Road), Hunte Parkway, and Otay Mesa Road. Concurrently, it would lead to an increase in volumes along alternative roadways connecting Chula Vista to the City of San Diego, such as Heritage Road and SR-125. Appendix E contains the SANDAG model traffic volumes plots and the post-modeling reports for Alternatives 1, 3 and 7. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 45 8.0 YEAR 2030 DIRECT & CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS In order to calculate potential direct and cumulative impacts Alternatives 3 and 7 were analyzed against Alternative 1. Alternative 1 consists of the 2005 GPU adopted land uses and network assumptions throughout the Project Area with the exception of the deferral area which continues to use 2001 adopted General Plan land uses. This translates to mean that Year 2030 build out under Alternative 1 would use the 2005 GPU adopted land uses and network throughout the Project Area, with the exception of the deferral area which uses 2001 adopted General Plan land uses. Alternative 3 measures the direct impacts of the Project against the adopted General Plan (Alternative 1). The Project itself consists of the proposed network changes listed in Section 2.2.1 and the proposed Project land uses. Alternative 7 measures the cumulative impacts of the Project against the adopted General Plan. In addition to the Project network conditions and land uses, Alternative 7 includes the remaining land uses within the Project Area. These include those identified in the JPB LOA, the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan Update, and County of San Diego General Plan Updated land uses, as reasonably foreseeable projects. A level of service analysis was not conducted for the remaining six alternatives. 8.1 Year 2030 Alternative 1 – Adopted General Plan 8.1.1 Segment Operations Table 8–1 shows that under the adopted General Plan land uses and network assumptions used in Alternative 1, the following street segments are calculated to operate at a LOS D or worse conditions in the City of Chula Vista: ?? Olympic Parkway between I-805 NB Ramps to Brandywine Avenue – LOS D ?? Main Street between I-805 to Brandywine Avenue – LOS D ?? Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway – LOS D All street segments in the City and County of San Diego are calculated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better conditions. Figure 8–1 graphically shows the roadway segments level of service for Alternative 1. 8.1.2 Freeway Mainline Operations Freeway segments were analyzed during the AM and PM peak hours based on the methodologies developed by CALTRANS District 11. The procedure involves comparing the peak hour volume of the mainline segment to the theoretical capacity of the roadway (V/C). The procedure for calculating freeway LOS involves the estimation of volume to capacity (V/C) ratio using the following equation: V/C = ((AADT x Peak Hour Percent x Directional Factor)/(Truck Terrain Factor)) Lane Capacity A detailed discussion of the freeway analysis methodology is contained in Section 4.5 of the report. Table 8–3 contains the freeway factors used to analyze I-805, SR-125 and SR-905. It should be LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 46 noted that the SANDAG South Bay model includes the addition of managed lanes on Interstate 805 within the study area. Table 8–4 shows the freeway mainline operations on I-805, SR-125 and SR-905 for Alternative 1 conditions. As shown in Table 8–4, for the Year 2030 with the adopted General Plan land uses and network assumptions used in Alternative 1, the following locations operate at LOS E or worse conditions: Interstate 805 ?? PM Southbound: Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive ?? PM Southbound: Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue State Route 905 ?? PM Westbound: I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway ?? AM Eastbound: Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road 8.2 Year 2030 Alternative 3 – Direct Project 8.2.1 Segment Operations Table 8–1 shows that for the Year 2030 with the proposed GPA and GDPA land uses and network assumptions used in Alternative 3 (direct Project), the following street segments are calculated to operate at a LOS D or worse conditions in the City of Chula Vista: ?? Olympic Parkway between I-805 NB Ramps to Brandywine Avenue – LOS D ?? Main Street between I-805 to Brandywine Avenue – LOS D ?? Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street “A” – LOS E All street segments in the City and County of San Diego are calculated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better conditions. Figure 8–2 graphically shows the roadway segments level of service for Alternative 3. 8.2.2 Freeway Mainline Operations Table 8–4 shows the freeway mainline operations on I-805, SR-125 and SR-905 for the Year 2030 Alternative 3 conditions. As shown in Table 8–2, for the Year 2030 with the proposed GPA and GDPA land uses and network assumptions used in Alternative 3 (direct Project), the following locations operate at LOS E or worse conditions: Interstate 805 ?? PM Southbound: Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive ?? PM Southbound: Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 47 State Route 905 ?? PM Westbound: I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway ?? AM Eastbound: Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road ?? PM Westbound: Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road 8.3 Year 2030 Alternative 7 – Cumulative Project 8.3.1 Segment Operations Table 8–2 shows that for the Year 2030 with the remaining Project Area land uses (including JPB LOA densities), and City and County of San Diego proposed land uses in addition to the proposed Project, the following street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or worse conditions in the City of Chula Vista: ?? Olympic Parkway between I-805 NB Ramps to Brandywine Avenue – LOS D ?? Olympic Parkway between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road – LOS D ?? Main Street between I-805 to Brandywine Avenue – LOS E ?? Main Street between Brandywine Avenue and Maxwell Street – LOS D ?? Otay Valley Road between La Media Road and SR-125 – LOS D ?? Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street “A” – LOS F ?? Heritage Road between Main Street and the City Boundary – LOS E In the City of San Diego, the following street segments are calculated to operate at a LOS E or F conditions: ?? Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Avenida de las Vistas – LOS F ?? Heritage Road between Avenida de las Vistas and Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road – LOS E ?? Heritage Road between Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road and Otay Mesa Road – LOS F Both street segments in the County of San Diego are calculated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better conditions. Figure 8–3 graphically shows the roadway segments level of service for Alternative 7. 8.3.2 Freeway Mainline Operations Table 8–5 shows the freeway mainline operations on I-805, SR-125 and SR-905 for the Year 2030 cumulative conditions. As shown in Table 8–5, for the Year 2030 with the remaining Project Area land uses and City and County of San Diego proposed land uses uses in addition to the proposed Project, the following locations operate at LOS E or worse conditions: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 48 Interstate 805 ?? AM Northbound: Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive ?? PM Southbound: Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive ?? PM Southbound: Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue ?? PM Southbound: Palm Avenue to SR-905 State Route 125 ?? AM Northbound: Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road ?? PM Southbound: Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road ?? PM Southbound: Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road State Route 905 ?? AM Eastbound: I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway ?? PM Westbound: I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway ?? AM Eastbound: Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road ?? PM Westbound: Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road ?? AM Eastbound: Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard ?? PM Westbound: Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard ?? AM Eastbound: Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road ?? PM Westbound: Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road ?? PM Westbound: La Media Road to SR-125 A summary of potential significant direct and cumulative impacts is discussed later on in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 49 TABLE 8–1 YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS DIRECT IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE 1 VS. 3 City of Chula Vista Roadways Adopted LOS "C” Capacity a Alternative 1 Proposed LOS "C” Capacity a Alternative 3 Measure of Significance ADT b LOS c ADT LOS Direct Project Contributes “x” Amount Toward Traffic Volume Direct Project Contributes “x” % Toward Traffic Volume Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 to Oleander Ave 70,000 60,000 B NC 60,200 B 200 0.3% Heritage Road to La Media 50,000 46,300 C NC 47,400 C 1,100 2.3% Olympic Parkway I-805 to Brandywine Ave 50,000 50,700 D NC 50,700 D 0 0.0% Brandywine Ave to Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero 50,000 33,900 A NC 33,900 A 0 0.0% Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero to La Media 50,000 31,000 A NC 32,700 A 1,700 5.2% La Media Rd to SR-125 50,000 42,200 B NC 43,400 B 1,200 2.8% SR 125 to Eastlake Pkwy 70,000 50,400 A NC 49,500 A -900 -1.8% Eastlake Pkwy to Hunte Pkwy 50,000 34,100 A NC 34,100 A 0 0.0% Hunte Pkwy to Wueste Rd 30,000 27,000 C NC 26,300 B -700 -2.7% Birch Road La Media Rd to SR-125 40,000 22,600 A NC 23,800 A 1,200 5.0% SR-125 to Eastlake Pkwy 50,000 24,700 A NC 27,400 A 2,700 9.9% Main Street I-805 to Brandywine Ave 50,000 54,800 D NC 53,000 D -1,800 -3.4% Brandywine Ave to Maxwell St 50,000 48,800 C NC 46,200 C -2,600 -5.6% Maxwell S to Heritage Rd 50,000 43,000 B NC 40,800 B -2,200 -5.4% Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) Heritage Rd to Main St/La Media Rd Couplet 50,000 45,000 C NC 42,900 B -2,100 -4.9% Main St/La Media Rd Couplet to SR-125 50,000 38,800 B NC 33,000 A -5,800 -17.6% SR-125 to Eastlake Pkwy 50,000 50,300 D 61,200 d 38,900 A -11,400 -29.3% Hunte Parkway Eastlake Pkwy to Exploration Falls Dr 50,000 39,400 B NC 33,900 A -5,500 -16.2% Exploration Falls Dr to Olympic Pkwy 50,000 29,700 A NC 28,000 A -1,700 -6.1% LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 50 TABLE 8–1 YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS DIRECT IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE 1 VS. 3 City of Chula Vista Roadways Adopted LOS "C” Capacity a Alternative 1 Proposed LOS "C” Capacity a Alternative 3 Measure of Significance ADT b LOS c ADT LOS Direct Project Contributes “x” Amount Toward Traffic Volume Direct Project Contributes “x” % Toward Traffic Volume Otay Valley Road La Media Rd to SR-125 30,000 19,700 A NC 24,700 B 5,000 20.2% SR-125 to Street “A” 30,000 29,300 C NC 35,900 E 6,600 18.4% Street “A” to Eastlake Pkwy 30,000 17,000 A NC 13,600 A 1,600 8.6% Heritage Road Olympic Pkwy to Main St (Rock Mountain Rd) 50,000 30,300 A NC 33,400 A 3,100 9.3% Main St (Rock Mountain Rd) to City Boundary 50,000 33,700 A NC 41,700 B 8,000 19.2% La Media Road Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 50,000 31,300 A NC 26,300 A -5,000 -19.0% Birch Rd to Main St/La Media Rd Couplet 50,000 23,900 A NC 15,700 A -8,200 -52.2% Main St/La Media Rd Couplet 50,000 32,100 A 30,000 25,400 B -6,700 -26.4% Main St/La Media Rd Couplet to Otay Valley Rd 50,000 32,100 A 30,000 25,400 B -6,700 -26.4% Otay Valley Rd to Lonestar Rd 50,000 44,800 C NC DNE DNE — — Eastlake Parkway Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 40,000 28,800 A NC 27,400 A -1,400 -5.1% Birch Rd to Hunte Pkwy 40,000 22,900 A NC 23,000 A 100 0.4% Hunte Pkwy to Otay Valley Rd 30,000 13,900 A NC 15,500 A 1,600 10.3% LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 51 TABLE 8–1 YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS DIRECT IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE 1 VS. 3 City of San Diego Roadways Adopted LOS "E” Capacity a Alternative 1 Proposed LOS "E” Capacity a Alternative 3 Measure of Significance ADT b LOS c V/C e ADT LOS V/C ? V/C f Heritage Road City Boundary to Avenida de las Vistas 50,000 31,500 B 0.53 NC 40,000 C 0.67 0.14 Avenida de las Vistas to Datsun St/Otay Valley Rd 50,000 18,000 A 0.36 NC 25,600 B 0.51 0.15 Datsun St/Otay Valley Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 50,000 24,600 B 0.49 NC 32,200 C 0.64 0.15 Otay Mesa Rd to SR-905 50,000 9,100 A 0.18 NC 10,000 A 0.20 0.02 La Media Road Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 60,000 32,500 B 0.54 NC 20,300 A 0.34 (0.20) Otay Mesa Rd to SR-905 60,000 25,000 A 0.42 NC 21,900 A 0.37 (0.05) Otay Mesa Road Otay Mesa Rd to Corporate Center Dr 60,000 32,900 B 0.55 NC 32,400 32,400 B 0.65 0.10 Corporate Center Dr to Heritage Rd 60,000 20,200 A 0.34 NC 19,300 A 0.39 0.05 Heritage Rd to Britannia Blvd 60,000 23,000 A 0.38 NC 22,800 A 0.46 0.07 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd 60,000 22,800 A 0.38 NC 21,000 A 0.42 0.04 La Media Rd to Piper Ranch Rd 80,000 13,500 A 0.17 NC 14,900 A 0.25 0.08 Piper Ranch Rd to SR-125 50,000 12,000 A 0.24 NC 12,700 A 0.32 0.08 SR-125 to Harvest Rd 50,000 14,500 A 0.29 NC 16,800 A 0.42 0.13 Airway Road Cactus Rd to Britannia Blvd 40,000 4,600 A 0.12 NC 5,100 A 0.13 0.01 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd 40,000 12,200 A 0.31 NC 13,200 A 0.33 0.03 Siempre Viva Road Cactus Rd to Britannia Blvd 60,000 6,900 A 0.12 NC 7,500 A 0.13 0.01 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd 60,000 4,600 A 0.08 NC 5,200 A 0.09 0.01 La Media Rd to Avenida de la Fuente 60,000 6,400 A 0.11 NC 6,400 A 0.11 0.00 Avenida de la Fuente to SR-905 60,000 21,500 A 0.36 NC 22,300 A 0.37 0.01 Piper Ranch Road Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 30,000 2,900 A 0.10 NC 5,300 A 0.18 0.08 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 52 TABLE 8–1 YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS DIRECT IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE 1 VS. 3 County of San Diego Roadways Adopted LOS "E” Capacity a Alternative 1 Proposed LOS "E” Capacity a Alternative 3 Measure of Significance ADT b LOS c ADT LOS Direct Project ? in Volume Bonita Road Central Ave to San Miguel Rd 37,000 15,700 B NC 15,800 B 100 Sweetwater Road Bonita Rd to Park Dr 37,000 25,000 C NC 24,400 B (600) Footnotes: a. LOS “C” Capacity based on City of Chula Vista Roadway Classification Table. City and County of San Diego utilizes LOS “E” capacity thresholds. Chula Vista and San Diego Roadway Classification Tables are shown in Appendix B. b. Average Daily Traffic. c. Level of Service. d. Under Adopted General Plan, 6-Lane Gateway allows for LOS D operations. e. V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. f. ? V/C = Increase in V/V/C due to Project. g. A significant direct impact is calculated at this location due to the downsize of the Main Street/La Media Road couplet from 6 lanes to 4 lanes. General Notes: Bold typeface represents unacceptable level of service based on appropriate jurisdiction’s significance criteria. Shading represents potential significant impact. DNE = Does not exist NC = No Change in roadway capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 53 TABLE 8–2 YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE 1 VS. 7 City of Chula Vista Roadways Adopted LOS "C” Capacity a Alternative 1 Proposed LOS "C” Capacity a Alternative 7 Measure of Significance ADT b LOS c ADT LOS Cumulative Project Contributes “x” Amount Toward Traffic Volume Cumulative Project Contributes “x” % Toward Traffic Volume Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 to Oleander Ave 70,000 60,000 B NC 59,300 B -700 -1.2% Heritage Road to La Media 50,000 46,300 C NC 47,100 C 800 1.7% Olympic Parkway I-805 to Brandywine Ave 50,000 50,700 D NC 51,300 D 600 1.2% Brandywine Ave to Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero 50,000 33,900 A NC 34,800 A 900 2.6% Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero to La Media 50,000 31,000 A NC 33,300 A 2,300 6.9% La Media Rd to SR-125 50,000 42,200 B NC 43,900 C 1,700 3.9% SR 125 to Eastlake Pkwy 70,000 50,400 A NC 49,400 A -1,000 -2.0% Eastlake Pkwy to Hunte Pkwy 50,000 34,100 A NC 34,200 A 100 0.3% Hunte Pkwy to Wueste Rd 30,000 27,000 C NC 30,100 D 3,100 10.3% Birch Road La Media Rd to SR-125 40,000 22,600 A NC 26,200 A 3,600 13.7% SR-125 to Eastlake Pkwy 50,000 24,700 A NC 28,500 A 3,800 13.3% Main Street I-805 to Brandywine Ave 50,000 54,800 D NC 59,300 E 4,500 7.6% Brandywine Ave to Maxwell St 50,000 48,800 C NC 50,200 D 1,400 2.8% Maxwell S to Heritage Rd 50,000 43,000 B NC 45,200 C 2,200 4.9% Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) Heritage Rd to Main St/La Media Rd Couplet 50,000 45,000 C NC 44,900 C -100 -0.2% Main St/La Media Rd Couplet to SR-125 50,000 38,800 B NC 33,100 A -5,700 -17.2% SR-125 to Eastlake Pkwy 50,000 50,300 D 61,200 d 43,400 B -6,900 -15.9% Hunte Parkway Eastlake Pkwy to Exploration Falls Dr 50,000 39,400 B NC 40,000 B 600 1.5% Exploration Falls Dr to Olympic Pkwy 50,000 29,700 A NC 31,600 A 1,900 6.0% LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 54 TABLE 8–2 YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE 1 VS. 7 City of Chula Vista Roadways Adopted LOS "C” Capacity a Alternative 1 Proposed LOS "C” Capacity a Alternative 7 Measure of Significance ADT b LOS c ADT LOS Cumulative Project Contributes “x” Amount Toward Traffic Volume Cumulative Project Contributes “x” % Toward Traffic Volume Otay Valley Road La Media Rd to SR-125 30,000 19,700 A NC 31,400 D 11,700 37.3% SR-125 to Street “A” 30,000 29,300 C NC 38,500 F 9,200 23.9% Street “A” to Eastlake Pkwy 30,000 17,000 A NC 16,100 A 4,100 19.4% Heritage Road Olympic Pkwy to Main St (Rock Mountain Rd) 50,000 30,300 A NC 42,300 B 12,000 28.4% Main St (Rock Mountain Rd) to City Boundary 50,000 33,700 A NC 61,400 E 27,700 45.1% La Media Road Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 50,000 31,300 A NC 28,300 A -3,000 -10.6% Birch Rd to Main St/La Media Rd Couplet 50,000 23,900 A NC 18,000 A -5,900 -32.8% Main St/La Media Rd Couplet 50,000 32,100 A 30,000 27,200 C -4,900 -18.0% Main St/La Media Rd Couplet to Otay Valley Rd 50,000 32,100 A 30,000 27,300 C -4,800 -17.6% Otay Valley Rd to Lonestar Rd 50,000 44,800 C NC DNE DNE — — Eastlake Parkway Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 40,000 28,800 A NC 27,600 A -1,200 -4.3% Birch Rd to Hunte Pkwy 40,000 22,900 A NC 22,800 A -100 -0.4% Hunte Pkwy to Otay Valley Rd 30,000 13,900 A NC 18,600 A 4,700 25.3% LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 55 TABLE 8–2 YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE 1 VS. 7 City of San Diego Roadways Adopted LOS "E” Capacity a Alternative 1 Proposed LOS "E” Capacity a Alternative 7 Measure of Significance ADT b LOS c V/C e ADT LOS V/C ? V/C f Heritage Road City Boundary to Avenida de las Vistas 50,000 31,500 B 0.53 NC 60,200 F 1.00 0.48 Avenida de las Vistas to Datsun St/Otay Valley Rd 50,000 18,000 A 0.36 NC 47,400 E 0.95 0.59 Datsun St/Otay Valley Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 50,000 24,600 B 0.49 NC 52,600 F 1.05 0.56 Otay Mesa Rd to SR-905 50,000 9,100 A 0.18 NC 20,800 B 0.42 0.23 La Media Road Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 60,000 32,500 B 0.54 NC 16,400 A 0.27 (0.27) Otay Mesa Rd to SR-905 60,000 25,000 A 0.42 NC 37,300 C 0.62 0.21 Otay Mesa Road Otay Mesa Rd to Corporate Center Dr 60,000 32,900 B 0.55 NC 48,200 C 0.96 0.42 Corporate Center Dr to Heritage Rd 60,000 20,200 A 0.34 NC 32,500 B 0.65 0.31 Heritage Rd to Britannia Blvd 60,000 23,000 A 0.38 NC 45,600 C 0.91 0.53 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd 60,000 22,800 A 0.38 NC 47,300 C 0.95 0.57 La Media Rd to Piper Ranch Rd 80,000 13,500 A 0.17 NC 49,600 C 0.83 0.66 Piper Ranch Rd to SR-125 50,000 12,000 A 0.24 NC 33,200 C 0.83 0.59 SR-125 to Harvest Rd 50,000 14,500 A 0.29 NC 39,000 C 0.98 0.69 Airway Road Cactus Rd to Britannia Blvd 40,000 4,600 A 0.12 NC 25,400 C 0.64 0.52 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd 40,000 12,200 A 0.31 NC 31,100 D 0.78 0.47 Siempre Viva Road Cactus Rd to Britannia Blvd 60,000 6,900 A 0.12 NC 39,500 C 0.66 0.54 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd 60,000 4,600 A 0.08 NC 54,100 D 0.90 0.83 La Media Rd to Avenida de la Fuente 60,000 6,400 A 0.11 NC 26,300 B 0.44 0.33 Avenida de la Fuente to SR-905 60,000 21,500 A 0.36 NC 50,100 D 0.84 0.48 Piper Ranch Road Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd 30,000 2,900 A 0.10 NC 5,200 A 0.17 0.08 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 56 TABLE 8–2 YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE 1 VS. 7 County of San Diego Roadways Adopted LOS "E” Capacity a Alternative 1 Proposed LOS "E” Capacity a Alternative 7 Measure of Significance ADT b LOS c ADT LOS Cumulative Project ? in Volume Bonita Road Central Ave to San Miguel Rd 37,000 15,700 B NC 16,200 B 500 Sweetwater Road Bonita Rd to Park Dr 37,000 25,000 C NC 25,900 C 900 Footnotes: a. LOS “C” Capacity based on City of Chula Vista Roadway Classification Table. City and County of San Diego utilizes LOS “E” capacity thresholds. Chula Vista and San Diego Roadway Classification Tables are shown in Appendix B. b. Average Daily Traffic. c. Level of Service. d. Under Adopted General Plan, 6-Lane Gateway allows for LOS D operations. e. V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. f. ? V/C = Increase in V/C due to Project. g. A significant cumulative impact is calculated at this location due to the downsize of the Main Street/La Media Road couplet from 6 lanes to 4 lanes. General Notes: Bold typeface represents unacceptable level of service based on appropriate jurisdiction’s significance criteria. Shading represents potential significant impact. DNE = Does not exist NC = No Change in roadway capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 57 TABLE 8–3 YEAR 2030 FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS INPUTS Freeway Segment Dir. # of Lanes Hourly Capacity a % K c % D c Truck AM PM AM PM Factor d Interstate 805 Olympic Pkwy/Orange Ave to Main St/Auto Park Dr NB 4M+1A+2ML 11,600 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 4M+1A+2ML 11,600 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 Main St/Auto Park Dr to Palm Ave NB 4M+1A+2ML 11,600 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 4M+12ML 10,400 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 Palm Ave to SR-905 NB 4M+1A+2ML 11,600 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 4M+1A+2ML 11,600 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 State Route 125 Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd NB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 Birch Rd to Main St/Rock Mountain Rd NB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 Main St/Rock Mountain Rd to Otay Valley Rd NB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 Otay Valley Rd to Lonestar Rd NB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd NB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 Otay Mesa Rd to SR-905 NB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.5303 0.4534 0.931 SB 2M 4,000 0.0720 0.0801 0.4697 0.5466 State Route 905 I-805 to Ocean View Hills Pkwy EB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0782 0.0864 0.6524 0.3353 0.935 WB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0782 0.0864 0.3476 0.6647 Ocean View Hills Pkwy to Heritage Rd EB 4M 8,000 0.0782 0.0864 0.6524 0.3353 0.935 WB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0782 0.0864 0.3476 0.6647 Heritage Rd to Britannia Blvd EB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0782 0.0864 0.6524 0.3353 0.935 WB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0782 0.0864 0.3476 0.6647 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd EB 4M+1A 9,200 0.0782 0.0864 0.6524 0.3353 0.935 WB 4M 8,000 0.0782 0.0864 0.3476 0.6647 La Media Rd to SR-125 EB 4M 8,000 0.0782 0.0864 0.6524 0.3353 0.935 WB 4M 8,000 0.0782 0.0864 0.3476 0.6647 Footnotes: a. Capacity calculated at 2000 vph per lane and 1200 vph per auxiliary lane b. Peak Hour Percentage (K) and Direction Split (D) from CALTRANS "2007 Traffic Volumes", June 2008. I-805 northbound and southbound K and D percentages and truck factors used on SR-125 since data is not available. c. Truck Factor from "2007 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System", Sept 2008 General Notes: Truck Factor data contained in Appendix C. K and D percentages are contained in Appendix C. M = Mainline A = Auxiliary Lane ML = Managed Lanes LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 58 TABLE 8–4 YEAR 2030 FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATIONS DIRECT IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVES 1 VS. 3 Freeway Segment Dir. Alternative 1 V/C c LOS Alternative 3 V/C LOS ? V/C d ADT a AM b PM b AM PM AM PM ADT AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Interstate 805 Olympic Pkwy/Orange Ave to Main St/Auto Park Dr NB 238,400 9,777 9,300 0.843 0.802 D D 238,000 9,771 9,294 0.842 0.801 D D -0.001 0.000 SB 8,660 11,211 0.747 0.966 C E 8,655 11,205 0.746 0.966 C E 0.000 -0.001 Main St/Auto Park Dr to Palm Ave NB 221,000 9,064 8,621 0.781 0.743 C C 224,900 9,233 8,783 0.796 0.757 C C 0.015 0.014 SB 8,028 10,393 0.772 0.999 C E 8,178 10,588 0.786 1.018 C F(0) 0.014 0.019 Palm Ave to SR-905 NB 201,800 8,276 7,872 0.713 0.679 C C 205,400 8,424 8,012 0.726 0.691 C C 0.013 0.012 SB 7,330 9,490 0.632 0.818 C D 7,461 9,659 0.643 0.833 C D 0.011 0.015 State Route 125 Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd NB 11,200 459 437 0.115 0.109 B B 13,400 550 523 0.137 0.131 B B 0.023 0.021 SB 407 527 0.102 0.132 B B 487 630 0.122 0.158 B B 0.020 0.026 Birch Rd to Main St/Rock Mountain Rd NB 9,900 406 386 0.102 0.097 B B 13,700 562 534 0.140 0.134 B B 0.039 0.037 SB 360 466 0.090 0.116 B B 498 644 0.124 0.161 B B 0.035 0.045 Main St/Rock Mountain Rd to Otay Valley Rd NB 20,000 820 780 0.205 0.195 B B 23,900 980 932 0.245 0.233 B B 0.040 0.038 SB 726 941 0.182 0.235 B B 868 1,124 0.217 0.281 B B 0.035 0.046 Otay Valley Rd to Lonestar Rd NB 33,100 1,357 1,291 0.339 0.323 B B 57,800 2,370 2,255 0.593 0.564 B B 0.253 0.241 SB 1,202 1,557 0.301 0.389 B B 2,100 2,718 0.525 0.680 B C 0.224 0.290 Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd NB 44,500 1,825 1,736 0.456 0.434 B B 53,400 2,190 2,083 0.548 0.521 B B 0.091 0.087 SB 1,616 2,093 0.404 0.523 B B 1,940 2,511 0.485 0.628 B C 0.081 0.105 Otay Mesa Rd to SR-905 NB 30,800 1,263 1,201 0.316 0.300 B B 26,000 1,066 1,014 0.267 0.254 B B -0.049 -0.047 SB 1,119 1,448 0.280 0.362 B B 944 1,223 0.236 0.306 B B -0.044 -0.056 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 59 TABLE 8–4 YEAR 2030 FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATIONS DIRECT IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVES 1 VS. 3 Freeway Segment Dir. Alternative 1 V/C c LOS Alternative 3 V/C LOS ? V/C d ADT a AM b PM b AM PM AM PM ADT AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM State Route 905 I-805 to Ocean View Hills Pkwy EB 146,500 7,994 4,539 0.869 0.493 D B 147,700 8,059 4,576 0.876 0.497 D B 0.007 0.004 WB 4,259 8,998 0.463 0.978 B E 4,294 9,072 0.467 0.986 B E 0.004 0.008 Ocean View Hills Pkwy to Heritage Rd EB 134,900 7,361 4,180 0.920 0.522 E B 136,700 7,459 4,235 0.932 0.529 E B 0.012 0.007 WB 3,922 8,286 0.426 0.901 B D 3,974 8,396 0.432 0.913 B D 0.006 0.012 Heritage Rd to Britannia Blvd EB 126,600 6,908 3,923 0.751 0.426 C B 129,200 7,050 4,003 0.766 0.435 C B 0.015 0.009 WB 3,681 7,776 0.400 0.845 B D 3,756 7,936 0.408 0.863 B D 0.008 0.017 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd EB 118,400 6,460 3,668 0.702 0.399 C B 121,800 6,646 3,774 0.722 0.410 C B 0.020 0.011 WB 3,442 7,272 0.430 0.909 B D 3,541 7,481 0.443 0.935 B E 0.012 0.026 La Media Rd to SR-125 EB 95,100 5,189 2,947 0.649 0.368 C B 97,900 5,342 3,033 0.668 0.379 C B 0.019 0.011 WB 2,765 5,841 0.346 0.730 B C 2,846 6,013 0.356 0.752 B C 0.010 0.021 Footnotes: a. ADT Volumes from SANDAG South Bay Models b. Peak Hour Volume = ((ADT)(K)(D)/Truck Factor) c. V/C = ((ADT)(K)(D)/Truck Factor/Capacity) d. ? V/C = Increase in V/C due to the Project General Notes: See Table 8–4 for freeway analysis factors. Bold typeface represents poor level of service. Shading represents potential significant impact. LOS V/C A <0.41 B 0.62 C 0.8 D 0.92 E 1 F(0) 1.25 F(1) 1.35 F(2) 1.45 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 60 TABLE 8–5 YEAR 2030 FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVES 1 VS. 7 Freeway Segment Dir. Alternative 1 V/C c LOS Alternative 7 V/C LOS ? V/C d ADT a AM b PM b AM PM AM PM ADT AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Interstate 805 Olympic Pkwy/Orange Ave to Main St/Auto Park Dr NB 238,400 9,777 9,300 0.843 0.802 D D 268,000 11,003 10,466 0.949 0.902 E D 0.106 0.101 SB 8,660 11,211 0.747 0.966 C E 9,746 12,617 0.840 1.088 D F(0) 0.094 0.121 Main St/Auto Park Dr to Palm Ave NB 221,000 9,064 8,621 0.781 0.743 C C 258,100 10,596 10,079 0.913 0.869 D D 0.132 0.126 SB 8,028 10,393 0.772 0.999 C E 9,386 12,151 0.902 1.168 D F(0) 0.131 0.169 Palm Ave to SR-905 NB 201,800 8,276 7,872 0.713 0.679 C C 236,500 9,699 9,226 0.836 0.795 D C 0.123 0.117 SB 7,330 9,490 0.632 0.818 C D 8,591 11,122 0.741 0.959 C E 0.109 0.109 0.141 State Route 125 Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd NB 11,200 459 437 0.115 0.109 B B 28,100 1,152 1,096 0.288 0.274 B B 0.173 0.165 SB 407 527 0.102 0.132 B B 1,021 1,321 0.255 0.330 B B 0.153 0.199 Birch Rd to Main St/Rock Mountain Rd NB 9,900 406 386 0.102 0.097 B B 30,200 1,239 1,178 0.310 0.295 B B 0.208 0.198 SB 360 466 0.090 0.116 B B 1,097 1,420 0.274 0.355 B B 0.184 0.239 Main St/Rock Mountain Rd to Otay Valley Rd NB 20,000 820 780 0.205 0.195 B B 46,300 1,899 1,806 0.475 0.452 B B 0.270 0.256 SB 726 941 0.182 0.235 B B 1,682 2,177 0.420 0.544 B B 0.239 0.309 Otay Valley Rd to Lonestar Rd NB 33,100 1,357 1,291 0.339 0.323 B B 90,700 3,720 3,538 0.930 0.885 E D 0.591 0.562 SB 1,202 1,557 0.301 0.389 B B 3,295 4,265 0.824 1.066 D F(0) 0.523 0.677 Lonestar Rd to Otay Mesa Rd NB 44,500 1,825 1,736 0.456 0.434 B B 80,600 3,306 3,144 0.826 0.786 D C 0.370 0.352 SB 1,616 2,093 0.404 0.523 B B 2,928 3,790 0.732 0.948 C E 0.328 0.424 Otay Mesa Rd to SR-905 NB 30,800 1,263 1,201 0.316 0.300 B B 33,700 1,382 1,382 1,315 0.346 0.329 B B 0.030 0.028 SB 1,119 1,448 0.280 0.362 B B 1,224 1,585 0.306 0.396 B B 0.026 0.034 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 61 TABLE 8–5 YEAR 2030 FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACT DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVES 1 VS. 7 Freeway Segment Dir. Alternative 1 V/C c LOS Alternative 7 V/C LOS ? V/C d ADT a AM b PM b AM PM AM PM ADT AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM State Route 905 I-805 to Ocean View Hills Pkwy EB 146,500 7,994 4,539 0.869 0.493 D B 223,600 12,201 6,928 1.326 0.753 F(1) C 0.457 0.260 WB 4,259 8,998 0.463 0.978 B E 6,500 13,734 0.707 1.493 C F(3) 0.244 0.515 Ocean View Hills Pkwy to Heritage Rd EB 134,900 7,361 4,180 0.920 0.522 E B 214,900 11,726 6,658 1.466 0.832 F(3) D 0.546 0.310 WB 3,922 8,286 0.426 0.901 B D 6,248 13,200 0.679 1.435 C F(2) 0.253 0.534 Heritage Rd to Britannia Blvd EB 126,600 6,908 3,923 0.751 0.426 C B 197,500 10,776 6,119 1.171 0.665 F(0) C 0.421 0.239 WB 3,681 7,776 0.400 0.845 B D 5,742 12,131 0.624 1.319 C F(1) 0.224 0.473 Britannia Blvd to La Media Rd EB 118,400 6,460 3,668 0.702 0.399 C B 171,400 9,352 5,311 1.017 0.577 F(0) B 0.314 0.178 WB 3,442 7,272 0.430 0.909 B D 4,983 10,528 0.623 1.316 C F(1) 0.193 0.407 La Media Rd to SR-125 EB 95,100 5,189 2,947 0.649 0.368 C B 133,200 7,268 4,127 0.908 0.516 D B 0.260 0.148 WB 2,765 5,841 0.346 0.730 B C 3,872 8,181 0.484 1.023 B F(0) 0.138 0.293 Footnotes: a. ADT Volumes from SANDAG Southbay Models b. Peak Hour Volume = ((ADT)(K)(D)/Truck Factor) c. V/C = ((ADT)(K)(D)/Truck Factor/Capacity) d. ? V/C = Increase in V/C due to the Project General Notes: See Table 8–4 for freeway analysis factors. Bold typeface represents poor level of service. Shading represents potential significant impact. LOS V/C A <0.41 B 0.62 C 0.8 D 0.92 E 1 F(0) 1.25 F(1) 1.35 F(2) 1.45 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 65 8.4 Deficient Roadway Segment Intersection Analysis 8.4.1 Methodology Section 8.0 identifies deficient roadway segments in the City of Chula Vista both with and without the Project. Deficient roadway segments where potential significant impacts may occur with the implementation of the proposed Project are discussed in this section. As mentioned in the City’s significance criteria in Section 5.1 of this report, a peak hour analysis is conducted at signalized intersections along a potentially impacted segment and the impact is considered significant only if at least one of the intersections does not meet City of Chula Vista peak hour level of service standard (LOS D). This methodology supports the notion that acceptable levels of service at intersections during peak hours along a segment are a valid indicator of adequate operations. If the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E operating segment all operate at LOS D or better during peak periods, the segment impact is considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If a segment Level of Service is LOS F, the impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. This methodology only applies to City of Chula Vista roadways and not to City of San Diego or County of San Diego roadways. Signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 7.0) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection Level of Service (LOS). The following is a list of the roadway segments and the corresponding signalized intersections along each segment which are analyzed where a potential direct impact is calculated to occur: 1. Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street “A” – LOS E -Otay Valley Road/SR-125 NB Ramps intersection -Otay Valley Road/Street “A” intersection The following is a list of the roadway segments and the corresponding signalized intersections along each segment which are analyzed where a potential cumulative impact is calculated to occur: 2. Olympic Parkway between I-805 and Brandywine Avenue – LOS D -Olympic Parkway/I-805 NB Ramps intersection -Olympic Parkway/Oleander Avenue intersection -Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue intersection 3. Olympic Parkway between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road – LOS D -Olympic Parkway/Hunte Parkway intersection -Olympic Parkway/Olympic Vista Road intersection -Olympic Parkway/Wueste Road intersection LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 66 4. Main Street between I-805 Ramps and Brandywine Avenue – LOS E -Main Street/I-805 NB Ramps intersection -Main Street/Oleander Avenue intersection -Main Street/Brandywine Avenue intersection 5. Main Street between Brandywine Avenue and Maxwell Avenue – LOS D -Main Street/Brandywine Avenue intersection -Main Street/Auto Park Place intersection -Main Street/Maxwell Avenue intersection 6. Otay Valley Road between La Media Road and SR-125 – LOS D -Otay Valley Road/SR-125 SB Ramps intersection -Otay Valley Road/Street “C” intersection 7. Heritage Road between Main Street and the City Boundary – LOS E -Main Street/Heritage Road intersection -Heritage Road/Street “B” intersection It should be noted that the significant impact identified on Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street “A” under Alternative 7 is forecasted to operate at LOS F conditions, thus intersection analysis cannot be used to justify adequate peak hour operations along these roadway segments. 8.4.2 Year 2030 Network Assumptions & Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Future intersection lane geometries were taken from the Eastern Urban Center Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., March 2009, and the Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, & PA 18 B Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by LLG, October 2005 and are shown in Figure 8–4. Appendix F contains the excerpts from the above referenced studies. ADT volumes for Alternatives 3 and 7 were obtained from the SANDAG South Bay model and peak hour turning movement volumes were forecasted using a template in EXCEL developed by LLG. This template determines peak hour traffic at an intersection from future ADT volumes using the relationship between existing peak hour turning movements and the existing ADT volumes. This same relationship can be assumed to generally continue in the future. Since existing volumes were not available at some of the intersections analyzed, Year 2030 volumes from the Eastern Urban Center Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., March 2009, were used to forecast future traffic patterns. This methodology was repeated for the volumes obtained from the Chula Vista Auto Park Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by LLG, February 2004. Since the interchange of SR-125 and Otay Valley Road currently does not exist, the turning movement volumes were forecasted based on peak hour turning movement factors derived from the ADT’s on each leg of each intersection. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 67 8.4.3 Year 2030 Intersection Analysis Table 8–6 shows the potentially impacted roadway segments and the intersections located along each segment. As shown in Table 8–6, all intersections along City of Chula Vista roadways in which a potential significant impact was calculated are forecasted to operate at LOS D or better. Therefore, only a single significant impact on Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street “A” is calculated to remain in the cumulative condition. Appendix G contains the peak hour turning movement volumes and intersection analysis worksheets for Alternatives 3 and 7. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 68 TABLE 8–6 CITY OF CHULA VISTA SEGMENT IMPACTS & INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DETERMINATION Impacted Segment Deficient LOS b Corresponding Signalized Intersection(s) AM PM Delay a LOS Delay LOS Potential Direct Impacts 1. Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street “A” E Otay Valley Rd/SR-125 NB Ramps 14.2 B 14.1 B Otay Valley Rd/Street “A” 25.3 C 25.4 C Potential Cumulative Impacts 2. Olympic Parkway between I-805 NB Ramps and Brandywine Avenue D Olympic Pkwy/I-805 NB Ramps 46.0 D 37.5 D Olympic Pkwy/Oleander Ave 19.5 B 20.4 C Olympic Pkwy/Brandywine Ave 54.4 D 37.1 D 3. Olympic Parkway between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road D Olympic Pkwy/Hunte Pkwy 25.9 C 29.0 C Olympic Pkwy/Olympic Vista Rd 23.1 C 13.3 B Olympic Pkwy/Wueste Rd 7.9 A 5.4 A 4. Main Street between I-805 NB Ramps and Brandywine Avenue E Main St/I-805 NB Ramps 31.2 C 32.1 C Main St/Oleander Ave 7.6 A 6.0 A Main St/Brandywine Ave 52.9 D 36.4 D 5. Main Street between Brandywine Avenue and Maxwell Avenue D Main St/Brandywine Ave 52.9 D 36.4 D Main St/Auto Park Pl 10.2 B 9.8 A Main St/Maxwell Ave 9.2 B 8.9 A 6. Otay Valley Road between La Media Road and SR-125 D Otay Valley Rd/SR-125 SB Ramps 9.3 A 12.6 B Otay Valley Rd/Street “C” 18.5 B 20.9 C 7. Heritage Road between Main Street and the City Boundary E Main St/Heritage Rd 38.2 D 41.8 D Heritage Rd/Street “B” 15.7 B 18.8 B Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. General Notes: Future intersection geometries along Olympic Parkway and Heritage Road based on Chula Vista Eastern Urban Center Traffic Impact Analysis, March 2009 prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, & PA 18 B Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by LLG, October 2005. See Figure 8–4. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 69 8.5 Caltrans Interchange Analysis Three interchange locations within the Otay Mesa area of the City of San Diego were analyzed to identify potential significant impacts associated with the Project. The locations analyzed in this report are the SR-125/Lonestar Road, SR-905/Heritage Road, and SR-905/La Media Road interchanges. These three interchanges currently do not exist, but are proposed as part of the SANDAG Year 2030 street network. 8.5.1 Methodology Average intersection vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 7.0) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection Level of Service (LOS). 8.5.2 Year 2030 Alternative 7 Network Assumptions & Peak Hour Intersection Volumes State Route 125/Lonestar Road Interchange Katz, Okitsu & Associates (KOA) conducted a traffic study for the SR-125 South Corridor Project in March 2005. The interchange of SR-125 and Lonestar Road was included in the report. Intersection lane geometry and traffic volumes were taken from this report. In comparing these volumes to those output by Alternative 7, the volumes used in the KOA study were moderately higher due to preliminary assumptions for SR-125, which also assumed the completion of the La Media Road bridge over the Otay River Valley. In order to accurately represent the Alternative 7 SR-125 volumes forecasted by the most recent SANDAG South Bay model, engineering adjustments were made to reflect Alternative 7 conditions. State Route 905/La Media Road Interchange A Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) was conducted for State Route 905 in February 2007. The intersection lane geometry and volumes forecasted at the interchange of SR-905 and La Media Road were available in this report. In comparing these volumes to those output by Alternative 7, the volumes in the PSR were moderately higher. This is likely due to the Caltrans study including the La Media Road bridge over the Otay River Valley. Traffic patterns observed in the Caltrans report were accounted for in forecasting Alternative 7 turning movement volumes. State Route 905/Heritage Road Interchange The Caltrans SR-905 PSR did not contain intersection lane geometry or volumes for the Heritage Road interchange. Therefore, the intersection lane geometry needed to be assumed. Traffic volumes were forecasted using the similar travel patterns forecasted at the SR-905 and La Media Road interchange. Figure 8–4 shows the future lane geometries assumed in the analysis. Appendix H contains the excerpts from the Katz, Okitzu, & Associates SR-125 South Corridor Study, March 2005 and the Caltrans SR-905 PSR, February 2007. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 70 SIGNALIZED DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS Delay LOS 0.0 = 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E = 80.1 F 8.5.3 Year 2030 Alternative 7 Interchange Analysis Table 8–7 shows the results of the interchange analysis performed under Alternative 7 conditions. As shown in Table 8–7, all intersections are calculated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better conditions. Appendix I contains the peak hour turning movement volumes and interchange analysis worksheets. TABLE 8–7 INTERCHANGE OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE 7 Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Alternative 7 Delay a LOS b 1. SR-125 SB Ramps/Lonestar Road Signal AM 33.6 C PM 36.4 D 2. SR-125 NB Ramps/Lonestar Road Signal AM 26.4 C PM 20.9 C 3. SR-905 WB Ramps/Heritage Road Signal AM 7.3 A PM 11.2 B 4. SR-905 EB Ramps/Heritage Road Signal AM 10.7 B PM 16.7 B 5. SR-905 WB Ramps/La Media Road Signal AM 17.5 B PM 20.4 C 6. SR-905 EB Ramps/La Media Road Signal AM 39.0 D PM 38.6 D Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. Intersection lane geometries based on SR-125 South Corridor Study by KOA, March 2005 and Caltrans SR-905 PSR, February 2007. See Figure 8–4 and Appendix H. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 72 9.0 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CIRCULATION ELEMENT CHANGES As previously discussed in this report, several network changes are proposed by the GPA and GDPA. As a result of these changes, substantial shifts in traffic patterns are expected to occur. The following is a discussion of the changes to the circulation network and the corresponding difference in traffic volumes observed in the model. Reclassification of Main Street from a Six-Lane Town Center Arterial (Couplet) easterly of SR-125 to a Six-Lane Gateway: Under the adopted General Plan, this roadway is forecasted to operate at LOS D conditions. With the proposed reclassification, the significance threshold is increased from an LOS C capacity of 50,000 to an Urban Core LOS D capacity of 61,200. As a result of this reclassification, the segment along Main Street east of SR-125 is calculated to operate efficiently with the Project. Reclassify the Main Street/La Media Road Town Center Arterial (Couplet) from a Six-Lane Couplet to a Four-Lane Couplet: Due to the unique operations of Town Center Arterials, a typical roadway segment LOS analysis was not conducted. The analysis of and detailed discussion on the Couplet is provided in Section 10.0 of this report. Reclassify and realign the segment of La Media Road from the Town Center Arterials at the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet south easterly to SR-125 from a Six-Lane Prime to a Four-Lane Major: Under the adopted General Plan, this roadway is forecasted to operate at LOS A conditions. With the proposed reclassification, the significance threshold is decreased from an LOS C capacity of 50,000 to 30,000. However, even with the reduction in lanes along this roadway, the segment along La Media Road south of the Town Center Arterials to Otay Valley Road is calculated to continue to operate efficiently with the Project. Eliminate La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley: The La Media Road bridge is within both the City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego jurisdiction and is planned to be a 6-Lane Prime Arterial crossing the Otay River Valley in the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan. Under the adopted City of San Diego General Plan, this roadway is forecasted to operate at LOS C conditions. This connection would serve as a parallel route to I-805 and Heritage Road to the west, and SR-125 to the east. With the deletion of this bridge from the circulation network, the 65,000 trips expected under Alternative 7 to utilize this roadway would be rerouted to the roadways mentioned above. This is reflected in the modeling process and as a result of this deletion, potential impacts are more likely to occur, especially degradations in LOS along Heritage Road. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 73 10.0 MAIN STREET/LA MEDIA ROAD TOWN CENTER ARTERIAL OPERATIONS Village 8 West proposes a mixture of land uses and intensities that includes a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use Town Center, single-family and multi-family residential uses surrounding a typical village core, public open space, and an elementary and middle school. In order to better serve the pedestrian-oriented Town Center, a unique roadway system was designed consisting of “Couplets” and other pedestrian-oriented arterial street designs, designated as a “Town Center Arterial”, at the intersection of La Media Road and Main Street in the center of Village 8 West. This unique street system classification or arterial was established to better serve the Village 8 West Town Center, implement the policies in the adopted General Plan and preserve the community character. According to the adopted Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (CVGP LUT) Chapter 5.0, Section 5.5.5: “The Town Center Arterial is intended for use primarily in the East Planning Area's Otay Ranch Subarea. Many conflicting movements are reduced through the use of paired one-way streets that may include on-street parking, wider sidewalks, and neckdowns at intersections. The Town Center Arterial provides a more efficient traffic flow by eliminating wide roadway arterials, with their inherent long signal cycle lengths and segregated left turn lanes at major intersections, and it creates a more energized, mixed-use pedestrian-oriented community within an enlarged urban transit network.” However, due to the unique roadway design associated with Town Center Arterials, there is no established method by which to analyze the future operation of this type of roadway. A traditional segment analyses would be inaccurate because the signalized intersections within the couplet are connected by by 200 to 500 feet long roadway segments. The operation of these segments would be dictated by the operating conditions of the adjacent signalized intersections. Therefore, the individual intersections within the couplet were analyzed and included in the traffic study to determine the levels of service at each location. Acceptable levels of service through the intersections are a clearer indication that traffic will flow through the couplet at acceptable levels of service. The peak hour analysis conducted for intersections is a better determinant for levels of service than a V/C daily roadway analysis. A Highway Capacity Software (HCS) analysis was conducted at the signalized intersections proposed to control the traffic flow through the couplet. The intersection of La Media Road and Main Street will be constructed as a pair of one-way streets that form a couplet. The operational benefits of the couplet allow the series of intersections to carry a higher volume of traffic more efficiently and with acceptable levels of service. A total of four new signalized intersections will be constructed within the couplet to allow higher traffic volumes to move efficiently between Main Street and La Media Road. By separating the intersection of Main Street/La Media Road into four smaller intersections, left turn phases can be eliminated thereby improving the efficiently of the signal cycle. Shorter cycle lengths and fewer phases result in lower delay and improved traffic flows. Also, the width of the intersection is significantly decreased, improving access for pedestrians and reducing pedestrian cross time at the traffic signal. Total LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 74 SIGNALIZED DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS Delay LOS 0.0 = 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E = 80.1 F conflicting traffic volumes through the series of four smaller intersections are lower than the total intersection volume of single point intersection, thereby allowing shorter cycle lengths and improved safety for pedestrians. Table 10–1 displays the results of the Town Center Arterial intersection analysis for Alternatives 1, 3 and 7. From the results shown in this table, it can therefore be concluded that the Main Street/La Media Road Town Center Arterials, as proposed by the Project (four-lane couplet with two-lanes traveling in each direction), are calculated to operate efficiently with the proposed Project. Appendix J contains the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet peak hour turning movement movement volumes and intersection analysis worksheets TABLE 10–1 MAIN STREET/LA MEDIA ROAD COUPLET OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 7 Delay a LOS b Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Main Street (Westbound) /La Media Road (Southbound) Signal AM 22.0 C 17.8 B 19.3 B PM 37.5 D 21.9 C 25.4 C 2. Main Street (Westbound) /La Media Road (Northbound) Signal AM 22.7 C 17.3 B 17.7 B PM 30.5 C 20.4 C 21.4 C 3. Main Street (Eastbound) /La Media Road (Southbound) Signal AM 23.0 C 18.1 B 20.0 C PM 28.0 C 23.9 C 31.1 C 4. Main Street (Eastbound) /La Media Road (Northbound) Signal AM 11.6 B 10.0 B 10.2 B PM 18.5 B 12.6 B 13.0 B Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. Intersection lane geometries based on RBF August 2011 HCS analysis for the Villages 8 West and 9 Traffic Studies, August 2011. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 75 11.0 SR-125 MID-ARTERIAL CROSSING BETWEEN MAIN STREET & OTAY VALLEY ROAD According to the adopted Otay Ranch General Development Plan, a pedestrian pathway designated as a Regional Riding and/or Hiking Trail is planned over the SR-125 between Villages 8 East and 9. The crossing is planned just north of Otay Valley Road and south of Main Street. This crossing is proposed in the Otay Ranch GDP to provide for a localized connection between Villages 8 East and 9, with its primary purpose to accommodate patrons of the future commercial and office uses in Village 9 as well as the future university. The GDPA continues to propose the mid-arterial pedestrian crossing as part of the Project. Appendix K contains an illustration showing the location of the mid-arterial crossing. Based on a review of the traffic volumes within the the general vicinity of the mid-arterial crossing, it is recommended that this connection be made to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. A pedestrian pathway instead of a vehicular crossing will allow for better integration of pedestrian traffic, minimize street crossing, and relieve traffic at intersections and on roadways. In addition, as mentioned in Section 9.0, CEQA 2010 Guidelines promote multi-model design aspects for future roadways. According to paragraph “f” on page 251 of the CEQA Guidelines Appendices, Project features that “conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities” could result in a potential significant impact. By the pedestrian crossing being built as part of the proposed Project, no significant impact would result; the Project will conform with the adopted policies of the Otay Ranch GDP and relieve traffic at intersections and on roadways by better integrating pedestrian traffic and minimizing street crossings. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 76 12.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE The Congestion Management Program (CMP), adopted on November 22, 1991, is intended to link land use, transportation and air quality through level of service performance. The CMP requires an Enhanced CEQA Review for projects that are expected to generate more than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 peak hour trips. As the Project trip generation exceeds the CMP thresholds a CMP analysis is triggered. In 1993, the Institute of Transportation Engineers California Border Section and the San Diego Region Traffic Engineer’s Council established a set of guidelines to be used in the preparation of traffic impact studies that are subject to the Enhanced CEQA review process. These guidelines were updated in January 2008. This published document is titled 2008 Congestion Management Program Update. The guidelines require that a Project study area be established as follows: ?? All streets and intersections on CMP arterials where the Project will add 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction. ?? Mainline freeway locations where the Project will add 150 or more peak hour trips in either direction. Based on the CMP guidelines, the CMP facilities requiring analysis are Interstate 805, the future State Route 905, and State Route 125 and Otay Mesa Road-Interim State Route 905 (905 West to 905 East). This analysis is provided in Table 8–2 of this report. Table 8–1 shows the roadway segment analysis for Otay Mesa Road-Interim State Route 905 (905 West to 905 East). Based on the State Route 11 and the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry EIR, dated November 2010, LOS C or better operations are forecasted on the future SR-11. Since the addition of Project-related ADT to this facility would not result in a change in the forecasted acceptable LOS C operations, a freeway mainline analysis of SR-11 was not addressed in the level of service analyses included in this report. It should be noted that as of May 8, 2009, the SANDAG Board of Directors voted to direct staff to work with local jurisdictions that wished to prepare resolutions electing to opt out of the state CMP. A majority of the jurisdictions representing a majority of the population have adopted resolutions electing to be exempt from the state CMP. Assembly Bill (AB) 2419, passed in 1996, allows congestion management agencies to “opt out” of the state CMP process. Section 65088.3 of the California Government Code states “This chapter does not apply in a county in which a majority of local governments, collectively comprised of the city councils and the county board of supervisors, which in total also represent a majority of the population in the county, each adopt resolutions electing to be exempt from the congestion management program.” Over the past year, 14 out of the 19 local jurisdictions, representing a majority of the population in San Diego County have adopted resolutions electing to be exempt from the state CMP process. The City of Chula Vista has adopted this resolution and currently utilizes the City of Chula Vista Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Year 2010-2011, as the primary tool to provide solutions for congestion. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 77 13.0 EXISTING + PROJECT SCENARIO 13.1 Introduction CEQA mandates the assessment of existing (ground) conditions with Project build-out conditions. The Existing + Project study scenario assumes the proposed Project would be fully built out immediately and the corresponding full build-out traffic volumes added to existing roadway volumes and infrastructure. Thus, the Existing + Project analysis presumes the existing environment (existing traffic volumes, existing roadway infrastructure, and existing land uses) plus full build out of the Project immediately. This means that future increases in traffic volumes attributable to other development projects are not accounted for in the corresponding change in trip distribution patterns that accompany changing land uses. In any event, a long-range development Project such as the proposed Project is not anticipated to reach full build-out until after the Year 2030. Notwithstanding, an Existing + Project analysis has been conducted and the results of the analysis are presented in this section. 13.2 Analysis The following analysis is a discussion of potential Project impacts in relation to existing conditions. For the purpose of the analysis, the street network within the Project Area was assumed to be the same as existing on-the-ground conditions. As needed for this analysis, the Project-Only volumes generated by Village 8 West, Village 9 and the RTP were distributed onto the existing street network and added to the existing traffic volumes to establish the Existing + Project condition. 13.2.1 Segment Operations Table 13–1 shows that under the Existing + Project condition, the following street segments are calculated to operate at a LOS D or worse conditions in the City of Chula Vista: ?? Olympic Parkway between I-805 and Brandywine Avenue – LOS F ?? Olympic Parkway between Brandywine Avenue and Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero – LOS F ?? Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road – LOS F ?? Olympic Parkway between La Media Road and SR-125 – LOS D ?? Birch Road between La Media Road and SR-125 – LOS E ?? La Media Road between Olympic Parkway and Birch Road – LOS E ?? Eastlake Parkway between Birch Road and Hunte Parkway – LOS E Based on the study area network of the RBF traffic study, Project traffic volumes were not distributed to City and County of San Diego roadways. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 78 13.2.2 Freeway Mainline Operations Table 13–2 shows the freeway mainline operations on I-805 and SR-905 for the Existing + Project condition. As shown in Table 13–2, all freeway segment locations operate at LOS D or better conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 79 TABLE 13–1 EXISTING + PROJECT STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS City of Chula Vista Roadways Existing Capacity (LOS C/E) a Existing Existing + Project ADT b LOS c ADT LOS Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 to Oleander Ave 70,000 61,900 C 61,900 C Heritage Road to La Media 50,000 40,300 B 42,236 B Olympic Parkway I-805 to Brandywine Ave 50,000 47,000 C 63,463 F Brandywine Ave to Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero 50,000 48,700 C 69,785 F Heritage Rd/Paseo Ranchero to La Media Rd 50,000 50,500 D 84,383 F La Media Rd to SR-125 50,000 43,600 B 53,712 D SR 125 to Eastlake Pkwy 70,000 40,500 A 50,181 A Eastlake Pkwy to Hunte Pkwy 50,000 13,900 A 20,895 A Hunte Pkwy to Wueste Rd 5,915 A Birch Road La Media Rd to SR-125 40,000 10,200 A 46,546 E Main Street I-805 to Brandywine Ave 50,000 26,400 A 26,831 A Brandywine Ave to Maxwell St 50,000 18,700 A A 18,700 A Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) Heritage Rd to Main St/La Media Rd Couplet DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE Main St/La Media Rd Couplet to SR-125 DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE SR-125 to Eastlake Pkwy DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE Hunte Parkway Eastlake Pkwy to Exploration Falls Dr 50,000 700 A 12,737 A Exploration Falls Dr to Olympic Pkwy 50,000 800 A 11,013 A Otay Valley Road La Media Rd to SR-125 DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE SR-125 to Street “A” DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE Street “A” to Eastlake Pkwy DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE Heritage Road Olympic Pkwy to Main St (Rock Mountain Rd) DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE Main St (Rock Mountain Rd) to City Boundary 12,000 10,000 B 10,000 B La Media Road Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 50,000 11,000 A 56,946 E Birch Rd to Main St/La Media Rd Couplet 50,000 1,000 A 3,585 A Main St/La Media Rd Couplet Main St/La Media Rd Couplet to Otay Valley Rd DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE Otay Valley Rd to Lonestar Rd DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 80 TABLE 13–1 EXISTING + PROJECT STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS City of Chula Vista Roadways Existing Capacity (LOS C/E) a Existing Existing + Project ADT b LOS c ADT LOS Eastlake Parkway Olympic Pkwy to Birch Rd 40,000 9,200 A 25,115 A Birch Rd to Hunte Pkwy 40,000 1,300 A 46,864 E Hunte Pkwy to Otay Valley Rd DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE Footnotes: a. LOS “C” Capacity based on City of Chula Vista Roadway Classification Table. The Chula Vista Roadway Classification Table is shown in Appendix B. b. Average Daily Traffic. c. Level of Service. General Notes: Bold typeface represents unacceptable level of service based on the City’s significance criteria. Shading represents potential significant impact. DNE = Does not exist LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 81 TABLE 13–2 EXISTING + PROJECT FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATIONS Freeway Segment Dir. # of Lanes Hourly Capacity a Existing V/C d LOS Existing + Project V/C LOS ADT b AM c PM c AM PM AM PM ADT AM PM AM PM AM PM Interstate 805 Olympic Pkwy/Orange Ave to Main St/Auto Park Dr NB 4M+1A 9,200 151,00 6,193 5,890 0.673 0.640 C C 156,756 6,429 6,115 0.699 0.665 C C SB 4M+1A 9,200 5,485 7,101 0.596 0.772 B C 5,694 7,372 0.619 0.801 B D Main St/Auto Park Dr to Palm Ave NB 4M+1A 9,200 149,000 6,111 5,812 0.664 0.632 C C 154,756 6,347 6,037 0.690 0.656 C C SB 4M+1A 9,200 5,412 7,007 0.588 0.762 B C 5,621 7,278 0.611 0.791 B C Palm Ave to SR-905 NB 4M 8,000 113,000 4,634 4,408 0.579 0.551 B B 115,301 4,729 4,498 0.591 0.562 B B SB 4M+1A 9,200 4,105 5,314 0.446 0.578 B B 4,188 5,422 0.455 0.589 B B State Route 905 I-805 to Otay Mesa Rd EB EB 3M 6,000 60,000 3,274 1,859 0.546 0.310 B B 60,000 3,274 1,859 0.546 0.310 B B WB 3M 6,000 1,744 3,685 0.291 0.614 B B 1,744 3,685 0.291 0.614 B B Footnotes: a. Capacity calculated at 2000 vph per lane and 1200 vph per auxiliary lane b. Existing ADT Volumes from CALTRANS 2008 c. Peak Hour Volume = ((ADT)(K)(D)/Truck Factor) d. V/C = ((ADT)(K)(D)/Truck Factor/Capacity) General Notes: Truck Factor data contained in Table 6–2 and Appendix C. K and D percentages are contained in Table 6–2 and Appendix C. M = Mainline A = Auxiliary Lane LOS V/C A <0.41 B 0.62 C 0.8 D 0.92 E 1 F(0) 1.25 F(1) 1.35 F(2) 1.45 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 82 14.0 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) was created to provide independent annual review of City compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO, adopted in 1991), which sets forth threshold standards related to eleven public facilities and services, including: Air Quality, Drainage, Fire and Emergency Services, Fiscal, Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Police, Schools, Sewer, Traffic and Water. Each spring, the GMOC presents its annual report and recommendations to the City Council and Planning Commission at a joint workshop. As a part of the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), a stand-alone traffic analysis was prepared to determine if the GMOC thresholds are projected to be reached or exceeded, and whether mitigation measures are necessary to remain compliant with the requirements of the GMP. The Chula Vista Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP)is used to assess the operating performance of the City’s arterial street system in order to determine compliance with the Threshold Standards of the GMP. Recent GMOC traffic studies have indicated that the segment of westbound Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and Oleander Avenue during the AM peak hour period would be the first to fall below City Growth Management Traffic threshold standards as traffic volumes increase over time with this Project and other projects east of I-805. The traffic analysis titled: Olympic Parkway Capacity Enhancement Analysis, (prepared by LLG dated July 21, 2011) concluded that a potential impact would occur on the segment of westbound Olympic Parkway between Oleander Avenue and Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero under near-term conditions (Years 0-4) based on the City of Chula Vista’s TMP methodology. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 83 15.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 15.1 Significance of Impacts Based on the analysis of the roadway and freeway segments, and the established significance criteria for the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego and County of San Diego, significant impacts were calculated at the following locations. 15.1.1 Direct Impacts Roadway Segments No roadway segment direct impacts were calculated in the City of Chula Vista. It should be noted that although Section 8.0 identifies deficient roadway segments in the City of Chula Vista where potential significant impacts may occur with the implementation of the proposed Project, the application of the City’s significance criteria in Section 5.1 states that the impact is considered significant only if an intersection along the impacted segment does not meet City of of Chula Vista peak hour level of service standards, LOS D. This methodology supports the notion that acceptable levels of service at intersections during peak hours along a segment are a valid indicator of adequate operations. Therefore, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E operating segment all operate at LOS D or better during peak periods, the segment impact is considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. As a result of this analysis methodology, no significant direct impacts are calculated within the City of Chula Vista. No roadway segment direct impacts were calculated in the City and County of San Diego assuming future roadway classifications. Freeway Segments Interstate 805 a. Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive b. Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue State Route 905 c. I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway d. Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road 15.1.2 Cumulative Impacts Roadway Segments One cumulative impact was calculated in the City of Chula Vista. e. Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street “A” LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 84 It should be noted that although Section 8.0 identifies deficient roadway segments in the City of Chula Vista where potential significant impacts may occur with the implementation of the proposed Project, the application of the City’s significance criteria in Section 5.1 states that the impact is considered significant only if an intersection along the potentially impacted segment does not meet City of Chula Vista peak hour level of service standards, LOS D. This methodology supports the notion that acceptable levels of service at intersections during peak hours along a segment are a valid indicator of adequate operations. Therefore, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E operating segment all operate at LOS D or better during peak periods, the segment impact is considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. As a result of this analysis methodology, one significant cumulative impact is calculated within the City of Chula Vista. In the City of San Diego, cumulative impacts were calculated on the following roadway segments: f. Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Avenida de las Vistas g. Heritage Road between Avenida de las Vistas and Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road h. Heritage Road between Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road and Otay Mesa Road No roadway segment cumulative impacts were calculated in the County of San Diego assuming future roadway classifications. Freeway Segments Interstate 805 i. Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive j. Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive k. Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue l. Palm Avenue to SR-905 State Route 125 m. Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road n. Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road o. Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road State Route 905 p. I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway q. I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway r. Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road s. Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road t. Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard u. Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 85 State Route 905 (Continued) v. Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road w. Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road x. La Media Road to SR-125 15.1.3 Existing + Project Impacts Roadway Segments Seven (7) roadway segment impacts were calculated in the City of Chula Vista. y. Olympic Parkway between I-805 and Brandywine Avenue z. Olympic Parkway between Brandywine Avenue and Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero aa. Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road bb. Olympic Parkway between La Media Road and SR-125 cc. Birch Road between La Media Road and SR-125 dd. La Media Road between Olympic Parkway and Birch Road ee. Eastlake Parkway between Birch Road and Hunte Parkway Freeway Segments No freeway segment impacts are calculated under the Existing + Project condition. 15.2 Mitigation Measures 15.2.1 Direct Impacts Roadway Segments Since no roadway segment direct impacts were calculated in the City of Chula Vista and City and County of San Diego under the direct Project scenario, mitigation measures are unnecessary. Freeway Segments a-d: The TransNet Extension and Ordinance document, developed by SANDAG, provides for the implementation of the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program, which will result in countywide transportation facility and service improvements for highways, in addition to other modes of transit, to support smart growth development and related environmental mitigation and enhancement projects. As a part of this document, the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) has been established to require local agencies to collect a specified exaction from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to put toward the RTCIP. These exactions shall ensure future development contributes its proportional share of the funding needed to pay for the Regional Arterial System and related regional transportation facility improvements, as defined by the SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTCIP revenue will be used to construct improvements on the Regional Arterial LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\Final Submittal\1885 Report.docN:\1885\S bmittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 86 System such as new or widened arterials, traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements, freeway interchange and related freeway improvements, railroad grade separations, and improvements required for regional express and rail transit. The City of Chula Vista should coordinate with SANDAG to ensure the proposed Project dedicates the appropriate funds toward the RTCIP in order to mitigate potential freeway impacts. The funding of the RTCIP is implemented through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The City of Chula Vista Capital Improvement Program designates the payment of Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) of which portions are contributed to the SANDAG RTCIP fund for regional roadway facilities. The Eastern TDIF was established by Council in January 1998 and covers the eastern territories of Chula Vista. This $230 million program consisting of approximately 70 transportation related improvement projects has helped finance improvements to the I-805 interchanges, major arterial roadways and needed traffic signals. The fiscal year (FY) 2010-11 update will incorporate any land use changes adopted since year 2005, provide project costs for recently completed TDIF projects and provide updated estimates for several arterial roadways and bridge projects. 15.2.2 Cumulative Impacts Roadway Segments The following is recommended to mitigate the potential significant cumulative impacts in the City of Chula Vista: e. Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street “A” – Increase the capacity of this segment to a 5-Lane Major with three lanes traveling in the westbound direction with at the number 3 lane trapping onto the SR-125 NB On-Ramp and two lanes traveling in the eastbound direction. This would result in acceptable LOS D operations. f-h. Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Otay Mesa Road – Increase the capacity of this segment located in the City of San Diego to 6-Lane Expressway standards. This would result in acceptable LOS D or better operations. However, the improvements required to mitigate the impacts along Heritage Road fall within the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego which has a plan for funding and implementation of the facility. Because the improvements cannot be assured at the time of need, the mitigation measure is considered infeasible. Freeway Segments i-x: The TransNet Extension and Ordinance document, developed by SANDAG, provides for the implementation of the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program, which will result in countywide transportation facility and service improvements for highways, in addition to other modes of transit, to support smart growth development and related environmental mitigation and enhancement projects. As a part of this document, the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) has has been established to require local agencies to collect a specified LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 87 exaction from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to put toward the RTCIP. These exactions shall ensure future development contributes its proportional share of the funding needed to pay for the Regional Arterial System and related regional transportation facility improvements, as defined by the SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTCIP revenue will be used to construct improvements on the Regional Arterial System such as new or widened arterials, traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements, freeway interchange and related freeway improvements, railroad grade separations, and improvements required for regional express and rail transit. The City of Chula Vista should coordinate with SANDAG to ensure the proposed Project and cumulative project dedicates the appropriate funds toward the RTCIP in order to mitigate potential freeway impacts. The funding of the RTCIP is implemented through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The City of Chula Vista Capital Improvement Program designates the payment of Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) of which portions are contributed to the SANDAG RTCIP fund for regional roadway facilities. The Eastern TDIF was established by Council in January 1998 and covers the eastern territories of Chula Vista. This $230 million program consisting of approximately 70 transportation related improvement projects has helped finance improvements to the I-805 interchanges, major arterial roadways and needed traffic signals. The fiscal year (FY) 2010-11 update will incorporate any land use changes adopted since year 2005, provide project costs for recently completed TDIF projects and provide updated estimates for several arterial roadways and bridge projects. 15.2.3 Existing + Project Impacts Roadway Segments y-ee: Seven roadway segment impacts were calculated in the Existing + Project condition. Mitigation under this scenario is not included as part of the proposed Project because while a potentially significant impact is identified, it is not realistic to expect the Project to be built at once and to generate the calculated traffic on existing roads. Rather, additional mitigation is proposed pursuant to the City’s GMP. Section 14.0 of the report discusses the City’s GMP and the results of the 2001 LLG analysis which specifically analyzed Olympic Parkway. In order to mitigate the potential roadway segment impacts along Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, La Media Road and Eastlake Parkway, these roadways shall be included in the annual traffic monitoring report prepared by the GMOC. Specifically, the following is recommended: ?? If the planning analysis indicates an impact of LOS D, E or F, along these potentially impacted roadway segments, the GMO method shall be utilized. Under the City’s GMO, the threshold for a cumulative impact is considered LOS D for more than 2 hours. The GMO states that if the LOS D threshold is exceeded for more than 2 hours, then all development may be suspended until acceptable operating conditions can be achieved. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\Final Submittal\1885 Report.docN:\1885\S bmittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 88 In addition, specific to the Olympic Parkway impact, an expanded traffic analysis was prepared (Olympic Parkway Capacity Enhancement Analysis, LLG 2011) to monitor new development in the Eastern Territories with respect to the existing available capacity on Olympic Parkway east of 1-805. The study determined if GMO thresholds are projected to be reached or exceeded, and whether mitigation measures are necessary to remain compliant with the requirements of the GMP. In conformance with the requirements of the GMP, a peak-hour arterial analysis was conducted on the segment of westbound Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and Oleander Avenue under near term conditions (Years 0-4) based on the City’s TMP methodology. This methodology is used to assess the operating performance of the City's arterial street system in order to determine compliance with the Threshold Standards of the GMP. Based on the LLG study, the segment of westbound Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and Oleander Avenue during the AM peak hour would be the first to fall below GMO traffic threshold standards as traffic volumes increase over time with this project and other projects east of I-805. The analysis demonstrated that GMO thresholds would not be reached along Olympic Parkway until building permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for projects east of I-805.The projected 2,463 dwelling unit threshold is used by the City to determine when cumulative impacts may occur along the corridor. The following mitigation measure has been identified in the event the GMO threshold is reached: ? At any time pPrior to the issuance of the building permit for the 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of 1-805 commencing from April 4, 2011 the applicant may; -Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMO traffic threshold standards, or -Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional necessary capacity to comply with the GMO traffic threshold to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or -Agree to the City Engineer's selection of an alternative method of maintaining GMO traffic threshold compliance, or -Enter into agreement, approved by the City, with other Otay Ranch developers that alleviates congestion and achieves GMO traffic threshold compliance for Olympic Parkway. The Agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation infrastructure that will need to be constructed, the parties that will construct said needed infrastructure, a timeline for such construction, and provides assurances for construction, in accordance with the City's customary requirements, for said infrastructure. ? If GMO compliance cannot be achieved through l-a, b, c or d above, then the City shall may, in its sole discretion, stop issuing new building permits within the Project Area after building permits for 2,463 dwelling units (DU) have been issued for any development east of 1-805 after April 4, 2011, until such time that GMO traffic threshold standard compliance can be assured to the satisfaction of the City Manager. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-09-1885 Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company N:\1885\Submittals\10th Submittal\1885 Report.doc 89 ?? These measures shaft constitute full compliance with growth management objectives and policies in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with regard to traffic thresholds set forth in the GMO, for the Olympic Parkway facilities described above. Freeway Segments Since no freeway segment impacts were calculated under the Existing + Project condition, mitigation measures are unnecessary. End of Report APPENDIX D Air Quality Analysis Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Prepared for Prepared by City of Chula Vista RECON Environmental, Inc. Public Services Building 200 1927 Fifth Avenue 276 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Chula Vista, CA 92010 P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 Contact: Stephen Power, AICP RECON Number 4829 May 31, 2012 Jessica Fleming, Air Quality Analyst Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary 1 2.0 Introduction and Project Description 1 3.0 Regulatory Framework 7 3.1 Federal Regulations 8 3.2 State Regulations 10 3.3 Toxic Air Contaminants 12 3.4 State Implementation Plan 14 3.5 The California Environmental Quality Act 14 3.6 San Diego Air Pollution Control District 14 3.7 City of Chula Vista Regulations 15 4.0 Environmental Setting 17 4.1 Geographic Setting 17 4.2 Climate 18 4.3 Existing Air Quality 19 5.0 Thresholds of Significance 25 5.1 California Air Resources Board 25 5.2 City of Chula Vista 25 5.3 Public Nuisance Law (Odors) 26 6.0 Air Quality Assessment 27 6.1 Construction-related Air Quality Effects 27 6.2 Operation-related Emissions 28 6.3 Conformance with Regional Plans and City Criteria 32 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 35 8.0 References Cited 37 Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) FIGURES 1: Regional Location 3 2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Area and Vicinity 4 3: Proposed Land Uses 6 TABLES 1: Otay Ranch Land Uses 5 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards 10 3: Ambient Air Quality Summary – San Diego Air Basin 20 4: Summary of Air Quality Measurements Recorded at the Chula Vista Monitoring Station 21 5: SCAQMD Thresholds 26 6: Increase in Development Potential due to Proposed Project 29 7: Future (Year 2030) Average Daily Emissions to the San Diego Air Basin 30 ATTACHMENT 1: URBEMIS 2007 Output Files Relating to 2005 General Plan Update Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 1 1.0 Summary The purpose of this report is to determine the potential air quality impacts that could occur as a result of the adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), and, if there is a significant impact, what measures are needed to mitigate that effect. This report provides a supplemental analysis to the air quality assessment prepared for the City of Chula Vista’s (City’s) 2005 General Plan Update (GPU) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Specifically, this report focuses on the incremental increase in air emissions resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project over that anticipated from the GPU Preferred Plan. A significant air quality impact would occur if adoption of the Proposed Project would conflict with applicable air quality plans, result in significant emissions of criteria pollutants, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As discussed below, the Proposed Project seeks to reduce air pollution and minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use patterns and creating walkable neighborhoods and vibrant town centers. However, since the Proposed Project would increase development, the resulting emissions would be greater than those that would occur under the 2005 GPU. The result is a significant air quality impact. Mitigation measures previously identified in the GPU EIR would apply to the Proposed Project to reduce these impacts, but not to a level below significance. In addition, adoption of the Proposed Project would result in a significant and unmitigated conflict with the adopted air plan. 2.0 Introduction and Project Description The Proposed Project is located in the south central portion of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area in the eastern portion of the City. The Project Area is comprised of multiple existing villages and planning areas as follows: · Portions of Villages 4 and 7 ; · Village 8; · Village 9; · Planning Area 10 (which includes the University Site and a proposed 85-acre Regional technology Park (RTP); A portion of the southern edge of the Eastern Urban Center. The proposed village sites are separated by Village 8 East (not a part of this project) and State Route 125 (SR Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 2 125). Figure 1 shows the regional location of the Proposed Project. Figure 2 shows an aerial photograph of the project and vicinity. In December 2005, the City’s GPU was approved and the EIR certified. The GPU presented a long-term strategy to address planning issues for the growth and development of the City outlining the community’s vision for the future through land use designations and goals and policies. Although the GPU EIR addressed the entire City, the City Council did not approve land use designation changes for an area referred to as the “Deferral Area.” Existing land use designations within the Deferral Area are therefore subject to pre-2005 GPU designations in accordance with the 2001 GDP. The Proposed Project seeks to amend General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP goals and policies, along with the Circulation Plan-East for the Project Area. In addition, the Proposed Project would modify the land use designations within proposed Villages 8 West, 9 and an 85-acre RTP within Planning Area 10/University Site. The Proposed Project seeks to maintain consistency with the General Plan through the provision of walkable neighborhoods and vibrant town centers. The primary goals and objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: · Encourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses within a village atmosphere. · Foster the goal of the General Plan to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of business, employment and housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for residents to live and work locally. · Create a Town Center within newly defined boundaries for Village 8 West and Village 9, as encouraged by the General Plan Update emphasis on providing a mix of diverse land uses that meets community needs. · Develop a circulation plan that de-emphasizes the automobile, and places greater reliance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation. · Target higher density and higher intensity development into specific focus areas in order to protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed-use urban environments that are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well-designed, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the City’s economy. FIGURE 1 Regional Location Dulzura Jamul Jamacha Blossom Valley San Diego San Diego Imperial Beach Coronado Lake Poway La Jolla Brown Field Rancho Penasquitos Carmel Valley Lindbergh Field Airport MCAS Miramar Miramar Reservoir Solana Beach Del Mar Mission Bay San Diego Bay Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir El Capitan Reservoir San Vicente Reservoir Santee Lemon Grove El Cajon Poway La Mesa National City San Diego Chula Vista UNINCORPORATED Pacific Ocean C A L I F O R N I A M E X I C O §¨¦15 £¤67 Powa y Road Via de la Valle £¤56 §¨¦5 §¨¦805 £¤52 §¨¦8£¤94 £¤94 £¤125 San Diego Tijuana M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig1_nos.mxd 10/18/2011 0 Miles 4[ Project Area Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Aerial Photograph of the Project Area and Vicinity FIGURE 2 L o w e r O t a y R e s e r v o i r SR-125 O t a y R i v e r BROWN FIELD Village 9 Village 8 West T E L E G R A P H C A N Y O N R D 0 Feet 4,000 Image source: Copyright 2010 AerialsExpress, All Rights Reserved (flown Feb 2010) [ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig2_nos.mxd 10/18/2011 Project Area Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 5 · Provide access to, and connections between, the City’s open space and trails network and the regional network, in accordance with the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. · Conserve the City’s sensitive biological and other valuable natural resources. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the Proposed Project’s land uses within the Land Use Change Area as compared to the land uses analyzed in the GPU EIR. The table highlights the specific number of acres and dwelling units proposed to be increased or decreased by the Proposed Project. Overall, the Proposed Project would account for an increase of 880 units, 550,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 2.2 million square feet of industrial uses distributed throughout the Land Use Change Area. Other land use changes include an increase in park and school acreages and a decrease in Community Purpose Facility acres. Figure 3 shows the proposed land use plan. TABLE 1 OTAY RANCH LAND USES Land Use Land Use Designations Analyzed in the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR1 Proposed Project Land Use Designations2,3 2005 GPU/GDP EIR Land Uses vs. Proposed Project Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units RLM 148.6 640 95.1 436 -53.5 -204 RM 40.0 437 41.4 451 +1.4 +14 RMH 0.0 0 29.5 530 +29.5 +530 MUR 0.0 0 49.2 792 +49.2 +792 TC 149.4 3,773 85.0 1,929 -64.4 -1,844 PRK 50.3 0 55.4 0 +5.1 0 PQ 240.1 0 131.8 0 -108.3 0 OS 57.8 0 29.1 0 -28.7 0 OSP 19.6 0 19.6 0 0.0 0 EUC 22.2 320 48.3 1,912 +26.1 +1,592 RTP 0.0 0 85.0 0 +85.0 0 OTHER 0.0 0 58.6 0 +58.6 0 TOTAL 728.0 5,170 728.0 6,050 0.0 +880 12005 GP statistics per City. 2Proposed Project includes 50 net acres in PQ category for university dedication; 19.6 acres for City of San Diego Reservoir in the PQ category; 58.6 acres for circulation roads and SR-125 ROW in the Other category. 3Data current as of 10/5/11. The purpose of this report is to assess potential short-and long-term local and regional air quality impacts that could result from the incremental increase in emissions due to density/intensity of the Proposed Project compared to the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR. Proposed Land Uses FIGURE 3 0 Feet 2,000[ \\server04\gis\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig3_air.mxd 1/24/2012 Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 7 Air pollution affects all southern Californians. Effects can include the following: · Increased respiratory infection · Increased discomfort · Missed days from work and school · Increased mortality Polluted air also damages agriculture and our natural environment. The City of Chula Vista is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), one of 15 air basins that geographically divide the state of California. The SDAB is currently classified as a federal non-attainment area for ozone and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and ozone. Air quality impacts can result from the construction and operation of projects approved under the Proposed Project. Construction impacts are short-term and result from fugitive dust, equipment exhaust, and indirect effects associated with construction workers and deliveries. Operational impacts can occur on two levels: regional impacts resulting from growth-inducing development or local hot-spot effects stemming from sensitive receivers being placed close to highly congested roadways. In the case of this project, operational impacts would be primarily due to emissions to the basin from mobile sources associated with the vehicular travel along the roadways within the Project Area. 3.0 Regulatory Framework Motor vehicles are San Diego County’s leading source of air pollution and the largest contributor to greenhouse gases (County of San Diego 2008). In addition to these sources, other mobile sources include construction equipment, trains, and airplanes. Emission standards for mobile sources are established by state and federal agencies, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Reducing mobile source emissions requires the technological improvement of existing mobile sources and the examination of future mobile sources, such as those associated with new or modification projects. The State of California has developed statewide programs to encourage cleaner cars and cleaner fuels. Since 1996, smog-forming emissions from motor vehicles have been reduced by 15 percent and the cancer risk from exposure to motor vehicle air toxics has been reduced by 40 percent (County of San Diego 2008). The regulatory framework described below details the federal and state agencies that are in charge of monitoring and controlling mobile source air pollutants and what measures are currently being taken to achieve and maintain healthful air quality in the SDAB. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 8 The state of California is divided geographically into 15 air basins for the purpose of managing the air resources of the state on a regional basis. Areas within each air basin are considered to share the same air masses and, therefore, are expected to have similar ambient air quality. If an air basin is not in either federal or state attainment for a particular pollutant, the basin is classified as a moderate, serious, severe, or extreme non-attainment area (there is also a marginal classification for federal non-attainment areas). 3.1 Federal Regulations Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) represent the maximum levels of background pollution considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 U.S.C. 7401] for the purposes of protecting protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the CAA [42 U.S.C. 7409], the U.S. EPA developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Seven pollutants of primary concern have been designated: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), and respirable particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5. The primary NAAQS “. . . in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health . . . ” and the secondary standards “. . . protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air” [42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(2)]. The primary NAAQS were established, with a margin of safety, considering long-term exposure for the most sensitive groups in the general population (i.e., children, senior citizens, and people with breathing difficulties). In 1997, the EPA promulgated a new eight-hour ozone standard of eight parts per hundred million (pphm) to replace the existing one-hour standard of 12 pphm. It was recommended that the SDAB be classified as “moderate” non-attainment for the eighthour ozone standard under Subpart 2 (U.S. EPA 2009a). Under Subpart 2, consistent with Section 182 of the CAA, the period of attainment will be no more than six years from the new effective date of designation (U.S. EPA 2009a). Per the EPA’s final rule for implementing the eight-hour ozone standard, the one-hour ozone standard was to be revoked “in full, including the associated designations and classifications, one year following the effective date of the designations for the eight-hour NAAQS [for ozone]” (69 FR 23951). As such, the one-hour ozone standard was revoked Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 9 in the SDAB on June 15, 2005. Requirements for transitioning from the one-hour to eight-hour ozone standard are described in the final rule. On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the eight-hour ozone standard to 7.5 pphm. On March 12, 2009, CARB submitted its recommendations for area designations for the revised federal eight-hour ozone standard. The recommendations are based on ozone measurements collected during 2006 through 2008. It was recommended that the SDAB be classified as nonattainment. The EPA was required to issue final area designations no later than March 2010. However, there was insufficient information to make these designations and the EPA extended the deadline to March 2011. California must then submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) outlining how the state will meet the standards by a date that EPA will establish in a separate rule. That date will be no later than three years after EPA’s final designations. The deadline for attaining the standard may vary based on the severity of the problem in the area. The SDAB is an unclassified area for the federal PM10 standard and an attainment area for the federal PM2.5 standard (State of California 2009a). On September 21, 2006, the EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard was strengthened from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3. The existing standard for annual PM2.5 of 15 µg/m3 remained the same. In addition, the EPA also revised the standard for PM10. Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, the agency revoked the annual PM10 standard (effective December 17, 2006). The SDAB was classified as an attainment area for the new federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard (U.S. EPA 2009b). In 2008, the EPA revised the primary standard for lead from 1.5 µg/m3 to 0.15 µg/m3 over a rolling three-month period, and revised revised the secondary standard to be identical to the primary standard. The 1978 lead NAAQS will be retained until one year after designations for the new standards, except in current nonattainment areas. The SDAB is in attainment of the 1978 lead NAAQS. CARB was required to provide the EPA with designation recommendations by October 2009 and on October 14, 2009, the CARB recommended to the EPA that the SDAB be designated unclassifiable for the new lead standard. Although the CARB was required to make area designation recommendations by October 2009, the EPA recognized that the current lead sampling network is not adequate in most areas. Therefore, the EPA may take an additional two years to designate areas with insufficient data. New lead samplers will be deployed during this time period to collect additional data needed to identify designations for many areas with no or limited monitoring data. It is unknown at this time how this may affect the designation of the SDAB. The federal AAQS are presented in Table 2. SOURCE: State of California 2010a. ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not applicable. TABLE 2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 Federal Standards2 Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) Ultraviolet Photometry – Same as Primary Standard Ultraviolet Photometry 8 Hour 0.07 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 µg/m3) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 – Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 15.0 µg/m3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) Nondispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) – Non-dispersive Infrared Photometry 1 Hour 20 ppm (NDIR) (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 8 Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) – – – Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) Gas Phase Chemiluminescence 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standard Gas Phase Chemiluminescence 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm8 – Lead9 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 Atomic Absorption – – – Calendar Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard High Volume Sampler and Atomic Absorption Rolling 3-Month Average10 – 0.15 µg/m3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean – Ultraviolet Fluorescence 0.030 ppm (80 µg/m3) – Spectrophotometry (Pararosaniline Method) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) – 3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) – – – Visibility Reducing Particles 8 Hour Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer – visibility of 10 miles or more (0.07 – 30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70%. Method: Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape. No Federal Standards Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence Vinyl Chloride9 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) Gas Chromatography TABLE 2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (continued) 1California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter—PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles—are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for further clarification and current federal policies. 3Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 6National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA. 8To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). 9The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 10National lead standard, rolling 3-month average; final rule signed October 15, 2008. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 12 3.2 State Regulations The EPA allows states the option to develop different (stricter) standards. The state of California generally has set more stringent limits on the seven criteria pollutants (see Table 2). The California CAA, also known as the Sher Bill or AB 2595, was signed into law on September 30, 1988, and became effective on January 1, 1989. The California CAA requires that districts implement regulations to reduce emissions from mobile sources through the adoption and enforcement of transportation control measures. The California CAA also requires that a district must (South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD] 2003): • Demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the air quality program; • Reduce nonattainment pollutants at a rate of five percent per year, or include all feasible measures and expeditious adoption schedule; • Ensure no net increase in emissions from new or modified stationary sources; • Reduce population exposure to severe nonattainment pollutants according to a prescribed schedule; • Include any other feasible controls that can be implemented, or for which implementation can begin, within 10 years of adoption of the most recent air quality plan; and • Rank control measures by cost-effectiveness. The SDAB is a non-attainment area for the state ozone standards, the state PM10 standard, and the state PM2.5 standard. 3.3 Toxic Air Contaminants The public’s exposure to TACs is a significant public health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health (AB 1807: Health and Safety Code Sections 39650–39674). The Legislature established a two-step process to address the potential health effects from TACs. The first step is the risk assessment (or identification) phase. The second step is the risk management (or control) phase of the process. Diesel-exhaust particulate matter emissions have been established as TACs. Diesel emissions generated within San Diego County and surrounding areas pose a potential hazard to residents and visitors. Following the identification of diesel particulate matter as a TAC in 1998, CARB has worked on developing strategies and regulations aimed at reducing the risk from diesel particulate matter. The overall strategy for achieving these reductions is found in the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 13 from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (State of California 2000). A stated goal of the plan is to reduce the cancer risk statewide arising from exposure to diesel particulate matter 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. A number of programs and strategies to reduce diesel particulate matter that have been implemented or are in the process of being developed include (State of California 2007, 2008): · The Carl Moyer Program: This program, administered by CARB, was initially approved in February 1999, and was revised in November 2000. It provides grants to private companies, public agencies, or individuals operating heavy-duty diesel engines to cover an incremental portion of the cost of cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive, and agricultural irrigation pump engines. The Carl Moyer Program is currently undergoing revisions. Revisions include increasing funding and expanding eligibility. · On-Road Heavy-duty Diesel Engine Reduced Emission Standards: This rule reduces emission standards for 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001). · On-Road Heavy-duty Diesel Engine In-Use Compliance Program: The goal of this program is to ensure that existing vehicles/engines meet applicable emission standards throughout their useful life. Other programs include: · Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program: The goal of this program is to develop regulations to control emissions from diesel, gasoline, and alternative-fueled off-road mobile engines. These sources include a range of equipment, from lawn mowers to construction equipment to locomotives. · Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program: This program provides periodic inspections to ensure that truck and bus fleets do not emit excessive amounts of smoke. · Lower-Emission School Bus Program: Under this program, and in coordination with with the California Energy Commission, CARB developed guidelines to provide criteria for the purchase of new school buses and the retrofit of existing school buses to reduce particulate matter emissions. Along with the Carl Moyer Program, the lower-emission school bus program is currently undergoing revisions. Revisions include raising the emission requirement, streamlining the disbursement process, and extending the retrofit funding deadline. As an ongoing process, CARB will continue to establish new programs and regulations for the control of diesel particulate emissions as appropriate. The continued Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 14 development and implementation of these programs and policies will ensure that the public exposure to diesel particulate matter will continue to decline. The SDAPCD also started sampling for TACs at the Chula Vista and El Cajon monitoring stations in the mid-1980s. Once every 12 days, 24-hour samples are performed. Excluding diesel particulates, Chula Vista has shown a 69 percent reduction in the ambient incremental cancer risk from TACs (County of San Diego 2009a). 3.4 State Implementation Plan The SIP is a collection of documents that set forth the state’s strategies for achieving the air quality standards. The SDAPCD is responsible for preparing and implementing the portion of the SIP applicable to the SDAB. The SDAPCD adopts rules, regulations, and programs to attain state and federal air quality standards, and appropriates money (including permit fees) to achieve these objectives. 3.5 The California Environmental Quality Act Section 15125(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires discussion of any inconsistencies between the Proposed Project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan (or SIP). 3.6 San Diego Air Pollution Control District The SDAPCD is the agency that regulates air quality in the SDAB. The SDAPCD prepared the 1991/1992 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) in response to the requirements set forth in AB-2595. The draft was adopted, with amendments, on June 30, 1992 (County of San Diego 1992). Attached, as part of the RAQS, are the Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) for the air quality plan prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in accordance with AB-2595 and adopted by SANDAG on March 27, 1992, as Resolution Number 92-49 and Addendum. The required triennial updates of the RAQS and corresponding TCMs were adopted in in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2009. The RAQS and TCMs set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The SDAPCD has also established a set of rules and regulations initially adopted on January 1, 1969 that are periodically reviewed and updated. These rules and regulations are available for review on the agency’s web site (County of San Diego 2010). Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 15 3.7 City of Chula Vista Regulations 3.7.1 City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance The City’s Municipal Code Section 19.09.050(B) requires an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) to be prepared for all major development projects. A major development project is defined as a project that would develop 50 or more dwelling units. The purpose and role of the AQIP is to reduce air emissions and energy use resulting from major development projects through improved project design and construction of structures that exceed mandated energy code requirements. 3.7.2 City of Chula Vista General Plan Objective E 6 of the City’s GP contains multiple policies focused on the improvement of air quality: Objective E-6 Improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants. Policies E 6.1: Encourage compact development featuring a mix of uses that locate residential areas within reasonable walking distance to jobs, services, and transit. E 6.2: Promote and facilitate transit system improvements in order to increase transit use and reduce dependency on the automobile. E 6.3: Ensure that operational procedures of the City promote clean air by maximizing the use of low-and zero-emissions equipment and vehicles. E 6.4: Avoid siting new or re-powered energy-generation facilities and other major toxic air emitters within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receiver or placing a sensitive receiver within 1,000 feet of a major toxic emitter. E 6.5: Ensure that plans developed to meet the City's energy demand use the least polluting strategies, wherever practical. Conservation, clean renewables, and clean distributed generation should be considered as part of the City’s energy plan, along with larger natural gas-fired plants. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 16 E 6.6: Explore incentives to promote voluntary air pollutant reductions, including incentives for developers who go above and beyond applicable requirements and for facilities and operations that are not otherwise regulated. E 6.7: Encourage innovative energy conservation practices and air quality improvements in new development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City's AQIP Guidelines or its equivalent, pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program. E 6.8: Support the use of alternative fuel transit, City fleet, and private vehicles in Chula Vista. E 6.9: Discourage the use of landscaping equipment powered by two-stroke gasoline engines within the City and promote less polluting alternatives to their use. E 6.10: The siting of new sensitive receivers within 500 feet of highways resulting from development or redevelopment projects shall require the preparation of a health risk assessment as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the project. Attendant health risks identified in the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be feasibly mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order to help ensure that applicable federal and state standards are not exceeded. E 6.11: Develop strategies to minimize CO hot spots that address all modes of transportation. E 6.12: Promote clean fuel sources that help reduce the exposure of sensitive uses to pollutants. E 6.13: Encourage programs and infrastructure to increase the availability and usage of energy-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, or those that run on alternative fuels. E 6.14: The City will implement a clean vehicle/alternative fuel program for City vehicles (except safety vehicles and equipment, when not feasible) and promote the development of infrastructure to support their use. E 6.15: Site industries in a way that minimizes the potential impacts of poor air quality on homes, schools, hospitals, and other land uses where people congregate. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Part II, Chapter 6, Section C establishes goals to minimize the adverse impacts of development on air quality including creating a safe and efficient multi-modal transportation network which minimizes the number and length of single passenger vehicle trips. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 17 Objective: Minimize the number and length of single passenger vehicle trips to and from employment and commercial centers to achieve an average of 1.5 persons per passenger vehicle during weekday commute hours. While most policies associated with implementing this objective are not relevant at this level of analysis, they are listed below. Policies: · Encourage, as appropriate, alternative transportation incentives offered to employees, alternative work hour programs, alternative transportation promotional materials, information on car pool and van pool matching services, transit pass information, space for car-pool-and van-pool-riders-wanted advertisements, information about transit and rail service, as well as information about bicycle facilities, routes, storage, and location of nearby shower and locker facilities. · Promote telecommuting and teleconferencing teleconferencing programs and policies in employment centers. · Establish or participate in education-based commute programs, which minimize the number and length of single passenger vehicle trips. · Provide on-site amenities in commercial and employment centers to include: childcare facilities, post offices, banking services, cafeterias/delis/restaurants, etc. · Should Otay Ranch include a college or university, the facility should comply with RAQS transportation demand management strategies relating to such uses. 4.0 Environmental Setting 4.1 Geographic Setting The Proposed Project is located in the SDAB about 10 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. The eastern portion of the SDAB is surrounded by mountains to the north, east, and south. These mountains tend to restrict airflow and concentrate pollutants in the valleys and low-lying areas below. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 18 4.2 Climate The Project Area has a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The mean annual temperature for the Project Area is 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The average annual precipitation is approximately 10 inches, falling primarily from November to April. Winter low temperatures in the Project Area average about 45°F, and summer high temperatures average about 74°F (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC] 2010). The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure Zone, which produces the prevailing westerly to northwesterly winds. These winds tend to blow pollutants away from the coast toward the inland areas. Consequently, air quality near the coast is generally better than that which occurs at the base of the coastal mountain range. Fluctuations in the strength and pattern of winds from from the Pacific High Pressure Zone interacting with the daily local cycle produce periodic temperature inversions that influence the dispersal or containment of air pollutants in the SDAB. Beneath the inversion layer, pollutants become “trapped” as their ability to disperse diminishes. The mixing depth is the area under the inversion layer. Generally, the morning inversion layer is lower than the afternoon inversion layer. The greater the change between the morning and afternoon mixing depths, the greater the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants. Throughout the year the height of the temperature inversion in the afternoon varies between approximately 1,500 and 2,500 feet above mean sea level (MSL). In winter, the morning inversion layer is about 800 feet above MSL. In summer, the morning inversion layer is about 1,100 feet above MSL. Therefore, air quality generally tends to be better in winter than in summer. The elevation of the Project Area is approximately 200 to 400 feet above MSL. The prevailing westerly wind pattern is sometimes interrupted by regional “Santa Ana” conditions. A Santa Ana occurs when a strong high pressure develops over the Nevada-Utah area and overcomes the prevailing westerly coastal winds, sending strong, steady, hot, dry northeasterly winds over the mountains and out to sea. Strong Santa Ana winds tend to blow pollutants out over the ocean, producing clear days. However, at the onset or during breakdown of these conditions, or if the Santa Ana is weak, local air quality may be adversely affected. In these cases, emissions from the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) to the north blow out over the ocean and low pressure over Baja California, Mexico draws this pollutant-laden air mass southward. As the high pressure weakens, prevailing northwesterly winds reassert themselves and send this cloud of contamination ashore in the SDAB. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 19 When this event does occur, the combination of transported and locally produced contaminants produce the worst air quality measurements recorded in the basin. 4.3 Existing Air Quality Air quality at a particular location is a function of the kinds, amounts, and dispersal rates of pollutants being emitted into the air locally and throughout the basin. The major factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind speed and direction, the vertical dispersion of pollutants (which is affected by inversions), and the local topography. Air quality is commonly expressed as the number of days in which air pollution levels exceed state standards set by the CARB or federal standards set by the EPA. The SDAPCD maintains 10 air-quality monitoring stations located throughout the greater San Diego metropolitan region. Air pollutant concentrations and meteorological information are are continuously recorded at these 10 stations. Measurements are then used by scientists to help forecast daily air pollution levels. Table 3 summarizes the number of days per year during which state and federal standards were exceeded in the SDAB overall from 2004 to 2008. The Chula Vista monitoring station, located approximately 3 miles west of the Project Area, is the nearest station to the Project Area. The Chula Vista monitoring station measures ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Table 4 provides a summary of measurements of ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 collected at the Chula Vista monitoring station for the years 2004 through 2008. 4.3.1 Ozone Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons (reactive organic gases [ROGs]) are known as the chief “precursors” of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone. Ozone is the primary air pollution problem in the SDAB. Because sunlight plays such an important role in its formation, ozone pollution, or smog, is mainly a concern during the daytime in summer months. The SDAB is currently designated a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone. During the past 20 years, San Diego had experienced a decline in the number of days with unhealthy levels of ozone despite the region’s growth in population and vehicle miles traveled (County of San Diego 2009b). About half of smog-forming emissions come from automobiles. Population growth in San Diego has resulted in a large increase in the number of automobiles expelling ozoneforming pollutants while operating on area roadways. In addition, the occasional transport of smog-filled air from the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) only adds to the SDAB’s ozone problem. More strict automobile emission controls, including more TABLE 3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY – SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN Average California Ambient Air Quality Attainment National Ambient Air Quality Attainment Maximum Concentration Number of Days Exceeding State Standard Number of Days Exceeding National Standard Pollutant Time Standardsa Status Standardsb Statusc 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 O3 1 hour 0.09 ppm N N/A N/A .129 .113 .121 .134 .139 12 16 23 21 18 1 0 0 1 2 O3 8 hours 0.07ppm N 0.08 ppm N .095 .089 .100 .092 .109 43 51 68 50 69 8 5 14 7 11 CO 1 hour 20 ppm A 35 ppm A 6.90 Na Na Na Na 0 Na Na Na Na 0 Na Na Na Na CO 8 hours 9 ppm A 9 ppm A 4.11 4.71 3.61 5.18 3.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO2 1 hour 0.18 ppm* A N/A N/A .125 .109 .097 .101 .123 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO2 Annual 0.030 ppm* N/A 0.053 ppm A .017 .015 .017 .015 Na N/A N/A N/A N/A Na NX NX NX NX Na SO2 1 hour 25 pphm A N/A N/A .045 Na Na Na Na 0 Na Na Na Na N/A N/A N/A N/A Na SO2 24 hours 4 pphm A 14 pphm A .016 Na Na Na Na 0 Na Na Na Na 0 Na Na Na Na SO2 Annual N/A N/A 3 pphm A Na Na Na Na Na N/A N/A N/A N/A Na Na Na Na Na Na PM10 24 hours 50 mg/m3 N 150 mg/m3 U 138 154 134 392 147 174.5 52.7 159.4 158.7 Na 0 2 0 1 0 PM10 Annual 20 mg/m3 N N/A N/A 51.7 28.6 54.1 58.5 Na EX EX EX EX Na N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PM2.5 24 hours N/A N/A 35 mg/m3 A Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na PM2.5 Annual 12 mg/m3 N 15 mg/m3 A Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na SOURCE: State of California. (2010b). California Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. URL http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. *This concentration was approved by the Air Resources Board on February 22, 2007. New 1-hour and annual concentrations would not have been exceed during the years 2004 through 2008. aCalifornia standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except at Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and PM10 are values that are not to be exceeded. Some measurements gathered for pollutants with air quality standards that are based upon 1-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour averages, may be excluded if the CARB determines they would occur less than once per year on average. bNational standards other than for ozone and particulates, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent 3-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. cA = attainment; N = non-attainment; U = Unclassifiable N/A = not applicable; Na = data not available; NX = annual average not exceeded; EX = annual average exceeded. NOTE: Federal 1 hour ozone standard revoked in SDAB on June 15, 2005 ppm = parts per million, pphm = parts per hundred million, mg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been greater than the level of the standard had measurements been collected every day. The number of days above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS RECORDED AT THE CHULA VISTA MONITORING STATION Pollutant/Standard 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ozone Days State 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.09 ppm) 1 0 0 2 1 Days State 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.07 ppm) 3 3 0 3 4 Days Federal 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.12 ppm)a 0 0 0 0 0 Days ’97 Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.08 ppm) 1 1 0 1 1 Days ’08 Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.075 ppm) 1 1 0 1 3 Max. 1-hr (ppm) 0.097 0.093 0.084 0.105 0.107 Max 8-hr (ppm) 0.088 0.081 0.069 0.087 0.084 Nitrogen Dioxide Days State 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-hr (ppm) 0.072 0.071 0.074 0.082 0.072 Annual Average (ppm) 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.015 0.015 PM10 Days State 24-hour Standard Exceeded (50 mg/m3) 0 2 2 2 1 Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (150 mg/m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Max. Daily (mg/m3) 45.0 53.0 52.0 58.0 54.0 State Annual Average (mg/m3) 26.4 27.0 26.3 26.1 26.7 Federal Annual Average (mg/m3) 25.8 26.5 25.7 25.5 26.2 PM2.5 Days ’97 Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (65 mg/m3) 0 0 0 1 0 Days ’06 Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (35 mg/m3) 0 0 0 3 0 Max. Daily (mg/m3) 32.7 34.3 30.2 77.8 32.9 State Annual Average (mg/m3) 12.2 Na 11.2 Na 12.3 Federal Annual Average (mg/m3) 12.2 11.8 11.2 12.5 12.3 Carbon Monoxide Days State 8-hour Standard Exceeded (9 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Days Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (9 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 8-hr (ppm) 2.48 2.13 2.20 2.24 1.87 Sulfur Dioxide Days State 24-hour Standard Exceeded (0.04 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (0.14 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Max. Daily (ppm) 0.016 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.004 Annual Average (ppm) 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 SOURCE: State of California 2010b. Na = Not available. aThe federal 1-hour standard for ozone (0.12 ppm) has been revoked. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 22 efficient automobile engines, have played a large role in why ozone levels have steadily decreased. The former national one-hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm was not exceeded at the Chula Vista monitoring station during the 5-year period of 2004 to 2008. The stricter state one-hour ozone standard of 0.09 ppm was exceeded once in 2004, twice in 2007, and once in 2008. In order to address adverse health effects due to prolonged exposure, the U.S. EPA phased out the national one-hour ozone standard and replaced it with the more protective eight-hour ozone standard. The SDAB is currently a nonattainment area for the previous national eight-hour standard and is recommended as a nonattainment area for the revised national eight-hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The previous national eight-hour standard of 0.08 ppm was exceeded one day in 2004, one day in 2005, one day in 2007, and one day in 2008 at the Chula Vista monitoring station. The revised national eight-hour standard of 0.075 ppm was exceeded one day in 2004, one day in 2005, one day in 2007, and three days in 2008. The stricter state eight-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm was exceeded three days in 2004, three days in 2005, three days in 2007, and four days in 2008. Not all of the ozone within the SDAB is derived from local sources. Under certain meteorological conditions, such as during Santa Ana wind events, ozone and other pollutants are transported from the SCAB and combine with ozone formed from local emission sources to produce elevated ozone levels in the SDAB. Local agencies cannot control neither the source nor the transportation of pollutants from outside the air basin. The SDAPCD’s policy, therefore, has been to control local sources effectively enough to reduce locally produced contamination to clean air standards. Through the use of air pollution control measures outlined in the RAQS, the SDAPCD has effectively reduced ozone levels in the SDAB. Actions that have been taken in the SDAB to reduce ozone concentrations include: · TCMs if vehicle travel and emissions exceed attainment demonstration levels. TCMs are strategies that will reduce transportation-related emissions by reducing vehicle use or improving traffic flow. · Enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The smog check program is overseen by the Bureau of Automotive Repair. The program requires most vehicles to pass a smog test once every two years before registering in the state of California. The smog check program monitors the amount of pollutants automobiles produce. One focus of the program is identifying “gross polluters,” or vehicles that exceed two times the allowable emissions for a particular model. Regular maintenance and tune-ups, changing the oil, and checking tire inflation can Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 23 improve gas mileage and lower air pollutant emissions. It can also reduce traffic congestion due to preventable breakdowns, further lowering emissions. · Clean-fuel vehicle program. The clean-fuel vehicle program, overseen by CARB, requires the development of cleaner burning cars and clean alternative fuels by requiring the motor vehicle industry to develop new technologies to meet air quality requirements. Clean-fuel vehicles are those that meet the emissions standards set in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Cleaner vehicles and fuels will result in continued reductions in vehicle pollutant emissions despite increases in travel. 4.3.2 Carbon Monoxide The SDAB is classified as a state attainment area and as a federal maintenance area for CO (County of San Diego 1998). Until 2003, no violations of the state standard for CO had been recorded in the SDAB since 1991, and no violations of the national standard had been recorded in the SDAB since 1989. The violations that took place in 2003 were likely the result of massive wildfires that occurred throughout the County. As shown in Table 3, the federal and state eight-hour CO standards were not exceeded during the period from 2004 through 2008. The federal and state one-hour standards were not exceeded in 2004. One-hour data were not available for 2005 through 2008. As shown in Table 4, the federal and state eight-hour CO standards were not exceeded at the Chula Vista monitoring station from 2004 through 2008. One-hour data were not available. Small-scale, localized concentrations of CO above the state and national standards have the potential to occur at intersections with stagnation points, such as those that occur on major highways and heavily traveled and congested roadways. Localized high concentrations of CO are referred to as “CO hot spots” and are a concern at congested intersections when automobile engines burn fuel less efficiently and their exhaust contains more CO. 4.3.3 PM10 PM10 is particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. Ten microns is about one-seventh of the diameter of a human hair. Particulate matter is a complex mixture of very tiny solid or liquid particles composed of chemicals, soot, and dust. Sources of PM10 emissions in the SDAB consist mainly of urban activities, dust suspended by vehicle traffic, and secondary aerosols formed by reactions in the atmosphere. Under typical conditions (i.e., no wildfires) particles classified under the PM10 category are mainly emitted directly from activities that disturb the soil, including travel on roads Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 24 and construction, mining, or agricultural operations. Other sources include windblown dust, salts, brake dust, and tire wear (County of San Diego 1998). For several reasons hinging on the area’s dry climate and coastal location, the SDAB has special difficulty in developing adequate tactics to meet present state particulate standards. The SDAB is designated as federal unclassified and state nonattainment for PM10. In 2005, the measured federal PM10 standard was exceeded twice in 2005 and once in 2007 in the SDAB. The 2007 exceedance occurred on October 21, 2007, at times when major wildfires were raging throughout the county. Consequently, this exceedance was likely caused by the wildfires and would be beyond the control of the SDAPCD. As such, this event is covered under the EPA’s Natural Events Policy that permits, under certain circumstances, the exclusion of of air quality data attributable to uncontrollable natural events (e.g., volcanic activity, wild land fires, and high wind events). The 2005 exceedances did not occur during wildfires and are not covered under this policy. At the Chula Vista monitoring station, the national 24-hour PM10 standard was not exceeded from 2004 through 2008. The stricter state 24-hour PM10 standard was exceeded two days in 2005, two days in 2006, two days in 2007, and one day in 2008. 4.3.4 PM2.5 Airborne, inhalable particles with aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 microns or less have been recognized as an air quality concern requiring regular monitoring. Federal regulations required that PM2.5 monitoring begin January 1, 1999 (County of San Diego 1999). The Chula Vista monitoring station is one of five stations in the SDAB that monitors PM2.5. Federal PM2.5 standards established in 1997 include an annual arithmetic mean of 15 mg/m3 and a 24-hour concentration of 65 mg/m3. As discussed above, the 24-hour PM2.5 standard has been changed to 35 mg/m3. However, this does not apply to the monitoring from 2004 to 2006. State PM2.5 standards established in 2002 are an annual arithmetic mean of 12 mg/m3. Table 4 shows that the prior 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 mg/m3 was exceeded one day in 2007 and the new standard of 35 mg/m3 was exceeded three days in 2007 at the Chula Vista monitoring station. The SDAB was classified as an attainment area for the previous federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 mg/m3 and has also been classified as an attainment area for the revised federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 mg/m3 (U.S. EPA 2004, 2009b). The SDAB is a non-attainment area for the state PM2.5 standard (State of California 2009a). 4.3.5 Other Criteria Pollutants The national and state standards for NO2, SOx, and previous standard for lead are being met in the SDAB, and the latest pollutant trends suggest that these standards will not be Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 25 exceeded in the foreseeable future. As discussed above, the CARB recommended to the EPA that the SDAB be designated unclassifiable for the new lead standard. 5.0 Thresholds of Significance 5.1 California Air Resources Board For purposes of assessing the significance of air quality impacts, the CARB has established guidelines, as described below. For long-term emissions, the direct impacts of a project can be measured by the degree to which the project is consistent with regional plans to improve and maintain air quality. The regional plan for San Diego is the 1991/1992 RAQS and attached TCM, as revised by the triennial updates adopted in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2009. The CARB provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms to the RAQS (State of California 1989), which include the following: 1. Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the Project Area? 2. Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? 3. Does the project incorporate all feasible and available air quality control measures? 5.2 City of Chula Vista The City of Chula Vista assesses air impacts using Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. In combination, these policies and guidelines provide guidance as to what would be considered significant under CEQA. Based on the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 26 quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The City of Chula Vista uses the SCAQMD thresholds shown in Table 5 to assess the significance of air quality impacts (SCAQMD 1993). TABLE 5 SCAQMD THRESHOLDS (pounds per day) Pollutant Project Construction Project Operation NOx 100 55 VOC 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 CO 550 550 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations such as ozone or respirable particulates (PM10); 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 5.3 Public Nuisance Law (Odors) The State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 41700 and 41705, and SDAPCD Rule 51, commonly referred to as public nuisance law, prohibit emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air contaminants or other material, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. The provisions of these regulations do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. It is generally accepted that the “considerable” number of persons requirement in Rule 51 is normally satisfied when 10 different individuals/households have made separate complaints within 90 days. Odor complaints from a “considerable” number of persons or businesses in the area will be considered to be a significant, adverse odor impact. Every use and operation shall be conducted so that no unreasonable heat, odor, vapor, glare, vibration (displacement), dust, smoke, or other forms of air pollution subject to SDAPCD standards shall be discernible at the property line of the parcel upon which the use or operation is located. Therefore, any unreasonable odor discernible at the property line of the project site will be considered a significant odor impact. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 27 6.0 Air Quality Assessment Air quality impacts can result from the construction and operation of a project. Construction impacts are short term and result from fugitive dust, equipment exhaust, and indirect effects associated with construction workers and deliveries. Operational impacts can occur on two levels: regional impacts resulting from growth-inducing development or local hot-spot effects stemming from sensitive receivers being placed close to highly congested roadways. In the case of the Proposed Project, operational impacts are primarily due to emissions to the basin from mobile sources associated with the vehicular travel along the roadways within the Project Area. Air emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 computer program (Rimpo and Associates 2007). The URBEMIS 2007 program is a tool used to estimate air emissions resulting from land development projects in the state of California. The model generates emissions from three basics sources: construction sources, area sources (e.g. fireplaces and natural gas heating), and operational sources (e.g. traffic). Inputs to URBEMIS 2007 include such items as the air basin containing the project, land uses, trip generation rates, trip lengths, vehicle fleet mix (percentage autos, medium truck, etc.), trip distribution (i.e. percent home to work), duration of construction phases, construction equipment usage, grading areas, season, and ambient temperature, as well as other parameters. URBEMIS 2007 does not include specific SDAB emission data. Consequently, for this assessment SCAB emission data were used. This is appropriate, because the meteorological data associated with the project are similar to the characteristics of the SCAB. The URBEMIS 2007 output files contained in Attachment 1 indicate the specific inputs for each model run. Emissions of NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, PM2.5, and ROG, an ozone precursor, are calculated. Emission factors are not available for lead, and consequently, lead emissions are not calculated. The SDAB is currently in attainment of the state and federal lead standards. Furthermore, fuel used in construction equipment and most other vehicles is not leaded. 6.1 Construction-related Air Quality Effects Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions. Sources of construction-related air emissions include: · Fugitive dust from grading activities · Construction equipment exhaust · Construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks · Construction-related power consumption Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 28 Air pollutants generated by the construction of projects within the Project Area would vary depending upon the number of projects occurring simultaneously and the size of each individual project. Construction-related pollutants result from dust that is raised during grading, emissions from construction vehicles, and chemicals used during construction. Fugitive dust emissions vary greatly during construction and are dependent on the amount and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Vehicles moving over paved and unpaved surfaces, demolition, excavation, earth movement, grading, and wind erosion from exposed surfaces are all sources of fugitive dust. Construction operations are subject to the requirements established in Regulation 4, Rules 52 and 54, of the SDAPCD’s rules and regulations. The exact number and timing of all development projects that could occur under the Proposed Project are unknown. The City of Chula Vista uses the SCAQMD construction thresholds shown in Table 5 to assess the significance of air quality impacts. Approval of the proposed GPA and GDPA would not permit the construction of any individual project, and no specific construction details are available. The thresholds presented above are applied on a project-by-project basis and are not used for assessment of regional planning impacts. Future projects under the proposed GPA and GDPA would implement standard dust and emission control during grading operations to reduce potential nuisance impacts and to ensure compliance with SDAPCD rules and regulations. In addition, future projects would be required to implement mitigation measures detailed in the GPU EIR (See, Section 7.0, below). With implementation of standard dust and emission control measures during grading operations, compliance with SDAPCD rules and regulations, and implementation of City of Chula Vista BMPs, emissions due to construction of future projects under the proposed GPA and GDPA are not anticipated to be significant. 6.2 Operation-related Emissions 6.2.1 Mobile and Area Source Emissions Operational source emissions would originate from traffic generated within or as a result of the Proposed Project. Area source emissions result from activities such as use of natural gas, fireplaces, and consumer products. In addition, landscaping maintenance activities associated with the proposed land uses would produce pollutant emissions. The Proposed Project represents an increase in development potential within the Land Use Change Area as compared to that analyzed in the GPU EIR for the Preferred Plan. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 29 In the GPU EIR, citywide air emissions were calculated using URBEMIS 2002. The land uses entered into URBEMIS 2002 for the Preferred Plan were entered into URBEMIS 2007 to obtain updated citywide emissions under the Preferred Plan. The increase in development potential within the Land Use Change Area was then modeled using URBEMIS 2007 and the results were added to the citywide emissions under the 2005 Preferred Plan to obtain the total citywide emissions due to the Proposed Project. Table 6 summarizes the increase in development potential. TABLE 6 INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL DUE TO PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use Amount Single-Family 247 units Multi-Family 633 units Commercial 550,000 sf Industrial/RTP 2.2 million sf School 6.4 acres Park 5.1 acres Community Purpose Facility -9.3 acres sf= square feet The average winter and summer temperatures used in URBEMIS 2007 were assumed to be 40°F and 75°F, respectively. The average trip length for San Diego County is 5.8 miles (SANDAG 2009). The defaults for other mobile source parameters such as vehicle fleet mix were assumed. Pursuant to URBEMIS 2007, the increase in development potential due to the Proposed Project would generate approximately 38,162 additional average daily trips (ADT) above that calculated for the GPU EIR. Default area source parameters in URBEMIS 2007 were used for the analysis of area emissions, except for those associated with hearth fuel combustion. For hearth fuel combustion, it was assumed that 5 percent of households would have wood fireplaces and 10 percent would have natural gas fireplaces. It was also assumed that those households with wood fireplaces would burn a quarter of a cord per year. The defaults for natural gas use in URBEMIS 2007 were assumed. A summary of the modeling, which include both mobile and area source emissions, is shown in Table 7. The URBEMIS 2007 output files for project operation are contained in Attachment 1. As seen in Table 7, future emissions under the Proposed Project are projected to be greater than future emissions analyzed in the GPU EIR. TABLE 7 FUTURE (YEAR 2030) AVERAGE DAILY EMISSIONS TO THE SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN (pounds/day) Season/Pollutant 2005 General Plan Update Citywide Emissions Increase in Emissions due to Proposed Project Citywide Emissions after Buildout of the Proposed Project Area Source Emissions Operational (Vehicle Emissions) Total Emissions1 Area Source Emissions Operational (Vehicle Emissions) Total Emissions1 Area Source Emissions Operational (Vehicle Emissions) Total Emissions1 Summer ROG 8,920 8,344 17,264 65 76 140 8,984 8,419 17,403 NOx 1,978 8,318 10,296 17 76 92 1,994 8,395 10,389 CO 3,306 84,358 87,667 25 767 792 3,331 8,525 88,460 SOx2 0 215 215 0 2 2 0 217 217 PM10 10 41,776 41,785 0 382 382 10 42,158 42,167 PM2.5 10 8,122 8,132 0 74 74 10 8,196 8,206 Winter ROG 24,675 9,080 33,755 186 83 269 24,861 9,163 34,051 NOx 2,213 10,495 12,708 18 96 114 2,231 10,591 12,822 CO 18,894 91,503 110,397 146 833 980 19,040 92,336 111,377 SOx2 29 215 244 2 2 29 217 246 PM10 2,451 41,776 44,227 19 382 401 2,470 42,158 44,628 PM2.5 2,359 8,122 10,481 18 74 92 2,377 8,196 10,573 1Totals may differ due to rounding. 2Emissions calculated by URBEMIS2007 are for SO2. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 31 The Proposed Project seeks to reduce air pollution and minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use patterns and creating walkable neighborhoods and vibrant town centers. However, since the Proposed Project would increase development, the resulting emissions would be greater those anticipated to occur under the 2005 GPU Preferred Plan. Additionally, since there are no air emissions generated in the Project Area currently, the resulting emissions are greater than the existing condition. The Proposed Project would result in a significant air quality impact. 6.2.2 Localized Intersection Carbon Monoxide Impacts Small-scale, localized concentrations of CO above the state and national standards have the potential to occur near stagnation points of heavily traveled intersections. Localized, high concentrations of CO are referred to as “CO hot spots.” CO hot hot spots can occur when projects contribute traffic to area intersections. However, CO hot spots almost exclusively occur near intersections with LOS E or worse in combination with relatively high traffic volumes on all roadways. The SDAB is in attainment of both the federal and state CO standards, and background CO concentrations are well below federal and state limits. For buildout conditions, all studied intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better (LLG 2010). Therefore, CO hot spots are not anticipated and impacts are less than significant. 6.2.3 Toxic Air Emissions The Environmental Element of the City of Chula Vista General Plan addresses the siting of sensitive receptors adjacent to heavily traveled roadways. Policy E6.10 states: The siting of new sensitive receivers within 500 feet of highways resulting from development or redevelopment projects shall require the preparation of a health risk assessment as part of the CEQA review of the project. Attendant health risks identified in the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be feasibly mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order to help ensure that applicable federal and state standards are not exceeded. The health effects of exposure to diesel particulate matter generated by traffic on roadways have been raised as a potential concern. In April 2005, the CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. The handbook makes recommendations directed at protecting sensitive land uses while balancing a myriad of other land use issues (e.g. housing, transportation needs, economics). It notes that the handbook is not regulatory or binding on local agencies and recognizes that application takes a qualitative approach. As reflected in the CARB handbook, there is currently no adopted standard for the significance of health effects from mobile sources. Therefore, the CARB has provided guidelines for the siting of land Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 32 uses near heavily traveled roadways. Of pertinence to this study, the CARB guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day should be avoided when possible (State of California 2005). There are two freeways in the vicinity of the Project Area that would carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day: I-805 and SR-905. The traffic report prepared for the Proposed Project indicates that year 2030 traffic volumes for I-805 and SR-905 in the project vicinity are projected to be up to 268,000 ADT and 223,000 ADT, respectively (LLG 2010). However, I-805 is located approximately 3 miles west to the western project boundary and SR-905 is located approximately 1.7 miles south of the southern project boundary. Consequently, the Proposed Project lies well outside of the land use avoidance guidelines established by the CARB, thus impacts related to toxic air emissions would be less than significant. SR-125 would carry fewer than 100,000 vehicles per day. Further, the CARB has worked on developing strategies and regulations aimed at reducing the risk from diesel particulate matter. The overall strategy for achieving these reductions is found in the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (State of California 2000). A stated goal of the plan is to reduce the cancer risk statewide arising from exposure to diesel particulate matter 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. A number of programs and strategies to reduce diesel particulate matter that have been or are in the process of being developed include the Diesel Risk Reduction Program, which aims to reduce diesel particulate emissions over the next five to 15 years through improved automobile design and alternative fuel efficiency (State of California 2000). 6.3 Conformance with Regional Plans and City Criteria 6.3.1 California Air Resources Board 1. Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the Project Area? The Project Area is in the City of Chula Vista, which is within the SDAB. The 1991/1992 RAQS (and triennial updates) are implemented by SDAPCD throughout the air basin. Therefore, the Proposed Project fulfills the first criteria from the CARB guidelines described in the Thresholds of Significance section. 2. Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? As noted above, the SIP is the document that sets forth the state’s strategies for achieving air quality standards. The SDAPCD is the agency that regulates air quality in Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 33 the SDAB and is responsible for preparing and implementing the portion of the SIP applicable to the SDAB. The RAQS and TCM plan developed by the SDAPCD and SANDAG set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The SDAPCD adopts rules, regulations, and programs to attain state and federal air quality standards, and appropriates money (including permit fees) to achieve these objectives. In order to meet federal air quality standards in California, the CARB required each air district to develop its own strategy for achieving the NAAQS. The SDAPCD prepared the 1991/1992 RAQS in response to the requirements set forth in the CCAA. Attached as part of the RAQS is the TCM plan prepared by SANDAG. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The basis for these plans is the distribution of population in the region as projected by SANDAG. Growth forecasting is based in part on the land uses established by the Chula Vista General Plan. Amending the General Plan to change development potential would, necessarily, result in an inconsistency between the RAQS (that is based on the existing plan) and the amended plan. Because the proposed land use changes would be inconsistent with the adopted General Plan upon which the RAQS was based, the Proposed Project would not conform to the current RAQS. If a project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, it is not consistent with the growth assumptions in the RAQS. Consequently, the Proposed Project would conflict with the adopted air plan. 3. Does the project incorporate all feasible and available air quality control measures? Approval of the Proposed Project would not permit the construction of any individual project, and no specific development details are available. Individual projects would be required to use BMPs to decrease emissions. As discussed above, the Proposed Project seeks to maintain consistency with the General Plan within the Deferral Area through the provision of walkable neighborhoods and vibrant town centers. With implementation of the goals and objectives of the Proposed Project discussed in Section 2.0 above, the air quality control measures recommended in this report, SDAPCD rules and regulations, and BMPs required by the City, future projects within the Land Use Change Area would incorporate all necessary air quality control measures. 6.3.2 City of Chula Vista 1. Would the Proposed Project obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the San Diego RAQS or applicable portions of the SIP? Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 34 As discussed above, because the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General Plan upon which the RAQS was based, the Proposed Project would not conform to the current RAQS. Consequently, the Proposed Project would conflict with the adopted air plan. 2. Would the Proposed Project result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? There are currently no air quality violations on or near the Project Area (State of California 2009b). The Proposed Project would allow residential, mixed use, and park uses. It is not anticipated that projects constructed as a result of the Proposed Project would result in significant stationary sources of emissions. Impacts are less than significant. Emissions from increased traffic on area roadways may lead to air quality violations. Emissions due to operation and construction of projects under the Proposed Project are discussed below. 3. Would the Proposed Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Construction Future projects under the proposed GPA and GDPA would implement standard dust and emission control during grading operations to reduce potential nuisance impacts and to ensure compliance with SDAPCD rules and regulations. In addition, future projects would be required to implement the BMPs required by the City of Chula Vista. With implementation of these measures, emissions due to construction of future projects under the proposed GPA and GDPA are not anticipated to be significant. Operation The region is classified as attainment for all criterion pollutants except ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The SDAB is non-attainment for the eight-hour federal and state ozone ozone standards. Ozone is not emitted directly, but is a result of atmospheric activity on precursors. Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons (ROGs) are known as the chief “precursors” of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone. As discussed above, the Proposed Project seeks to reduce air pollution and minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use patterns and creating walkable neighborhoods and vibrant town centers. However, since the Proposed Project would increase development, the resulting emissions would be greater those analyzed in the GPU EIR and would result in a significant air quality impact. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 35 4. Would the Proposed Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? CO hot spots almost exclusively occur near intersections with LOS E or worse in combination with relatively high traffic volumes on all roadways. For buildout conditions, all studied intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better (LLG 2010). Therefore, CO hot spots are not anticipated and impacts are less than significant. As discussed in Section 6.2.3 above, the Project Area is located more than 500 feet from I-805 and SR-905. All other roadways are projected to have traffic volumes less than 100,000 vehicles per day. Consequently, the Proposed Project lies well outside of the land use avoidance guidelines established by the CARB, thus impacts related to toxic air emissions would be less than significant. As discussed above, future traffic volumes on SR-125 are fewer than 100,000 vehicles per day and impacts are less than significant. 5. Would the Proposed Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? There are no existing sources of odors within the Project Area. The Proposed Project would allow residential, mixed use, and park development, and is not anticipated to create or expose sensitive receivers to odors. The Proposed Project does not propose any specific new sources of odor that could affect sensitive receptors. Impacts are less than significant. 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed land use changes would be inconsistent with the adopted plans upon which the RAQS was based. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conform to the current RAQS. Consequently, adoption of the Proposed Project would result in a significant conflict with the adopted air plan. Because the significant air impact stems from an inconsistency between the Proposed Project and the adopted plans upon which the RAQS was based, the only measure that can lessen the effect is the revision of the RAQS based on the proposed GPA and GDPA. This effort is the responsibility of SANDAG and the SDAPCD and is outside the jurisdiction of the City. As such, no mitigation is available to the City. Impacts remain significant. Future emissions under the Proposed Project are projected to be greater than future emissions under the adopted General Plan. This is because the Proposed Project would increase development. The only measures that would reduce those emissions from daily operations are those that reduce vehicle miles traveled on area roads. The Proposed Project seeks to reduce air pollution and minimize air quality impacts by promoting Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 36 mixed land use patterns and creating walkable neighborhoods and vibrant town centers. However, impacts resulting from daily operations of the Proposed Project would remain significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, as identified in the GPU EIR, is required to be incorporated into future SPA plans as a means to reduce impacts of PM10 emissions during construction. 5.6.5-1 Mitigation of PM10 impacts requires active dust control during construction. As a matter of standard practice, the City shall require the following standard construction measures during construction to the extent applicable: 1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable San Diego APCD dust control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or acceptable APCD dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible. 2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills. 3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced. 4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather. 5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered. 6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City and/or APCD to reduce dust generation. 7. To the maximum extent feasible: · Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. · Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. 8. Equip construction equipment with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 37 9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible. 10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts). With the application of this mitigation measure, significant impacts resulting from fugitive dust impacts during construction would be less than significant 8.0 References Cited California, State of 1989 Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessment for General Development and Transportation-Related Projects. June. 2000 Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. California Air Resources Board. Stationary Source Division, Mobile Source Control Division. October. 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. California Air Resources Board. February 17. 2007 California Air Resources Board Programs. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. URL http://www.arb.ca.gov/html programs.htm. August 3. 2008 Diesel Activities -Mobile Vehicles and Equipment. Pages accessed from the CARB website from http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/mobile.htm on October 31, 2008. 2009a The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition. Planning and Technical Support Division. California Air Resources Board. 2009b Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS) Emissions Maps. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. URL http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/chapis1/chapis1.htm. Accessed on October 16. 2010a Ambient Air Quality Standards. California Air Resources Board. February 16. 2010b California Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. URL http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html Accessed on April 2. Linscott, Law, & Greenspan (LLG) Engineers 2010 Draft Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for the Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company. LLG Ref. 3-09-1885. June 11. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 38 Rimpo and Associates 2007 URBEMIS 2007 for Windows, Version 9.2 Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects. September. San Diego, County of 1992 1991/1992 Regional Air Quality Strategies. Air Pollution Control District. June. 1998 Air Quality in San Diego County. 1997 Annual Report. San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 1999 Air Quality in San Diego County. 1998 Annual Report. San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 2008 Air Quality in San Diego County. 2007 Annual Report. San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 2009a California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB2588). 2008 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Report for San Diego County. San Diego Air Pollution Control District. September 23. 2009b Air Quality in San Diego County. 2009 Annual Report. San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 2010 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations. Accessed from the SDAPCD website at http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rule /randr.html. May 5. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2009 Transportation: Roads and Highways. Accessed from the SANDAG website at http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?subclassid=10&fuseaction home.subclassh ome. November 13. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2003 Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. August 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2004 Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Final Rule. Federal Register 70(3):944-1019, January 5. 2009a Proposed Rule to Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Revision on Subpart 1 Area Reclassification and Anti-Backsliding Provisions under Former 1-Hour Ozone Standard, Proposed Rule. Federal Register 74(11):2936-2945. January 16. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 39 2009b Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Final Rule. Federal Register 74(218): 58717. November 13. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) 2010 Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca1758. Accessed April 2. Air Quality Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 40 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. ATTACHMENT 1 URBEMIS 2007 Output Files Relating to 2005 General Plan Update 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions 10/8/2010 1:28:15 PM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_Citywide.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 17,264.48 10,295.81 87,664.12 215.42 41,785.31 8,131.69 26,860,504.38 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 8,344.45 8,317.91 84,358.15 215.30 41,775.61 8,122.08 24,402,891.97 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 8,920.03 1,977.90 3,305.97 0.12 9.70 9.61 2,457,612.41 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 10/8/2010 1:28:40 PM Page: 1 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Architectural Coatings 2,473.68 Consumer Products 5,890.37 Hearth -No Summer Emissions Landscape 407.52 25.60 2,267.77 0.10 6.02 5.97 3,646.19 Natural Gas 148.46 1,952.30 1,038.20 0.02 3.68 3.64 2,453,966.22 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 8,920.03 1,977.90 3,305.97 0.12 9.70 9.61 2,457,612.41 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Source Changes to Defaults Cords of wood burned per year per wood fireplace changed from 0.22 cords per year to 0.25 cords per year Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 10% Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_Citywi e.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Area Source Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 10/8/2010 1:28:48 PM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) General heavy industry 51.74 52.55 572.10 1.38 261.74 51.10 155,472.07 Industrial park 685.61 716.39 7,463.71 18.62 3,585.28 698.17 2,107,244.33 General light industry 31.23 32.09 337.94 0.84 160.35 31.25 94,487.73 Beach Ocean or Bay park 303.48 318.86 3,164.58 8.22 1,605.42 311.75 933,233.79 Library 2,222.98 2,388.33 23,703.19 61.59 12,024.86 2,335.02 6,990,062.64 Undeveloped Park 78.76 64.39 639.04 1.66 324.19 62.95 188,452.53 Apartments low rise 726.89 633.06 6,752.56 16.54 3,160.75 616.35 1,868,245.19 Apartments mid rise 366.01 302.66 3,228.30 7.91 1,511.11 294.67 893,181.41 General office building 111.71 96.36 995.45 2.50 482.74 93.96 283,175.24 Single family housing 1,122.10 1,009.49 10,767.86 26.37 5,040.24 982.85 2,979,167.34 City park 115.51 120.74 1,198.25 3.11 607.88 118.04 353,363.24 Regnl shop. center 2,452.16 2,504.83 24,756.91 64.55 12,617.66 2,449.56 7,327,960.60 Elementary school 8.12 7.09 71.84 71.84 0.18 35.62 6.93 20,802.17 Junior high school 6.17 5.15 52.20 0.13 25.88 5.03 15,114.38 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_Citywide.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 10/8/2010 1:28:48 PM Page: 2 Hotel with Convention 10.40 11.16 110.72 0.29 56.17 10.91 32,652.53 Resort Hotel 51.58 54.76 543.50 1.41 275.72 53.54 160,276.78 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 8,344.45 8,317.91 84,358.15 215.30 41,775.61 8,122.08 24,402,891.97 Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 75 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips General light industry 80.00 acres 200.00 16,000.00 92,800.00 General heavy industry 120.00 acres 217.52 26,102.40 151,393.93 Regnl shop. center 27.55 1000 sq ft 45,743.66 1,260,237.80 7,309,379.49 Undeveloped Park 5.00 acres 6,475.57 32,377.85 187,791.53 Industrial park 200.00 acres 1,789.01 357,802.00 2,075,251.68 Library 400.00 acres 3,002.39 1,200,955.96 6,965,544.78 Single family housing 16,760.67 10.00 dwelling units 50,282.00 502,820.00 2,916,356.10 Apartments low rise 2,463.44 8.00 dwelling units 39,415.00 315,320.00 1,828,856.06 General office building 6.89 1000 sq ft 6,993.12 48,182.60 279,459.07 Junior high school 5.65 1000 sq ft 457.38 2,584.20 14,988.34 City park 50.00 acres 1,214.22 60,711.00 352,123.80 Apartments mid rise 661.18 6.00 dwelling units 25,125.00 150,750.00 874,350.03 Elementary school 7.10 1000 sq ft 500.94 3,556.67 20,628.71 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 10/8/2010 1:28:48 PM Page: 3 Resort Hotel 100.00 acres 275.37 27,537.00 159,714.60 Hotel with Convention 300.00 acres 18.70 5,610.00 32,538.00 Beach Ocean or Bay park 60.00 acres 2,672.30 160,338.00 929,960.45 4,170,885.48 24,191,136.57 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Motor Home 1.1 0.0 90.9 9.1 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 2.7 33.3 66.7 0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 7.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 49.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.8 0.0 83.3 16.7 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 11.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 23.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 10/8/2010 1:28:48 PM Page: 4 General light industry 50.0 25.0 25.0 General heavy industry 90.0 5.0 5.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 City park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 Beach Ocean or Bay park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Resort Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Undeveloped Park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Industrial park 41.5 20.8 37.8 Library 5.0 2.5 92.5 Hotel with Convention 5.0 2.5 92.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Junior high school 20.0 10.0 70.0 Urban Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) Elementary school 20.0 10.0 70.0 % of Trips -Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 10/8/2010 1:28:48 PM Page: 5 Commercial-based commute urban trip length changed from 13.3 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based other rural trip length changed from 14.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer rural trip length changed from 12.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based commute rural trip length changed from 15.4 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer urban trip length changed from 8.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work rural trip length changed from 9.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work urban trip length changed from 7.4 miles to 5.8 miles Ambient winter temperature changed from 60 degrees F to 50 degrees F Ambient summer temperature changed from 80 degrees F to 75 degrees F Home-based other urban trip length changed from 9.5 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work urban trip length changed from 12.7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop rural trip length changed from 12.1 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop urban trip length changed from 7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work rural rural trip length changed from 17.6 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults 10/8/2010 1:28:54 PM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_Citywide.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Winter Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 33,755.24 12,708.16 110,397.34 244.20 44,226.86 10,481.50 25,860,744.46 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 9,080.39 10,495.02 91,503.23 215.46 41,775.61 8,122.08 23,068,083.22 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 24,674.85 2,213.14 18,894.11 28.74 2,451.25 2,359.42 2,792,661.24 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 10/8/2010 1:29:01 PM Page: 1 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Architectural Coatings 2,473.68 Consumer Products 5,890.37 Hearth 16,162.34 260.84 17,855.91 28.72 2,447.57 2,355.78 338,695.02 Landscaping -No Winter Emissions Natural Gas 148.46 1,952.30 1,038.20 0.02 3.68 3.64 2,453,966.22 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 24,674.85 2,213.14 18,894.11 28.74 2,451.25 2,359.42 2,792,661.24 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Source Changes to Defaults Cords of wood burned per year per wood fireplace changed from 0.22 cords per year to 0.25 cords per year Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 10% Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_Citywide.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Winter Area Source Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 10/8/2010 1:29:08 PM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) General heavy industry 57.80 66.44 607.95 1.38 261.74 51.10 147,118.52 Industrial park 776.44 904.68 8,021.58 18.63 3,585.28 698.17 1,992,736.93 General light industry 34.96 40.53 362.15 0.84 160.35 31.25 89,367.24 Beach Ocean or Bay park 342.42 402.12 3,446.28 8.23 1,605.42 311.75 881,920.81 Library 2,553.06 3,011.92 25,813.19 61.64 12,024.86 2,335.02 6,605,720.63 Undeveloped Park 73.23 81.20 695.93 1.66 324.19 62.95 178,090.65 Apartments low rise 722.42 799.67 7,270.64 16.55 3,160.75 616.35 1,767,333.31 Apartments mid rise 349.70 382.31 3,475.99 7.91 1,511.11 294.67 844,936.88 General office building 108.83 121.65 1,072.27 2.50 482.74 93.96 267,755.36 Single family housing 1,143.36 1,275.19 11,594.00 26.39 5,040.24 982.85 2,818,249.82 City park 129.79 152.26 1,304.91 3.12 607.88 118.04 333,933.89 Regnl shop. center 2,703.96 3,158.47 26,991.55 64.60 12,617.66 2,449.56 6,924,646.62 Elementary school 7.96 8.95 77.80 0.18 35.62 6.93 19,663.93 Junior high school 5.85 6.50 56.53 0.13 25.88 5.03 14,287.36 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_Citywide.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Winter Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 10/8/2010 1:29:08 PM Page: 2 Hotel with Convention 11.93 14.07 120.58 0.29 56.17 10.91 30,857.16 Resort Hotel 58.68 69.06 591.88 1.41 275.72 53.54 151,464.11 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 9,080.39 10,495.02 91,503.23 215.46 41,775.61 8,122.08 23,068,083.22 Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips General light industry 80.00 acres 200.00 16,000.00 92,800.00 General heavy industry 120.00 acres 217.52 26,102.40 151,393.93 Regnl shop. center 27.55 1000 sq ft 45,743.66 1,260,237.80 7,309,379.49 Undeveloped Park 5.00 acres 6,475.57 32,377.85 187,791.53 Industrial park 200.00 acres 1,789.01 357,802.00 2,075,251.68 Library 400.00 acres 3,002.39 1,200,955.96 6,965,544.78 Single family housing 16,760.67 10.00 dwelling units 50,282.00 502,820.00 2,916,356.10 Apartments low rise 2,463.44 8.00 dwelling units 39,415.00 315,320.00 1,828,856.06 General office building 6.89 1000 sq ft 6,993.12 48,182.60 279,459.07 Junior high school 5.65 1000 sq ft 457.38 2,584.20 14,988.34 City park 50.00 acres 1,214.22 60,711.00 352,123.80 Apartments mid rise 661.18 6.00 dwelling units 25,125.00 150,750.00 874,350.03 Elementary school 7.10 1000 sq ft 500.94 3,556.67 20,628.71 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 10/8/2010 1:29:08 PM Page: 3 Resort Hotel 100.00 acres 275.37 27,537.00 159,714.60 Hotel with Convention 300.00 acres 18.70 5,610.00 32,538.00 Beach Ocean or Bay park 60.00 acres 2,672.30 160,338.00 929,960.45 4,170,885.48 24,191,136.57 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Motor Home 1.1 0.0 90.9 9.1 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 2.7 33.3 66.7 0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 7.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 49.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.8 0.0 83.3 16.7 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 11.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 23.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 10/8/2010 1:29:08 PM Page: 4 General light industry 50.0 25.0 25.0 General heavy industry 90.0 5.0 5.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 City park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 Beach Ocean or Bay park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Resort Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Undeveloped Park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Industrial park 41.5 20.8 37.8 Library 5.0 2.5 92.5 Hotel with Convention 5.0 2.5 92.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Junior high school 20.0 10.0 70.0 Urban Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) Elementary school 20.0 10.0 70.0 % of Trips -Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 10/8/2010 1:29:08 PM Page: 5 Commercial-based commute urban trip length changed from 13.3 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based other rural trip length changed from 14.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer rural trip length changed from 12.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based commute rural trip length changed from 15.4 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer urban trip length changed from 8.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work rural trip length changed from 9.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work urban trip length changed from 7.4 miles to 5.8 miles Ambient winter temperature changed from 60 degrees F to 50 degrees F Ambient summer temperature changed from 80 degrees F to 75 degrees F Home-based other urban trip length changed from 9.5 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work urban trip length changed from 12.7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop rural trip length changed from 12.1 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop urban trip length changed from 7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work rural rural trip length changed from 17.6 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults 10/8/2010 1:29:16 PM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_Citywide.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 3,397.65 2,013.76 16,656.16 39.65 7,656.33 1,513.39 4,823,889.31 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 1,567.64 1,650.46 15,830.02 39.28 7,624.04 1,482.27 4,372,326.92 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 1,830.01 363.30 826.14 0.37 32.29 31.12 451,562.39 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 10/8/2010 1:29:22 PM Page: 1 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) Architectural Coatings 451.45 Consumer Products 1,074.99 Hearth 202.11 2.33 222.80 0.35 30.52 29.37 3,048.12 Landscape 74.37 4.67 413.87 0.02 1.10 1.09 665.43 Natural Gas 27.09 356.30 189.47 0.00 0.67 0.66 447,848.84 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 1,830.01 363.30 826.14 0.37 32.29 31.12 451,562.39 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Source Changes to Defaults Cords of wood burned per year per wood fireplace changed from 0.22 cords per year to 0.25 cords per year Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 10% Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_C tywide.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Area Source Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) 10/8/2010 1:29:30 PM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) General heavy industry 9.81 10.44 106.59 0.25 47.77 9.33 27,865.48 Industrial park 130.65 142.20 1,396.06 3.40 654.31 127.42 377,606.22 General light industry 5.93 6.37 63.15 0.15 29.26 5.70 16,932.51 Beach Ocean or Bay park 57.75 63.26 594.67 1.50 292.99 56.89 167,193.63 Library 425.77 473.81 4,454.19 11.24 2,194.54 426.14 1,252,305.63 Undeveloped Park 14.04 12.77 120.09 0.30 59.16 11.49 33,762.24 Apartments low rise 132.39 125.67 1,263.86 3.02 576.84 112.48 334,815.94 Apartments mid rise 65.80 60.08 604.23 1.44 275.78 53.78 160,070.73 General office building 20.21 19.12 186.34 0.46 88.10 17.15 50,741.44 Single family housing 206.08 200.40 2,015.39 4.81 919.84 179.37 533,908.89 City park 21.95 23.95 225.17 0.57 110.94 21.54 63,306.84 Regnl shop. center 462.84 496.89 4,654.08 11.78 2,302.72 447.04 1,312,817.88 Elementary school 1.47 1.41 13.47 0.03 6.50 1.26 3,727.15 Junior high school 1.11 1.02 9.79 0.02 4.72 0.92 2,708.06 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\2005GP_Citywide.urb924 Project Name: 4829 2005 GPU Citywide Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) 10/8/2010 1:29:30 PM Page: 2 Hotel with Convention 1.99 2.21 20.81 0.05 10.25 1.99 5,849.87 Resort Hotel 9.85 10.86 102.13 0.26 50.32 9.77 28,714.41 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 1,567.64 1,650.46 15,830.02 39.28 7,624.04 1,482.27 4,372,326.92 Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips General light industry 80.00 acres 200.00 16,000.00 92,800.00 General heavy industry 120.00 acres 217.52 26,102.40 151,393.93 Regnl shop. center 27.55 1000 sq ft 45,743.66 1,260,237.80 7,309,379.49 Undeveloped Park 5.00 acres 6,475.57 32,377.85 187,791.53 Industrial park 200.00 acres 1,789.01 357,802.00 2,075,251.68 Library 400.00 acres 3,002.39 1,200,955.96 6,965,544.78 Single family housing 16,760.67 10.00 dwelling units 50,282.00 502,820.00 2,916,356.10 Apartments low rise 2,463.44 8.00 dwelling units 39,415.00 315,320.00 1,828,856.06 General office building 6.89 1000 sq ft 6,993.12 48,182.60 279,459.07 Junior high school 5.65 1000 sq ft 457.38 2,584.20 14,988.34 City park 50.00 acres 1,214.22 60,711.00 352,123.80 Apartments mid rise 661.18 6.00 dwelling units 25,125.00 150,750.00 874,350.03 Elementary school 7.10 1000 sq ft 500.94 3,556.67 20,628.71 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 10/8/2010 1:29:30 PM Page: 3 Resort Hotel 100.00 acres 275.37 27,537.00 159,714.60 Hotel with Convention 300.00 acres 18.70 5,610.00 32,538.00 Beach Ocean or Bay park 60.00 acres 2,672.30 160,338.00 929,960.45 4,170,885.48 24,191,136.57 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Motor Home 1.1 0.0 90.9 9.1 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 2.7 33.3 66.7 0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 7.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 49.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.8 0.0 83.3 16.7 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 11.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 23.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 10/8/2010 1:29:30 PM Page: 4 General light industry 50.0 25.0 25.0 General heavy industry 90.0 5.0 5.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 City park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 Beach Ocean or Bay park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Resort Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Undeveloped Park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Industrial park 41.5 20.8 37.8 Library 5.0 2.5 92.5 Hotel with Convention 5.0 2.5 92.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Junior high school 20.0 10.0 70.0 Urban Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) Elementary school 20.0 10.0 70.0 % of Trips -Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 10/8/2010 1:29:30 PM Page: 5 Commercial-based commute urban trip length changed from 13.3 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based other rural trip length changed from 14.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer rural trip length changed from 12.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based commute rural trip length changed from 15.4 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer urban trip length changed from 8.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work rural trip length changed from 9.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work urban trip length changed from 7.4 miles to 5.8 miles Ambient winter temperature changed from 60 degrees F to 50 degrees F Ambient summer temperature changed from 80 degrees F to 75 degrees F Home-based other urban trip length changed from 9.5 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work urban trip length changed from 12.7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop rural trip length changed from 12.1 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop urban trip length changed from 7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work rural rural trip length changed from 17.6 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults Otay Ranch Additional Emissions 8/16/2011 8:18:36 AM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 140.36 92.62 792.61 1.97 382.37 74.38 243,476.14 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 75.60 76.08 767.45 1.97 382.29 74.30 223,044.70 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 64.76 16.54 25.16 0.00 0.08 0.08 20,431.44 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 8/16/2011 8:19:19 AM Page: 1 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Architectural Coatings 16.03 Consumer Products 45.14 Hearth -No Summer Emissions Landscape 2.36 0.19 15.66 0.00 0.05 0.05 26.13 Natural Gas 1.23 16.35 9.50 0.00 0.03 0.03 20,405.31 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 64.76 16.54 25.16 0.00 0.08 0.08 20,431.44 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Source Changes to Defaults Cords of wood burned per year per wood fireplace changed from 0.22 cords per year to 0.25 cords per year Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 10% Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Area Source Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 8/16/2011 8:19:25 AM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) General light industry 8.68 8.83 93.00 0.23 44.13 8.60 26,001.84 Regnl shop. center 52.19 54.66 540.23 1.41 275.33 53.45 159,905.47 Apartments mid rise 9.22 7.63 81.33 0.20 38.07 7.42 22,502.84 Single family housing 5.51 4.96 52.89 0.13 24.76 4.83 14,634.55 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 75.60 76.08 767.45 1.97 382.29 74.30 223,044.70 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 75 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Single family housing 82.33 10.00 dwelling units 247.00 2,470.00 14,326.00 Apartments mid rise 16.66 6.00 dwelling units 633.00 3,798.00 22,028.40 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 8/16/2011 8:19:25 AM Page: 2 General light industry 51.80 acres 85.00 4,403.00 25,537.40 Regnl shop. center 50.00 1000 sq ft 550.00 27,500.00 159,500.01 38,171.00 221,391.81 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Motor Home 1.1 0.0 90.9 9.1 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 2.7 33.3 66.7 0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 7.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 49.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.8 0.0 83.3 16.7 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 11.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 23.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Urban Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 8/16/2011 8:19:25 AM Page: 3 % of Trips -Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) General light industry 50.0 25.0 25.0 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Commercial-based commute urban trip length changed from 13.3 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based other rural trip length changed from 14.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based commute rural trip length changed from 15.4 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work rural trip length changed from 9.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work urban trip length changed from 7.4 miles to 5.8 miles Ambient winter temperature changed from 60 degrees F to 50 degrees F Ambient summer temperature changed from 80 degrees F to 75 degrees F Home-based other urban trip length changed from 9.5 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work urban trip length changed from 12.7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop rural trip length changed from 12.1 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop urban trip length changed from 7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work rural trip length changed from 17.6 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults 8/16/2011 8:19:25 AM Page: 4 Commercial-based customer rural trip length changed from 12.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer urban trip length changed from 8.9 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults 8/16/2011 8:19:31 AM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Winter Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 269.04 114.27 979.50 2.19 401.08 92.38 233,781.07 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 82.77 95.96 833.17 1.97 382.29 74.30 210,828.82 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 186.27 18.31 146.33 0.22 18.79 18.08 22,952.25 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 8/16/2011 8:19:37 AM Page: 1 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Architectural Coatings 16.03 Consumer Products 45.14 Hearth 123.87 1.96 136.83 0.22 18.76 18.05 2,546.94 Landscaping -No Winter Emissions Natural Gas 1.23 16.35 9.50 0.00 0.03 0.03 20,405.31 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 186.27 18.31 146.33 0.22 18.79 18.08 22,952.25 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Source Changes to Defaults Cords of wood burned per year per wood fireplace changed from 0.22 cords per year to 0.25 cords per year Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 10% Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Winter Area Source Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 8/16/2011 8:19:43 AM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) General light industry 9.64 11.15 99.66 0.23 44.13 8.60 24,592.75 Regnl shop. center 58.70 68.92 588.99 1.41 275.33 53.45 151,104.64 Apartments mid rise 8.81 9.63 87.57 0.20 38.07 7.42 21,287.36 Single family housing 5.62 6.26 56.95 0.13 24.76 4.83 13,844.07 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 82.77 95.96 833.17 1.97 382.29 74.30 210,828.82 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Single family housing 82.33 10.00 dwelling units 247.00 2,470.00 14,326.00 Apartments mid rise 16.66 6.00 dwelling units 633.00 3,798.00 22,028.40 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Winter Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 8/16/2011 8:19:43 AM Page: 2 General light industry 51.80 acres 85.00 4,403.00 25,537.40 Regnl shop. center 50.00 1000 sq ft 550.00 27,500.00 159,500.01 38,171.00 221,391.81 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Motor Home 1.1 0.0 90.9 9.1 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 2.7 33.3 66.7 0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 7.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 49.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.8 0.0 83.3 16.7 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 11.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 23.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Urban Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 8/16/2011 8:19:43 AM Page: 3 % of Trips -Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) General light industry 50.0 25.0 25.0 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Commercial-based commute urban trip length changed from 13.3 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based other rural trip length changed from 14.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based commute rural trip length changed from 15.4 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work rural trip length changed from 9.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work urban trip length changed from 7.4 miles to 5.8 miles Ambient winter temperature changed from 60 degrees F to 50 degrees F Ambient summer temperature changed from 80 degrees F to 75 degrees F Home-based other urban trip length changed from 9.5 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work urban trip length changed from 12.7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop rural trip length changed from 12.1 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop urban trip length changed from 7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work rural trip length changed from 17.6 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults 8/16/2011 8:19:43 AM Page: 4 Commercial-based customer rural trip length changed from 12.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer urban trip length changed from 8.9 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults 8/16/2011 8:19:50 AM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 27.60 18.11 150.36 0.36 70.02 13.81 43,714.61 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 14.23 15.08 144.06 0.36 69.77 13.56 39,962.53 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 13.37 3.03 6.30 0.00 0.25 0.25 3,752.08 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 8/16/2011 8:19:56 AM Page: 1 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) Architectural Coatings 2.92 Consumer Products 8.24 Hearth 1.55 0.02 1.71 0.00 0.23 0.23 23.34 Landscape 0.43 0.03 2.86 0.00 0.01 0.01 4.77 Natural Gas 0.23 2.98 1.73 0.00 0.01 0.01 3,723.97 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 13.37 3.03 6.30 0.00 0.25 0.25 3,752.08 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Source Changes to Defaults Cords of wood burned per year per wood fireplace changed from 0.22 cords per year to 0.25 cords per year Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 10% Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Area Source Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) 8/16/2011 8:20:03 AM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) General light industry 1.64 1.75 17.38 0.04 8.05 1.57 4,659.62 Regnl shop. center 9.92 10.84 101.56 0.26 50.25 9.76 28,647.36 Apartments mid rise 1.66 1.51 15.22 0.04 6.95 1.35 4,032.83 Single family housing 1.01 0.98 9.90 0.02 4.52 0.88 2,622.72 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 14.23 15.08 144.06 0.36 69.77 13.56 39,962.53 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2030 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Single family housing 82.33 10.00 dwelling units 247.00 2,470.00 14,326.00 Apartments mid rise 16.66 6.00 dwelling units 633.00 3,798.00 22,028.40 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT File Name: L:\DRAFT\4829\Air\Additional_Emissions.urb924 Project Name: 4829 Otay Ranch Additional Emissions Project Location: South Coast Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) 8/16/2011 8:20:03 AM Page: 2 General light industry 51.80 acres 85.00 4,403.00 25,537.40 Regnl shop. center 50.00 1000 sq ft 550.00 27,500.00 159,500.01 38,171.00 221,391.81 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Motor Home 1.1 0.0 90.9 9.1 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 2.7 33.3 66.7 0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 7.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Auto 49.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.8 0.0 83.3 16.7 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 11.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 23.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Urban Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 8/16/2011 8:20:03 AM Page: 3 % of Trips -Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) General light industry 50.0 25.0 25.0 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Commercial-based commute urban trip length changed from 13.3 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based other rural trip length changed from 14.9 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based commute rural trip length changed from 15.4 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work rural trip length changed from 9.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based non-work urban trip length changed from 7.4 miles to 5.8 miles Ambient winter temperature changed from 60 degrees F to 50 degrees F Ambient summer temperature changed from 80 degrees F to 75 degrees F Home-based other urban trip length changed from 9.5 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work urban trip length changed from 12.7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop rural trip length changed from 12.1 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based shop urban trip length changed from 7 miles to 5.8 miles Home-based work rural trip length changed from 17.6 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults 8/16/2011 8:20:03 AM Page: 4 Commercial-based customer rural trip length changed from 12.6 miles to 5.8 miles Commercial-based customer urban trip length changed from 8.9 miles to 5.8 miles Operational Changes to Defaults APPENDIX E Noise Analysis Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Prepared for Prepared by City of Chula Vista RECON Environmental, Inc. Public Services Building 200 1927 Fifth Avenue 276 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Chula Vista, CA 92010 P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 Contact: Stephen Power, AICP RECON Number 4829 May 31, 2012 Jessica Fleming, Noise Analyst Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Analysis Methodology 8 2.1 Applicable Standards and Definitions of Terms 8 2.2 Existing Noise Level Measurements 11 2.3 Vehicle Traffic Noise Analysis 11 3.0 Existing Conditions 17 3.1 Vehicle Traffic 17 3.2 Air Traffic 19 3.3 Other Sources of Noise 20 4.0 Existing + Project Scenario 20 5.0 Future Acoustical Environment and Impacts 26 5.1 Vehicle Traffic: Direct Impacts 26 5.2 Vehicle Traffic: Cumulative Impacts 29 5.3 Vehicle Traffic: Proposed Project Compared to 2005 GPU/GDP 32 5.4 Other Sources of Noise 35 6.0 General Plan Policies 36 7.0 General Development Plan Policies 40 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 40 8.1 Vehicle Traffic 40 8.2 On-site Generated Noise 42 9.0 References Cited 42 Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) FIGURES 1: Regional Location 3 2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Area and Vicinity 4 3: Land Uses Analyzed in 2005 GPU/GDP EIR 5 4: Proposed Land Uses 6 5: Noise Measurement Locations 12 6: Existing Flat-Site Roadway Contours 23 7: Existing + Project Flat-Site Roadway Contours 24 8: Future Flat-Site Roadway Contours 28 9: Areas Exceeding 65 CNEL 30 10: Areas Exceeding 70 CNEL 31 11: Areas Exceeding 60 CNEL 41 TABLES 1: Exterior Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines 10 2: Exterior Noise Limits 11 3: Existing + Project Vehicle Traffic Parameters 14 4: Future Vehicle Traffic Parameters 15 5: Proposed Project Buildout Roadway Contour Distances 19 6: Existing versus Existing + Project Noise Contour Distances 21 7: Existing versus Existing + Project Noise Increases 25 8: Proposed Project Buildout Noise Contour Distances 27 9: Cumulative Noise Increases Increases 33 10: Future Year 2030 Traffic Volumes: Proposed Project versus 2005 GPU 37 ATTACHMENT 1: Noise Measurement Data Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 1 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this report is to determine the potential noise impacts that could occur as a result of the adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), and, if there is a significant impact, what measures are needed to mitigate that effect. The City of Chula Vista’s General Plan Update (GPU) was approved and the 2005 GPU/General Development Plan Environmental Impact Report (GDP EIR) certified in December 2005. The GPU presented a long-term strategy to address planning issues for the growth and development of the City of Chula Vista (City) outlining the community’s vision for the future through land use designations, goals, and policies. Although the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR addressed the entire City, the City Council did not approve land use designation changes for an area referred to as the “Deferral Area.” Existing land use designations within the Deferral Area are therefore subject to pre-2005 GPU designations in accordance with the 2001 GDP including the Land Use Change Area. The 2005 GPU/GDP EIR concluded that traffic increases resulting from implementation of the 2005 GPU Preferred Plan could result in noise increases for receivers adjacent to affected roadways. This report supplements the analysis included in the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR with respect to the potential noise effects that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project as compared to analysis in the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR. Specifically, the supplemental analysis herein looks at whether noise levels anticipated from the Proposed Project differ from those evaluated in the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR and provides a breakdown of potential impacts resulting from the proposed land use plan. A significant noise impact would occur if adoption of the Proposed Project would result in the exposure of people to excessive noise or result in the generation generation of excessive noise. For the analysis, a significant direct impact was identified if the proposed land use designations result in noise exposures that conflict with the policies in the General Plan or if a proposed land use would potentially create noise levels in excess of the City’s Municipal Code. A significant cumulative impact was identified if the incremental noise increase of the Proposed Project would be considered considerable when viewed in connection with the effect of past, current, and probable future projects. This analysis examines future noise levels due to traffic on SR-125, La Media Road, Heritage Road, Main Street, and Eastlake Parkway, aircraft traffic from Brown Field, and potential onsite sources. An additional Existing + Project scenario was analyzed based on project buildout with full buildout traffic volumes added to existing traffic, infrastructure and land uses. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 2 This report also evaluates the adequacy of the policies in the General Plan to avoid any identified impacts. The Proposed Project location is in the south central portion of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the Proposed Project. Figure 2 shows an aerial photograph of the project and vicinity. The Project Area is composed of 1,200 acres and is delineated by the red dotted line in Figure 3. The Land Use Change Area is delineated by a blue outline in Figure 3. The Land Use Change Area comprises multiple existing villages and planning areas as follows: · Portions of Villages 4 and 7; · Village 8; · Village 9; and · An 85-acre RTP located within Planning Area 10. It is noted that the Project Area includes Village 8 East; however, this proposed village is not part of the Proposed Project’s Land Use Change Area. Figure 3 provides an illustration of the land uses analyzed in the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR for the Land Use Change Area, and Figure 4 shows the Proposed Project’s land use plan. In December 2005 the City’s GPU was approved and the associated EIR certified. The GPU presented a long-term strategy to address planning issues for the growth and development of the City outlining the community’s vision for the future through land use designations and goals and policies. The Proposed Project seeks to amend General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP goals and policies, along with the Circulation Plan-East for the entire Project Area. In addition, the Proposed Project would modify the land use designations within the Land Use Change Area. The Proposed Project seeks to maintain consistency with the General Plan through the provision of walkable neighborhoods and vibrant town centers. The primary goals and objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: · Encourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses within a village atmosphere. · Foster the goal of the General Plan to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of business, employment and housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for residents to live and work locally. FIGURE 1 Regional Location Dulzura Jamul Jamacha Blossom Valley San Diego San Diego Imperial Beach Coronado Lake Poway La Jolla Brown Field Rancho Penasquitos Carmel Valley Lindbergh Field Airport MCAS Miramar Miramar Reservoir Solana Beach Del Mar Mission Bay San Diego Bay Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir El Capitan Reservoir San Vicente Reservoir Santee Lemon Grove El Cajon Poway La Mesa National City San Diego Chula Vista UNINCORPORATED Pacific Ocean C A L I F O R N I A M E X I C O §¨¦15 £¤67 Powa y Road Via de la Valle £¤56 §¨¦5 §¨¦805 £¤52 §¨¦8£¤94 £¤94 £¤125 San Diego Tijuana M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig1_nos.mxd 10/18/2011 0 Miles 4[ Project Area Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Aerial Photograph of the Project Area and Vicinity FIGURE 2 L o w e r O t a y R e s e r v o i r SR-125 O t a y R i v e r BROWN FIELD Village 9 Village 8 West T E L E G R A P H C A N Y O N R D 0 Feet 4,000 Image source: Copyright 2010 AerialsExpress, All Rights Reserved (flown Feb 2010) [ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig2_nos.mxd 10/18/2011 Project Area Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Land Uses Analyzed in 2005 GPU/GDP EIR FIGURE 3 1|ÿ25 Village 9 Village 8 West 0 Feet 2,000[ \\server04\gis\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig3_nos.mxd 3/23/2012 Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 Proposed Land Uses FIGURE 4 0 Feet 2,000[ \\server04\gis\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig4_nos.mxd 1/24/2012 Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 7 · Create Town Center within newly defined boundaries for Village 8 West and Village 9, as encouraged by the GPU’s emphasis on providing a mix of diverse land uses that meets community needs. · Develop a circulation plan that de-emphasizes the automobile, and places greater reliance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation. · Target higher density and higher intensity development into specific focus areas in order to protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed-use urban environments that are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well designed, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the City’s economy. · Allow for higher density residential development in order to encourage the development of off-campus student housing within the University Town Center adjacent to the University. · Provide opportunities for higher density development that accommodates off-site Student and Faculty Housing for the University. · Provide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to support the University and RTP to be provided within the University. · Provide access to, and connections between, the City’s open space and trails network and the regional network, in accordance with the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. · Conserve the City’s sensitive biological and other valuable natural resources. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 8 2.0 Analysis Methodology 2.1 Applicable Standards and Definitions of Terms 2.1.1 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise and Noise Descriptors Simply stated, noise is unwanted sound. Sound is caused by minute pressure variations in the air—above and below static atmospheric pressure that are sensed by the human ear. The number of these minute pressure variations over time is referred to as the frequency of the sound. Sound in the ambient environment is composed of a wide range of frequencies. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive at all frequencies, two different noises that have the same sound pressure level (SPL) may be perceived as having different levels of loudness. Therefore, the SPL is not a measure of the loudness of a sound. In order to obtain levels that more closely approximate the perceived loudness of noise by humans, frequency-weighting of the sound level is used. The most common frequency-weighting used for assessment of noise in the ambient environment is A-weighting. A-weighting is a frequency correction that often correlates well with the subjective response of humans to noise. The noise at any given location is a function of the noise produced by the source, the propagation path between the source and the receiver, and the sensitivity of the receiver. To reduce noise levels at a sensitive receiver, the only available techniques are to reduce the noise of the source, to interrupt the propagation path between the source and the receiver, or to increase the distance between the source and the receiver. The propagation path is simply the path that the sound travels between its source and the receiver. The evaluation of the effects of noise in the City must consider the sound pressure levels to which people will be exposed, the duration of those levels, and the time of day—or Sound Pressure Level 2 10 log 10 ÷ø ö çè æ = o p SPL p Where: p = the sound pressure pressure of the signal above atmospheric pressure, and po = the reference pressure (standardized at 20 micropascals1) 1 A micropascal is a unit of pressure equal to a millionth of a newton per square Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 9 night—at which they occur. While different people will respond differently to any specific situation, overall response is primarily a factor of these three main elements. The actual impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day which noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. The noise descriptors used for this study are the 1-hour average-equivalent noise level (Leq[1]), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL is a 24-hour A-weighted average sound level [dB(A) Leq] from midnight to midnight obtained after the addition of 5 decibels (dB) to sound levels occurring between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., and 10 dB to sound levels occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. A-weighting is a frequency correction that often correlates well with the subjective response of humans to noise. Adding 5 dB and 10 dB to the evening and nighttime hours, respectively, accounts for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during these time periods. Sound from a small localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level decreases or drops off at a rate of 6 dB(A) for each doubling of the distance (6 dB(A)/DD). However, highway traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source of sound. The movement of vehicles makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source) rather than a point when viewed over some time interval. The drop-off rate for a line source is 3 dB(A)/DD. Change in noise levels is perceived as follows: 3 dB(A) barely perceptible, 5 dB(A) readily perceptible, and 10 dB(A) perceived as a doubling or halving of noise. Impacts to future sensitive receivers were evaluated in relation to the noise level standards promulgated in the City’s General Plan and the Noise Control Ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code. 2.1.2 Standards Applicable to Vehicle Traffic Noise The City uses the CNEL as the measure for assessing transportation noise impacts with respect to land use planning. Table 1 summarizes the City’s exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines. These guidelines reflect the levels of noise exposure that are generally considered to be compatible with various land uses. A significant impact would occur as a result of the adoption of the proposed GPA and GDPA if future development projects under the Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to noise in excess of the levels specified in Table 1. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 10 TABLE 1 EXTERIOR LAND USE/NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Land Use Annual CNEL in Decibels 50 55 60 65 70 75 Residential Schools, Libraries, Daycare Facilities, Convalescent Homes, Outdoor Use Areas, and Other Similar Uses Considered Noise Sensitive Neighborhood Parks, Playgrounds Community Parks, Athletic Fields Office and Professional Places of Worship (excluding outdoor use areas) Golf Courses Retail and Wholesale Commercial, Restaurants, Movie Theaters Industrial, Manufacturing SOURCE: Table 9-2 of the City of Chula Vista General Plan (2005). Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations further specifies that for multi-family residences if the exterior noise level exceeds 60 CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall demonstrate that the design would achieve the prescribed interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. 2.1.3 Standards Applicable to Aircraft Traffic Noise A significant impact would occur as a result of the adoption of the proposed GPA and GDPA if future development projects under the Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to noise in excess of the land use compatibility noise levels established in the 2010 Brown Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). 2.1.4 Standards Applicable to On-Site Generated Noise Section 19.689 of the Noise Control Ordinance contains the maximum permissible sound level that can be produced by a noise generator at a receiving property boundary. These performance standards generally apply to stationary sources of noise (i.e., noise sources other than transportation related). Table 2 shows the exterior noise limits of the Noise Control Ordinance. These levels are applied to both environmental and nuisance noise sources, as defined by the ordinance. A significant impact would occur as a result of the adoption of the proposed GPA and GDPA if future development projects under the Proposed Project would generate noise levels in excess of the noise limits specified in Table 2. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 11 TABLE 2 EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS Noise Level [dB(A)] Receiving Land Use Category 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. (Weekdays) 10 P.M. to 8 A.M. (Weekends) 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. (Weekdays) 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. (Weekends) All residential (except multiple dwelling) 45 55 Multiple dwelling residential 50 60 Commercial 60 65 Light industry – I-R and I-L zone 70 70 Heavy industry – I zone 80 80 NOTES: I-R = Research Industrial Zone; I-L = Limited Industrial Zone; I = General Industrial Zone Environmental Noise – Leq in any hour. Nuisance Noise – Not to be exceeded any time. 2.2 Existing Noise Level Measurements To assess the potential impacts of noise resulting from increased traffic and to obtain existing ambient conditions, noise measurements were taken throughout the vicinity of the Project Site on June 16, 2010. Noise measurements were taken with one Larson-Davis Model 720 Type 2 Integrating Sound Level Meter, serial number 0262, 0266. The following parameters were used: Filter: A-weighted Response: Fast Time History Period: 5 seconds The meter was calibrated prior to the day’s measurements. Fifteen-minute ground-floor measurements (5 feet above the ground) were taken at seven locations throughout the vicinity of the Project Site. Noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 5. 2.3 Vehicle Traffic Noise Analysis 2.3.1 Traffic Parameters Traffic noise occurs adjacent to roadways and is directly related to the traffic volume, speed, and mix of vehicles. The following is a discussion of the traffic parameters that were used in the analysis of Existing + Project conditions as well as future buildout traffic conditions. Noise Measurement Locations FIGURE 5 !( !( !( !( !( !( !(3 7 6 5 4 2 1 1|ÿ25 Village 9 Village 8 West M a i n S t 0 Feet 2,500 Image source: Copyright 2010 AerialsExpress, All Rights Reserved (flown Feb 2010) [ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig5_nos.mxd 10/18/2011 Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP !( Noise Measurement Locations Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 13 2.3.1.1 Existing + Project Traffic Parameters The Existing + Project study scenario is based on the assumption that the Proposed Project would be fully built out immediately and the corresponding full buildout traffic volumes would be added to existing roadway volumes and infrastructure. Thus, this analysis presumes the existing traffic volumes, existing infrastructure, and existing land uses plus full buildout of the Proposed Project. A long-range development such as the Proposed Project is not anticipated to reach full buildout until after year 2030. However, this Existing + Project analysis is provided for informational purposes. Existing + Project traffic volumes and speeds were obtained from the traffic study prepared for the Proposed Project (LLG 2012). Traffic mix data were based on typical mix data for area roadways. The traffic mix for I-805 was 93.0 percent cars, 4.3 percent medium trucks, and 2.7 percent heavy trucks, and the traffic mix for the existing portion of SR-905 was 91.9 percent cars, 5.5 percent medium trucks, and 2.6 percent heavy trucks. These traffic mixes were obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) truck traffic counts (Caltrans 2008). For other area roadways, a standard conservative traffic mix of 95 percent cars, 3 percent medium trucks, and 2 percent heavy trucks was assumed. Table 3 summarizes the Existing + Project vehicle traffic parameters. The traffic distribution for projecting the future noise contours was assumed to be 77 percent daytime, 10 percent evening, and 13 percent nighttime. With this distribution, the CNEL is approximately 2 dB greater than a noise level for an average daytime hour. 2.3.1.2 Future Traffic Parameters The Project Area would be exposed to future traffic noise from SR-125 and current and proposed alignments of La Media Road, Main Street, Heritage Road, and Eastlake Parkway. Future traffic volumes for these roads were obtained from the traffic study prepared for the Proposed Project (LLG 2012). Speeds for traffic on each roadway were obtained from the traffic study, and were assumed for the traffic noise projections. Traffic mix data was based on typical mix data for area roadways. The traffic mix for SR-125 was 95.6 percent cars, 3.2 percent medium trucks, and 1.2 percent heavy trucks, and was obtained from Caltrans truck traffic counts (Caltrans 2008). For other area roadways, a standard conservative traffic mix of 95 percent cars, 3 percent medium trucks, and 2 percent heavy trucks was assumed. Table 4 summarizes the future vehicle traffic parameters used in this analysis for each roadway segment in the Project Area. TABLE 3 EXISTING + PROJECT VEHICLE TRAFFIC PARAMETERS Roadway From To Speed (mph) Traffic Mix (percent) Existing + Project Traffic Cars Volume Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Olympic Parkway I-805 Brandywine Avenue 35 95 3 2 63,463 Brandywine Avenue Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero 50 95 3 2 69,785 Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero La Media Road 50 95 3 2 84,383 La Media Road SR-125 50 95 3 2 53,712 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway 50 95 3 2 50,181 Eastlake Parkway Hunte Parkway 50 95 3 2 20,895 Hunte Parkway Wueste Road 45 95 3 2 5,915 Birch Road La Media Road SR-125 45 95 3 2 46,546 Main Street I-805 Brandywine Avenue 50 95 3 2 26,831 Brandywine Avenue Maxwell Street 50 95 3 2 18,700 Hunte Parkway Eastlake Parkway Exploration Falls Drive 45 95 3 2 12,737 Exploration Falls Drive Olympic Parkway 45 95 3 2 11,013 Heritage Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road City Boundary 45 95 3 2 10,000 La Media Road Olympic Parkway Birch Road 45 95 3 2 56,946 Birch Road Main Street/La Media Road Couplet 45 95 3 2 3,585 Eastlake Parkway Olympic Parkway Birch Road 40 95 3 2 25,115 Birch Road Hunte Parkway 40 95 3 2 46,864 I-805 Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue Main Street/Auto Park Drive 65 93.0 4.3 2.7 156,756 Main Street/Auto Park Drive Palm Avenue 65 93.0 4.3 2.7 154,756 Palm Avenue SR-905 65 93.0 4.3 2.7 115,301 SR-905 I-805 Otay Mesa Road 65 91.9 5.5 2.6 60,000 TABLE 4 FUTURE VEHICLE TRAFFIC PARAMETERS Roadway From To Speed (mph) Traffic Mix (percent) Future Traffic Cars Volume Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Main Street I-805 Brandywine Avenue 50 95 3 2 53,000 Brandywine Avenue Maxwell Street 50 95 3 2 46,200 Maxwell Street Heritage Road 50 95 3 2 40,800 Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) Heritage Road La Media Road 50 95 3 2 42,900 La Media Road SR-125 50 95 3 2 33,000 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway 50 95 3 2 38,900 Eastlake Parkway Exploration Falls Drive 50 95 3 2 33,900 Exploration Falls Drive Olympic Parkway 50 95 3 2 28,000 Heritage Road Olympic Parkway Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 45 95 3 2 33,400 Main Street Avenida de las Vistas 45 95 3 2 41,700 Avenida de las Vistas City Boundary 45 95 3 2 40,000 City Boundary Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road 45 95 3 2 25,600 Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road Otay Mesa Road 45 95 3 2 32,200 La Media Road Olympic Parkway Birch Road 45 95 3 2 26,300 Birch Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 45 95 3 2 15,700 Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Otay Valley Road 45 95 3 2 25,400 Otay Valley Road La Media Road SR-125 45 95 3 2 24,700 SR-125 Otay Villa Road 45 95 3 2 35,900 Otay Villa Road Eastlake Parkway 45 95 3 2 13,600 Eastlake Parkway Otay Valley Road Hunte Parkway 40 95 3 2 15,500 Hunte Parkway Birch Road 40 95 3 2 23,000 Birch Road Olympic Parkway 40 95 3 2 27,400 SR-125 Olympic Parkway Birch Road 65 95.6 3.2 1.2 13,400 Birch Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 65 95.6 3.2 1.2 13,700 Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Otay Valley Road 65 95.6 3.2 1.2 23,900 Otay Valley Road Lonestar Road 65 95.6 3.2 1.2 57,800 Lonestar Road Otay Mesa Road 65 95.6 3.2 1.2 53,400 Otay Mesa Road SR-905 65 95.6 3.2 1.2 26,000 Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 16 The same daytime, evening, and nighttime traffic distribution discussed above was assumed. 2.3.2 Analysis of Traffic Noise The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Prediction Model (1979) algorithms, along with the California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Calveno) (Caltrans 1983), were used to calculate distances to noise contours for each roadway. The FHWA model takes into account traffic mix, speed, and volume; roadway gradient; relative distances between sources, barriers, and sensitive receptors; and shielding provided by intervening terrain or structures. The analysis of the noise environment considered that the topography was flat with no intervening terrain between sensitive land uses and roadways. Because there are no obstructions included in the modeling process, predicted noise levels are higher than would actually occur. In actuality, buildings and other obstructions along the roadways would shield distant receivers from the traffic noise. 2.3.3 Analysis of Direct Versus Cumulative Impacts The direct impact analysis, referred to as Alternative 3 in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project, considers traffic noise resulting from land uses within proposed Villages 8 West and 9, as well as the proposed RTP located within Planning Area 10/University Site. The noise associated with this scenario also assumes existing traffic conditions within the Project Area (but outside the Land Use Change Area), and existing City traffic conditions outside the project boundary. The cumulative scenario, referred to as Alternative 7 in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project, considers noise impacts associated with the proposed villages and RTP, as well as foreseeable future land uses within the Project Area (Village 8E and 10), and future City and County traffic conditions outside the project boundary. 2.3.4 Analysis of Existing + Project Impacts The Existing + Project analysis, also discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project, considers the scenario where the Proposed Project would be fully built out immediately and all corresponding traffic volumes would be added to existing roadway volumes and infrastructure. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 17 3.0 Existing Conditions Existing noise levels within the city of Chula Vista generally are dominated by trafficgenerated noise. Other noise sources in the city include: · The San Diego Trolley operated by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board; · The Chula Vista Amphitheater (operates during the summer concert season); · Aircraft operations associated with Brown Field (located outside the City limits); and · Operations at the Otay Landfill (located within the City boundaries but operated by the County). 3.1 Vehicle Traffic The main source of existing and future noise in the Project Area is vehicle traffic on area roadways. The roadways that would affect the Project Area and were examined in this analysis are SR-125, La Media Road, Main Street, Heritage Road, and Eastlake Parkway. Traffic parameters are discussed above in Section 2.3. As shown in Figure 2, the Project Area is currently vacant land. The project vicinity consists of newly constructed homes and roads. There are currently no roadways through the Project Area. Main Street, La Media Road, Eastlake Parkway, Hunte Parkway, and Otay Valley Road would be extended upon buildout of the Proposed Project. As part of this analysis, ambient noise conditions were measured in and around the vicinity of the Project Site, referred to as the study area. In order to provide a qualitative assessment of the variability of noise throughout the study area, a series of seven daytime noise measurements that were 15 minutes in duration were made throughout the study area. The measurement locations are shown in Figure 5 and were chosen to obtain existing noise levels at the boundary of the Project Area and to obtain existing noise levels of freeflow traffic on roads that would be constructed within the Project Area. The noise measurement data are contained in Attachment 1. Measurement 1 was located approximately 85 feet from the center of the intersection of Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway at the northeast corner of proposed Village 9. In the vicinity of the measurement location, the roadways are newly constructed and little traffic was observed. Eastlake Parkway is a six-lane roadway and Hunte Parkway is a six-lane roadway with an additional two dedicated right turn lanes. During the 15-minute measurement period, traffic in the intersection was counted. The average measured noise level was 51.6 dB(A) Leq. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 18 As a part of the Circulation Plan, Eastlake Parkway would be extended south along the eastern edge of proposed Village 9. To obtain existing noise levels of freeflow traffic on Eastlake Parkway, Measurement 2 was located north of the Project Area between Birch Road and Olympic Parkway at approximately 50 feet from the centerline of Eastlake Parkway. In the vicinity of the measurement location, Eastlake Parkway is a six-lane roadway. The dominant source of noise was traffic on Eastlake Parkway. Other noise sources included activities in the shopping center parking lot. During the 15-minute measurement period, traffic on Eastlake Parkway was counted. The average measured noise level was 63.4 dB(A) Leq. Measurement 3 was located at the dead end of La Media Road on the centerline of the roadway at the northern boundary of proposed Village 8 West. In the vicinity of the measurement location, La Media Road is a six-lane roadway. During the 15-minute measurement period, traffic through the intersection of La Media Road and Santa Luna Street was counted. The average measured noise level was 51.9 dB(A) Leq. As a part of the Circulation Plan, La Media Road would be extended south through proposed Village 8 West. To obtain existing noise levels of freeflow traffic on La Media Road, Measurement 4 was located north of the Project Area between Birch Road and Santa Venetia Street at approximately 60 feet from the centerline of La Media Road. In the vicinity of the measurement location, La Media Road is a six-lane roadway. The dominant source of noise was traffic on La Media Road. During the 15-minute measurement period, traffic on La Media Road was counted. The average measured noise level was 61.9 dB(A) Leq. Measurement 5 was located north of the Project Area adjacent to SR-125 at approximately 90 feet from the centerline. In the vicinity of the measurement location, SR-125 is a four-lane toll road. The measurement was located at the top of a slope slightly above the elevation of the roadway. There is an approximately 5-foot wall located between SR-125 and the residences to the west. The noise meter was located on the west side of the wall with the microphone above the wall. During the 15-minute measurement period, traffic on SR-125 was counted. The average measured noise level was 65.9 dB(A) Leq. This measured noise level was low because of the distance from the centerline and the low traffic volume on the freeway. Measurement 6 was located west of the Project Area adjacent to Heritage Road at approximately 40 feet from the centerline. The dominant source of noise was traffic on Heritage Road. During the 15-minute measurement period, traffic on Heritage Road was counted. The average measured noise level was 74.1 dB(A) Leq. As a part of the Circulation Plan, Main Street would be extended east through the Project Area. To obtain existing noise levels of freeflow traffic on Main Street, Measurement 7 was located west of the Project Area between Nirvana Avenue and Heritage Road at approximately 45 feet from the centerline of Main Street. The dominant Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 19 source of noise was traffic on Main Street. During the 15-minute measurement period, traffic on Main Street was counted. The average measured noise level was 73.7 dB(A) Leq. Table 5 presents the results of the noise measurements and traffic counts. TABLE 5 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS Measurement Location 15-Minute Traffic Counts Measured Cars Noise Level Motorcycles Buses Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks 1 Eastlake Parkway/Hunte Parkway 11 0 0 0 0 51.6 2 Eastlake Parkway 109 0 1 3 0 63.4 3 La Media Road 5 0 0 0 0 51.9 4 La Media Road 112 1 0 0 1 61.9 5 SR-125 94 0 0 4 4 65.9 6 Heritage Road 143 1 0 8 8 74.1 7 Main Street 184 1 0 11 12 73.7 As previously stated, the Project Area is currently vacant with no through roadways. Measurements 1 and 3 are the most characteristic of the current ambient noise environment on site. The following is a brief discussion of the noise characteristics of the area surrounding the Project Area. This is discussed because the future noise environment on the Project Area would be similar to the noise environment in the surrounding area. As indicated, existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project are primarily due to traffic on area roadways but are also composed of other sources 3.2 Air Traffic The primary sources of aircraft noise in the vicinity of the study area would be due to aircraft operations associated with Brown Field located within the City of San Diego south of the Project Area. The ALUCP for Brown Field identifies land uses compatible with annual noise levels due to aircraft operations. These land use compatibility noise levels are to be used in determining whether a proposed land use is consistent with ALUCP policies and guidelines. Although the Brown Field ALUCP was revised in 2010, the Proposed Project is not subject to the 2010 Brown Field ALUCP. A previous compatibility review was performed during the preparation of the City’s City’s General Plan Update in 2005. The General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would not expose people working or residing within the General Plan Update area to excessive noise levels from Brown Field because the 65 dBA contour associated Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 20 with the airport does not impact any portion of the General Plan Update area. The Proposed Project changes land use designations as compared to those analyzed in the environmental document. However, pursuant to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the previous compatibility review under the 2004 ALUCP is adequate and no further review of the GPA is required under the 2004 ALUCP. Noise levels due to operations at the other airfields generally do not impact the Project Area. 3.3 Other Sources of Noise Other sources of noise within the Project Area are due to the normal activities associated with a given land use. For example, within residential areas noise sources may include dogs, landscaping activities, and parties. Commercial uses may include car washes, fast food restaurants, and auto repair facilities. 4.0 Existing + Project Scenario As discussed above, above, this analysis presumes the existing traffic volumes, existing infrastructure, and existing land uses plus full buildout of the Proposed Project. Existing + Project traffic parameters are summarized in Table 3. The methods used in the analysis are described in the Analysis Methodology section of this report. Table 6 summarizes the Existing and the Existing + Project distances to the 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80 CNEL noise contours. Distances to the noise contours assume a hard, flat site with no intervening barriers or obstructions. Existing noise contours are shown in Figure 6. Existing + Project noise contours are shown in Figure 7. As shown in Figure 6, uses located closest to the circulation element roadways are currently exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. As shown in Figure 7, adding project traffic to existing traffic volumes would result in a slight increase in noise levels. Table 7 summarizes the change in noise levels that would result from adding project traffic to existing traffic volumes. An increase of 3 dB is considered a perceptible increase in noise to the human ear. As shown, the following roadway segments would experience more than a 3-dB noise increase: TABLE 6 EXISTING VERSUS EXISTING + PROJECT NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES Existing Distance to (feet) Existing + Project Distance to (feet) Roadway From To 80 CNEL 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 80 CNEL 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Olympic Parkway I-805 Brandywine Avenue --116 366 1,124 --156 494 1,419 Brandywine Avenue Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero -82 259 820 2,030 -117 371 1,138 2,426 Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero La Media Road -85 269 850 2,069 -142 449 1,320 2,648 La Media Road SR-125 -73 232 734 1,891 -90 286 904 2,135 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway -68 216 682 1,795 -84 267 845 2,062 Eastlake Parkway Hunte Parkway -74 234 740 --111 352 1,090 Hunte Parkway Wueste Road -116 366 1,124 ---78 248 Birch Road La Media Road SR-125 ---135 428 -62 195 618 1,673 Main Street I-805 Brandywine Avenue --141 444 1,309 --143 452 1,325 Brandywine Avenue Maxwell Street --100 315 995 --100 315 995 Hunte Parkway Eastlake Parkway Exploration Falls Drive -------53 169 534 Exploration Falls Drive Olympic Parkway --------146 462 Heritage Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road City Boundary ---133 420 ---133 420 La Media Road Olympic Parkway Birch Road ---146 462 -76 239 756 1,929 Birch Road Main Street/La Media Road Couplet ---13 42 ----150 Eastlake Parkway Olympic Parkway Birch Road ---122 386 --82 258 816 Birch Road Hunte Parkway ---17 55 --152 481 1,391 I-805 Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue Main Street/Auto Park Drive 162 512 1,457 2,806 4,353 168 532 1,498 2,852 4,407 Main Street/Auto Park Drive Palm Avenue 160 505 1,443 2,790 4,333 166 525 1,484 2,836 4,388 Palm Avenue SR-905 121 383 1,166 2,461 3,940 124 391 1,185 2,484 3,968 SR-905 I-805 Otay Mesa Road 66 208 657 1,749 3,119 66 208 657 1,749 3,119 NOTE: Distances less than 50 feet not reported. THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. Existing Flat-Site Roadway Contours FIGURE 6 §¨¦5 ¦§¨805 1|ÿ25 M A I N S T O T A Y M E S A R D O L Y M P I C P Y W I L E Y R D 0 3 R D A V E H S T S R -9 0 5 E B E P A L O M A R S T B E Y E R B L G S T B R O A D W A Y H U N T E P Y A L T A R D W U E S T E R D D E L S O L B L B I R C H R D E A S T L A K E P Y B E Y E R W Y S R -9 0 5 O R A N G E A V E L S T M A X A V D E N N E R Y R D T E L E G R A P H C A N Y O N R D H E R I T A G E R D M A G D A L E N A A V A R E Y D R C A C T U S R D S A N T A V I C T O R I A R D M A X W E L L R D S U N S E T L N P A L M A V S G R E E N S V I E W D R M A I N S T Village 9 Village 8 West 0 Miles 1 Image source: Copyright 2010 AerialsExpress, All Rights Reserved (flown Feb 2010) [ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_g s\fig6_nos.mxd 4/30/2012 Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Future Roadway Alignment Noise Contours 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL 75 CNEL 80 CNEL Existing + Project Flat-Site Roadway Contours FIGURE 7 §¨¦5 ¦§¨805 1|ÿ25 M A I N S T O T A Y M E S A R D O L Y M P I C P Y W I L E Y R D 0 3 R D A V E H S T S R -9 0 5 E B E P A L O M A R S T B E Y E R B L G S T B R O A D W A Y H U N T E P Y A L T A R D W U E S T E R D D E L S O L B L B I R C H R D E A S T L A K E P Y B E Y E R W Y S R -9 0 5 O R A N G E A V E L S T M A X A V D E N N E R Y R D T E L E G R A P H C A N Y O N R D H E R I T A G E R D M A G D A L E N A A V A R E Y D R C A C T U S R D S A N T A V I C T O R I A R D M A X W E L L R D S U N S E T L N P A L M A V S G R E E N S V I E W D R M A I N S T Village 9 Village 8 West 0 Miles 1 Image source: Copyright 2010 AerialsExpress, All Rights Reserved (flown Feb 2010) [ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig7_nos.mxd 4/30/2012 Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Future Roadway Alignment Noise Contours 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL 75 CNEL 80 CNEL TABLE 7 EXISTING VERSUS EXISTING + PROJECT NOISE INCREASES Roadway From To Existing Volume Existing + Project Volume Noise Increase [dB(A)] Olympic Parkway I-805 Brandywine Avenue 47,000 63,463 1.3 Brandywine Avenue Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero 48,700 69,785 1.6 Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero La Media Road 50,500 84,383 2.2 La Media Road SR-125 43,600 53,712 0.9 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway 40,500 50,181 0.9 Eastlake Parkway Hunte Parkway 13,900 20,895 1.8 Hunte Parkway Wueste Road Na 5,915 Na Birch Road La Media Road SR-125 10,200 46,546 6.6* Main Street I-805 Brandywine Avenue 26,400 26,831 0.1 Brandywine Avenue Maxwell Street 18,700 18,700 0.0 Hunte Parkway Eastlake Parkway Exploration Falls Drive 700 12,737 12.6* Exploration Falls Drive Olympic Parkway 800 11,013 11.4* Heritage Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road City Boundary 10,000 10,000 0.0 La Media Road Olympic Parkway Birch Road 11,000 56,946 7.1* Birch Road Main Street/La Media Road Couplet 1,000 3,585 5.5* Eastlake Parkway Olympic Parkway Birch Road 9,200 25,115 4.4* Birch Road Hunte Parkway 1,300 46,864 15.6* I-805 Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue Main Street/Auto Park Drive 151,000 156,756 0.2 Main Street/Auto Park Drive Palm Avenue 149,000 154,756 0.2 Palm Avenue SR-905 113,000 115,301 0.1 SR-905 I-805 Otay Mesa Road 60,000 60,000 0.0 Na = Not Available Bold = Exceeds 3 dB *Residential developments constructed adjacent to these segments have been designed according to General Plan policies (including policy EE21, discussed below, and the noise limits shown in Table 2), and noise barriers have been constructed Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 26 · Birch Road between La Media Road and SR-125 · Hunte Parkway between Eastlake Parkway and Olympic Parkway · La Media Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street/La Media Road Couplet · Eastlake Parkway between Olympic Parkway and Hunte Parkway There are existing residential, commercial, and school uses located adjacent to these roadway segments. However, the residential and school developments constructed adjacent to these segments have been designed according to General Plan policies (including policy E 21, discussed below, and the noise limits shown in Table 2), and noise barriers have been constructed to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 65 CNEL. Impacts at these existing uses are less than significant. A discussion of the worst-case future conditions is provided below. 5.0 Future Acoustical Environment and Impacts 5.1 Vehicle Traffic: Direct Impacts The methods used in the analysis of future conditions are described in the Analysis Methodology section of this report. Future traffic parameters used are shown in Table 4. Buildout of the Proposed Project would result in distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL noise contours as shown in Table 8. Distances to the noise contours assume a hard, flat site with no intervening barriers or obstructions. Future noise contours for the Proposed Project would be indistinguishable from those established for the 2005 GPU land use plan and are shown in Figure 8. A comparison of the acoustical differences between the 2005 GPU Preferred Plan and the proposed land use plan are discussed in Section 5.3, below. It should be noted that at any specific location the actual existing noise would depend upon not only the source noise, but the nature of the path from the source to the sensitive receptor. Buildings, walls, and other barriers would reduce the direct line-ofsight noise levels. For the existing noise contours, the first row of buildings (where they exist) would reduce road noise to sensitive receptors placed behind those structures. It should also be noted that each individual project would require subsequent review. TABLE 8 PROPOSED PROJECT BUILDOUT NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES Roadway From To Distance to (feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Main Street I-805 Brandywine Avenue 282 892 2,120 Brandywine Avenue Maxwell Street 246 778 1,968 Maxwell Street Heritage Road 217 687 1,805 Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) Heritage Road La Media Road 228 722 1,869 La Media Road SR-125 176 555 1,548 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway 207 655 1,744 Eastlake Parkway Exploration Falls Drive 180 571 1,579 Exploration Falls Drive Olympic Parkway 149 471 1,369 Heritage Road Olympic Parkway Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 140 443 1,306 Main Street Avenida de las Vistas 175 553 1,544 Avenida de las Vistas City Boundary 168 531 1,497 City Boundary Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road 107 340 1,060 Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road Otay Mesa Road 135 427 1,270 La Media Road Olympic Parkway Birch Road 110 349 1,083 Birch Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 66 208 659 Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Otay Valley Road 107 337 1,053 Otay Valley Road La Media Road SR-125 104 328 1,029 SR-125 Otay Villa Road 151 476 1,380 Otay Villa Road Eastlake Parkway 57 180 571 Eastlake Parkway Otay Valley Road Hunte Parkway 50 159 503 Hunte Parkway Birch Road 75 236 747 Birch Road Olympic Parkway 89 281 890 SR-125 Olympic Parkway Birch Road 127 401 1,209 Birch Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 130 410 1,230 Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Otay Valley Road 226 716 1,858 Otay Valley Road Lonestar Road 547 1,532 2,888 Lonestar Road Otay Mesa Road 506 1,444 2,791 Otay Mesa Road SR-905 246 779 1,970 Future Flat-Site Roadway Contours FIGURE 8 1|ÿ25 M A I N S T E A S T L A K E R D O T A Y V A L L E Y R D Village 9 Village 8 West W I L E Y R D B I R C H R D H U N T E P Y O L Y M P I C P Y L A M E D I A R D W U E S T E R D H E R I T A G E R D E A S T L A K E P Y S A N T A V I C T O R I A R D C R O S S R O A D S S T S A N T A V E N E T I A S T F I E L D B R O O K S T P E R S H I N G R D W E B B E R W Y P E R R I N P L K I N C A I D A V W A N D E R S T 0 Feet 2,500 Image source: Copyright 2010 AerialsExpress, All Rights Reserved (flown Feb 2010) [ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig8_nos.mxd 4/30/2012 Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Future Roadway Alignment Noise Contours 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 29 As shown in Figure 8, uses located closest to the circulation element roadways would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. Unobstructed noise levels exceed 60 CNEL across most of the Project Area. The Proposed Project includes residential, school, commercial, mixed use, and park uses. Pursuant to City guidelines (see Table 1), a significant impact would occur if residential, school, or park receptors were exposed to roadway noise in excess of 65 CNEL, if office or professional uses were exposed to roadway noise in excess of 70 CNEL, or if retail, wholesale commercial, or restaurant receptors were exposed to roadway noise levels in excess of 75 CNEL. Based on the land use plans for the Proposed Project, there are residential and mixed uses (which may include residential components), school sites and park areas located within the distances indicated in the 65 65 CNEL column of Table 8. These areas are shown in Figure 9. Should future residential, school, or park receptors be located within these areas there could be potentially significant impacts resulting from exposure to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. There are mixed uses (which may include office and professional components) located within the distances indicated in the 70 CNEL column of Table 8. These areas are shown in Figure 10. Should future office and/or professional receptors be located within these areas there could be potentially significant impacts resulting from exposure to noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL. As shown in Figure 8, noise levels would be less than 75 CNEL across the proposed village sites/RTP. Future retail, wholesale commercial, or restaurant receptors that may be constructed in the mixed use areas would not be exposed to noise levels greater than 75 CNEL. 5.2 Vehicle Traffic: Cumulative Impacts As discussed in Section 2.1.1 above, an increase of 3 decibels is considered a perceptible increase in noise to the human ear. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact could occur to existing receivers adjacent to circulation element roadways where traffic volumes result in noise level increases of more than 3 decibels. Lessening the noise levels in these areas would require a project-level exterior analysis to assess the feasibility of reducing noise levels to outdoor use areas. This level of analysis is infeasible at this stage of the analysis. A significant cumulative impact would occur if adoption of the Proposed Project, along with past, current, and probable future projects would expose on-or off-site, existing, and planned sensitive receptors to road noise 3 decibels over existing noise levels. As shown in Table 9, when compared to existing traffic volumes, cumulative noise increases of up to 17.6 decibels could be anticipated. Areas Exceeding 65 CNEL FIGURE 9 0 Feet 2,000[ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig9_nos.mxd 4/30/2012Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Areas Subject to Noise Levels Greater Than 65 CNEL Areas Exceeding 70 CNEL FIGURE 10 0 Feet 2,000[ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig10_nos.mxd 4/30/2012Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Areas Subject to Noise Levels Greater Than 70 CNEL Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 32 Of the roadway segments that would experience a cumulative noise increase of 3 decibels or more, there are existing sensitive receptors located adjacent to the following segments: · Olympic Parkway between Eastlake Parkway and Wueste Road · Main Street between I-805 and Oleander Avenue · Hunte Parkway between Eastlake Parkway and Olympic Parkway · La Media Road between Olympic Parkway and Santa Luna Street · Eastlake Parkway between Olympic Parkway and Hunte Parkway · I-805 between Palm Avenue and SR-905 · SR-905 between I-805 and Ocean View Hills Parkway The residential developments constructed adjacent to these segments have been designed according to General Plan policies (including policy E 21, discussed below, and the noise limits shown in Table 2), and noise barriers have been constructed to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 65 CNEL. Impacts at these existing residences are less than significant. When compared to the future traffic volumes that would occur under the adopted General Plan, the Proposed Project would result in noise increases of up to 10.7 decibels. Of the roadway segments where noise levels would increase by 3 decibels or more (under direct or cumulative conditions), there are existing sensitive receptors located adjacent to SR-125 between Olympic Parkway and the northern project boundary. All other roadway segments that would experience a noise increase of 3 decibels or greater are located in existing industrial use areas and would not affect sensitive receptors. As discussed above, the residential developments constructed adjacent to this segment have been designed according to General Plan policies (including Objective E 21, discussed below, and the noise limits shown in Table 2), and noise barriers have been constructed to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 65 CNEL. While impacts at these existing locations may be less than significant, absent acoustical studies at future project sites, impacts would remain significant. 5.3 Vehicle Traffic: Proposed Project Compared to 2005 GPU/GDP The following is an analysis of the future year 2030 traffic noise levels that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project as compared to that analyzed in the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR. TABLE 9 CUMULATIVE NOISE INCREASES Roadway From To Existing Volume Future (Year 2030) Volume – Adopted General Plan Future (Year 2030) Volume – Proposed Project Change in dB – Existing to Proposed Project Change in dB – Adopted General Plan to Proposed Project Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 Oleander Avenue 61,900 60,000 59,300 -0.2 -0.1 Heritage Road La Media Road 40,300 46,300 47,100 0.7 0.1 Olympic Parkway I-805 Brandywine Avenue 47,000 50,700 51,300 0.4 0.1 Brandywine Avenue Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero 48,700 33,900 34,800 -1.5 0.1 Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero La Media Road 50,500 31,000 33,300 -1.8 0.3 La Media Road SR-125 43,600 42,200 43,900 0.0 0.2 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway 40,500 50,400 49,400 0.9 -0.1 Eastlake Parkway Hunte Parkway 13,900 34,100 34,200 3.9* 0.0 Hunte Parkway Wueste Road 10,200 27,000 30,100 4.7* 0.5 Birch Road La Media Road SR-125 26,400 22,600 26,200 0.0 0.6 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway 18,700 24,700 28,500 1.8 0.6 Main Street I-805 Brandywine Avenue 26,400 54,800 59,300 3.5* 0.3 Brandywine Avenue Maxwell Street 18,700 48,800 50,200 4.3* 0.1 Maxwell Street Heritage Road Na 43,000 45,200 -0.2 Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) Heritage Road La Media Road DNE 45,000 44,900 -0.0 La Media Road SR-125 DNE 38,800 33,100 --0.7 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway DNE 50,300 48,400 --0.2 Hunte Parkway Eastlake Parkway Exploration Falls Drive 700 39,400 40,000 17.6* 0.1 Exploration Falls Drive Olympic Parkway 800 29,700 31,600 16.0* 0.3 Otay Valley Road La Media Road SR-125 DNE 19,700 31,400 -2.0 SR-125 Otay Villa Road DNE 29,300 33,500 -0.6 Otay Villa Road Eastlake Parkway DNE 17,000 16,100 --0.2 Otay Mesa Road Otay Mesa Road Corporate Center Drive 67,000 32,900 48,200 -1.4 1.7 Corporate Center Drive Heritage Road 67,500 20,200 32,500 -3.2 2.1 Heritage Road Britannia Boulevard 70,900 23,000 45,600 -1.9 3.0 Britannia Boulevard La Media Road 71,100 22,800 47,300 -1.8 3.2** La Media Road Piper Ranch Road 59,000 13,500 49,600 -0.8 5.7** Piper Ranch Road SR-125 44,500 12,000 33,200 -1.3 4.4** SR-125 Harvest Road 9,700 14,500 39,000 6.0** 4.3** Bonita Road Central Avenue San Miguel Road Na 15,700 16,200 -0.1 Sweetwater Road Bonita Road Park Drive Na 25,000 25,900 -0.2 Airway Road Cactus Road Britannia Boulevard Na 4,600 25,400 -7.4** Britannia Boulevard La Media Road Na 12,200 31,100 -4.1** Siempre Vivi Road Cactus Road Britannia Boulevard Na 6,900 39,500 -7.6** Britannia Boulevard La Media Road Na 4,600 54,100 -10.7** La Media Road Avenida de la Fuente Na 6,400 26,300 -6.1** Avenida de la Fuente SR-905 Na 21,500 50,100 -3.7** Heritage Road Olympic Parkway Main Street/Rock Mountain Road DNE 30,300 42,300 -1.4 Main Street Avenida de las Vistas 10,000 33,700 61,400 7.9** 2.6 Avenida de las Vistas City Boundary 9,800 31,500 60,200 7.9** 2.8 City Boundary Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road 4,800 18,000 47,400 9.9** 4.2** Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road Otay Mesa Road 10,000 24,600 52,600 7.2** 3.3** Otay Mesa Road SR-905 Na 9,100 20,800 -3.6** La Media Road Olympic Parkway Birch Road 11,000 31,300 28,300 4.1* -0.4 Birch Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 1,000 23,900 18,000 12.6* -1.2 Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Otay Valley Road DNE 32,100 27,300 --0.7 Otay Valley Road Lonestar Road DNE 44,800 ---Lonestar Road Otay Mesa Road 4,400 32,500 16,400 5.7** -3.0 Otay Mesa Road SR-905 16,500 25,000 37,300 3.5** 1.7 TABLE 9 CUMULATIVE NOISE INCREASES (CONTINUED) Roadway From To Existing Volume Future (Year 2030) Volume – Adopted General Plan Future (Year 2030) Volume – Proposed Project Change in dB – Existing to Proposed Project Change in dB – Adopted General Plan to Proposed Project Eastlake Parkway Olympic Parkway Birch Road 9,200 28,800 27,600 4.8* -0.2 Birch Road Hunte Parkway 1,300 22,900 22,800 12.4* 0.0 Hunte Parkway Otay Valley Road DNE 13,900 18,600 -1.3 Piper Ranch Road Lonestar Road Otay Mesa Road Na 2,900 5,200 -2.5 I-805 Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue Main Street/Auto Park Drive 151,000 238,400 268,000 2.5 0.5 Main Street/Auto Park Drive Palm Avenue 149,000 221,000 258,100 2.4 0.7 Palm Avenue SR-905 113,000 201,800 236,500 3.2* 0.7 SR-125 Olympic Parkway Birch Road Na 11,200 28,100 -4.0* Birch Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Na 9,900 30,200 -4.8* Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Otay Valley Road Na 20,000 46,300 -3.6* Otay Valley Road Lonestar Road Na 33,100 90,700 -4.4* Lonestar Road Otay Mesa Road Na 44,500 80,600 -2.6 Otay Mesa Road SR-905 Na 30,800 33,700 -0.4 SR-905 I-805 Ocean View Hills Parkway 60,000 146,500 223,600 5.7* 1.8 Ocean View Hills Parkway Heritage Road Na 134,900 214,900 -2.0 Heritage Road Britannia Boulevard Na 126,600 197,500 -1.9 Britannia Boulevard La Media Road Na 118,400 171,400 -1.6 La Media Road SR-125 Na 95,100 133,200 -1.5 DNE = Does Not Exist Na = Not Available *Residential developments constructed adjacent to these segments have been designed according to General Plan policies (including policy EE21, discussed below, and the noise limits shown in Table 2), and noise barriers have been constructed. **There are no sensitive receptors adjacent to these segments. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 35 Table 10 summarizes the future year 2030 traffic volumes under the 2005 GPU/GDP, the future year 2030 direct traffic volumes under the Proposed Project (Alternative 3 in the Traffic Impact Analysis), the future year 2030 cumulative traffic volumes under the Proposed Project (Alternative 7 in the Traffic Impact Analysis), and the associated differences in noise levels. As shown in Table 10, buildout of the Proposed Project would result in the following road segments experiencing an increase in traffic of 3 decibels or greater than analyzed in the 2005 GPU/GDP EIR: Direct Impacts · Otay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR-125 · Otay Valley Road from SR-125 to Otay Villa Road Cumulative Impacts · Otay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR-125 · Otay Valley Road from SR-125 to Otay Villa Road · Otay Valley Road from Otay Villa Road to Eastlake Parkway · Heritage Road from from Main Street to Avenida de las Vistas · Heritage Road from Avenidas de las Vistas to City Boundary · La Media Road from Main Street to Otay Valley Road 5.4 Other Sources of Noise As discussed above, other sources of noise within the Project Area are due to the normal activities associated with a given land use. Noises from these types of activities are considered normal environmental noises that are expected to occur within these types of land uses. The City’s Noise Control Ordinance generally regulates excessive noises resulting from these activities. The Proposed Project includes residential, school, commercial, mixed-use, and park uses. In general, increased commercial land increases the potential that noise producing uses will be developed. Conformance with GP and GDP policies, as well as ordinance compliance assures that potentially significant impacts are less than significant. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 36 6.0 General Plan Policies A significant noise impact will occur if project approval will result in people being exposed to excessive noise. Table 2 contains the exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines contained in Section 3.5 of the Environmental Element (E) of the General Plan. These guidelines reflect the levels of noise exposure that are generally considered to be compatible with various types of land use. The element notes that these guidelines are to be used at the land use planning stage, for noise impact assessments, and to determine mitigation requirements for development proposals. The Proposed Project would amend the land uses within the Land Use Change Area to correspond with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan. There are two objectives in the adopted E that address noise. Both objectives contain specific policies to avoid adverse noise impacts. The policies that have the most important application to avoiding potential noise impacts include those that establish and enforce a noise threshold for future development. Objective E 21 Protect people from excessive noise through careful land use planning and the incorporation of appropriate mitigation techniques. Policies E 21.1: Apply the exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines contained in Table 9-1 (see Table 2 of this report) of the E to new development where applicable and in light of project-specific considerations. E 21.2: Where applicable, the assessment and mitigation of interior noise levels shall adhere to the applicable California Building Code with local amendments and other applicable established City standards. E 21.3: Promote the use of available technologies in building construction to improve noise attenuation capacities. E 21.4: Continue to implement and enforce the City’s noise control ordinance. TABLE 10 FUTURE YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES: PROPOSED PROJECT VERSUS 2005 GPU Roadway From To Year 2030 Volume – 2005 GPA/GDP Year 2030 Direct Volume – Proposed Project Year 2030 Cumulative Volume – Proposed Project Change in dB – 2005 GPA/GDP to Direct Proposed Project Change in dB – 2005 GPA/GDP to Cumulative Proposed Project Telegraph Canyon Road I-805 Oleander Avenue 70,100 60,200 59,300 -0.7 -0.7 Heritage Road La Media Road 36,700 47,400 47,100 1.1 1.1 Olympic Parkway I-805 Brandywine Avenue 52,500 50,700 51,300 -0.2 -0.1 Brandywine Avenue Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero 49,500 33,900 34,800 -1.6 -1.5 Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero La Media Road 48,700 32,700 33,300 -1.7 -1.7 La Media Road SR-125 35,000 43,400 43,900 0.9 1.0 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway 47,500 49,500 49,400 0.2 0.2 Eastlake Parkway Hunte Parkway 25,400 34,100 34,200 1.3 1.3 Hunte Parkway Wueste Road Na 26,300 30,100 Birch Road La Media Road SR-125 32,500 23,800 26,200 -1.4 -0.9 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway 29,300 27,400 28,500 -0.3 -0.1 Main Street I-805 Brandywine Avenue 48,400 53,000 59,300 0.4 0.9 Brandywine Avenue Maxwell Street 48,400 46,200 50,200 -0.2 0.2 Maxwell Street Heritage Road 48,400 40,800 45,200 -0.7 -0.3 Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) Heritage Road La Media Road 42,000 42,900 44,900 0.1 0.3 La Media Road SR-125 42,600 33,000 33,100 -1.1 -1.1 SR-125 Eastlake Parkway Na 43,900 48,400 ----Hunte Parkway Eastlake Parkway Exploration Falls Drive 26,100 33,900 40,000 1.1 1.9 Exploration Falls Drive Olympic Parkway 26,100 28,000 31,600 0.3 0.8 Otay Valley Road La Media Road SR-125 4,200 24,700 31,400 7.7 8.7 SR-125 Otay Villa Road 6,900 30,900 33,500 6.5 6.9 Otay Villa Road Eastlake Parkway 6,900 13,600 16,100 2.9 3.7 Otay Mesa Road Otay Mesa Road Corporate Center Drive Na 32,400 48,200 ----Corporate Center Drive Heritage Road Na 19,300 32,500 ----Heritage Road Britannia Boulevard Na 22,800 45,600 ----Britannia Boulevard La Media Road Na 21,000 47,300 ----La Media Road Piper Ranch Road Na 14,900 49,600 ----Piper Ranch Road SR-125 Na 12,700 33,200 ----SR-125 Harvest Road Na 16,800 39,000 ----Bonita Road Central Avenue San Miguel Road 19,600 15,800 16,200 -0.9 -0.8 Sweetwater Road Bonita Road Park Drive 13,700 24,400 25,900 2.5 2.8 Airway Road Cactus Road Britannia Boulevard Na 5,100 25,400 ----Britannia Boulevard La Media Road Na 13,200 31,100 ----Siempre Vivi Road Cactus Road Britannia Boulevard Na 7,500 39,500 ----Britannia Boulevard La Media Road Na 5,200 54,100 ----La Media Road Avenida de la Fuente Na 6,400 26,300 ----Avenida de la Fuente SR-905 Na 22,300 50,100 ----Heritage Road Olympic Parkway Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 32,200 33,400 42,300 0.2 1.2 Main Street Avenida de las Vistas 29,700 41,700 61,400 1.5 3.2 Avenida de las Vistas City Boundary 29,700 40,000 60,200 1.3 3.1 City Boundary Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road Na 25,600 47,400 ----Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road Otay Mesa Road Na 32,200 52,600 ----Otay Mesa Road SR-905 Na 10,000 20,800 ----La Media Road Olympic Parkway Birch Road 25,100 26,300 28,300 0.2 0.5 Birch Road Main Street/Street/Rock Mountain Road 25,100 15,700 18,000 -2.0 -1.4 Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Otay Valley Road 13,700 25,400 27,300 2.7 3.0 Lonestar Road Otay Mesa Road Na 20,300 16,400 ----Otay Mesa Road SR-905 Na 21,900 37,300 ---- TABLE 10 FUTURE YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES: PROPOSED PROJECT VERSUS 2005 GPU (CONTINUED) Roadway From To Year 2030 Volume – 2005 GPA/GDP Year 2030 Direct Volume – Proposed Project Year 2030 Cumulative Volume – Proposed Project Change in dB – 2005 GPA/GDP to Direct Proposed Project Change in dB – 2005 GPA/GDP to Cumulative Proposed Project Eastlake Parkway Olympic Parkway Birch Road 31,400 27,400 27,600 -0.6 -0.6 Birch Road Hunte Parkway 31,400 23,000 22,800 -1.4 -1.4 Hunte Parkway Otay Valley Road 31,600 15,500 18,600 -3.1 -2.3 Piper Ranch Road Lonestar Road Otay Mesa Road Na 5,300 5,200 ----I-805 Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue Main Street/Auto Park Drive 243,000 238,000 268,000 -0.1 0.4 Main Street/Auto Park Drive Palm Avenue Na 224,900 258,100 ----Palm Avenue SR-905 Na 205,400 236,500 ----SR-125 Olympic Parkway Birch Road 56,400 13,400 28,100 -6.2 -3.0 Birch Road Main Street/Rock Mountain Road 58,200 13,700 30,200 -6.3 -2.8 Main Street/Rock Mountain Road Otay Valley Road 77,100 23,900 46,300 -5.1 -2.2 Otay Valley Road Lonestar Road Na 57,800 90,700 ----Lonestar Road Otay Mesa Road Na 53,400 80,600 ----Otay Mesa Road SR-905 Na 26,000 33,700 ----SR-905 I-805 Ocean View Hills Parkway Na 147,700 223,600 ----Ocean View Hills Parkway Heritage Road Na 136,700 214,900 ----Heritage Road Britannia Boulevard Na 129,200 197,500 ----Britannia Boulevard La Media Road Na 121,800 171,400 ----La Media Road SR-125 Na 97,900 133,200 ----Na = Not Available Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 39 Objective E 22 Protect the community from the effects of transportation noise. Policies E 22.1: Work to stabilize traffic volumes in residential neighborhoods by limiting throughways and by facilitating the use of alternative routes around, rather than through, neighborhoods. E 22.2: Explore the feasibility of using new technologies to minimize traffic noise, such as use of rubberized asphalt in road surface materials. E 22.3: Employ traffic calming measures where appropriate, such as narrow roadways and on-street parking, in commercial and mixed use districts. E 22.4: Encourage walking, biking, carpooling, use of public transit, and other alternative modes of transportation to minimize vehicular use and associated traffic noise. E 22.5: Require projects to construct appropriate mitigation measures in order to attenuate existing and projected traffic noise levels in accordance with applicable standards, including the exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines contained in Table 9-1 of the Environmental Element (see Table 2 of this report). Both of the proposed General Plan objectives and associated policies identified above address the potential generation of excessive noise. Future development that occurs in conformance to the Proposed Project would not expose people to excessive noise because these policies would require future projects to comply with the exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines contained in Table 2 (E 21.1). Future development that occurs in conformance to the Proposed Project would promote the use of available technologies in building construction to improve noise attenuation (E 21.4), and assure the continued implementation the City’s noise control ordinance (E 21.5). Future development would also work to stabilize traffic volumes (E 22.1), provide for consideration of feasibility of using new technologies to minimize traffic noise (E 22.2), employ traffic calming measures (E 22.3), and encourage alternative modes of transportation to minimize traffic noise (E 22.4). The Proposed Project also requires project developers to implement appropriate measures in order to attenuate existing and projected traffic noise levels in accordance with applicable standards (E 22.5) and specifies those standards. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 40 7.0 General Development Plan Policies Part II, Chapter 7 establishes goals to promote a quiet community were residents live without noise which is detrimental to health and enjoyment of property and ensure residents are not adversely affected by noise. Objective: Otay Ranch shall have a noise abatement program to enforce regulations to control noise. Policies: Prohibit excessive noises which are a detriment to the health and safety of residents. · Limit noise at the source, along the path of transmission and/or at the receiver site. · Reduce the need for noise mitigation through site and land use planning techniques, whenever feasible. · Consider the effects of noise, especially from transportation, in land use decisions to ensure noise compatibility. · Comply with applicable noise ordinances and performance standards in zoning ordinances. · Use the Environmental Review Process to evaluate the effects of noise. · Regularly review technological developments and building techniques which decrease the project related noise impacts on-site and off-site and specify needed noise mitigation measures. 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 Vehicle Traffic Figure 11 shows the portions of the Land Use Change Area that would exceed 60 CNEL. Interior noise levels at multi-family residential uses located in these areas have the potential to exceed 45 CNEL. Additionally, as discussed above, residential, school, and park land uses are sited within the 65 CNEL contour for project roadways (see Figure 8). In addition, mixed uses, which may include office and professional components, are sited within the 70 CNEL contour for project roadways (see Figure 9). Future receptors have the potential to be exposed to significant traffic generated noise Areas Exceeding 60 CNEL FIGURE 11 0 Feet 2,000[ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig11_nos.mxd 4/30/2012Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Areas Subject to Noise Levels Greater Than 60 CNEL Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 42 levels without mitigation. The General Plan contains objectives and policies about the exposure of people to excessive traffic noise. Future projects are required to comply with the exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines contained in Table 2 (E 21.1). The General Plan also requires project developers to implement appropriate measures in order to attenuate existing and projected traffic noise levels in accordance with applicable standards (E 22.5) and specifies those standards. Compliance with the appropriate standards in E 22.5 (see Table 2) would serve to reduce impacts from the adoption of the GPA and GDPA. However, a significant direct and/or cumulative impact could occur to existing receivers adjacent to circulation element roadways where traffic volumes are projected to result in noise level increases of more than 3 decibels. Lessening the noise levels in these areas would require a project level exterior analysis to assess the feasibility of reducing noise levels to outdoor use areas. Since this level of analysis is infeasible at this stage of the analysis, impacts remain significant and unmitigated. 8.2 On-site Generated Noise A significant noise impact would occur if the adoption of the Proposed Project were to result in the generation of excessive noise. Potential noise generators in the city are controlled under Section 19.689 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Noise Control Ordinance). This ordinance contains noise performance standards for allowable noise generation from stationary sources of noise (i.e. noise sources other than transportation related) and are stated as the maximum permissible sound level that can be produced by a noise generator at a receiving property boundary (see Table 2).The Proposed Project includes residential, school, commercial, mixed use, and park uses. In general, increased commercial land increases the potential that noise producing uses will be developed. New commercial development in close proximity to residential uses could result in an increase in ambient noise levels. Compliance with the City’s Noise Control Ordinance will ensure that future development occurring in conformance to the Proposed Project would not conflict with the policies in the General Plan. 9.0 References Cited California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 1983 California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels. Report No. FHWA/CA/Tl-84/13. August. 2008 2007 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. Compiled by Traffic Data Branch Division of Traffic Operations. September. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 43 Chula Vista, City of 2005 Chula Vista General Plan Update. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1979 Federal Highway Administration Noise Prediction Model. Report No. FHWARD-77-108, with California Vehicle Noise Emissions Levels. Washington, D.C. Linscott, Law, & Greenspan (LLG) Engineers 2012 Draft Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for the Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment for Otay Land Company. LLG Ref. 3-09-1885. June 11. San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission 2010 Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. January 25. Noise Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 44 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. ATTACHMENT 1 Noise Measurement Data 4829_meter0266_061610_interval.doc 6/29/2010 12:44:09 PM C:\NOISE\LARDAV\SLMUTIL\16JUN_11.bin Interval Data Meas Site Location Number Date Time Duration Leq SEL Lmax Lmin Peak Uwpk ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Measurement 1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:00 59.5 44.2 61.9 57.1 39.9 79.1 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:00 60.0 56.3 74.0 65.9 41.8 75.4 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:00 60.0 49.9 67.7 60.8 41.5 69.1 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:00 60.0 51.2 68.9 60.3 41.8 74.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:00 60.0 51.6 69.4 65.8 42.1 86.4 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:00 60.0 56.2 73.9 79.6 41.7 103.3 108.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:00 60.0 43.6 61.4 56.8 40.5 72.6 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:00 60.0 51.1 68.9 73.1 41.0 94.6 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:00 60.0 44.8 62.6 51.6 40.3 65.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 76.7 41.5 99.2 106.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:00 60.0 47.4 65.1 58.9 41.5 74.7 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:00 60.0 45.1 62.9 50.6 40.6 69.3 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:00 60.0 48.7 66.5 56.0 41.5 70.1 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:00 60.0 51.5 69.3 63.9 41.9 83.9 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:00 60.0 54.1 71.9 65.9 43.3 78.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:18:00 0.5 58.8 55.7 59.5 55.7 74.4 0.0 Measurement 2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:00 59.7 62.4 80.2 74.1 45.7 84.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:00 60.0 53.2 71.0 58.5 48.0 73.1 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:00 60.0 58.6 76.4 71.0 45.4 82.6 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:00 60.0 62.9 80.7 76.2 44.3 89.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:00 60.0 58.1 75.9 71.2 47.4 82.0 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:00 60.0 66.6 84.4 78.5 45.9 90.8 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:00 60.0 68.2 86.0 79.6 49.1 92.0 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:00 60.0 53.6 71.4 62.5 45.8 82.3 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:00 60.0 64.1 81.9 73.7 45.5 89.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:00 60.0 60.0 77.8 70.1 45.5 81.5 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:00 60.0 63.5 81.2 76.1 47.5 97.5 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:00 60.0 60.0 77.7 70.6 44.4 83.3 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:00 60.0 67.0 84.7 77.7 50.2 94.8 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:00 60.0 63.4 81.1 74.4 47.6 86.5 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:00 60.0 63.8 81.6 76.5 44.2 88.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:43:00 0.6 58.0 55.5 58.9 57.2 70.3 0.0 Measurement 4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:00 59.6 54.7 72.5 71.5 44.0 89.1 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:00 60.0 64.9 82.6 77.7 45.5 91.4 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:00 60.0 52.2 69.9 59.9 44.3 72.5 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:00 60.0 61.3 79.1 71.2 45.1 82.6 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:00 60.0 61.3 79.1 73.4 45.2 84.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:00 60.0 63.2 81.0 72.7 43.2 83.7 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:00 60.0 60.8 78.5 72.0 43.5 83.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:00 60.0 61.6 79.4 72.5 42.8 91.4 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:00 60.0 63.8 81.5 73.0 44.5 86.7 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:00 60.0 61.5 79.3 73.9 44.6 91.0 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:00 60.0 58.5 76.3 69.4 44.4 81.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:00 60.0 63.9 81.7 73.3 49.3 85.0 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:00 60.0 63.8 81.6 75.4 51.0 90.6 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:00 60.0 62.6 80.4 72.2 43.2 84.0 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:00 60.0 55.2 73.0 68.9 42.8 81.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:41:00 0.6 70.1 67.8 71.8 68.3 82.7 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:59:59 0.7 67.4 65.8 68.8 63.7 79.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:00 0.3 66.7 61.7 67.7 66.1 77.2 0.0 Measurement 5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:01 58.7 67.5 85.2 81.8 44.8 95.1 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:00 60.0 70.4 88.2 82.0 49.0 96.4 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:00 60.0 63.5 81.3 81.5 47.0 93.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:00 60.0 63.0 80.7 76.6 45.3 90.0 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:00 60.0 61.0 78.8 77.8 45.3 90.8 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:00 60.0 65.5 83.2 80.0 45.5 92.4 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:00 60.0 68.3 86.1 83.8 47.0 95.3 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:00 60.0 68.6 86.4 79.8 47.8 93.1 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:00 60.0 63.9 81.6 83.7 46.0 97.3 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:00 60.0 65.3 83.1 79.4 46.9 92.0 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:00 60.0 63.3 81.1 78.1 45.7 90.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:00 60.0 62.2 79.9 77.2 44.5 88.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:00 60.0 63.1 80.9 76.4 48.5 88.3 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:00 60.0 67.1 84.9 80.4 48.2 91.7 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:00 60.0 63.7 81.5 76.0 45.8 89.4 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:15:00 0.3 50.1 45.1 50.9 49.7 68.4 0.0 Measurement 6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:00 59.2 69.4 87.1 87.1 80.8 54.8 95.4 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:00 60.0 71.2 89.0 81.3 56.9 96.9 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:00 60.0 73.9 91.6 87.5 54.3 98.7 106.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:00 60.0 67.6 85.4 80.5 49.8 95.5 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:00 60.0 75.9 93.7 88.3 55.4 99.5 103.7 4829_meter0266_061610_interval.doc 6/29/2010 12:44:09 PM 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:00 60.0 78.3 96.0 88.5 54.9 101.5 109.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:00 60.0 72.3 90.1 82.2 50.7 97.7 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:00 60.0 71.2 89.0 82.8 51.3 96.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:00 60.0 75.5 93.3 86.8 53.8 101.1 106.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:00 60.0 75.8 93.5 89.2 49.8 100.2 109.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:00 60.0 74.8 92.6 83.2 56.0 101.2 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:00 60.0 75.4 93.2 87.9 52.6 104.3 106.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:00 60.0 71.4 89.2 83.8 52.9 94.6 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:00 60.0 68.2 86.0 82.8 51.0 95.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:00 60.0 75.4 93.2 85.5 59.0 99.3 106.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:52:00 0.8 79.2 77.9 80.0 78.1 93.5 0.0 Measurement 7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:00 59.5 77.9 95.6 88.9 56.0 101.5 106.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:00 60.0 73.8 91.6 87.7 57.8 98.9 106.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:00 60.0 73.0 90.8 83.4 54.9 95.2 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:00 60.0 71.8 89.6 83.0 49.8 94.7 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:00 60.0 70.3 88.0 84.6 48.0 96.2 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:00 60.0 75.1 92.8 87.6 53.7 100.0 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:00 60.0 74.7 92.5 83.6 55.0 95.7 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:00 60.0 70.2 88.0 80.9 53.1 92.7 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:00 60.0 73.5 91.2 83.8 54.2 94.8 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:00 60.0 73.7 91.5 82.3 58.5 93.3 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:00 60.0 73.7 91.5 84.6 53.4 97.6 0.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:00 60.0 74.1 91.8 85.2 54.5 97.0 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:00 60.0 71.9 89.7 83.7 49.6 104.6 108.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:00 60.0 73.2 90.9 86.0 50.5 98.3 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:00 60.0 73.5 91.3 85.5 51.1 96.5 103.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:15:00 0.5 61.4 58.4 62.6 60.6 73.0 0.0 4829_Meter0266_061610_timehist.doc 6/29/2010 12:44:29 PM C:\NOISE\LARDAV\SLMUTIL\16JUN_11.bin Time History Data Sample Period (sec): 5.000 Meas Site Location Number Date Time Level Lmax SEL ---------------------------------------------------------------Run Key Measurement 1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:00 47.3 57.1 54.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:05 42.7 50.8 49.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:10 42.0 45.0 49.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:15 40.9 44.5 47.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:20 43.1 50.4 50.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:25 41.6 45.8 48.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:30 41.3 42.1 48.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:35 43.7 47.5 50.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:40 45.8 48.8 52.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:45 44.8 47.5 51.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:50 45.7 52.1 52.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:03:55 45.3 48.6 52.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:00 44.4 46.8 51.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:05 50.5 53.7 57.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:10 53.3 56.0 60.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:15 51.8 57.4 58.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:20 54.1 60.7 61.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:25 56.5 61.8 63.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:30 56.8 63.5 63.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:35 60.9 65.9 67.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:40 59.4 64.2 66.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:45 56.4 60.7 63.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:50 56.3 58.8 63.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:04:55 56.4 57.8 63.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:00 52.0 58.8 59.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:05 55.7 60.8 62.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:10 51.7 56.8 58.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:15 49.6 53.6 56.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:20 50.3 51.5 57.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:25 49.3 51.3 56.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:30 43.9 45.8 50.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:35 45.7 47.6 52.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:40 45.7 48.2 52.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:45 44.0 45.6 51.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:50 43.2 44.4 50.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:05:55 43.8 47.2 50.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:00 44.6 47.8 51.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:05 43.9 45.8 50.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:10 45.5 49.1 52.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:15 47.8 49.3 54.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:20 47.6 50.8 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:25 52.7 57.4 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:30 50.4 54.4 57.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:35 51.7 56.4 58.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:40 54.1 59.3 61.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:45 50.2 52.9 57.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:50 52.9 56.7 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:06:55 55.6 60.3 60.3 62.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:00 55.2 65.8 62.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:05 54.8 58.3 61.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:10 51.6 54.6 58.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:15 52.7 56.1 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:20 53.3 56.6 60.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:25 51.6 55.2 58.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:30 48.9 52.4 55.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:35 49.1 51.6 56.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:40 49.5 55.1 56.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:45 47.9 51.4 54.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:50 45.9 50.3 52.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:07:55 46.2 48.7 53.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:00 48.7 50.3 55.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:05 45.6 48.6 52.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:10 54.3 60.3 61.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:15 57.0 65.1 63.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:20 50.1 53.0 57.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:25 50.0 52.6 57.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:30 47.7 49.6 54.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:35 47.8 51.1 54.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:40 43.8 47.1 50.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:45 44.3 46.5 51.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:50 45.9 47.3 52.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:08:55 65.6 79.6 72.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:00 44.3 47.7 51.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:05 42.6 45.5 49.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:10 42.3 44.3 49.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:15 43.9 45.2 50.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:20 44.0 46.2 51.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:25 45.1 46.8 52.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:30 41.9 43.1 48.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:35 42.0 47.6 49.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:40 41.9 44.5 48.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:45 45.2 56.8 52.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:50 43.9 49.1 50.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:09:55 41.6 43.6 48.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:00 42.2 45.5 49.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:05 47.2 50.5 54.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:10 48.4 52.8 55.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:15 52.6 56.0 59.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:20 46.4 48.7 53.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:25 43.0 45.2 50.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:30 42.9 47.2 49.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:35 46.3 49.3 53.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:40 59.7 73.1 66.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:45 49.9 53.6 56.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:50 44.0 45.8 51.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:10:55 42.4 45.7 49.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:00 42.4 45.8 49.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:05 43.4 47.3 50.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:10 41.6 43.6 48.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:15 41.6 42.8 48.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:20 42.1 44.7 49.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:25 42.1 44.8 49.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:30 43.0 44.7 50.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:35 45.9 48.5 52.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:40 46.9 49.0 53.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:45 47.6 51.6 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:50 48.3 51.2 55.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:11:55 44.3 46.8 51.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:00 48.7 52.1 55.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:05 45.4 47.2 52.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:10 47.0 49.8 53.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:15 45.7 49.1 52.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:20 45.7 48.5 52.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:25 46.3 50.2 53.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:30 45.3 51.2 52.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:35 62.1 76.7 69.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:40 46.5 51.5 53.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:45 47.2 53.5 54.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:50 45.2 48.7 52.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:55 48.8 54.7 55.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:00 46.7 50.4 53.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:05 47.2 54.2 54.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:10 48.5 52.5 55.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:15 44.2 48.4 51.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:20 46.7 51.4 53.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:25 46.0 49.5 53.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:30 42.8 45.0 49.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:35 43.6 48.2 50.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:40 48.1 58.9 55.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:45 50.2 56.6 57.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:50 50.6 57.1 57.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:13:55 46.0 52.2 53.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:00 46.4 49.5 53.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:05 46.4 48.6 53.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:10 46.9 50.1 53.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:15 45.7 50.5 52.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:20 46.0 50.6 53.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:25 44.4 47.9 51.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:30 43.4 47.0 50.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:35 43.4 47.4 50.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:40 43.7 47.7 50.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:45 42.1 43.7 49.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:50 41.6 42.5 48.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:14:55 47.3 50.0 54.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:00 51.9 55.2 58.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:05 52.7 56.0 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:10 48.1 52.6 55.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:15 43.2 44.5 50.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:20 48.5 54.6 55.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:25 50.3 54.0 57.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:30 46.6 52.0 53.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:35 47.2 49.2 54.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:40 48.5 53.4 55.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:45 46.7 51.4 53.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:50 43.9 46.7 50.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:15:55 45.2 50.9 52.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:00 46.3 50.2 53.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:05 47.7 52.6 54.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:10 44.1 48.9 51.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:15 45.1 51.5 52.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:20 53.9 58.7 60.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:25 50.1 53.7 57.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:30 53.9 63.9 60.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:35 52.0 56.2 58.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:40 57.7 62.1 64.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:45 51.3 54.9 58.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:50 45.6 48.2 52.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:16:55 43.0 44.0 50.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:00 48.1 49.9 55.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:05 51.5 54.9 58.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:10 58.3 61.5 65.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:15 50.6 56.9 57.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:20 46.1 48.1 53.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:25 50.0 55.4 57.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:30 48.4 53.5 55.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:35 49.7 54.1 56.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:40 51.8 58.1 58.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:45 54.2 59.6 61.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:50 56.9 61.9 63.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:17:55 59.7 65.9 66.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:18:00 58.1 58.1 65.1 Stop Key Run Key Measurement 2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:00 52.1 60.5 59.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:05 67.8 73.7 74.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:10 57.8 61.3 64.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:15 54.1 57.4 61.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:20 52.3 54.2 59.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:25 47.7 51.2 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:30 48.3 50.5 55.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:35 58.1 66.0 65.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:40 68.3 73.0 75.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:45 67.6 74.1 74.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:50 51.4 55.3 58.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:28:55 52.8 53.7 59.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:00 50.8 53.4 57.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:05 51.4 53.7 58.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:10 51.3 56.0 58.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:15 57.1 58.5 64.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:20 52.2 55.0 59.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:25 50.7 54.3 57.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:30 49.8 52.4 56.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:35 51.9 54.6 58.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:40 53.9 57.8 60.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:45 55.2 57.8 62.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:50 51.8 54.7 58.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:29:55 55.8 63.6 62.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:00 55.2 64.2 62.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:05 66.1 71.0 73.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:10 64.3 68.4 71.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:15 54.3 60.2 61.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:20 54.7 56.4 61.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:25 53.2 56.1 60.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:30 49.9 52.8 56.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:35 53.0 54.2 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:40 48.9 52.8 55.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:45 53.5 65.7 60.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:50 51.3 57.4 58.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:30:55 53.2 59.4 60.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:00 66.1 69.1 73.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:05 71.7 76.2 78.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:10 61.5 67.3 68.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:15 62.9 67.7 69.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:20 48.9 53.2 55.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:25 45.7 47.6 52.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:30 50.3 53.1 57.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:35 47.8 49.8 54.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:40 51.4 56.7 58.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:45 52.7 55.9 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:50 55.0 56.6 62.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:31:55 54.6 60.2 61.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:00 51.0 54.8 58.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:05 56.0 57.3 63.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:10 66.7 71.2 73.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:15 55.0 57.7 62.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:20 57.6 61.8 64.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:25 56.5 60.2 63.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:30 50.6 54.1 57.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:35 51.1 53.7 58.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:40 49.4 52.7 56.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:45 52.6 55.4 59.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:32:50 53.5 55.3 60.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:12:32:55 57.1 59.9 64.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:00 53.7 58.6 60.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:05 53.7 57.4 60.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:10 56.3 59.6 63.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:15 71.2 75.4 78.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:20 75.7 78.4 82.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:25 62.2 69.1 69.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:30 60.8 65.9 67.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:35 53.2 55.2 60.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:40 49.8 54.2 56.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:45 47.7 48.9 54.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:50 50.4 53.7 57.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:33:55 51.0 52.6 58.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:00 52.8 55.6 59.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:05 51.1 53.6 58.1 4829_Meter0266_061610_timehist.doc 6/29/2010 12:44:29 PM 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:10 58.7 61.2 65.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:15 66.5 68.8 73.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:20 74.9 79.6 81.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:25 64.9 70.4 71.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:30 61.2 63.2 68.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:35 55.9 59.5 62.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:40 57.6 62.3 64.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:45 72.3 78.3 79.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:50 72.8 77.2 79.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:34:55 58.7 64.5 65.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:00 55.8 60.0 62.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:05 50.9 54.1 57.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:10 54.3 58.8 61.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:15 58.4 61.6 65.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:20 50.5 54.8 57.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:25 48.7 54.3 55.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:30 47.9 56.0 54.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:35 49.1 57.0 56.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:40 49.2 54.3 56.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:45 50.1 55.3 57.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:50 51.1 54.2 58.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:35:55 58.4 63.3 65.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:00 64.6 70.5 71.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:05 70.5 73.7 77.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:10 64.6 65.8 71.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:15 54.0 61.8 61.0 0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:20 52.6 56.1 59.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:25 52.5 56.5 59.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:30 48.4 50.3 55.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:35 50.9 54.7 57.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:40 68.5 73.0 75.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:45 67.8 73.3 74.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:50 47.8 53.7 54.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:36:55 47.6 49.7 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:00 46.7 48.0 53.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:05 51.6 56.0 58.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:10 52.9 55.5 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:15 51.5 56.6 58.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:20 49.9 53.6 56.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:25 54.3 59.3 61.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:30 61.2 62.6 68.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:35 65.4 68.7 72.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:40 67.0 70.1 74.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:45 54.0 58.9 61.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:50 58.5 60.5 65.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:37:55 56.6 61.4 63.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:00 56.7 59.7 63.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:05 52.7 56.7 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:10 54.3 57.9 61.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:15 53.3 58.5 60.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:20 53.6 57.1 60.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:25 53.3 57.7 60.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:30 60.6 69.1 67.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:35 72.1 76.1 79.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:40 66.2 72.1 73.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:45 64.2 70.2 71.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:50 56.1 58.0 63.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:38:55 54.2 57.6 61.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:00 55.0 58.0 62.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:05 54.8 56.2 61.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:10 50.8 52.7 57.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:15 49.8 59.5 56.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:20 49.3 54.7 56.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:25 45.3 46.6 52.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:30 46.6 49.2 53.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:35 48.6 50.5 55.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:40 55.8 63.7 62.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:45 68.2 70.6 75.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:50 64.5 67.4 71.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:39:55 61.2 68.4 68.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:00 71.4 75.7 78.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:05 72.8 77.7 79.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:10 70.2 73.1 77.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:15 54.0 58.4 61.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:20 54.4 56.4 61.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:25 52.3 56.9 59.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:30 52.7 55.1 59.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:35 65.5 70.0 72.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:40 67.5 73.4 74.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:45 66.1 69.9 73.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:40:50 60.8 63.4 67.8 0 0 16Jun 10 10 12:40:55 53.4 58.7 60.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:00 54.8 57.0 61.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:05 57.6 59.4 64.6 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:10 53.8 56.5 60.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:15 55.7 56.6 62.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:20 51.5 55.0 58.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:25 56.3 62.1 63.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:30 60.4 65.5 67.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:35 50.8 56.3 57.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:40 69.4 74.4 76.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:45 60.1 68.7 67.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:50 70.5 73.0 77.5 0 0 16Jun 10 12:41:55 62.8 65.9 69.8 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:00 54.7 63.0 61.7 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:05 46.4 50.2 53.4 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:10 47.0 54.7 54.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:15 45.3 46.6 52.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:20 45.0 45.9 52.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:25 48.2 50.7 55.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:30 69.3 76.5 76.2 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:35 66.1 75.6 73.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:40 68.3 75.6 75.3 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:45 69.0 74.7 76.0 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:50 54.1 62.9 61.1 0 0 16Jun 10 12:42:55 57.9 60.9 64.9 0 0 16Jun 10 12:43:00 57.9 58.9 64.9 Stop Key Run Key Measurement 4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:00 52.2 59.9 59.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:05 52.2 54.3 59.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:10 50.6 52.8 57.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:15 47.3 48.7 54.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:20 45.3 46.7 52.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:25 46.5 49.3 53.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:30 51.2 53.8 58.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:35 52.7 54.4 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:40 54.9 57.9 61.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:45 51.4 54.6 58.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:50 48.2 49.9 55.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:26:55 64.6 72.2 71.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:00 63.5 70.7 70.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:05 64.9 67.3 71.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:10 60.5 65.9 67.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:15 54.2 58.2 61.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:20 48.8 52.0 55.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:25 47.7 52.5 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:30 50.0 54.2 56.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:35 58.4 64.5 65.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:40 73.3 77.7 80.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:45 68.2 71.7 75.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:50 52.7 59.7 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:27:55 56.0 60.0 63.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:00 53.4 59.4 60.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:05 51.0 52.7 58.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:10 48.0 49.4 55.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:15 47.1 48.8 54.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:20 45.2 45.2 46.3 52.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:25 45.8 47.3 52.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:30 53.2 56.9 60.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:35 55.2 59.3 62.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:40 53.7 59.3 60.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:45 49.3 52.2 56.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:50 54.3 56.4 61.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:28:55 53.9 57.4 60.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:00 46.5 47.5 53.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:05 46.5 48.7 53.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:10 62.3 67.3 69.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:15 58.9 64.9 65.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:20 61.0 68.6 68.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:25 65.0 70.9 72.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:30 66.1 71.2 73.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:35 54.0 57.4 61.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:40 65.6 67.7 72.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:45 58.0 65.0 65.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:50 55.2 59.8 62.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:29:55 54.0 55.8 61.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:00 51.1 54.7 58.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:05 46.3 47.5 53.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:10 47.4 50.0 54.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:15 48.6 52.5 55.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:20 47.6 50.2 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:25 56.0 59.1 63.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:30 53.2 58.5 60.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:35 49.1 55.3 56.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:40 68.6 73.4 75.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:45 67.1 71.8 74.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:50 63.3 68.3 70.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:30:55 57.3 64.1 64.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:00 64.8 67.5 71.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:05 55.2 60.1 62.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:10 45.2 46.9 52.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:15 51.1 54.6 58.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:20 49.1 53.7 56.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:25 44.3 46.9 51.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:30 44.1 45.0 51.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:35 52.6 59.7 59.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:40 69.7 72.7 76.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:45 67.1 70.8 74.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:50 67.1 70.4 74.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:31:55 61.4 67.7 68.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:00 54.5 56.3 61.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:05 50.2 53.8 57.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:10 45.3 47.4 52.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:15 44.5 47.0 51.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:20 44.2 45.3 51.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:25 45.7 52.4 52.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:30 65.6 72.0 72.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:35 61.0 67.9 68.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:40 64.5 68.0 71.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:45 65.6 69.7 72.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:50 63.7 68.5 70.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:32:55 46.8 51.3 53.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:00 65.8 71.5 72.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:05 61.5 68.0 68.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:10 47.6 54.5 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:15 48.9 59.4 55.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:20 43.7 45.2 50.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:25 45.2 50.0 52.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:30 67.1 71.9 74.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:35 62.4 67.9 69.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:40 50.4 52.2 57.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:45 48.6 51.8 55.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:50 47.0 50.0 54.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:33:55 67.3 72.5 74.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:00 68.9 73.0 75.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:05 64.1 71.0 71.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:10 65.6 68.9 72.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:15 52.9 58.9 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:20 66.9 72.3 73.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:25 53.3 63.5 60.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:30 50.4 61.3 57.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:35 62.8 67.8 69.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:40 52.2 54.0 59.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:45 50.7 55.5 57.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:50 67.8 72.0 74.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:34:55 49.1 55.9 56.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:00 46.5 48.4 53.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:05 66.0 73.9 73.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:10 67.8 69.9 74.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:15 61.7 68.4 68.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:20 65.0 71.7 72.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:25 62.0 69.4 69.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:30 47.8 49.4 54.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:35 48.8 52.4 55.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:40 50.5 53.9 57.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:45 51.2 54.0 58.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:50 50.7 52.4 57.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:35:55 53.8 58.8 60.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:00 51.3 53.2 58.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:05 47.7 50.0 54.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:10 45.2 46.2 52.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:15 47.1 49.4 54.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:20 53.1 55.0 60.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:25 50.6 52.9 57.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:30 53.3 57.5 60.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:35 60.4 66.2 67.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:40 63.6 69.2 70.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:45 51.6 55.4 58.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:50 55.2 58.0 62.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:36:55 66.1 69.4 73.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:00 66.0 69.7 73.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:05 56.4 61.7 63.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:10 60.5 65.0 67.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:15 70.6 73.3 77.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:20 68.1 71.0 75.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:25 56.0 60.5 63.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:30 52.9 56.6 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:35 57.4 59.3 64.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:40 61.2 65.7 68.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:45 64.8 67.5 71.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:50 52.7 57.0 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:37:55 52.2 55.8 59.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:00 58.3 64.0 65.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:05 70.7 75.4 77.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:10 57.3 64.1 64.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:15 55.7 59.5 62.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:20 57.3 62.9 64.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:25 56.8 62.2 63.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:30 65.6 70.3 72.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:35 56.8 65.3 63.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:40 56.6 60.4 63.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:45 55.9 62.9 62.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:50 68.0 70.0 75.0 0 0 16Jun 10 13:38:55 65.1 68.2 72.1 4829_Meter0266_061610_timehist.doc 6/29/2010 12:44:29 PM 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:00 68.1 71.0 75.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:05 57.9 65.5 64.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:10 63.9 68.0 70.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:15 46.9 49.8 53.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:20 44.4 46.2 51.4 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:25 47.6 50.5 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:30 50.9 55.7 57.9 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:35 65.2 72.2 72.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:40 65.8 71.0 72.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:45 63.6 67.3 70.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:50 54.1 55.5 61.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:39:55 63.3 66.9 70.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:00 50.7 57.0 57.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:05 47.1 49.2 54.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:10 54.8 57.2 61.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:15 51.6 56.9 58.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:20 46.7 49.4 53.7 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:25 45.3 48.9 52.3 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:30 62.2 65.4 69.2 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:35 54.7 60.7 61.6 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:40 51.8 63.5 58.8 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:45 45.1 47.3 52.1 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:50 51.6 55.5 58.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:40:55 61.5 69.4 68.5 0 0 16Jun 10 13:41:00 71.2 71.8 78.2 Stop Key Run Key 0 0 16Jun 10 13:59:59 67.2 68.8 74.2 Stop Key Run Key Measurement 5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:01 74.1 79.4 81.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:06 62.1 69.7 69.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:11 73.0 81.8 79.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:16 69.9 77.9 76.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:21 57.1 65.7 64.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:26 61.5 69.8 68.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:31 48.5 51.2 55.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:36 51.3 54.4 58.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:41 48.9 51.7 55.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:46 49.1 53.2 56.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:51 67.9 74.2 74.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:00:56 57.6 62.3 64.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:01 73.8 79.9 80.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:06 75.6 81.9 82.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:11 64.9 71.4 71.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:16 75.2 81.7 82.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:21 57.9 66.8 64.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:26 51.7 53.7 58.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:31 53.1 55.6 60.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:36 52.9 55.2 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:41 63.3 68.6 70.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:46 73.6 81.9 80.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:51 69.6 79.9 76.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:01:56 52.2 54.2 59.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:01 50.9 53.8 57.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:06 55.0 58.7 62.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:11 57.8 69.6 64.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:16 58.7 66.2 65.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:21 50.3 55.2 57.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:26 73.6 81.5 80.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:31 59.4 66.5 66.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:36 54.9 57.1 61.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:41 52.9 59.3 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:46 52.0 59.3 59.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:51 50.3 58.2 57.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:02:56 57.0 62.5 64.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:01 50.2 52.3 57.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:06 64.4 68.5 71.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:11 55.3 61.5 62.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:16 51.9 63.7 58.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:21 51.1 60.7 58.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:26 46.8 49.1 53.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:31 53.4 60.8 60.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:36 71.6 76.6 78.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:41 64.0 73.7 71.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:46 58.8 62.0 65.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:51 62.1 66.3 69.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:03:56 56.6 64.2 63.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:01 47.9 50.8 54.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:06 47.0 51.5 54.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:11 47.3 53.1 54.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:16 47.0 48.7 54.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:21 56.2 62.2 63.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:26 66.1 72.5 73.1 0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:31 69.5 77.8 76.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:36 59.4 63.3 66.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:41 52.7 55.7 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:46 49.9 52.2 56.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:51 50.0 58.3 57.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:04:56 47.4 49.5 54.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:01 48.2 50.2 55.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:06 47.9 51.3 54.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:11 47.1 50.8 54.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:16 68.1 74.6 75.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:21 68.6 78.2 75.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:26 52.1 57.5 59.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:31 57.9 62.2 64.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:36 55.7 59.7 62.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:41 69.8 77.8 76.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:46 68.6 74.6 75.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:51 69.9 80.0 76.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:05:56 52.8 56.2 59.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:01 49.3 51.1 56.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:06 49.2 51.3 56.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:11 64.0 69.1 71.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:16 73.6 81.5 80.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:21 67.0 72.6 74.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:26 70.2 79.2 77.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:31 52.6 58.1 59.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:36 48.8 53.5 55.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:41 52.8 62.0 59.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:46 57.6 62.8 64.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:51 75.5 83.8 82.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:06:56 65.9 73.6 72.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:01 59.3 65.6 66.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:06 71.8 79.8 78.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:11 59.3 65.6 66.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:16 52.8 56.0 59.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:21 59.5 65.5 66.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:26 69.7 77.1 76.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:31 61.0 65.6 68.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:36 63.1 69.6 70.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:41 74.8 79.6 81.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:46 70.5 77.9 77.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:51 66.0 73.0 73.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:07:56 70.5 77.8 77.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:01 56.5 64.0 63.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:06 47.9 50.0 54.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:11 47.4 51.6 54.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:16 50.8 58.0 57.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:21 74.0 83.7 80.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:26 57.3 63.2 64.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:31 57.9 64.5 64.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:36 55.3 61.3 62.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:41 53.5 62.3 60.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:46 52.5 56.8 59.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:51 60.4 75.0 67.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:08:56 53.5 59.1 60.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:01 60.2 70.8 67.2 0 0 16Jun 10 10 14:09:06 69.8 76.8 76.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:11 52.9 56.3 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:16 57.6 61.8 64.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:21 54.4 58.6 61.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:26 63.7 66.6 70.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:31 60.5 66.0 67.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:36 49.6 53.8 56.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:41 49.0 53.1 56.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:46 48.0 50.9 55.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:51 69.7 79.3 76.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:09:56 72.1 79.2 79.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:01 58.6 61.7 65.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:06 53.0 57.8 60.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:11 59.0 68.5 66.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:16 53.5 59.6 60.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:21 60.8 66.1 67.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:26 53.3 62.0 60.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:31 46.7 47.8 53.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:36 49.1 56.5 56.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:41 61.0 67.1 68.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:46 72.9 78.1 79.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:51 60.6 68.1 67.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:10:56 54.6 61.2 61.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:01 56.2 63.0 63.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:06 46.5 50.2 53.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:11 46.4 50.8 53.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:16 48.4 56.2 55.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:21 48.5 54.7 55.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:26 72.3 77.2 79.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:31 59.3 64.0 66.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:36 56.6 62.6 63.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:41 48.6 50.7 55.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:46 48.8 52.0 55.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:51 47.6 49.0 54.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:11:56 54.6 61.5 61.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:01 52.3 56.1 59.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:06 55.0 58.0 61.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:11 56.6 61.6 63.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:16 51.3 58.0 58.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:21 54.5 61.1 61.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:26 56.1 63.6 63.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:31 63.1 70.3 70.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:36 68.9 76.3 75.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:41 62.7 71.5 69.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:46 69.6 76.1 76.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:51 60.3 65.3 67.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:12:56 58.3 61.3 65.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:01 68.7 75.6 75.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:06 67.9 74.9 74.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:11 56.2 60.3 63.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:16 50.4 53.6 57.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:21 72.4 80.3 79.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:26 74.3 80.3 81.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:31 54.6 58.5 61.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:36 61.0 65.5 68.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:41 49.9 52.5 56.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:46 49.6 52.7 56.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:51 57.8 61.7 64.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:13:56 50.8 54.3 57.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:01 47.7 50.7 54.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:06 48.6 50.7 55.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:11 52.3 57.8 59.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:16 66.4 71.7 73.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:21 70.1 76.0 77.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:26 63.6 70.9 70.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:31 68.3 75.8 75.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:36 63.5 66.0 70.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:41 59.2 63.7 66.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:46 57.8 66.2 64.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:51 57.6 65.3 64.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:14:56 50.4 53.2 57.4 Stop Key Run Key Measurement 6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:00 76.4 80.8 83.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:05 62.8 68.9 69.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:10 58.4 60.9 65.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:15 58.4 61.5 65.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:20 62.0 66.4 68.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:25 66.8 69.0 73.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:30 64.9 68.9 71.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:35 72.6 78.3 79.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:40 67.2 70.8 74.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:45 61.8 68.7 68.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:50 73.1 79.2 80.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:37:55 59.4 61.1 66.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:00 61.7 69.3 68.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:05 76.2 81.3 83.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:10 71.5 73.8 78.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:15 68.2 77.2 75.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:20 74.6 79.2 81.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:25 59.6 63.0 66.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:30 71.1 74.2 78.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:35 62.1 68.7 69.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:40 65.7 70.5 72.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:45 72.7 78.0 79.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:50 72.8 78.7 79.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:38:55 69.4 73.4 76.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:00 80.3 87.5 87.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:05 79.1 85.2 86.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:10 72.1 76.2 79.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:15 72.5 80.7 79.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:20 72.7 80.4 79.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:25 66.6 70.1 73.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:30 59.9 66.0 66.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:35 67.7 77.7 74.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:40 73.6 80.3 80.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:45 67.5 71.9 74.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:50 57.8 60.8 64.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:39:55 68.8 72.3 75.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:00 71.4 77.5 78.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:05 69.6 72.9 76.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:10 56.9 61.0 63.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:15 67.0 75.8 73.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:20 70.8 79.3 77.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:25 52.6 54.7 59.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:30 55.3 62.4 62.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:35 52.7 56.8 59.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:40 53.2 56.2 60.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:45 61.1 68.5 68.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:50 64.1 69.0 71.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:40:55 73.9 80.5 80.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:00 71.2 74.4 78.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:05 77.2 81.2 84.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:10 77.7 82.0 84.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:15 66.0 71.2 73.0 4829_Meter0266_061610_timehist.doc 6/29/2010 12:44:29 PM 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:20 76.1 79.7 83.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:25 82.7 88.3 89.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:30 74.1 77.5 81.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:35 74.4 77.7 81.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:40 60.4 67.5 67.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:45 58.6 64.9 65.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:50 75.6 81.0 82.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:41:55 77.8 87.0 84.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:00 81.4 88.0 88.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:05 69.6 78.7 76.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:10 72.2 79.2 79.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:15 67.8 72.7 74.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:20 84.6 88.5 91.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:25 81.9 87.3 88.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:30 64.4 69.2 71.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:35 60.3 64.7 67.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:40 66.0 71.0 73.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:45 80.6 86.2 87.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:50 72.3 79.9 79.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:42:55 56.7 60.2 63.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:00 52.9 54.4 59.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:05 51.4 52.3 58.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:10 52.4 53.9 59.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:15 58.5 66.7 65.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:20 74.7 80.0 81.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:25 72.5 78.0 79.5 0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:30 72.7 78.2 79.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:35 78.1 82.2 85.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:40 74.6 79.0 81.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:45 67.1 74.8 74.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:50 68.6 75.3 75.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:43:55 75.1 80.4 82.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:00 74.3 80.4 81.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:05 75.1 78.7 82.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:10 59.8 63.8 66.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:15 67.1 72.4 74.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:20 72.7 77.8 79.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:25 56.8 61.0 63.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:30 53.6 56.2 60.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:35 53.6 55.9 60.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:40 70.7 79.7 77.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:45 71.3 79.5 78.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:50 76.7 82.8 83.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:44:55 57.0 61.9 64.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:00 67.0 77.2 74.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:05 78.9 82.5 85.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:10 80.9 86.7 87.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:15 72.6 78.0 79.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:20 59.4 62.3 66.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:25 56.8 59.9 63.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:30 73.5 78.8 80.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:35 67.0 70.7 73.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:40 81.6 86.8 88.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:45 72.9 79.3 79.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:50 67.3 72.8 74.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:45:55 57.1 61.1 64.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:00 60.4 64.5 67.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:05 80.2 85.9 87.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:10 67.3 76.2 74.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:15 53.0 55.7 60.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:20 52.1 57.7 59.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:25 66.9 69.8 73.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:30 81.0 89.2 88.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:35 79.0 84.0 86.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:40 78.6 81.5 85.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:45 74.5 77.7 81.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:50 69.5 73.7 76.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:46:55 74.2 81.7 81.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:00 65.1 71.8 72.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:05 75.4 82.3 82.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:10 75.6 80.7 82.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:15 78.3 83.0 85.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:20 78.2 82.9 85.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:25 76.3 83.2 83.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:30 75.2 83.1 82.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:35 72.7 80.6 79.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:40 68.6 72.4 75.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:45 75.5 81.0 82.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:50 70.2 72.9 77.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:47:55 60.6 64.6 67.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:00 57.1 60.4 64.1 0 0 16Jun 10 10 14:48:05 74.7 80.9 81.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:10 70.5 72.6 77.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:15 71.1 75.6 78.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:20 68.8 76.5 75.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:25 77.3 81.1 84.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:30 84.0 87.9 90.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:35 66.7 71.5 73.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:40 62.7 70.5 69.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:45 54.9 56.7 61.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:50 56.6 62.4 63.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:48:55 76.5 81.8 83.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:00 70.1 76.5 77.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:05 67.6 75.8 74.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:10 68.6 76.5 75.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:15 69.9 78.1 76.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:20 66.0 68.0 73.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:25 56.1 60.9 63.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:30 56.7 63.3 63.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:35 77.1 83.8 84.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:40 70.1 77.8 77.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:45 78.0 82.3 85.0 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:50 61.8 67.6 68.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:49:55 56.1 57.3 63.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:00 56.3 63.5 63.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:05 71.9 77.3 78.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:10 58.4 62.8 65.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:15 64.5 67.4 71.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:20 55.6 57.9 62.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:25 69.6 75.1 76.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:30 56.2 63.2 63.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:35 52.5 54.0 59.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:40 53.5 56.2 60.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:45 54.7 56.9 61.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:50 69.7 78.1 76.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:50:55 76.7 82.8 83.7 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:00 73.8 77.5 80.8 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:05 73.3 77.3 80.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:10 75.1 84.1 82.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:15 79.5 85.4 86.5 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:20 66.2 75.6 73.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:25 75.4 80.7 82.4 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:30 67.9 74.3 74.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:35 78.6 82.6 85.6 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:40 65.1 69.1 72.1 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:45 68.3 70.4 75.3 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:50 73.9 80.4 80.9 0 0 16Jun 10 14:51:55 80.2 85.5 87.2 0 0 16Jun 10 14:52:00 78.9 78.9 85.9 Stop Key Run Key Measurement 7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:00 78.5 84.9 85.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:05 79.1 85.2 86.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:10 79.4 85.7 86.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:15 78.9 88.2 85.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:20 81.3 88.9 88.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:25 82.0 87.0 89.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:30 65.9 65.9 76.2 72.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:35 63.1 67.7 70.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:40 58.7 60.8 65.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:45 67.7 75.7 74.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:50 80.1 84.9 87.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:00:55 67.2 71.8 74.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:00 64.8 70.0 71.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:05 76.8 83.5 83.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:10 77.3 82.3 84.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:15 65.1 68.7 72.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:20 60.1 64.0 67.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:25 73.3 79.3 80.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:30 66.9 70.8 73.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:35 63.4 65.5 70.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:40 80.4 87.7 87.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:45 75.2 84.5 82.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:50 65.6 70.3 72.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:01:55 62.8 65.7 69.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:00 66.5 69.4 73.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:05 63.3 67.0 70.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:10 76.8 83.4 83.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:15 58.6 64.9 65.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:20 76.2 82.8 83.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:25 76.3 81.4 83.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:30 72.0 76.4 79.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:35 72.7 81.7 79.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:40 74.6 82.3 81.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:45 72.8 80.3 79.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:50 69.2 78.2 76.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:02:55 71.3 78.9 78.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:00 65.3 76.7 72.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:05 54.1 55.4 61.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:10 68.4 74.2 75.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:15 71.0 74.9 78.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:20 62.0 64.5 69.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:25 56.5 59.3 63.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:30 66.4 75.5 73.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:35 77.3 83.0 84.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:40 69.7 78.2 76.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:45 74.7 81.2 81.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:50 77.2 82.8 84.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:03:55 54.5 58.5 61.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:00 49.4 50.5 56.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:05 49.6 51.5 56.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:10 51.9 53.8 58.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:15 59.0 66.6 66.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:20 72.8 80.0 79.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:25 74.9 81.5 81.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:30 55.5 61.8 62.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:35 51.9 53.3 58.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:40 54.2 55.8 61.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:45 64.5 71.9 71.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:50 78.3 84.6 85.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:04:55 69.6 77.6 76.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:00 77.4 81.1 84.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:05 72.8 77.9 79.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:10 57.9 60.0 64.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:15 56.9 58.3 63.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:20 56.4 60.0 63.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:25 74.0 80.1 80.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:30 56.9 62.8 63.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:35 78.4 81.8 85.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:40 81.7 87.6 88.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:45 70.6 80.8 77.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:50 76.9 83.1 83.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:05:55 62.5 67.4 69.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:00 66.4 77.7 73.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:05 77.9 82.5 84.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:10 60.2 68.9 67.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:15 73.6 82.6 80.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:20 76.2 83.6 83.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:25 71.6 75.7 78.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:30 71.3 74.5 78.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:35 76.0 80.0 83.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:40 77.6 80.8 84.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:45 79.4 82.0 86.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:50 69.4 74.3 76.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:06:55 67.7 71.7 74.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:00 68.8 71.3 75.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:05 71.5 79.5 78.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:10 76.8 80.9 83.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:15 63.8 68.8 70.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:20 63.8 66.6 70.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:25 55.7 59.1 62.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:30 55.2 57.9 62.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:35 65.8 69.3 72.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:40 73.7 79.8 80.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:45 61.5 73.5 68.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:50 62.7 70.4 69.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:07:55 73.5 78.6 80.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:00 76.4 82.5 83.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:05 75.6 81.1 82.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:10 65.8 68.1 72.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:15 75.7 81.4 82.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:20 76.0 83.1 83.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:25 58.5 63.4 65.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:30 77.3 83.8 84.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:35 62.8 65.2 69.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:40 64.3 67.0 71.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:45 58.4 62.5 65.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:50 59.2 63.2 66.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:08:55 76.4 83.0 83.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:00 74.7 80.7 81.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:05 78.4 82.1 85.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:10 70.5 78.1 77.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:15 73.2 77.4 80.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:20 78.1 82.3 85.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:25 68.5 71.2 75.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:30 69.3 71.7 76.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:35 65.6 70.4 72.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:40 74.3 78.7 81.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:45 64.2 67.9 71.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:50 72.1 78.7 79.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:09:55 71.8 75.5 78.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:00 71.4 78.9 78.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:05 77.8 83.5 84.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:10 79.1 84.6 86.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:15 62.1 72.4 69.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:20 58.1 61.9 65.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:25 64.0 69.4 71.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:30 72.8 79.6 79.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:35 77.2 80.5 84.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:40 76.2 83.4 83.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:45 62.0 67.6 69.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:50 65.1 68.4 72.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:10:55 58.7 60.9 65.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:00 77.2 81.5 84.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:05 74.3 80.4 81.2 4829_Meter0266_061610_timehist.doc 6/29/2010 12:44:29 PM 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:10 66.6 71.0 73.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:15 79.0 85.2 86.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:20 73.6 79.2 80.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:25 62.6 72.0 69.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:30 64.3 69.1 71.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:35 64.6 67.2 71.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:40 68.4 74.0 75.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:45 78.1 84.1 85.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:50 71.9 83.0 78.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:11:55 74.9 80.2 81.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:00 75.8 83.7 82.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:05 68.6 70.5 75.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:10 73.4 79.6 80.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:15 59.8 64.9 66.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:20 76.6 80.9 83.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:25 75.8 79.0 82.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:30 67.3 72.1 74.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:35 72.9 79.4 79.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:40 54.4 56.8 61.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:45 51.8 53.1 58.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:50 51.9 53.9 58.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:12:55 62.8 69.2 69.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:00 65.7 70.4 72.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:05 58.7 64.0 65.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:10 76.5 82.6 83.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:15 78.3 85.1 85.3 0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:20 71.9 76.6 78.9 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:25 74.2 80.9 81.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:30 54.0 54.7 61.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:35 54.7 56.6 61.7 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:40 59.0 65.1 66.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:45 79.3 86.0 86.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:50 56.3 62.7 63.3 0 0 16Jun 10 15:13:55 54.4 59.6 61.4 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:00 69.2 72.4 76.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:05 65.6 69.0 72.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:10 66.1 69.1 73.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:15 68.6 70.9 75.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:20 69.1 72.7 76.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:25 78.2 83.7 85.2 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:30 76.8 82.1 83.8 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:35 70.7 78.7 77.6 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:40 78.1 85.4 85.1 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:45 76.5 85.5 83.5 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:50 53.0 55.0 60.0 0 0 16Jun 10 15:14:55 64.3 68.9 71.2 C:\NOISE\LARDAV\SLMUTIL\16JUN_11.bin Time History Data Sample Period (sec): 5.000 Meas Site Location Number Date Time Level Lmax SEL ---------------------------------------------------------------0 0 16Jun 10 15:15:00 60.6 60.6 67.6 Stop Key 4829_Meter0266_062110_interval.doc 6/29/2010 12:44:45 PM C:\NOISE\LARDAV\SLMUTIL\21JUN_14.bin Interval Data Meas Site Location Number Date Time Duration Leq SEL Lmax Lmin Peak Uwpk ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Measurement 3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:05 54.3 51.0 68.3 59.1 45.7 78.3 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:00 60.0 52.9 70.7 63.9 49.0 91.8 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:00 60.0 50.3 68.1 54.2 47.8 76.0 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 70.9 47.4 96.9 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:00 60.0 50.6 68.3 54.9 48.2 74.1 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:00 60.0 52.5 70.3 57.7 48.2 82.7 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:00 60.0 49.3 67.1 53.2 46.2 67.2 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:00 60.0 49.6 67.3 55.8 46.0 75.1 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:00 60.0 50.3 68.1 54.0 47.0 67.0 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:00 60.0 50.1 67.9 54.0 46.9 67.1 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:00 60.0 51.2 69.0 64.1 47.7 90.0 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:00 60.0 49.8 67.6 56.5 47.3 75.2 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:00 60.0 51.1 68.9 63.1 47.0 86.5 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:00 60.0 55.9 73.6 67.1 47.7 79.5 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:00 60.0 55.6 73.3 66.4 46.3 76.3 0.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:25:00 6.4 48.6 56.7 51.7 46.6 66.9 0.0 4829_Meter0266_062110_timehist.doc 6/29/2010 12:45:01 PM C:\NOISE\LARDAV\SLMUTIL\21JUN_14.bin Time History Data Sample Period (sec): 5.000 Meas Site Location Number Date Time Level Lmax SEL ---------------------------------------------------------------Run Key Measurement 3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:05 52.3 59.1 59.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:10 50.2 52.4 57.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:15 51.7 53.4 58.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:20 51.9 53.3 58.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:25 51.5 53.3 58.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:30 50.8 52.3 57.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:35 51.3 55.8 58.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:40 50.3 52.4 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:45 49.8 51.2 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:50 48.2 50.4 55.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:10:55 51.2 52.9 58.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:00 52.1 53.8 59.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:05 54.9 59.6 61.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:10 52.2 53.4 59.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:15 53.8 56.6 60.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:20 54.8 63.9 61.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:25 53.8 60.1 60.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:30 52.9 59.8 59.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:35 52.9 54.4 59.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:40 51.7 52.7 58.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:45 50.7 51.9 57.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:50 51.0 52.4 57.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:11:55 51.7 53.6 58.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:00 51.8 54.2 58.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:05 51.4 53.4 58.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:10 50.2 51.7 57.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:15 50.3 51.7 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:20 50.2 52.3 57.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:25 50.0 51.3 57.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:30 49.5 50.4 56.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:35 49.7 51.0 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:40 49.7 51.2 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:45 50.1 51.5 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:50 49.9 50.8 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:12:55 50.2 51.2 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:00 49.7 50.8 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:05 57.3 70.9 64.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:10 49.6 53.3 56.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:15 49.7 55.5 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:20 49.1 51.7 56.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:25 49.9 55.6 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:30 50.2 51.4 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:35 50.1 51.5 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:40 49.7 50.7 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:45 49.8 50.9 56.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:50 49.9 51.4 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:13:55 49.6 51.7 56.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:00 50.2 51.2 51.2 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:05 49.9 51.2 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:10 50.2 52.5 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:15 49.9 54.8 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:20 49.7 51.0 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:25 50.2 51.8 57.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:30 50.3 53.0 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:35 50.7 52.4 57.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:40 50.3 51.3 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:45 51.5 53.4 58.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:50 51.6 52.7 58.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:14:55 51.8 53.0 58.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:00 52.3 54.9 59.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:05 52.9 55.0 59.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:10 52.5 54.7 59.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:15 51.8 55.4 58.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:20 54.8 57.4 61.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:25 54.2 57.4 61.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:30 51.3 52.9 58.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:35 51.9 52.9 58.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:40 51.1 53.0 58.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:45 51.4 57.7 58.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:50 52.3 56.8 59.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:15:55 50.8 52.0 57.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:00 49.2 51.5 56.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:05 50.3 51.5 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:10 50.3 52.6 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:15 47.6 49.4 54.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:20 48.4 49.9 55.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:25 48.7 50.9 55.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:30 48.7 50.8 55.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:35 48.5 50.5 55.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:40 49.0 50.5 55.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:45 49.8 51.2 56.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:50 48.9 50.4 55.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:16:55 51.3 53.2 58.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:00 50.4 51.2 57.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:05 48.4 49.9 55.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:10 48.0 49.7 55.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:15 47.9 49.2 54.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:20 48.4 49.9 55.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:25 48.3 49.9 55.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:30 49.6 52.0 56.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:35 50.0 51.0 57.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:40 50.4 51.8 57.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:45 49.7 52.3 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:50 50.6 55.8 57.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:17:55 51.1 53.0 58.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:00 49.9 51.5 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:05 50.4 52.2 57.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:10 50.0 51.8 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:15 50.6 52.4 57.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:20 50.7 53.5 57.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:25 50.5 52.9 57.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:30 50.1 51.6 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:35 50.2 51.2 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:40 51.1 54.0 58.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:45 50.3 52.7 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:50 50.3 52.5 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:18:55 48.8 49.9 55.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:00 49.1 51.0 56.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:05 49.4 50.8 56.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:10 49.5 50.9 56.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:15 50.1 51.7 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:20 50.3 52.5 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:25 50.7 52.6 57.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:30 50.3 51.5 57.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:35 49.5 50.9 56.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:40 49.3 50.3 56.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:45 50.2 51.6 57.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:50 51.6 54.0 58.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:19:55 50.8 52.4 57.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:00 49.7 51.5 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:05 49.4 50.1 56.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:10 49.7 51.4 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:15 50.1 51.1 57.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:20 51.0 52.7 58.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:25 51.7 53.2 58.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:30 52.3 58.8 59.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:35 49.6 51.3 56.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:40 49.3 50.6 56.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:45 55.3 64.1 62.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:50 52.2 56.6 59.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:20:55 49.4 51.3 56.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:00 50.8 53.1 57.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:05 49.8 50.8 56.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:10 49.0 49.6 56.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:15 49.7 51.5 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:20 51.0 56.5 58.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:25 49.5 50.6 56.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:30 49.3 51.5 56.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:35 50.4 51.8 57.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:40 50.0 55.8 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:45 49.2 50.4 56.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:50 49.0 50.0 56.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:21:55 49.3 52.5 56.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:00 48.3 50.4 55.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:05 49.2 51.8 56.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:10 49.7 50.8 56.7 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:15 51.3 53.8 58.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:20 49.2 50.8 56.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:25 51.3 53.4 58.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:30 52.5 53.6 59.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:35 55.3 63.1 62.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:40 50.6 53.5 57.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:45 50.6 51.8 57.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:50 50.0 51.5 57.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:22:55 50.0 50.9 57.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:00 49.9 51.4 56.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:05 50.8 52.3 57.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:10 51.6 54.5 58.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:15 52.2 54.9 59.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:20 50.9 52.9 57.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:25 51.3 53.5 58.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:30 55.0 61.9 62.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:35 54.4 63.4 61.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:40 54.2 58.3 61.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:45 57.2 62.4 64.2 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:50 59.1 62.5 66.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:23:55 62.6 67.1 69.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:00 63.1 66.4 70.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:05 58.9 61.6 65.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:10 55.1 59.0 62.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:15 51.5 53.9 58.5 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:20 50.8 53.1 57.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:25 50.5 52.1 57.4 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:30 50.8 51.8 57.8 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:35 52.1 60.8 59.1 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:40 49.3 51.5 56.3 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:45 48.9 52.1 55.9 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:50 48.0 48.8 55.0 0 0 21Jun 10 15:24:55 48.6 52.1 55.6 0 0 21Jun 10 15:25:00 48.5 50.0 55.5 C:\NOISE\LARDAV\SLMUTIL\21JUN_14.bin Time History Data Sample Period (sec): 5.000 Meas Site Location Number Date Time Level Lmax SEL ---------------------------------------------------------------0 0 21Jun 10 15:25:05 49.8 51.7 56.8 Stop Key THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. APPENDIX F Updated Water Technical Report Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Prepared for Prepared by City of Chula Vista RECON Environmental, Inc. Public Services Building 200 1927 Fifth Avenue 276 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Chula Vista, CA 91910 P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 Contact: Stephen Power, AICP RECON Number 4829E May 31, 2012 Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Background 1 2.1 Metropolitan Water District (MWD) 2 2.2 San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) 2 2.3 Otay Water District (OWD) 5 3.0 Emergency Water Supply 7 4.0 2010 California Green Building Standards Code 8 5.0 Chula Vista Water Standards 8 5.1 Chula Vista Green Building Standards 8 5.2 Growth Management Program/Ordinance 9 5.2 Chula Vista Landscape Manual 11 6.0 Forecast Conditions 11 7.0 References Cited 13 TABLES 1: SDCWA Normal Year Water Demand 3 2: SDCWA Single Dry Year Water Demand 3 3: SDCWA Multiple Dry Year Water Demand 4 4: OWD Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand 5 5: OWD Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand 6 6: Potable Water Demand Summary for the Proposed Project Land Uses 11 7: Water Demand: Existing Conditions to Proposed Plan Comparison of Amendment Areas 12 Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 1 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this report is to update the Water Technical Report prepared by the City of Chula Vista (City) in 2005 describing the components of the existing water supply and distribution system serving the City. The Water Technical Report was prepared as part of the General Plan Update (GPU) process and was an appendix to the General Plan Update/General Development Plan (GPU/GDP) EIR certified in December 2005. This update was completed as part of a proposed General Plan (GP) and General Development Plan (GDP) amendments considered for the Project Area described as follows: · Portions of Villages 4 and 7; · Village 8; · Village 9; · Planning Area 10 (which includes the University Site and a proposed 85-acre Regional Technology Park (RTP); and · A portion of the southern edge of the Eastern Urban Center. The proposed village sites are are separated by Village 8 East (not a part of this project) and State Route 125 (SR-125). The Otay Ranch General Plan Amendment (GPA) and General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) are composed of two parcels of land owned by the Otay Land Company (OLC) located within the Otay Ranch Planned Community. 2.0 Background Water consumers within the City of Chula Vista are served by three water districts: the Otay Water District (OWD), the Sweetwater Authority, and the Cal-American Water District. Water for the proposed Project Area is provided by OWD. Each of the suppliers has reported that they are be able to meet the current demands and will continue to do so in the future. Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 2 2.1 Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Water imported to the San Diego region comes from two primary sources, the Colorado River through the 240-mile Colorado River Aqueduct, and the State Water Project (SWP) from Northern California through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the 444-mile-long California Aqueduct. These sources deliver water to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which distributes water supplies to water agencies throughout the Southern California region including the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). 2.2 San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) The SDCWA is composed of 23 member agencies and receives purchased water by gravity through two aqueducts containing five large-diameter pipelines. These pipelines then supply the member water agencies, including OWD which serves portions of the City. On June 23, 2011, the SDCWA Board of Directors adopted its final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The 2010 UWMP identifies a diverse mix of water resources projected to be developed over the next 25 years to ensure long-term water supply reliability for the region. The 2010 UWMP includes projected water use based on SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Growth forecasts, which include the City’s 2005 GPA. The plan quantifies the regional mix of existing and projected local and imported supplies necessary to meet future retail demands within the SDCWA service area in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. The plans submitted by the member agencies and MWD provide details on their supplies that contribute to the diversification and reliability of supplies for the San Diego region. It is noted that through aggressive conservation programs, the region has conserved an average of 53,605 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of water over the last five years. Table 1 shows projected normal water demands for the SDCWA service area area through 2035. The table also shows the regional water demand forecast taking into account member agency water conservation targets as required by Senate Bill 7 of the Seventh Extraordinary Session of 2009. On November 10, 2009, SBX7-7 was passed seeking to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use by December 2015. In order to meet this goal, urban retail water suppliers are required to develop water use targets to help meet the goal. As shown in Table 1, normal year water demand within the SDCWA’s service area is expected to grow from about 654,022 af in 2015 to 903,213 af by 2035. The application of conservation measures derived by SBX7-7 would result in the incremental increase in water conservation over the next 35 to 40 years. Tables 2 and 3 show the forecasted single dry year water demand and Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 3 multiple dry year total water demand, respectively. Both tables apply conservation savings derived from SBX7-7. TABLE 1 SDCWA NORMAL YEAR WATER DEMAND (acre-feet) Type 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 M&I Demand1,2,3 590,731 661,415 728,574 788,174 839,417 Agricultural Demand4 55,358 49,534 48,380 47,279 46,178 Near-Term Annexations5 5,709 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 Accelerated Forecasted Growth6 2,224 4,421 6,605 8,776 10,948 Total Demand Forecast 654,022 722,040 790,229 850,899 903,213 SBX7-7 Conservation -6,737 -46,951 -72,234 -97,280 -117,528 Total Demand With Sbx7-7 Conservation 647,285 675,089 717,995 753,619 785,685 SOURCE: Table 2-2 and 2-5 of 2010 UWMP 1M&I: Municipal and Industrial demands includes 12,000 af demand for Camp Pendleton 2Reflects passive historic conservation savings 3Includes increment of demand associated with the decay of historic active active conservation program savings as follows: 2015=7,111 acre-feet (af); 2020=14,221 af; post 2020=21,332 af. 4Includes forecasts from two different categories: (1) projected demands in the SDCWA’s Special Agricultural Water rate program and (2) demands under SDCWA M&I rate 5Known near-term annexation demands include: Escondido (314 af), Otay Ranch Village 13 and parcels east of Village 13 (2,361 af), Peaceful Valley Ranch (70 af), Sycuan reservation (392 af), Stoddard Parcel (2 af), San Ysidro Mt. Parcel Village 17 (148 AF), Viejas (2,000AF), Rincon (417AF), Meadowood Development (460 AF), Pauma Ranch (76 af), and Warner Ranch/Sycamore Ranch (430 af). 6Accounts for projected growth as identified by SANDAG which are not yet included in local jurisdictions’ plans. TABLE 2 SDCWA SINGLE DRY YEAR WATER DEMAND 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Single Dry-Year Demand 694,257 765,409 836,967 901,210 956,544 SBX7-7 Conservation -6,737 46,951 72,234 97,280 117,528 TOTAL DEMANDS 687,520 718,458 764,733 803,930 839,016 SOURCE: Table 2-7 of the 2010 UWMP. Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 4 TABLE 3 SDCWA MULTIPLE DRY YEAR WATER DEMAND Year Total Estimated Demands (af/yr) 2012 658,381 2013 679,509 2014 711,241 2016 682,338 2017 705,461 2018 740,326 2021 724,294 2022 751,800 2023 790,177 2126 772,892 2027 801,649 2028 844,137 2031 811,421 2032 842,947 2033 882,795 SOURCE: San Diego County Water Authority 2005. The SDCWA 2010 UWMP identifies a diverse mix of resources available to the SDCWA to meet future water demands including both local and imported sources. Section 4.0 of the SDCWA 2010 UWMP provides specific documentation on the existing and projected supply sources being implemented by the SDCWA including the following: · Long-term transfers of Colorado River water from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) · Conserved water transfers from the All-American Canal and Coachella Canal Lining projects · Imported supplies from Metropolitan Water District (MET) · Carlsbad Seawater Desalination project is a reliable water source commencing in 2020 In addition, local resources developed and managed by the SDCWA’s member agencies are included in the assessment of available water supplies. These local supplies include surface water, groundwater, recycled water, and local desalinated seawater. The overall diversity of supplies provides for flexibility and adaptability in the resource mix to handle potential risks associated with managing and developing supplies. These risks could include environmental constraints, lack of political will, water supply contamination, and/or lack of funding. Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 5 Implementation of water conservation measures within the SDCWA’s service area is one of the most cost-effective means of reducing demands. The SDCWA plan for achieving conservation savings and the estimated amount of future savings is discussed in detail in the SDCWA’s 2010 Update. 2.3 Otay Water District (OWD) The OWD service area is generally located within the south-central portion of San Diego County and includes approximately 137 square miles, providing water to a population of approximately 206,000. The OWD currently obtains all of its potable water supply from the SDCWA as imported water and receives the majority of its treated supply from SDCWA’s Pipeline Number 4 of the Second San Diego Aqueduct OWD uses and maintains 722 miles of potable water mains and 93 miles of recycled water mains. In 2010, they had 29,866 af of potable water and 4,298 af af of recycled water sales. The water system includes 40 potable reservoirs, 4 recycled water reservoirs, and 28 pump stations. They have a potable storage capacity of 226.3 million gallons and a recycled storage capacity of 43.7million gallons. OWD also operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility that can produce 1,300,000 gallons of water per day. Table 4 provides the projected normal year supply and demand comparison as presented in the OWD 2010 UWMP. Table 5 presents the same information for the single dry year. TABLE 4 OWD PROJECTED NORMAL YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 SDCWA (af/yr)1 40,483 41,321 44,015 45,974 48,614 Recycled (af/yr) 4,400 5,000 5,800 6,800 8,000 Total Supply (af/yr) 44,883 46,321 49,815 52,774 56,614 District Demands2 44,883 53,768 63,811 70,669 77,171 SBX7-7 Conservation Target 0 -7,447 -13,996 -17,895 -20,557 Demand Totals with Conservation 44,883 46,321 49,815 52,774 56,614 Difference as a % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Difference as a % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SOURCE: Table 31 OWD UWMP 2010. 1SDCWA supplies assume that the OWD demands meet its SBX7-7 water use targets. 2OWD demand projections based on SANDAG2050 population forecasts and near-term annexations Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 6 TABLE 5 OWD PROJECTED SINGLE DRY YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 SDCWA (af/yr)1 40,483 41,321 44,015 45,974 48,614 Recycled (af/yr) 4,400 5,000 5,800 6,800 8,000 Total Supply (af/yr) 44,883 46,321 49,815 52,774 56,614 District Demands2 44,883 53,768 63,811 70,669 77,171 Demand Totals with Conservation 44,883 46,321 49,815 52,774 56,614 Difference as a % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Difference as a % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SOURCE: Table 32 OWD UWMP 2010. 1SDCWA supplies assume that the OWD demands meets its SBX7-7 water use targets. 2OWD demand projections based on SANDAG2050 population forecasts and near-term annexations. The 2008 OWD Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP) was approved on February 3, 2010. The WRMP identified the capital facilities needed to provide an adequate, reliable, flexible, and cost-effective potable and and recycled water system for the delivery of OWD, City of San Diego, SDCWA, and/or MWD water supply to meet approved land use development plans and growth projections. The WRMP was consistent with SANDAG forecasts through 2030; however, the originally approved WRMP was revised in November 2010 (WRMP Revised) to include the projected land uses within Otay Ranch Villages 8, 9, 10, and the RTP, as identified in Land Offer Agreements dated April 15, 2008 (between the City and OLC) and May 20, 2008 and August 17, 2010 (between the City of Chula Vista and OV Three Two, LLC, and JJJ&K Investments Two, LLC), in its list of major planned developments within the OWD (See OWD 2009:Figure 2-3 and Table 2-3). The OWD, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, also continues to expand the use of recycled water. The OWD continues to actively require the development of recycled water facilities and related demand generation within new development projects within the City of Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista and OWD plan plan to jointly develop a feasibility study to provide the City with projected needed sewer disposal capacity and production of recycled water. To address the uncertainties surrounding imported water supplies as a result of potential drought shortages or emergency seismic conditions, in addition to the rising costs of imported water, OWD has prepared an Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) to develop a flexible, long-term strategy for its future supply portfolio. The 2007 IRP identifies new supply options beyond the planned facility expansions and upgrades through 2010. As presented in the WRMP Revised, the IRP identified supply options, including water conservation, groundwater development, desalination, recycled water, additional imported water alternatives, and regional water banking and transfers. These options Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 7 were integrated into a set of eight alternative water supply strategies. The IRP recommended the following projects for implementation. Short-Term (2008-2010) · Additional conservation measures · SD17 agreement with City of San Diego to treat raw water at Alvarado WTP · Additional purchases from recycled water from the City of San Diego’s South Bay · Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) · North District Recycled Water Concept · Water banking agreements Long-Range (2010-2030) · Central Valley and Land Fallowing Transfers · Groundwater projects (Demineralization and Conjunctive Use) · Ocean Desalination (Poseidon, Sweetwater/SD South Bay, Rosarito, Mexico, or other projects) · Stripping (Scalping) Plant along the County of San Diego’s Spring Valley Trunk Sewer · North of Delta Transfers 3.0 Emergency Water Supply Southern California faces water supply reliability issues due to the dependence on transporting imported water through the aqueduct system. The California Aqueduct and the Colorado River Aqueduct share the common vulnerability of crossing paths with several major fault lines. Therefore, the possibility of a major seismic event causing enough damage to stop water supply to the region is being addressed with the development of a regional emergency storage system. This system will be able to sustain demands for varying amounts of time. The OWD Master Plan states that: The SDCWA has long advocated and recommends that each of its member agencies provide systems and alternative supply to protect against CWA aqueduct facilities being out of service for up to ten continuous days any time of the year so an aqueduct outage can be Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 8 survived while service to the member agency customers can continue essentially uninterrupted. OWD has addressed these concerns as part of their current CIP program seeking to provide storage of emergency water supply in the event their primary supply line, Pipeline Number 4 from the SDCWA, experiences failure. They have successfully completed an emergency supply plan to provide a maximum five annual average days of potable water emergency storage. OWD has also prepared a plan to develop sufficient local supplies such as through arrangements with neighboring agencies when operated in conjunction with storage that meets a supply outage of at least ten continuous days any time of the year. 4.0 2010 California Green Building Standards Code The 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, took effect January 2011 instituting mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of commercial and low-rise residential occupancies. It includes both mandatory requirements and additional voluntary environmental performance standards. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory requirements and may also adopt the Green Building Standards with amendments for stricter requirements. The mandatory standards require 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels, A water use compliance form must demonstrate the minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CalGreen or a reduced perplumbing-fixture water use rate. 5.0 Chula Vista Water Standards 5.1 Chula Vista Green Building Standards The Green Building Standards ordinance (GBS ordinance) (Ordinance No. 3140) was adopted by the City Council on October 6, 2009, and became effective November 5, 2009. This represents early adoption of the then pending California Green Building Standards discussed above. Permit applications for all new/remodel residential and non-residential projects submitted on or after November 5, 2009 are required to comply with the GBS ordinance. Through adherence to the GBS ordinance, new residential and Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 9 non-residential construction, additions, remodels and improvements will benefit from enhanced energy efficiency, pollutant controls, interior moisture control, improved indoor air quality and exhaust, indoor water conservation, storm water management, and construction waste reduction and recycling. 5.2 Growth Management Program/Ordinance The goal of the City of Chula Vista’s Growth Management Program is to ensure that the supply of water required by existing and future residents is available from suppliers and is at a level of quality necessary for its intended use. The Growth Management Program has two objectives regarding water supply and distribution: (1) Ensure that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth; and (2) Ensure that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The Growth Management Ordinance threshold for water supply and distribution states: The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12-to 18-month development forecast and request and evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. Districts’ replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives; b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed; c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth; d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; and e. Other relevant information the District(s) desire(s) to communicate to the City and the Growth Management Oversight Commission. The Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 19.09.050C, requires a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) to be submitted with all Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans. If a SPA Plan is not required, a WCP is required to be submitted with Tentative Subdivision Maps. The Growth Management Program further requires that a Water Conservation Plan be submitted for all major development projects, defined as Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 10 residential projects consisting of 50 dwelling units or greater, or commercial and industrial projects with 50 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) of water demand or greater. In accordance with the Growth Management Program, WCPs must provide an analysis of water usage requirements of the Proposed Project. This includes a detailed plan of proposed measures for water conservation, use of reclaimed water, and other means of reducing per capita water consumption from the Proposed Project, as well as defining a program to monitor compliance. The City of Chula Vista also ensures that an adequate supply and quality of water is provided to accommodate new master planned developments by implementing a set of project processing requirements for applicants to follow through each stage of development. Processing requirements for GDPs, SPAs/Public Facilities Finance Plans, and Tentative Maps are described below: A General Development Plan for an area shall identify: · Total water demands; · Storage requirements, and · Needed facilities to service all new projects. A Sectional Planning Area Plan/Public Facilities Finance Plan shall identify: · Demands for street and sewer improvements; · Location of improvements in conformance with the concerned water districts master plan; · Cost estimates and financing responsibilities; · financing methods; and · A WCP for all developments with 50 EDUs of water demand or greater. At the Tentative Map stage, identification of the following improvements is required: · Distribution and storage facilities by phase of development; · Dedication of required easements; · Identification of financing for each development,; · Letter from the concerned water district verifying their ability to serve the phased development; and Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 11 · If needed, conditions to comply with Metro II Program concepts. At the Final Map stage, conditions are implemented and there is a confirmation of the water district’s ability to service project demands. Ultimately, with the issuance of Building Permits all water fees are to be paid. 5.2 Chula Vista Landscape Manual The City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual includes requirements and standards for landscape areas throughout the City and identifies the need for water conservation practices to be implemented in the form of xeriscape landscaping and drought tolerant plant materials. The Landscape Manual states that water conserving methods of landscaping are a legal requirement of the State of California, as set forth in Government Code Section 65591 et. seq. (AB325 1990) and the State Department of Water Resources Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 6.0 Forecast Conditions The technical analysis of water supply and distribution impacts associated with the Proposed Project is discussed below. Table 6 shows the water demand calculations for the Proposed Project using the water unit duty factors obtained from the WRMP Revised. As shown in Table 6, the general potable water demand associated with the increased land uses for Villages 8 West and 9, and the RTP, is calculated to total approximately 538,329 gallons per day (gpd). TABLE 6 POTABLE WATER DEMAND SUMMARY FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USES Land Use Type Unit Demand Quantity Total Demand (gpd) Single-family Residential 500 gpd/unit1 247 units 123,500 gpd Multi-family Residential 255 gpd/unit2 633 units 161,415 gpd Commercial 0.14 gpd/sf3 550,000 sf 77,000 gpd Schools 1,785 gpd/ac 6.4 ac 11,424 gpd Parks4 2,155 gpd/ac 5.1 ac 10,990 gpd Industrial (RTP) 0.07 gpd/sf5 2.2 million sf 154,000 gpd Community Purpose Facility 893 gpd/ac -9.3 ac -8,305 gpd TOTAL 538,329 gpd SOURCE: 2008 OWD WRMP (revised November 2010). gpd= gallons per day; sf= square feet; ac= acre 1Based on medium density (3-8 du/acre) 2Adjusted to assumed use of reclaimed water 3Recommended unit demand of 1,785 gpd/ac has been adjusted to reflect multi-story commercial buildings based on building square feet. To estimate water usage, the 1,785 gpd/ac factor from OWD and a factor of 0.3 from the Water Agency Standards was used to convert gross acres to net building area as follows: 1.0 Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 12 gross acre is assumed to have 13,068 square feet of building (43,560 sf/ac x 0.3). From this, the demand factor of 0.14 gpd/sf (1,785/13,068) was calculated. 4Potable water demand based on assumption that increased acreage will be irrigated by potable water. 5The recommended unit demand of 893 gpd/ac has been adjusted. Using the formula in 3, above, the demand factor of 0.07 (893/13,068) was calculated. Applying conservation measures required in the CalGreen and the City’s GBS Ordinance, the Proposed Project’s water use would achieve a 20 percent reduction in water consumption compared to the general water use assumptions contained in the 2008 WRMP Update. Therefore, accounting for the mandatory conservation measures included in the Proposed Project, water consumption rates were adjusted by 20 percent as shown Table 7. TABLE 7 POTABLE WATER DEMAND SUMMARY FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USES ADJUSTED FOR 20% CONSERVATION MEASURES Land Use Type Unit demand Quantity Total Demand above 2005 GPU Preferred Plan (gpd) Single-family Residential 400 gpd/unit1 247 units 98,800 gpd Multi-family Residential 205 gpd/unit2 633 units 129,765 gpd Commercial 0.11 gpd/sf3 550,000 sf 60,500 gpd Industrial (RTP) 0.06 gpd/sf5 2.2 million sf 132,000 gpd Schools 1,428 gpd/ac 6.4 ac 9,139 gpd Parks4 1,725 gpd/ac 5.1 ac 8,798 gpd Community Purpose Facility 714.4 gpd/ac -9.3 ac -6,644 gpd TOTAL 432,358 gpd SOURCE: 2008 OWD WRMP (revised November 2010) gpd= gallons per day sf= square feet ac= acre 1Based on medium density (3-8 du/acre) 2Adjusted to assumed use of reclaimed water 3Recommended unit demand based on multi-story commercial buildings based on building square feet as described in Note 3, Table 5.8-7 adjusted by 20% to reflect mandatory project conservation measures 4Potable water demand based on assumption that increased acreage will be irrigated by potable water. 5Parks to be irrigated by recycled water. Potable water estimates per Table 5.8-6, above. 5The recommended unit demand of 893 gpd/acre has been adjusted. Using the formula described in Note 3, Table 5.8-7, adjusted by 20%. Total Proposed Project water usage after applying a 20 percent reduction, would equate to 432,358 gpd. While future SPA plans could aim for greater percentage reductions, at this level of analysis the minimum required reductions are assumed. The GPU/GDP EIR estimated total water demands within the Land Use Change Area to be 930,494 gpd. Adding the Proposed Project’s increased land use potential to this amount, results in total estimated water demands within the Land Use Change Area of approximately 1.4 million gpd. Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 13 OWD’s Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 2005 Questionnaire (Questionnaire) states that the additional water supply demands resulting from the Proposed Project can be addressed through the typical processes of land use information provided to SANDAG by the City of Chula Vista and used by the SDCWA in their supply projection analysis methodology. This forecasted increase in population associated with the Proposed Project is accounted for in the most recently updated regional planning and supply projection efforts undertaken by SDCWA, and OWD. These documents conclude that an adequate water supply is available to meet the needs of the Proposed Project. To assure such adequacy, OWD will be required to certify the sufficiency of a reliable water supply primarily through the water assessment and verification process (SB-610 certification process). Additionally, all future development within the Land Use Change Area would be required to comply with GP Objectives, prepare water conservation plans to document compliance with City ordinance specifically identifying water use reduction measures incorporated into the design and planning of the individual projects, and assure infrastructure is in place. Notwithstanding these requirements, long-term water supply is not assured and contracts do not currently exist to serve the City through buildout of the Proposed Project. Therefore, at this level of analysis, impacts associated with water supply would be significant. 7.0 References Cited City of Chula Vista 2010 Growth Management Oversight Commission 2009 Questionnaire, Water – Otay Water District. January 21. 1990 Growth Management Oversight Commission Policy Document. City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2003 Integrated Water Resources Plan. 1996 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2003 Water Supply Report Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Otay Water District Water 2008 Resources Master Plan Update. October 2008 (Revised November 2010). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Updated Water Technical Report for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 14 San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) 2004 Annual Water Supply Report 2010 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. APPENDIX G Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study SALT CREEK INTERCEPTOR TECHNICAL SEWER STUDY FOR THE SOUTH OTAY RANCH (VILLAGE 8 WEST AND VILLAGE 9) October 2010 Prepared For: RECON Environmental, Inc. and the City of Chula Vista Prepared By: 9275 Sky Park Court, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 PBS&J Project No.: 100010582 Mark B. Elliott, P.E. Project Manager 3/31/2012 i Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Table of Contents CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... .............................. 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Village 8 West And Village 9 Overview ............................................................................... 1 1.3 Sewer System Background ........................................................... ..................................... 2 1.4 Salt Creek Basin Land Uses ............................................................................................... 2 1.5 Project Sewer Service ......................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2 – WASTEWATER GENERATION ................................................. ......................................... 5 2.1 Unit Sewer Generation Rates ............................................................................................. 5 2.2 Wastewater Generation Summary ...................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 3 – SALT CREEK INTERCEPTOR CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...................................... ................ 9 3.1 Review of 2005 Master Plan Evaluation ............................................................................. 9 3.2 Revised Subdivision Manual Evaluation ............................................................................. 9 3.3 Summary ........................................................................................................... ............... 10 CHAPTER 4 – METRO TREATMENT CAPACITY ..................................................................................... 12 4.1 Master Plan Evaluation and Update ................................................................................. 12 4.2 Baseline METRO Analysis ...................................................................................... ......... 13 4.3 Baseline + PROJECT METRO Analysis ........................................................................... 13 4.4 Cumulative METRO Analysis ....................................... .................................................... 13 4.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDICES A. Hydraulic Model Loading B. Hydraulic Model Result TABLE PAGE Table 1. Proposed Project Land Use Summary............................................................................... ........... 1 Table 2. Salt Creek Sewer Basin Land Use Summary ................................................................................ 3 Table 3. Unit Sewer Generation Rates ........................................................................................................ 6 Table 4. Estimated Wastewater Generation (Design Report and and Master Plan) .......................................... 6 Table 5. Estimated Wastewater Generation (Baseline and Cumulative) ..................................................... 7 Table 6. Sewer Basin Flow Projections (2030 vs. Build-out) ..................................................................... 13 Table 7. METRO Capacity Impacts (Buildout) ....................................... ................................................... 14 FIGURE Figure 1 Salt Creek Interceptor Capacity Analysis ......................................................................... 11 Figure 2 METRO Capacity Threshold ............................................................................................. 15 EXHIBIT Exhibit 1 Salt Creek Interceptor Capacity Analysis 1 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Chapter 1 Introduction The Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study addresses critical future capacity issues associated with increased density development proposals in the South Otay Ranch area of the City of Chula Vista (City). Specifically this technical study will support the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) currently being prepared by RECON Environmental Inc. (RECON) for the City of Chula Vista, specifically for Village 8 West and Village 9. Chapter 1 describes the study’s purpose and provides background information and a project overview. 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is two-fold: 1. To estimate the increase in wastewater generation for the proposed South Otay Ranch Village 8 West and Village 9 (Project) and the reasonable foreseeable proposed developments (cumulative impact), identified by the City. 2. To perform a hydraulic capacity analysis of the existing Salt Creek Interceptor and evaluate the impacts to the City’s existing and ultimate capacity needs in the City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Sewerage System (METRO). The report will serve as a technical study in support of the Project’s Program EIR currently being prepared by RECON. 1.2 VILLAGE 8 WEST AND VILLAGE 9 OVERVIEW The South Otay Ranch Village 8 West and Village 9 (Project) is located in the City of Chula Vista within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Planning Area and will be provided sewer service by the City. Onsite sewer collection systems will convey wastewater generated by the Project, southerly to the existing Salt Creek Interceptor, which will then convey flows to METRO’s South Metro Interceptor. Evaluation of the proposed onsite sewer systems will be conducted as part of the tentative map submittals and as such is not part of this report. Wilson Engineering has prepared a Draft Project Onsite Sewer Study and is currently responding to City comments. The Project includes increased residential development in the South Otay Ranch Villages area resulting from a land offer agreement between the City and Otay Land Company entered into on April 7, 2008. Table 1 summarizes the land use plan proposal for the Project. Table 1. Proposed Project Land Use Summary Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Residential Total Commercial (Office & Retail) Industrial Institutional Park Units Units Units Acres Acres Acres Acres Village 8 West 621 1,429 2,050 14.5 0.0 38.2 28.0 Village 9 266 3,734 4,000 17.8 0.0 27.0 25.1 Total 887 5,163 6,050 32.3 0.0 65.2 53.1 Introduction 2 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 1.3 SEWER SYSTEM BACKGROUND The Salt Creek Interceptor was planned, designed, and constructed to convey projected development flows in the eastern portions of the City of Chula Vista and future areas in the County of San Diego (County) that might otherwise be difficult to sewer. The Salt Creek Interceptor was designed and constructed based on the City of Chula Vista Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Hydraulic Basis of Design Report (2002 Design Report), prepared by Dudek & Associates (Dudek) and dated December 3, 2002. The 2002 Design Report estimated wastewater flows based on then-current land planning for the Salt Creek sewer basin and the unit generation rates and peaking factors presented in the City’s Subdivision Manual. The Salt Creek Interceptor was placed into service around 2005. The capacity of the Salt Creek Interceptor was further analyzed in the 2005 Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (2005 Master Plan) based on the 2001 General Plan Amendment /Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (2001 GPA). During the 2005 master planning process, the City was concurrently updating the City-wide General Plan. The Master Plan scope was therefore expanded to include an evaluation of the impacts of four alternative land use plans being considered in the new 2005 General Plan Update. However, the 2005 Master Plan was completed prior to the adoption of the 2005 General Plan, and the final adopted 2005 General Plan land uses were not included in the Master Plan. The 2005 Master Plan estimated wastewater generation for varying land uses within each of the City’s existing major sewer basins based on calibrated unit generation rates and time-varying dimensionless hydrographs or “diurnal curves.” The calibration process was achieved by comparing results from the flow metering results from May 23 to June 5, 2003 at 12 permanent METRO and 8 temporary flow meters to results from the hydraulic models. The results of the calibration process showed lower wastewater unit generation and peaking factors than those stipulated in the Subdivision Manual for all meters. Based on the calibration results, unit generation rates were established for each basin based on varying land uses. During, the flow metering process, the Salt Creek sewer basin was undeveloped and was assigned similar unit generation rates as the Poggi Canyon basin because of the basins had similar land uses and planned development mixes. 1.4 SALT CREEK BASIN LAND USES Proposed land uses within the Salt Creek Basin have changed since the Salt Creek Interceptor was designed in the 2002 Design Report. Furthermore, land uses within the basin have also changed from those presented in the 2005 Master Plan since the plan was completed prior to the adoption of the 2005 General Plan. This report serves to identify capacity issues resulting from the increased residential density proposal of the Project as well as any reasonably foreseeable projects. As such, it was important to update the land use projections presented in the 2005 Master Plan to reflect the adopted 2005 General Plan to establish a new “Baseline” condition. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a proposed project must not only determine its specific project impacts, but also address the cumulative impact of any reasonably foreseeable project or “Cumulative” conditions. The City provided land use summary data (April 2, 2010) for the Baseline and Cumulative conditions for the Salt Creek sewer basin. This data is included along with the wastewater generation estimates in Appendix A. Table 2 summarizes the Baseline and Cumulative land uses along with the land uses presented in the 2002 Design Introduction 3 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Report, and the 2005 Master Plan. Note that the land uses presented in the 2002 Design Report do not include specific land use breakdowns for the County. The 2002 Design Report did include approximately 30,563 equivalent people or 9,261 EDUs (based on 3.3 persons per household) for the County in their design calculations, which confirms a portion of the County was included in the Salt Creek Interceptor. Table 2. Salt Creek Sewer Basin Land Use Summary Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Residential Total Commercial (Office & Retail) Industrial Institutional Park Units Units Units Acres Acres Acres Acres 2002 Design Report (1) City 12,627 9,071 21,698 458.9 508.9 536 390.4 2005 Master Plan City 8,420 6,790 15,210 420.4 264.6 924.3 206.3 County 875 1,606 2,481 259.1 0.0 7.9 18.4 Master Plan Total 9,295 8,396 17,691 679.5 264.6 932.2 224.7 Baseline Condition City (Existing) 5,026 1,808 6,834 22.4 0.0 322.8 95.6 City (Future) 2,673 9,607 12,280 102.6 452.9 636.3 311.9 City Subtotal 7,699 11,415 19,114 124.9 452.9 959.2 407.5 County 3,112 1,558 4,670 255.0 0.0 39.4 30.9 Baseline Total 10,811 12,973 23,784 379.9 452.9 998.6 438.4 Baseline + Project Condition City (Existing) 5,026 1,808 6,834 22.4 0.0 322.8 95.6 City (Future) 2,920 10,240 13,160 117.3 452.9 636.4 314.7 City Subtotal 7,946 12,048 19,994 139.6 452.9 959.3 410.3 County 3,112 1,558 4,670 255.0 0.0 39.4 30.9 Baseline + Project Total 11,058 13,606 24,664 394.6 452.9 998.7 441.2 Cumulative Condition City (Existing) 5,026 1,808 6,834 22.4 0.0 322.8 95.6 City (Future) 3,106 15,691 18,797 117.3 247.9 426.1 366.9 City Subtotal 8,132 17,499 25,631 139.6 247.9 749.0 462.5 County 3,112 1,558 4,670 255.0 0.0 39.4 30.9 Cumulative Total 11,244 19,057 30,301 394.9 247.9 788.4 493.4 (1) The final design of the Salt Creek Interceptor included 9,261 EDUs from future County areas. The City is not obligated to provide sewer service to the County planning areas. However, County land uses uses have been included as it appears those areas logically would sewer to the Salt Creek Interceptor. It should be noted that the 2005 Master Plan excluded the County’s Village 14 and Planning Area 16 from the land use numbers because those properties were acquired by nature conservatory groups for open space. Introduction 4 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 The City has also identified the Bayfront Redevelopment Project, which does not drain to the Salt Creek Interceptor, as having cumulative impacts on future METRO capacity needs. 1.5 PROJECT SEWER SERVICE Sanitary sewer service for the Project will be provided by the City. The City operates and maintains its own sanitary collection system that ultimately connects to the METRO system. All wastewater generated within the Project will eventually be conveyed to the METRO system via the Salt Creek Interceptor. The wastewater is treated by the City of San Diego at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Facility. METRO provides wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal services for the City of Chula Vista and fourteen other participating agencies in accordance with the terms of a multi-agency agreement (METRO Agreement). The City collects a capacity fee from new developments to fund the purchase of METRO capacity. Developers typically pay the sewer capacity fee at building permit issuance. Development can’t 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. 5 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Chapter 2 Wastewater Generation This chapter describes the wastewater flows generated for the Baseline and Cumulative conditions, based on the unit sewer generation rates required by the City’s 2002 Subdivision Manual for new development and unit sewer generation rates recommended in the 2005 Master Plan for existing development. The 2005 Master Plan used calibrated unit generation rates for the Salt Creek Basin to estimate basin wastewater flows and also to forecast future METRO capacity needs. The sewer generation rates were calibrated to the Poggi Canyon Basin which is adjacent to the Salt Creek Basin and exhibits similar demographic conditions. The calibrated sewer generation rates were the basis for the development of the 2005 Master Plan Salt Creek Interceptor dynamic hydraulic model and subsequent build-out hydraulic analysis. 2.1 UNIT SEWER GENERATION RATES The unit sewer generation rates used to estimate wastewater flows for the Baseline and Cumulative condition are based on the 2002 Subdivision Manual criteria for new development and the 2005 Master Plan criteria for existing development. The 2002 Subdivision Manual’s unit generation criterion for new development is 265 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit (gpd/EDU). Wastewater flows were estimated in the 2005 Master Plan, based on calibrated unit generation rates, to be 215 gpd/EDU. The calibrated unit sewer rates were based on recorded sewer flow meter data in the Poggi Canyon Basin. Table 3 summarizes the unit generation rates presented in the Subdivision Manual and the 2005 Master Plan for the Salt Creek sewer basin. 2.2 WASTEWATER GENERATION SUMMARY Wastewater flows generated for the Baseline and Cumulative conditions were estimated based on the unit sewer generation rates presented in the City’s 2002 Subdivision Manual for new development and unit sewer generation rates presented in the 2005 Master Plan for existing development. Table 4 summarizes estimated sewage generation from the Project and the cumulative impact projects as presented in the 2002 Design Report and 2005 Master Plan. Table 5 summarizes the estimated sewage generation for the land use areas from the Baseline, Baseline + Project and Cumulative conditions. The City is not obligated to provide sewer service to the County planning areas. However, County land use areas have been included in the wastewater generation estimates. It should be noted that the 2005 Master Plan excluded the County’s Village 14 and Planning Area 16 from the land use numbers because those properties were reportedly acquired by nature conservatory groups for open space. See Appendix A for development projections for the County’s Village 14 and 16. Wastewater Generation 6 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Table 3. Unit Sewer Generation Rates Item 2005 Master Plan Criteria for the Salt Creek Basin Subdivision Manual Criteria Residential Sewage Generation 215 gpd/EDU SF: 1 DU = 1 EDU MF: 1 DU = 0.75 EDU 265 gpd/EDU SF: 1 DU = 1 EDU MF: 1 DU = 0.75 EDU Commercial, Industrial, & Institutional Sewage Generation 1,500 gpd/ac 2,500 gpd/ac Park Sewage Generation 500 gpd/ac 500 gpd/ac MF – Multi-Family Residential SF – Single Family Residential Table 4. Estimated Wastewater Generation (Design Report and Master Plan) Land Use Units Unit Wastewater Generation Rate Estimated Wastewater Generation 2002 Design Report(1) 9,234,764 gpd 2005 Master Plan(2) City Single Family Residential 8,420 DU 215 gpd/EDU 1,810,300 gpd Multi-Family Residential 6,790 DU 161.25 gpd/DU 1,094,888 gpd Commercial (Office & Retail) 420.4 acres 1,500 gpd/ac 630,600 gpd Industrial 264.6 acres 1,500 gpd/ac 396,900 gpd Institutional 924.3 acres 1,500 gpd/ac 1,386,450 gpd Park 206.3 acres 500 gpd/ac 103,150 gpd City Total 5,422,288 gpd County Single Family Residential 875 DU 215 gpd/EDU 188,125 gpd Multi-Family Residential 1,606 DU 161.25 gpd/DU 258,968 gpd Commercial (Office & Retail) 259.1 acres 1,500 gpd/ac 388,650 gpd Industrial 0 acres 1,500 gpd/ac 0 gpd Institutional 7.9 acres 1,500 gpd/ac 11,850 gpd Park 18.4 acres 500 gpd/ac 9,200 gpd County Total 856,793 gpd 2005 City Master Plan Total 6,279,080 gpd (1) City of Chula Vista Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Hydraulic Basis of Design Report (2002 Design Report), prepared by Dudek & Associates (Dudek) and dated December 3, 2002. (2) City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (2005 Master Plan) Appendix D2 Model Projections, prepared by PBS&J and dated May 2005. Wastewater Generation 7 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Table 5. Estimated Wastewater Generation (Baseline and Cumulative) Land Use Units Unit Wastewater Generation Rate Estimated Wastewater Generation (gpd) Baseline Baseline + Project Cumulative Baseline Baseline + Project Cumulative City (Existing) Single Family Residential 5,026 DU 5,026 DU 5,026 DU 215 gpd/EDU(1) 1,080,590 1,080,590 1,080,590 Multi-Family Residential 1,808 DU 1,808 DU 1,808 DU 161.25 gpd/DU 291,540 291,540 291,540 Commercial (Office & Retail) 22.4 ac 22.4 ac 22.4 ac 1,500 gpd/ac 33,600 33,600 33,600 Industrial 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 1,500 gpd/ac 0 0 0 Institutional 322.8 ac 322.8 ac 322.8 ac 1,500 gpd/ac 484,200 484,200 484,200 Park 95.6 ac 95.6 ac 95.6 ac 500 gpd/ac 47,800 47,800 47,800 City Existing Subtotal 1,937,730 1,937,730 1,937,730 City (Future) Single Family Residential 2,673 DU 2,920 DU 3,106 DU 265 gpd/EDU 708,345 773,800 823,090 Multi-Family Residential 9,607 DU 10,240 DU 15,691 DU 198.75 gpd/DU 1,909,391 2,035,200 3,118,586 Commercial (Office & Retail) 102.6 ac 117.3 ac 117.3 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 256,375 293,175 293,175 Industrial 452.9 ac 452.9 ac 247.9 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 1,132,250 1,132,250 619,750 Institutional 636.3 ac 636.4 ac 426.1 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 1,590,775 1,591,025 1,065,275 Park 311.9 ac 314.7 ac 366.9 ac 500 gpd/ac 155,940 157,340 183,440 City Future Subtotal 5,753,076 5,982,790 6,103,316 City Total 7,690,806 7,920,520 8,041,046 County Single Family Residential 3,112 DU 3,112 DU 3,112 DU 265 gpd/EDU 824,680 824,680 824,680 Multi-Family Residential 1,558 DU 1,558 DU 1,558 DU 198.75 gpd/DU 309,653 309,653 309,653 Commercial (Office & Retail) 255.0 ac 255.0 ac 255.0 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 637,500 637,500 637,500 Industrial 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 0 0 0 Institutional 39.4 ac 39.4 ac 39.4 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 98,500 98,500 98,500 Park 30.9 ac 30.9 ac 30.9 ac 500 gpd/ac 15,450 15,450 15,450 County Total 1,885,783 1,885,783 1,885,783 Total 9,576,589 9,806,303 9,926,829 (1) Existing estimated flows in the Salt Creek sewer basin are based on lower generation rates (see Table 3). Wastewater Generation 8 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 The wastewater generation estimates for the Baseline, Baseline + Project, and Cumulative conditions are 9.58, 9.81, and 9.93 million gallons per day (mgd), respectively. The wastewater generation estimates for the three land use conditions are approximately one and a half times higher what was assumed in the 2005 Master Plan. This is in part attributed to the use of a lower calibrated generation rate (215 gpd/EDU) and the traffic analysis zone methodology used to estimate flows in the 2005 Master Plan, which results in 25 percent lower flows. The wastewater generation estimates for the Baseline, Baseline + Project, and Cumulative conditions exceed the 2005 Master Plan estimates by 3.30, 3.53, and 3.65 mgd, respectively. However, they are within three percent of the wastewater generation estimates in the 2002 Design Report, which was the basis for the pipeline sizing. Additionally, the City has identified the Bayfront Redevelopment Project as contributing to the City’s overall METRO capacity requirements. Although not located within the Salt Creek Basin, the Bayfront Redevelopment Project is estimated to increase wastewater flows by 1.328 mgd based upon the Bayfront Master Plan Revised Draft EIR, dated May 2008. 9 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Chapter 3 Salt Creek Interceptor Capacity Analysis Chapter 3 provides a hydraulic capacity analysis of the Salt Creek Interceptor for the Baseline, Baseline + Project, and Cumulative conditions. In accordance with the Subdivision Manual, hydraulic capacity thresholds for existing sewer pipelines are defined as a depth to diameter (d/D) ratio of 0.85. The sewer capacity analyses used the Salt Creek Interceptor model input data from the 2005 Master Plan, which was converted to the InfoWorks dynamic sewer software platform in 2006. Hydraulic model inputs and results are presented in Appendix A and B, respectively. 3.1 REVIEW OF 2005 MASTER PLAN EVALUATION The 2005 Master Plan included a wet weather capacity analysis of the Salt Creek Interceptor under the 2001 GPA and the 2005 General Plan Update’s “Preferred Alternative” based on the calibrated unit sewer generation rates, as previously discussed. The predominant unit sewer generation rate used in the analysis was the 215 gpd/EDU for single family residential development. An allowance of 10 percent was applied to the model to account for potential inflow and infiltration. Based on these assumptions, the Master Plan concluded that there were no hydraulic system deficiencies within the Salt Creek Interceptor. This capacity analysis for Village 8 West and Village 9 was taken in two steps in order to analyze the capacity of the Salt Creek Interceptor under similar assumptions. First, the model was updated with the Subdivision Manual criteria and second, the increases in wastewater flows beyond those projected in the 2005 Master Plan were added to the model. 3.2 REVISED SUBDIVISION MANUAL EVALUATION At the City’s request, the 2005 Master Plan Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Model, under the Baseline, Baseline + Project, and Cumulative conditions, was revised to incorporate the Subdivision Manual’s higher unit sewer generation rates for new development while evaluating existing development under the Master Plan criteria. The basis for this assumption is that new development (tentative map) onsite sewer systems would be designed based on the Subdivision Manual. The City recognizes that this is a more conservative approach for regional trunk sewer capacity analyses and is consistent with a Baseline level analysis. Figure 1 displays the Salt Creek Interceptor and the location of identified deficiencies under this scenario as further described below. Exhibit 1 identifies the modeled manholes and can be used in comparison to the model results presented in Appendix B. Baseline Condition The use of these more conservative unit sewer generation rates in the Salt Creek hydraulic model under the Baseline condition resulted in approximately 4,930 feet of deficient sewer main which exceeded the d/D criteria of 0.85. The deficient existing sewer mains are located in the northern portions of the Salt Creek Interceptor, and include 18-inch diameter sections in North Creekside Drive and South Creekside Drive and 24-inch diameter section within Salt Creek south of the Otay Lake. These identified deficiencies are located upstream of the Project and Salt Creek Interceptor Capacity Analysis 10 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 are a result of the more conservative unit sewer generation rates and the inclusion of County areas that the City is not required to serve. Baseline + Project Conditions The Baseline + Project condition did not result in any identified deficiencies beyond those identified in the Baseline condition. As discussed previously the identified deficiencies occur upstream of the Project and therefore there are no impacts to the Salt Creek Interceptor resulting from the Project. Cumulative Conditions The Cumulative condition did not result in any identified deficiencies beyond those identified in the Baseline condition. However, the Cumulative condition does include increased flows into the identified deficiency located within Salt Creek south of the Otay Lake. These increased flows are a result of the projections for Village 10 /University. The City should closely monitor the development planning of Village 10 /University to properly condition those projects at the tentative map stage related to any required improvements to the Salt Creek Interceptor. 3.3 SUMMARY The Baseline condition results in approximately 4,930 feet of identified deficiencies in the Salt Creek Interceptor located upstream of the Project. The Baseline + Project condition did not identify any identified deficiencies beyond those identified in the Baseline condition. The Cumulative condition did not identify any identified deficiencies beyond those identified in the Baseline condition. The only identified deficiencies were located upstream of the Project, therefore the Project has no impact on the Salt Creek Interceptor. However, under Cumulative conditions, increased flow projections from Village 10 /University, are assumed to drain into the identified deficiency located within Salt Creek south of the Otay Lake. The City should closely monitor the development planning of Village 10 /University to properly condition those projects at the tentative map stage related to any required improvements to the Salt Creek Interceptor. It is also recommended that the City update the 2005 Master Plan to reflect the significant demographic changes and growth over the past 5 plus years that has occurred in eastern Chula Vista. This would allow the City to review and determine, if appropriate, an updated unit sewer generation rate for future planning purposes to support the remaining land development entitlements in the Otay Ranch area. Furthermore, they would greatly assist the City in evaluating its short term capital improvement program capacity needs and confirm Metro capacity requirements. It is also recommended that the City require proposed developments upstream of the identified deficiencies to perform further studies to analyze potential impacts to the Salt Creek Interceptor. Legend Identified Deficiencies Salt Creek Interceptor South Otay Ranch Project Adopted and Proposed Land Uses DRAFT -For Review Only Residential Low Medium Residential Medium Residential Medium High Residential High Retail Commercial Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use Residential Town Center Eastern Urban Center Research Limited Industrial Regional Technology Park PQ Parks, Recreation Open Space Open Space Preserve Open Space recreational 081610 KM SD H:\Waterres\080 Chula Vista\10010582 South Otay Ranch ages\Graphics\Figure 1 Salt Creek Interceptor.mxd SALT CREEK INTERCEPTOR CAPACITY ANALYSIS FIGURE 1 Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Study for the South Otay Ranch Villages October 2010 ¯ 0 4,000 Feet 12 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Chapter 4 METRO Treatment Capacity This chapter describes the impacts to METRO capacity under Baseline, Baseline + Project, and Cumulative conditions and summarizes the cumulative impacts associated with other identified future projects within the City. Note that the estimated flow projections for METRO capacity do not include allocations for the County. 4.1 MASTER PLAN EVALUATION AND UPDATE The City currently has capacity rights in the METRO system (comprised of conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities) equal to 20.864 mgd based on the recent capacity allocation of 1.021 mgd from the South Bay Water Reclamation Facility. Existing sewer flows in the City were approximately 17.0 mgd in 2009. Over the past several years, the City has approved a number of development projects that would likely exceed their current METRO capacity if built out to their maximum approved land use densities. Accordingly, the City has begun to pursue alternatives to increase its sewer treatment capacity. The 2005 Master Plan estimated wastewater flows in 2030 at 23.322 mgd under the 2001 GPA. The Master Plan estimated an additional 2.9 mgd of wastewater flow under the “Preferred Alternative” resulting in 26.222 mgd by 2030. Based on the City’s current capacity rights of 20.864 mgd, the City would need to acquire an additional 5.358 mgd of treatment capacity to serve the “Preferred Alternative” land use plan by 2030 as described in the 2005 Master Plan. As part of the 2005 Master Plan, the increase in flow from the Preferred Alternative was estimated for the Northwest, Southwest and East areas. The Northwest and Southwest areas accounted for an increase in flow of 1.5 mgd. The East area accounted for an increase in flow of 1.4 mgd. The Northwest and Southwest areas span multiple basins and the flow projections in the Baseline condition are assumed to be the same as the 2005 Master Plan. The East area included the rapidly growing Poggi Canyon and Salt Creek Basins, and buildout flow estimates for those basins have been revised per the March 2009 Poggi Canyon Developer Impact Fee (DIF) Study provided by the City, and the buildout flow projections for the Salt Creek Basin presented as part of this study. Table 6 summarizes the revised sewer flow projections per basin and compares the Master Plans 2030 Metro projections with the updated buildout projections from this study. Note that SANDAG anticipates that the buildout flow projections will occur far beyond 2030. METRO Treatment Capacity 13 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 Table 6. Sewer Basin Flow Projections (2030 vs. Build-out) Basin 2005 Master Plan 2030 Flow Projection (mgd) 2005 Master Plan Preferred Alternative 2030 Flow Projection (mgd) Baseline Condition Buildout Flow Projection (mgd) Bayfront 0.235 0.235 0.235 West Area Date-Faivre 0.666 G Street 2.274 Main Street 4.054 Sweetwater 4.143 Telegraph Canyon 5.939 West Total 17.076 18.576 18.576 East Area Poggi Canyon 2.301 4.368 Salt Creek 3.710 7.691 East Total 6.011 7.411 12.059 City Total 23.322 26.222 30.870 4.2 BASELINE METRO ANALYSIS The Baseline condition results in a total estimated buildout wastewater generation of 30.870 mgd. This estimate is an increase of 7.548 mgd over the estimated 2030 projection of 23.322 mgd presented in the 2005 Master Plan. Within the Salt Creek Basin, this buildout estimate is an increase of 3.981 mgd over the estimated 2030 projection of 3.710 mgd presented in the 2005 Master Plan. The increase in treatment capacity requirement for the City would be 4.378 mgd, beyond the requirement presented in the 2005 Master Plan. 4.3 BASELINE + PROJECT METRO ANALYSIS The Baseline + Project condition results in a total estimated buildout wastewater generation of 31.100 mgd. This estimate is an increase of 7.778 mgd over the estimated 2030 projection of 23.322 mgd presented in the 2005 Master Plan. Within the Salt Creek Basin, this buildout estimate is an increase of 4.211 mgd over the estimated 2030 projection of 3.710 mgd presented in the 2005 Master Plan. The increase in treatment capacity requirement for the City would be 4.579 mgd, beyond the requirement presented in the 2005 Master Plan. 4.4 CUMULATIVE METRO ANALYSIS The City has identified the Bayfront Redevelopment Project as contributing to the City’s overall METRO capacity requirements. The Bayfront Redevelopment Project is estimated to increase wastewater flows by 1.328 mgd based upon the Bayfront Master Plan Revised Draft EIR, dated May 2008. The inclusion of the Bayfront Redevelopment Project with the Cumulative condition results in a total estimated wastewater generation of 32.548 mgd. This estimate is an increase of 9.226 mgd over the estimated 23.322 mgd presented in the 2005 Master Plan. Within the Salt Creek Basin, this estimate is an increase of 4.331 mgd over the estimated 3.710 mgd METRO Treatment Capacity 14 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study October 2010 presented in the 2005 Master Plan. The increase in treatment capacity requirement for the City would be 6.027 mgd, beyond the requirement presented in the 2005 Master Plan. 4.5 SUMMARY The City will need to acquire additional treatment capacity in the METRO system and/or construct a new wastewater treatment plant to meet their future needs. Figure 2 graphically presents an estimate of the anticipated timing of those needs. Future flow projections are based on SANDAG’s Series 12 residential growth rates through 2050. The figure suggests that the City’s existing sewer treatment capacity will be reached by 2025. Currently, the City is studying both alternatives to resolve their treatment capacity deficiency, which includes ongoing negotiations with METRO to purchase additional capacity and an evaluation of a City owned wastewater treatment plant. The City of San Diego has indicated that there is available METRO capacity in the regional system that could be purchased by the City. The Baseline condition would require the City to acquire approximately 7.548 mgd of additional treatment capacity, resulting in approximately 30.870 mgd of wastewater flows. The Baseline + Project condition would require the City to acquire approximately 7.778 mgd of additional treatment capacity, resulting in approximately 31.100 mgd of wastewater flows The Cumulative condition, including the Bayfront Redevelopment, would require the City to acquire approximately 9.226 mgd of additional treatment capacity by 2030, resulting in approximately 32.548 mgd of wastewater flows. A summary of METRO capacity impacts under all the buildout scenarios is shown in Table 7. Table 7. METRO Capacity Impacts (Buildout) Increase in wastewater flow from 2005 MP (mgd) METRO Capacity (mgd) Current METRO Capacity 20.864 2005 Master Plan Flow Projection --23.322 2005 Master Plan Preferred Alternative Flow Projection 2.900 26.222 Baseline Condition Flow Projection 7.548 30.870 30.870 Baseline + Project Condition Flow Projection 7.778 31.100 Cumulative Condition Flow Projection 9.226 32.548 The City recognizes that additional treatment plant capacity must be secured to allow full buildout of the City and continues to proceed with the necessary studies to determine the most economical and beneficial treatment and disposal options. The City has the ability to self mitigate METRO capacity limitations. Issuance of METRO capacity is given to proposed developments after the acceptance of the building permit. The City can self mitigate METRO capacity limitations by not issuing building permits until adequate METRO capacity has been secured. 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Flow Rate (MGD) Figure 2. METRO Capacity Threshold 17.0 mgd 2005 Master Plan Preferred Alternative 2030 Flow (26.222 mgd) Current METRO Capacity (20.864 mgd) Estimated Cumulative Condition Buildout Flow (32.548 mgd) 9.226 mgd 2005 Master Plan 2030 Flow (23.322 mgd) Flow Projection is based on SANDAG's Series 12 Residential growth rates Historic Flows 0.0 5.0 10.02000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 95 96 97 98 99 94 93 92 91 89 90 88 87 83 84 85 86 82 81 80 79 78 7776 75 74 71 72 69 67 68 66 65 64 63 62 60 59 57 58 56 53 450 449 448 447446 445 444 443 442 441440439 438 437 436 434 435 433 432 431430 429 428 426 425 424 423 422 421420419 418 417416414 415 413 412 410 408 406 404 400 398 396 394 392 389 384 381 380 377 376 375 374 372 373 371 369 360 359 358 357 356 355 354 353 352 351350 349 347 345 341 280 282278 276 274 270 266 268 264 260 258 252 250 244 240 242 238 234 236 230 232 222 220 218 216 214 212 210 206 208 204 202 200 198 192 194 196 188 190 186 184 176 178 180 182 175 168 166 164 162 160 155 157 153 151 149 143 145 141 139 137 133 135 130 128 127 119 121 123 125 117 115 113 111 107 109 105 101 100 Legend Identified Deficiencies Salt Creek Interceptor South Otay Ranch Project Adopted and Proposed Land Uses DRAFT -For Review Only Residential Low Medium Residential Medium Residential Medium High Residential High Retail Commercial Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use Residential Town Center Eastern Urban Center Research Limited Industrial Regional Technology Park PQ Parks, Recreation Open Space Open Space Preserve Open Space recreational 081610 KM SD H:\Waterres\080 Chula Vista\10010582 South Otay Ranch ages\Graphics\Exhibit 1 Salt Creek Interceptor.mxd SALT CREEK INTERCEPTOR CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXHIBIT 1 Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Study for the South Otay Ranch Villages October 2010 157 ¯ 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Appendix A Hydraulic Model Loading SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN BUILDOUT FLOW PROJECTIONS Basis Baseline Land Use Projections -provided by City per current General Plan Cumulative Land Use Projections -provided by City based on GPA's and reasonably forseeable projects Unit Generation Rates for existing connections -From Calibrated Poggi Canyon XP-SWMM Model Unit Generation Rates for future connections -From City Subdivision Manual Existing Connections Future Connections SF Residential DU = 215 gpd SF Residential DU = 265 gpd MF Residential DU = 161 gpd MF Residential DU = 199 gpd Non-Residential Ac = 1,500 gpd Non-Residential Ac = 2,500 gpd Park Ac = 500 gpd Park Ac = 500 gpd EDU Conversions (1 EDU = 265 gpd) EDU Conversions (1 EDU = 265 gpd) SF Residential = 0.81 SF Residential = 1.00 MF Residential = 0.61 MF Residential = 0.75 Comm/Indust/Instit = 5.66 Comm/Indust/Instit = 9.43 Park = 1.89 Park = 1.89 Existing Flow Projections From City = 7,312 EDU 1.938 mgd From County = 0 EDU 0.000 mgd Total = 7,312 EDU 1.938 mgd Baseline Flow Projections From From City = 29,022 EDU 7.691 mgd From County = 7,116 EDU 1.886 mgd Total = 36,138 EDU 9.577 mgd Baseline + Project Flow Projections From City = 29,889 EDU 7.921 mgd From County = 7,116 EDU 1.886 mgd Total = 37,005 EDU 9.806 mgd Cumulative Flow Projections From City = 30,344 EDU 8.041 mgd From County = 7,116 EDU 1.886 mgd Total = 37,460 EDU 9.927 mgd UNIT GENERATION RATES 10/12/2010 1 Report and Model Input.xls Summary This page left intentionally blank DU EDU DU EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU 450 (RHR)4141* 215 174.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 174.4 0.0 174.4 (RHR)4138* 109 88.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.4 0.0 88.4 Villages 14 (Vil 14)4051,4052& 3823 1,563 1,563.0 150 112.5 2.6 24.5 0.0 17.5 165.1 10.0 18.9 1,675.5 208.5 1,884.0 Planning Area 16 Portion (PA16)3823 & 3919 390 390.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 16.0 2.5 4.7 390.0 20.8 410.8 Planning Area 19 (PA19)3823 20 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 (RHR)4044* 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 (RHR)4045 173 173.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 173.0 0.0 173.0 (RHR)4045* 252 204.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 204.5 0.0 204.5 (BELLALAGO)4045 84 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 84.0 (BELLALAGO)4045* 56 45.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.4 0.0 45.4 Total 2,862 2,743 150 113 3.6 30 0.0 0 19.2 181 12.5 24 2,855.3 234.9 3,090.2 443 Villages TAZ Zones SF Residential MF Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Parks SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN BASELINE PROJECTIONS1 Total Residential EDU Total Non-Res Nodes EDU Total EDU (E.lake)4185* 254 206.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 206.1 0.0 206.1 (RHR)4159* 256 207.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 18.0 27.4 51.6 207.7 69.6 277.3 Total 510 414 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.2 18 27.4 52 413.8 69.6 483.4 437 (E.lake)4165 30 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 (E.lake)4165* 378 306.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 220.9 0.0 306.7 220.9 527.6 Total 408 337 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 39.0 221 0.0 0 336.7 220.9 557.6 429 (ORH)4176 128 128.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 176.4 0.0 128.0 176.4 304.4 Villages 13 (OTRVil13)4186 658 658.0 1,408 1,056.0 249.1 2,350.0 0.0 7.9 74.5 15.0 28.3 1,714.0 2,452.8 4,166.8 Villages 15 (OTRVil15)4203 481 481.0 0.0 3.3 31.1 0.0 12.3 116.0 3.4 6.4 481.0 153.6 634.6 (E.lake)4207* 52 42.2 253 153.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 196.1 0.0 196.1 (E.lake)4234* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 7.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 (E.lake)4225* 561 455.2 93 56.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.2 53.2 511.7 53.2 564.9 (E.lake)4226* 724 587.4 17 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 24.3 597.7 24.3 622.0 (E.lake)4274* 40 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 32.5 Total 2,644 2,384 1,771 1,277 252.4 2,381 0.0 0 38.9 367 63.2 119 3,661.1 2,867.3 6,528.3 416 (E.lake)4257* 395 320.5 96 58.4 0.0 0.0 10.7 60.6 0.0 378.9 60.6 439.5 Total 395 320 96 58 0.0 0 0.0 0 10.7 61 0.0 0 378.9 60.6 439.5 379 (E.lake)4255* 723 586.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.1 586.6 6.1 592.7 (E.lake)4274* 15 12.2 263 160.0 12.3 69.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.2 69.8 242.1 (E.lake)4291 0.0 494 370.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 370.5 0.0 370.5 (E.lake)4290* 0.0 269 163.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 50.4 4.0 7.6 163.7 58.0 221.7 Total 738 599 1,026 694 12.3 70 0.0 0 8.9 50 7.3 14 1,293.0 134.0 1,426.9 383 OTC (OTC)4292* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 149.6 846.6 0.0 0.0 846.6 846.6 Total 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 149.6 847 0.0 0 0.0 846.6 846.6 280 Villages 11 (OTR)4299* 657 533.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.1 533.0 6.1 539.2 Villages 11 (OTR)4320 0.0 43 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 0.0 32.3 Villages 11 (OTR)4320* 119 96.5 629 382.7 9.0 51.1 0.0 17.4 98.3 13.0 24.5 479.3 173.9 653.2 Villages 11 (OTR)4338 105 105.0 443 332.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 437.3 0.0 437.3 Villages 11 (OTR)4338* 220 178.5 88 53.5 0.0 0.0 27.2 153.8 0.0 232.0 153.8 385.9 Total 1,101 913 1,203 801 9.0 51 0.0 0 44.6 252 16.2 31 1,713.9 333.9 2,047.7 10/12/2010 Page 1 of 6 Report and Model Input.xls Baseline DU EDU DU EDU Villages TAZ Zones Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU SF Residential MF Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Parks SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN BASELINE PROJECTIONS1 Total Residential EDU Total Non-Res Nodes EDU Total EDU 272 University (Univ)4353 264 264.0 925 693.8 0.0 0.0 318.4 3,003.8 0.0 957.8 3,003.8 3,961.5 Village 10 (Vil 10)4353 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.6 1,147.2 0.0 0.0 1,147.2 1,147.2 University (Univ)4350 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 283.0 0.0 0.0 283.0 283.0 Village 10 (Vil 10)4350 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 566.0 0.0 0.0 566.0 566.0 Total 264 264 925 694 0.0 0 0.0 0 530.0 5,000 0.0 0 957.8 5,000.0 5,957.8 220 Village 9 (OTRVil 9)4373 101 101.0 3,513 2,634.8 13.6 128.1 0.0 23.8 224.5 29.8 56.2 2,735.8 408.9 3,144.6 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4289 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.4 63.0 0.0 63.0 63.0 Total 101 101 3,513 2,635 13.6 128 0.0 0 23.8 225 63.2 119 2,735.8 471.9 3,207.7 202 Village 8 East (OTRVil 8)4614 71 71.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 1,886.8 0.0 0.0 71.0 1,886.8 1,957.8 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 97.2 0.0 97.2 97.2 Total 71 71 0 0 0.0 0 200.0 1,887 0.0 0 51.5 97 71.0 1,984.0 2,055.0 200 Village 8 West (OTRVil 8)4391 539 539.0 1,017 762.8 4.0 37.7 0.0 41.3 389.6 20.5 38.7 1,301.8 466.0 1,767.8 Total 539 539 1,017 763 4.0 38 0.0 0 41.3 390 20.5 39 1,301.8 466.0 1,767.8 157 Village 7 (Vil 7)4351 204 204.0 348 261.0 3.7 34.9 0.0 2.3 21.7 0.0 465.0 56.6 521.6 Village 7 (Vil 7)4351* 0.0 100 60.8 0.0 0.0 66.9 378.7 0.0 60.8 378.7 439.5 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.8 90.2 0.0 90.2 90.2 Village 4 (Vil 4)4405 453 453.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 19.8 7.0 13.2 453.0 33.0 486.0 Village 4 (Vil 4)4375 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.8 105.3 0.0 105.3 105.3 EUC (EUC)4345 0.0 2,520 1,890.0 66.3 625.2 0.0 7.9 74.6 10.9 20.6 1,890.0 720.4 2,610.4 Total 657 657 2,968 2,212 70 660 0 0 79 495 122 229 2,869 1,384 4,253 149 Village 2 (Vil II) 4331 521 521.0 304 228.0 0.0 36.4 343.4 0.0 0.0 749.0 343.4 1,092.4 Village 3 (OTRVil 3)4383 0.0 0.0 0.0 216.5 2,042.5 10.2 96.2 0.0 0.0 2,138.7 2,138.7 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 15.0 141.5 0.0 0.0 55.2 104.1 0.0 245.6 245.6 Total 521 521 304 228 15.0 142 252.9 2,386 10.2 96 55.2 104 749.0 2,727.7 3,476.7 * Existing constructed land uses. ** The table includes constructed, adopted, and 2005 General Plan Updated land uses. 1 Data allocations based on the revised Salt Creek Sewer Basin boundary, Nodes and proposed Otay Ranch Villages boundary. 10/12/2010 Page 2 of 6 Report and Model Input.xls Baseline DU EDU DU EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU 450 (RHR)4141* 215 174.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 174.4 0.0 174.4 (RHR)4138* 109 88.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.4 0.0 88.4 Villages 14 (Vil 14)4051,4052& 3823 1,563 1,563.0 150 112.5 2.6 24.5 0.0 17.5 165.1 10.0 18.9 1,675.5 208.5 1,884.0 Planning Area 16 Portion (PA16)3823 & 3919 390 390.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 16.0 2.5 4.7 390.0 20.8 410.8 Planning Area 19 (PA19)3823 20 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 (RHR)4044* 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 (RHR)4045 173 173.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 173.0 0.0 173.0 (RHR)4045* 252 204.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 204.5 0.0 204.5 (BELLALAGO)4045 84 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 84.0 (BELLALAGO)4045* 56 45.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.4 0.0 45.4 Total 2,862 2,743 150 113 3.6 30 0.0 0 19.2 181 12.5 24 2,855.3 234.9 3,090.2 443 MF Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Parks Total Residential EDU Total Non-Res EDU Total EDU SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN BASELINE + PROJECT PROJECTIONS1 Nodes Villages TAZ Zones SF Residential (E.lake)4185* 254 206.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 206.1 0.0 206.1 (RHR)4159* 256 207.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 18.0 27.4 51.6 207.7 69.6 277.3 Total 510 414 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.2 18 27.4 52 413.8 69.6 483.4 437 (E.lake)4165 30 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 (E.lake)4165* 378 306.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 220.9 0.0 306.7 220.9 527.6 Total 408 337 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 39.0 221 0.0 0 336.7 220.9 557.6 429 (ORH)4176 128 128.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 176.4 0.0 128.0 176.4 304.4 Villages 13 (OTRVil13)4186 658 658.0 1,408 1,056.0 249.1 2,350.0 0.0 7.9 74.5 15.0 28.3 1,714.0 2,452.8 4,166.8 Villages 15 (OTRVil15)4203 481 481.0 0.0 3.3 31.1 0.0 12.3 116.0 3.4 6.4 481.0 153.6 634.6 (E.lake)4207* 52 42.2 253 153.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 196.1 0.0 196.1 (E.lake)4234* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 7.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 (E.lake)4225* 561 455.2 93 56.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.2 53.2 511.7 53.2 564.9 (E.lake)4226* 724 587.4 17 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 24.3 597.7 24.3 622.0 (E.lake)4274* 40 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 32.5 Total 2,644 2,384 1,771 1,277 252.4 2,381 0.0 0 38.9 367 63.2 119 3,661.1 2,867.3 6,528.3 416 (E.lake)4257* 395 320.5 96 58.4 0.0 0.0 10.7 60.6 0.0 378.9 60.6 439.5 Total 395 320 96 58 0.0 0 0.0 0 10.7 61 0.0 0 378.9 60.6 439.5 379 (E.lake)4255* 723 586.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.1 586.6 6.1 592.7 (E.lake)4274* 15 12.2 263 160.0 12.3 69.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.2 69.8 242.1 (E.lake)4291 0.0 494 370.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 370.5 0.0 370.5 (E.lake)4290* 0.0 269 163.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 50.4 4.0 7.6 163.7 58.0 221.7 Total 738 599 1,026 694 12.3 70 0.0 0 8.9 50 7.3 14 1,293.0 134.0 1,426.9 383 OTC (OTC)4292* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 149.6 846.6 0.0 0.0 846.6 846.6 Total 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 149.6 847 0.0 0 0.0 846.6 846.6 280 Villages 11 (OTR)4299* 657 533.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.1 533.0 6.1 539.2 Villages 11 (OTR)4320 0.0 43 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 0.0 32.3 Villages 11 (OTR)4320* 119 96.5 629 382.7 9.0 51.1 0.0 17.4 98.3 13.0 24.5 479.3 173.9 653.2 Villages 11 (OTR)4338 105 105.0 443 332.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 437.3 0.0 437.3 Villages 11 (OTR)4338* 220 178.5 88 53.5 0.0 0.0 27.2 153.8 0.0 232.0 153.8 385.9 Total 1,101 913 1,203 801 9.0 51 0.0 0 44.6 252 16.2 31 1,713.9 333.9 2,047.7 10/12/2010 Page 3 of 6 Report and Model Input.xls Baseline+Project DU EDU DU EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU MF Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Parks Total Residential EDU Total Non-Res EDU Total EDU SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN BASELINE + PROJECT PROJECTIONS1 Nodes Villages TAZ Zones SF Residential 272 University (Univ)4353 264 264.0 925 693.8 0.0 0.0 318.4 3,003.8 0.0 957.8 3,003.8 3,961.5 Village 10 (Vil 10)4353 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.6 1,147.2 0.0 0.0 1,147.2 1,147.2 University (Univ)4350 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 283.0 0.0 0.0 283.0 283.0 Village 10 (Vil 10)4350 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 566.0 0.0 0.0 566.0 566.0 Total 264 264 925 694 0.0 0 0.0 0 530.0 5,000 0.0 0 957.8 5,000.0 5,957.8 220 Village 9 (OTRVil 9)4373 266 266.0 3,734 2,800.5 17.8 167.9 0.0 27.0 254.7 25.1 47.4 3,066.5 470.0 3,536.5 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4289 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.4 63.0 0.0 63.0 63.0 Total 266 266 3,734 2,801 17.8 168 0.0 0 27.0 255 58.5 110 3,066.5 533.0 3,599.5 202 Village 8 East (OTRVil 8)4614 71 71.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 1,886.8 0.0 0.0 71.0 1,886.8 1,957.8 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Planning Area 20 51.5 97.2 0.0 97.2 97.2 Total 71 71 0 0 0.0 0 200.0 1,887 0.0 0 51.5 97 71.0 1,984.0 2,055.0 200 Village 8 West (OTRVil 8)4391 621 621.0 1,429 1,071.8 14.5 136.8 0.0 38.2 360.4 28.0 52.8 1,692.8 550.0 2,242.8 Total 621 621 1,429 1,072 14.5 137 0.0 0 38.2 360 28.0 53 1,692.8 550.0 2,242.8 157 Village 7 (Vil 7)4351 204 204.0 348 261.0 3.7 34.9 0.0 2.3 21.7 0.0 465.0 56.6 521.6 Village 7 (Vil 7)4351* 0.0 100 60.8 0.0 0.0 66.9 378.7 0.0 60.8 378.7 439.5 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.8 90.2 0.0 90.2 90.2 Village 4 (Vil 4)4405 453 453.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 19.8 7.0 13.2 453.0 33.0 486.0 Village 4 (Vil 4)4375 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.8 105.3 0.0 105.3 105.3 EUC (EUC)4345 0.0 2,520 1,890.0 66.3 625.2 0.0 7.9 74.6 10.9 20.6 1,890.0 720.4 2,610.4 Total 657 657 2,968 2,212 70 660 0 0 79 495 122 229 2,869 1,384 4,253 149 Village 2 (Vil II) 4331 521 521.0 304 228.0 0.0 36.4 343.4 0.0 0.0 749.0 343.4 1,092.4 Village 3 (OTRVil 3)4383 0.0 0.0 0.0 216.5 2,042.5 10.2 96.2 0.0 0.0 2,138.7 2,138.7 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 15.0 141.5 0.0 0.0 55.2 104.1 0.0 245.6 245.6 Total 521 521 304 228 15.0 142 252.9 2,386 10.2 96 55.2 104 749.0 2,727.7 3,476.7 * Existing constructed land uses. ** The table includes constructed, adopted, and 2005 General Plan Updated land uses. 1 Data allocations based on the revised Salt Creek Sewer Basin boundary, Nodes and proposed Otay Ranch Villages boundary. 10/12/2010 Page 4 of 6 Report and Model Input.xls Baseline+Project DU EDU DU EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU 450 (RHR)4141* 215 174.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 174.4 0.0 174.4 (RHR)4138* 109 88.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.4 0.0 88.4 Villages 14 Portion (Vil 14)4051,4052& 3823 1,563 1,563.0 150 112.5 2.6 24.5 0.0 17.5 165.1 10.0 18.9 1,675.5 208.5 1,884.0 Planning Area 16 Portion (PA16)3823 & 3919 390 390.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 16.0 2.5 4.7 390.0 20.8 410.8 Planning Area 19 (PA19)3823 20 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 (RHR)4044* 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 (RHR)4045 173 173.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 173.0 0.0 173.0 (RHR)4045* 252 204.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 204.5 0.0 204.5 (BELLALAGO)4045 84 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 84.0 (BELLALAGO)4045* 56 45.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.4 0.0 45.4 Total 2,862 2,743 150 113 3.6 30 0.0 0 19.2 181 12.5 24 2,855.3 234.9 3,090.2 443 Parks Total Residential EDU Total Non-Res EDU Total EDU SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN CUMULATIVE PROJECTIONS1 Nodes Villages TAZ Zones SF Residential MF Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional (E.lake)4185* 254 206.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 206.1 0.0 206.1 (RHR)4159* 256 207.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 18.0 27.4 51.6 207.7 69.6 277.3 Total 510 414 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.2 18 27.4 52 413.8 69.6 483.4 437 (E.lake)4165 30 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 (E.lake)4165* 378 306.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 220.9 0.0 306.7 220.9 527.6 Total 408 337 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 39.0 221 0.0 0 336.7 220.9 557.6 429 (ORH)4176 128 128.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 176.4 0.0 128.0 176.4 304.4 Villages 13 (OTRVil13)4186 658 658.0 1,408 1,056.0 249.1 2,350.0 0.0 7.9 74.5 15.0 28.3 1,714.0 2,452.8 4,166.8 Villages 15 (OTRVil15)4203 481 481.0 0.0 3.3 31.1 0.0 12.3 116.0 3.4 6.4 481.0 153.6 634.6 (E.lake)4207* 52 42.2 253 153.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 196.1 0.0 196.1 (E.lake)4234* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 7.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 (E.lake)4225* 561 455.2 93 56.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.2 53.2 511.7 53.2 564.9 (E.lake)4226* 724 587.4 17 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 24.3 597.7 24.3 622.0 (E.lake)4274* 40 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 32.5 Total 2,644 2,384 1,771 1,277 252.4 2,381 0.0 0 38.9 367 63.2 119 3,661.1 2,867.3 6,528.3 416 (E.lake)4257* 395 320.5 96 58.4 0.0 0.0 10.7 60.6 0.0 378.9 60.6 439.5 Total 395 320 96 58 0.0 0 0.0 0 10.7 61 0.0 0 378.9 60.6 439.5 379 (E.lake)4255* 723 586.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.1 586.6 6.1 592.7 (E.lake)4274* 15 12.2 263 160.0 12.3 69.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.2 69.8 242.1 (E.lake)4291 0.0 494 370.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 370.5 0.0 370.5 (E.lake)4290* 0.0 269 163.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 50.4 4.0 7.6 163.7 58.0 221.7 Total 738 599 1,026 694 12.3 70 0.0 0 8.9 50 7.3 14 1,293.0 134.0 1,426.9 383 OTC (OTC)4292* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 149.6 846.6 0.0 0.0 846.6 846.6 Total 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 149.6 847 0.0 0 0.0 846.6 846.6 280 Villages 11 (OTR)4299* 657 533.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.1 533.0 6.1 539.2 Villages 11 (OTR)4320 0.0 43 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 0.0 32.3 Villages 11 (OTR)4320* 119 96.5 629 382.7 9.0 51.1 0.0 17.4 98.3 13.0 24.5 479.3 173.9 653.2 Villages 11 (OTR)4338 105 105.0 443 332.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 437.3 0.0 437.3 Villages 11 (OTR)4338* 220 178.5 88 53.5 0.0 0.0 27.2 153.8 0.0 232.0 153.8 385.9 Total 1,101 913 1,203 801 9.0 51 0.0 0 44.6 252 16.2 31 1,713.9 333.9 2,047.7 10/12/2010 Page 5 of 6 Report and Model Input.xls Cumulative DU EDU DU EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Ac EDU Parks Total Residential EDU Total Non-Res EDU Total EDU SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN CUMULATIVE PROJECTIONS1 Nodes Villages TAZ Zones SF Residential MF Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional 272 University (Univ)4353 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.0 801.9 260.0 2,452.8 0.0 0.0 3,254.7 3,254.7 Village 10 (Vil 10)4353 0.0 2,290 1,717.5 0.0 0.0 14.0 132.1 20.8 39.2 1,717.5 171.3 1,888.8 University (Univ)4350 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 283.0 0.0 0.0 283.0 283.0 Village 10 (Vil 10)4350 360 360.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 360.0 0.0 360.0 Total 360 360 2,290 1,718 0.0 0 85.0 802 304.0 2,868 20.8 39 2,077.5 3,709.1 5,786.6 220 Village 9 (OTRVil 9)4373 266 266.0 3,734 2,800.5 17.8 167.9 0.0 27.0 254.7 25.1 47.4 3,066.5 470.0 3,536.5 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4289 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.4 63.0 0.0 63.0 63.0 Total 266 266 3,734 2,801 17.8 168 0.0 0 27.0 255 58.5 110 3,066.5 533.0 3,599.5 202 Village 8 East (OTRVil 8)4614 0.0 3,106 2,329.5 0.0 0.0 14.0 132.1 24.3 45.8 2,329.5 177.9 2,507.4 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Planning Area 20 51.5 97.2 0.0 97.2 97.2 Total 0 0 3,106 2,330 0.0 0 0.0 0 14.0 132 75.8 143 2,329.5 275.1 2,604.6 200 Village 8 West (OTRVil 8)4391 621 621.0 1,429 1,071.8 14.5 136.8 0.0 38.2 360.4 28.0 52.8 1,692.8 550.0 2,242.8 Total 621 621 1,429 1,072 14.5 137 0.0 0 38.2 360 28.0 53 1,692.8 550.0 2,242.8 157 Village 7 (Vil 7)4351 204 204.0 348 261.0 3.7 34.9 0.0 2.3 21.7 0.0 465.0 56.6 521.6 Village 7 (Vil 7)4351* 0.0 100 60.8 0.0 0.0 66.9 378.7 0.0 60.8 378.7 439.5 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.8 90.2 0.0 90.2 90.2 Village 4 (Vil 4)4405 130 130.0 620 465.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 11.7 595.0 11.7 606.7 Village 4 (Vil 4)4375 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.8 105.3 0.0 105.3 105.3 EUC (EUC)4345 0.0 2,520 1,890.0 66.3 625.2 0.0 7.9 74.6 10.9 20.6 1,890.0 720.4 2,610.4 Total 334 334 3,588 2,677 70 660 0 0 77 475 121 228 3,011 1,363 4,374 149 Village 2 (Vil II) 4331 521 521.0 304 228.0 0.0 36.4 343.4 0.0 0.0 749.0 343.4 1,092.4 Village 3 (OTRVil 3)4383 484 484.0 360 270.0 0.0 126.5 1,193.4 14.0 132.1 7.9 14.9 754.0 1,340.4 2,094.4 Planning Area 20 (PA20)4421 0.0 0.0 15.0 141.5 0.0 0.0 55.2 104.1 0.0 245.6 245.6 Total 1,005 1,005 664 498 15.0 142 162.9 1,537 14.0 132 63.1 119 1,503.0 1,929.4 3,432.4 * Existing constructed land uses. ** The table includes constructed, adopted, proposed, and Land Offer Agreement land uses. 1 Data allocations based on the revised Salt Creek Sewer Basin boundary, Nodes and proposed Otay Ranch Villages boundary. 10/12/2010 Page 6 of 6 Report and Model Input.xls Cumulative Appendix B Hydraulic Model Results Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 S 450 S 449 Hunte Parkway 15 105.8 0.55 900,650 0.62 2.28 0.49 S 449 S 448 Hunte Parkway 15 379.4 0.64 900,650 0.61 2.28 0.48 S 448 S 447 Hunte Parkway 15 408.6 0.58 900,640 0.61 2.28 0.48 S 447 S 446 Hunte Parkway 15 337.9 0.61 900,640 0.60 2.28 0.48 S 446 S 445 Hunte Parkway 15 394.3 0.68 900,630 0.58 2.28 0.46 S 445 S 444 Hunte Parkway 15 308.7 5.33 900,620 0.35 2.28 0.28 S 444 S 443 Hunte Parkway 15 96.0 15.71 900,620 0.42 2.28 0.34 S 443 S 442 Hunte Parkway 15 307.7 3.46 1,041,590 0.57 2.64 0.46 S 442 S 441 Hunte Parkway 15 401.7 1.01 1,041,580 0.57 2.64 0.46 S 441 S 440 Hunte Parkway 15 378.2 1.21 1,041,570 0.54 2.64 0.43 S 440 S 439 Hunte Parkway 15 358.0 2.50 1,041,550 0.56 2.64 0.44 S 439 S 438 Hunte Parkway 15 344.4 1.10 1,041,540 0.55 2.64 0.44 S 438 S 437 Hunte Parkway 15 317.4 1.83 1,041,520 0.49 2.64 0.39 S 437 S 436 Hunte Parkway 15 374.8 3.56 1,204,140 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 436 S 435 Salt Creek 15 390.0 1.05 1,204,110 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 435 S 434 434 Salt Creek 15 235.3 1.08 1,204,090 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 434 S 433 Salt Creek 15 392.1 1.05 1,204,060 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 433 S 432 Salt Creek 15 291.0 1.07 1,204,030 0.61 3.05 0.49 S 432 S 431 Salt Creek 15 288.7 1.07 1,204,000 0.61 3.05 0.49 S 431 S 430 Salt Creek 15 357.0 2.38 1,203,970 0.73 3.05 0.59 S 430 S 429 Salt Creek 18 536.0 0.38 1,203,890 0.84 3.05 0.56 S 429 S 428 North Creekside Drive 18 56.7 1.78 3,106,750 0.83 7.91 0.55 S 428 S 427 North Creekside Drive 18 127.3 3.10 3,106,740 0.71 7.91 0.47 S 427 S 426 North Creekside Drive 18 179.4 3.08 3,106,730 0.72 7.91 0.48 S 426 S 425 North Creekside Drive 18 322.1 3.00 3,106,700 5.63 7.89 3.76 322.10 322.10 S 425 S 424 North Creekside Drive 18 391.4 0.43 3,106,630 5.59 7.89 3.73 391.40 391.40 S 424 S 423 North Creekside Drive 18 337.4 0.43 3,106,550 5.01 7.89 3.34 337.40 337.40 S 423 S 422 North Creekside Drive 18 320.0 0.52 3,106,490 4.50 7.89 3.00 320.00 320.00 S 422 S 421 North Creekside Drive 18 375.2 0.34 3,106,380 4.28 7.89 2.86 375.20 375.20 S 421 421 S 420 South Creekside Drive 18 214.6 0.45 3,106,340 3.37 7.89 2.25 214.60 214.60 S 420 S 419 South Creekside Drive 18 279.2 0.44 3,106,270 3.06 7.88 2.04 279.20 279.20 S 419 S 418 South Creekside Drive 18 331.5 0.43 3,106,180 2.62 7.88 1.75 331.50 331.50 S 418 S 417 South Creekside Drive 18 234.3 0.44 3,106,110 2.09 7.88 1.40 234.30 234.30 S 417 S 416 South Creekside Drive 18 376.8 0.43 3,105,990 1.75 7.88 1.16 376.80 376.80 S 416 S 415 Salt Creek 18 183.3 8.21 3,234,130 0.88 8.20 0.59 S 415 S 414 Salt Creek 18 291.2 1.64 3,234,070 0.98 8.20 0.65 S 414 S 413 Salt Creek 18 295.0 1.22 3,234,010 0.96 8.20 0.64 S 413 S 379 Salt Creek 18 33.0 13.33 3,234,010 1.07 8.20 0.71 S 379 S 380 Salt Creek 20 9.1 0.88 3,649,940 1.05 9.24 0.63 S 380 S 381 Salt Creek 20 151.4 0.89 3,649,910 1.05 9.24 0.63 S 381 S 378 Salt Creek 20 25.0 3.32 3,649,900 0.72 9.24 0.43 S 378 S 410 Salt Creek 20 8.5 3.30 3,649,900 0.72 9.24 0.43 S 410 S 377 Salt Creek 20 91.2 6.35 3,649,880 0.77 9.24 0.46 S 377 S 362 Salt Creek 20 173.3 1.20 3,649,840 0.96 9.24 0.57 S 362 S 360 Salt Creek 20 346.7 1.07 3,649,760 0.99 9.24 0.59 S 360 S 358 Salt Creek 20 609.7 2.07 3,649,660 0.88 9.24 0.53 S 358 S 359 Salt Creek 20 564.0 0.86 3,649,530 1.06 9.24 0.63 S 359 S 357 Salt Creek 20 596.8 1.57 3,649,350 0.88 9.24 0.53 S 357 S 356 Salt Creek 24 470.9 0.86 3,649,220 0.94 9.24 0.47 S 356 S 355 Salt Creek 24 510.3 1.85 3,649,070 0.78 9.24 0.39 Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Salt Creek Page 1 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes S 355 S 354 Salt Creek 24 511.1 1.26 3,648,920 0.86 9.24 0.43 S 354 S 353 Salt Creek 24 509.8 0.82 3,648,760 0.95 9.24 0.48 S 353 S 352 Salt Creek 24 507.7 1.56 3,648,590 0.82 9.24 0.41 S 352 S 351 Salt Creek 24 501.7 1.72 3,648,440 0.91 9.24 0.46 S 351 S 350 Salt Creek 24 17.4 0.40 3,648,420 1.11 9.24 0.55 S 350 S 349 Salt Creek 24 403.1 0.32 3,648,230 1.27 9.24 0.63 S 349 S 348 Salt Creek 24 20.7 0.29 3,648,210 1.16 9.24 0.58 S 383 S 384 ROW 10 231.6 0.45 246,770 0.41 0.68 0.49 S 384 S 386 ROW 10 260.5 0.42 246,770 0.41 0.68 0.50 S 386 S 392 ROW 10 241.5 0.42 246,770 0.41 0.68 0.50 S 392 S 394 ROW 10 246.5 0.41 246,760 0.42 0.68 0.50 S 394 S 396 ROW 10 236.9 1.28 246,760 0.31 0.68 0.37 S 396 S 398 ROW 10 278.8 0.47 246,760 0.40 0.68 0.48 S 398 S 400 ROW 10 130.9 8.23 246,760 0.20 0.68 0.24 S 400 S 402 ROW 10 357.7 19.82 246,760 0.17 0.68 0.20 S 402 S 404 ROW 10 116.7 11.37 246,760 0.19 0.68 0.22 S 404 S 406 ROW 10 168.7 8.88 246,760 0.20 0.68 0.24 S 406 S 348 ROW 10 100.0 0.47 246,760 0.40 0.68 0.48 S 348 S 347 Salt Creek 24 566.1 0.32 3,894,680 1.31 9.89 0.66 S 347 S 282 Salt Creek 24 254.0 0.97 3,894,580 0.94 9.89 0.47 S 282 S 280 Salt Creek 24 83.4 8.38 3,894,560 2.41 9.89 1.21 83.40 83.40 S 280 S 278 Salt Creek 24 316.6 0.23 4,491,280 2.37 11.37 1.19 316.60 316.60 S 278 S 276 Salt Creek 24 400.0 0.23 4,491,030 2.26 11.37 1.13 400.00 400.00 S 276 S 274 Salt Creek 24 400.0 0.23 4,490,760 2.15 11.37 1.07 400.00 400.00 S 274 S 272 Salt Creek 24 187.4 0.23 4,490,600 2.03 11.37 1.02 187.40 187.40 S 272 S 270 Salt Creek 24 164.5 0.26 6,227,130 1.95 15.94 0.97 164.50 S 270 S 412 Salt Creek 24 200.0 3.30 6,227,060 0.89 15.94 0.44 S 412 S 268 Salt Creek 24 217.9 3.30 6,226,990 0.89 15.94 0.44 S 268 S 266 Salt Creek 24 146.5 4.09 6,226,940 0.85 15.94 0.42 S 266 S 264 Salt Creek 24 220.5 4.09 6,226,850 0.85 15.94 0.42 S 264 S 262 Salt Creek 24 348.9 6.31 6,226,780 0.79 15.94 0.40 S 262 S 341 Salt Creek 24 283.3 5.29 6,226,700 0.84 15.94 0.42 S 341 S 260 Salt Creek 24 400.0 4.25 6,226,570 1.15 15.94 0.58 S 260 S 258 Salt Creek 24 377.8 1.45 6,226,380 1.15 15.94 0.58 S 258 S 256 Salt Creek 24 328.2 1.45 6,226,210 1.37 15.94 0.68 S 256 S 376 Salt Creek 24 195.0 0.37 6,226,080 1.82 15.94 0.91 195.00 S 376 S 389 Salt Creek 30 3.3 30.30 6,226,070 0.51 15.94 0.21 S 389 S 375 Salt Creek 30 31.3 12.40 6,226,060 1.89 15.94 0.76 S 375 S 252 Salt Creek 30 299.5 0.11 6,225,710 2.08 15.94 0.83 S 252 S 250 Salt Creek 30 411.6 0.11 6,225,230 2.04 15.94 0.82 S 250 S 374 Salt Creek 30 305.0 0.11 6,224,910 1.86 15.94 0.74 S 374 S 244 Salt Creek 30 79.4 5.44 6,224,870 1.29 15.94 0.52 S 244 S 242 Salt Creek 30 257.6 0.33 6,224,610 1.48 15.94 0.59 S 242 S 240 Salt Creek 30 521.2 0.33 6,224,060 1.51 15.94 0.60 S 240 S 238 Salt Creek 30 175.3 0.77 6,223,920 1.18 15.94 0.47 S 238 S 236 Salt Creek 30 78.1 1.05 6,223,860 1.09 15.94 0.44 S 236 S 234 Salt Creek 30 565.7 1.05 6,223,470 1.09 15.94 0.44 S 234 S 232 Wiley Road 30 564.8 1.05 6,223,080 1.09 15.94 0.44 S 232 S 230 Wiley Road 30 312.3 1.54 6,222,860 1.36 15.94 0.54 Page 2 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes S 230 S 222 Wiley Road 30 596.8 0.31 6,222,150 1.55 15.94 0.62 S 222 S 220 Wiley Road 30 593.5 0.31 6,221,430 1.56 15.94 0.62 S 220 S 218 Wiley Road 30 519.4 0.31 7,155,990 1.68 18.22 0.67 S 218 S 216 Wiley Road 30 600.0 0.31 7,155,400 1.69 18.22 0.68 S 216 S 214 Wiley Road 30 600.0 1.06 7,155,000 1.37 18.22 0.55 S 214 S 212 Wiley Road 36 510.2 0.26 7,154,420 1.56 18.22 0.52 S 212 S 210 Wiley Road 36 342.1 0.19 7,153,940 1.69 18.22 0.56 S 210 S 208 Wiley Road 36 353.8 0.19 7,153,420 1.69 18.22 0.56 S 208 S 206 Wiley Road 36 289.5 0.19 7,153,010 1.68 18.22 0.56 S 206 S 204 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.19 7,152,000 1.71 18.22 0.57 S 204 S 202 Wiley Road 36 484.5 0.58 7,151,370 1.26 18.22 0.42 S 202 S 200 Wiley Road 36 594.8 0.58 7,749,550 1.30 19.83 0.43 S 200 S 198 Wiley Road 36 593.1 0.58 8,264,120 1.35 21.10 0.45 S 198 S 196 Wiley Road 36 594.8 0.58 8,263,330 1.35 21.10 0.45 S 196 S 194 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.58 8,262,520 1.35 21.10 0.45 S 194 S 192 Wiley Road 36 389.7 0.58 8,261,970 1.35 21.10 0.45 S 192 S 190 Wiley Road 36 439.9 0.58 8,261,350 1.35 21.10 0.45 S 190 S 188 Wiley Road 36 304.5 2.00 8,261,100 1.69 21.10 0.56 S 188 S 186 Wiley Road 36 470.1 0.19 8,260,190 1.88 21.10 0.63 S 186 S 184 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.19 8,259,000 1.90 21.10 0.63 S 184 S 182 Wiley Road 36 599.3 0.19 8,257,790 1.88 21.10 0.63 S 182 S 180 Wiley Road 36 594.3 1.40 8,257,210 1.10 21.10 0.37 S 180 S 178 Wiley Road 42 586.0 0.57 8,256,420 1.51 21.10 0.43 S 178 S 176 Wiley Road 42 524.7 0.19 8,255,350 1.71 21.10 0.49 S 176 S 175 Wiley Road 42 584.9 0.19 8,254,120 1.72 21.10 0.49 S 175 S 373 Wiley Road 42 289.5 0.19 8,253,480 1.64 21.10 0.47 S 373 S 372 Wiley Road 42 115.8 0.19 8,253,210 1.58 21.10 0.45 S 372 S 168 Wiley Road 42 302.4 0.19 8,252,540 1.67 21.09 0.48 S 168 S 166 Wiley Road 42 320.4 0.19 8,251,820 1.68 21.09 0.48 S 166 S 164 Wiley Road 42 426.7 0.19 8,250,850 1.69 21.09 0.48 S 164 S 162 Wiley Road 42 438.7 0.19 8,249,830 1.71 21.09 0.49 S 162 S 160 Wiley Road 42 438.7 0.19 8,248,800 1.70 21.09 0.49 S 160 S 157 Wiley Road 42 300.0 0.19 8,248,050 1.70 21.09 0.49 S 157 S 155 Wiley Road 42 494.8 0.19 9,486,630 1.81 24.14 0.52 S 155 S 153 Wiley Road 42 431.1 0.45 9,485,650 1.47 24.14 0.42 S 153 S 151 Wiley Road 42 593.0 0.86 9,484,790 1.53 24.14 0.44 S 151 S 149 Wiley Road 42 600.0 0.25 9,483,440 1.73 24.14 0.49 S 149 S 371 Wiley Road 42 684.4 0.25 10,495,240 1.81 26.81 0.52 S 371 S 145 Wiley Road 42 344.9 1.18 10,494,810 1.24 26.81 0.35 S 145 S 143 Wiley Road 42 443.3 1.04 10,494,010 2.15 26.81 0.61 S 143 S 141 Main Street 42 521.9 0.10 10,492,190 2.34 26.81 0.67 S 141 S 139 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,489,920 2.39 26.81 0.68 S 139 S 137 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,487,210 2.52 26.81 0.72 S 137 S 345 Main Street 42 136.0 0.10 10,486,540 2.51 26.81 0.72 S 345 S 135 Main Street 42 456.5 0.10 10,484,350 2.51 26.81 0.72 S 135 S 133 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,481,390 2.50 26.81 0.72 S 133 S 128 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,478,300 2.52 26.81 0.72 S 130 S 125 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,468,600 2.51 26.80 0.72 S 128 S 127 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,475,150 2.51 26.81 0.72 S 127 S 130 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,471,930 2.50 26.80 0.72 S 125 S 123 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,465,180 2.53 26.80 0.72 Page 3 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes S 123 S 121 Main Street 42 73.2 0.10 10,464,720 2.52 26.80 0.72 S 121 S 119 Main Street 42 265.4 0.10 10,463,150 2.53 26.80 0.72 S 119 S 117 Main Street 42 73.2 0.10 10,462,680 2.52 26.80 0.72 S 117 S 115 Main Street 42 199.4 0.10 10,461,480 2.51 26.80 0.72 S 115 S 113 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,457,940 2.50 26.80 0.71 S 113 S 111 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,454,340 2.50 26.80 0.72 S 111 S 408 Main Street 42 228.2 0.10 10,452,930 2.50 26.80 0.71 S 408 S 109 Main Street 42 371.9 0.10 10,450,630 2.50 26.79 0.71 S 109 S 107 Main Street 42 146.8 0.10 10,449,690 2.49 26.79 0.71 S 107 S 86 Main Street 42 955.6 0.10 10,443,840 2.47 26.79 0.71 S 86 S 85 Main Street 42 566.9 0.10 10,440,450 2.37 26.79 0.68 S 85 S 84 Main Street 42 287.7 0.10 10,438,830 2.26 26.79 0.64 S 84 S 83 Main Street 42 399.0 0.10 10,436,940 2.12 26.79 0.60 S 83 S 81 Main Street 42 269.1 1.49 14,292,130 1.83 37.19 0.52 S 81 S 70 Otay Valley Road 42 13.0 0.23 14,292,040 1.92 37.19 0.55 S 70 S 80 Otay Valley Road 42 42.1 0.19 14,291,820 1.99 37.19 0.57 S 80 S 79 Otay Valley Road 42 57.6 1.25 14,291,630 1.44 37.19 0.41 S 79 S 78 Otay Valley Road 42 84.8 1.25 14,291,360 1.44 37.19 0.41 S 78 S 77 Otay Valley Road 42 78.0 1.27 14,291,110 1.44 37.19 0.41 S 77 S 76 Otay Valley Road 42 293.5 1.39 14,290,260 1.40 37.19 0.40 S 76 S 75 Otay Valley Road 42 283.0 1.53 14,289,380 1.95 37.19 0.56 S 75 S 74 Otay Valley Road 42 12.0 0.25 14,289,290 2.04 37.19 0.58 S 74 S 73 Otay Valley Road 42 84.0 0.25 14,288,880 2.11 37.19 0.60 S 73 S 82 Otay Valley Road 42 212.5 0.29 14,287,910 2.14 37.19 0.61 S 82 S 72 Otay Valley Road 42 172.0 0.25 14,287,070 2.20 37.19 0.63 S 72 S 71 Otay Valley Road 42 133.4 0.25 14,286,390 2.21 37.19 0.63 S 71 S 55 Otay Valley Road 42 400.7 0.22 14,284,470 2.25 37.19 0.64 S 55 S 54 Otay Valley Road 42 18.2 0.22 14,284,350 1.94 37.19 0.55 S 54 S 62 Date Street 42 78.4 0.32 14,283,960 1.97 37.19 0.56 S 62 S 61 Date Street 42 8.0 1.50 14,283,910 1.40 37.19 0.40 S 61 S 53 Main Street 42 204.7 1.06 14,283,280 1.50 37.19 0.43 S 53 S 65 Main Street 42 129.7 1.11 14,282,810 1.93 37.19 0.55 S 65 S 66 Main Street 42 532.4 0.34 14,280,270 2.02 37.19 0.58 S 66 S 60 Main Street 42 497.0 1.35 14,278,760 1.41 37.19 0.40 S 60 S 59 Main Street 42 26.8 1.27 14,278,670 1.44 37.42 0.41 S 59 S 58 Main Street 42 502.7 1.11 14,277,010 2.08 37.20 0.59 S 58 S 57 Main Street 42 600.0 0.28 14,274,090 2.16 37.19 0.62 S 57 S 68 Main Street 42 584.7 1.24 14,272,240 1.45 37.19 0.41 S 68 S 67 Main Street 42 579.7 1.23 14,270,400 1.45 37.19 0.41 S 67 S 56 Main Street 42 41.6 2.02 14,270,260 1.32 37.19 0.38 S 56 S 63 Main Street 42 504.5 1.34 14,268,500 1.42 37.19 0.40 S 63 S 64 Main Street 42 467.0 0.97 14,266,920 1.82 37.19 0.52 S 64 S 69 Main Street 42 65.8 0.41 14,266,550 1.91 37.19 37.19 0.55 S 69 S 100 Main Street 42 600.0 0.41 14,263,390 2.41 37.19 0.69 S 100 S 99A Main Street 42 285.7 0.21 14,901,690 2.49 38.73 0.71 S 99A S 99 Main Street 42 314.3 0.20 1,441,530 0.90 3.57 0.26 S 99 S 98 Main Street 42 585.7 0.21 16,339,810 2.52 42.08 0.72 S 98 S 97 Main Street 42 594.7 0.76 16,337,490 1.90 42.08 0.54 S 97 S 96 Main Street 42 589.4 0.47 16,334,600 1.99 42.08 0.57 Page 4 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes S 96 S 95 Main Street 42 51.1 0.47 16,334,310 1.99 42.08 0.57 S 95 S 101 Main Street 42 247.5 0.61 16,333,140 1.82 42.08 0.52 S 101 S 87 Main Street 42 593.4 0.61 16,330,350 1.82 42.08 0.52 S 87 S 90 Main Street 42 600.0 0.90 16,328,180 1.65 42.08 0.47 S 90 S 92 Main Street 42 575.0 0.73 16,325,630 1.99 42.08 0.57 S 92 S 91 Main Street 42 44.1 0.34 16,325,350 2.07 42.08 0.59 S 91 S 93 Main Street 42 155.9 0.34 16,324,460 2.12 42.08 0.61 S 93 S 89 Main Street 42 528.1 0.64 16,321,800 2.23 42.08 0.64 S 89 S 94 Main Street 42 375.0 0.36 16,319,480 2.42 42.08 0.69 S 94 S 369 Main Street 42 687.0 0.23 16,314,990 2.49 42.08 0.71 S 369 S 88 Main Street 42 204.5 2.68 16,314,270 2.04 42.08 0.58 S 88 S 105 Main Street 42 1110.4 0.38 16,307,730 2.12 42.07 0.61 Page 5 of 15 This page left intentionally blank Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 S 450 S 449 Hunte Parkway 15 105.8 0.55 900,650 0.62 2.28 0.49 S 449 S 448 Hunte Parkway 15 379.4 0.64 900,650 0.61 2.28 0.48 S 448 S 447 Hunte Parkway 15 408.6 0.58 900,640 0.61 2.28 0.48 S 447 S 446 Hunte Parkway 15 337.9 0.61 900,640 0.60 2.28 0.48 S 446 S 445 Hunte Parkway 15 394.3 0.68 900,630 0.58 2.28 0.46 S 445 S 444 Hunte Parkway 15 308.7 5.33 900,620 0.35 2.28 0.28 S 444 S 443 Hunte Parkway 15 96.0 15.71 900,620 0.42 2.28 0.34 S 443 S 442 Hunte Parkway 15 307.7 3.46 1,041,590 0.57 2.64 0.46 S 442 S 441 Hunte Parkway 15 401.7 1.01 1,041,580 0.57 2.64 0.46 S 441 S 440 Hunte Parkway 15 378.2 1.21 1,041,560 0.54 2.64 0.43 S 440 S 439 Hunte Parkway 15 358.0 2.50 1,041,550 0.56 2.64 0.44 S 439 S 438 Hunte Parkway 15 344.4 1.10 1,041,540 0.55 2.64 0.44 S 438 S 437 Hunte Parkway 15 317.4 1.83 1,041,520 0.49 2.64 0.39 S 437 S 436 Hunte Parkway 15 374.8 3.56 1,204,140 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 436 S 435 Salt Creek 15 390.0 1.05 1,204,110 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 435 S 434 434 Salt Creek 15 235.3 1.08 1,204,090 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 434 S 433 Salt Creek 15 392.1 1.05 1,204,060 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 433 S 432 Salt Creek 15 291.0 1.07 1,204,030 0.61 3.05 0.49 S 432 S 431 Salt Creek 15 288.7 1.07 1,204,000 0.61 3.05 0.49 S 431 S 430 Salt Creek 15 357.0 2.38 1,203,970 0.73 3.05 0.59 S 430 S 429 Salt Creek 18 536.0 0.38 1,203,890 0.84 3.05 0.56 S 429 S 428 North Creekside Drive 18 56.7 1.78 3,106,740 0.83 7.91 0.55 S 428 S 427 North Creekside Drive 18 127.3 3.10 3,106,730 0.71 7.91 0.47 S 427 S 426 North Creekside Drive 18 179.4 3.08 3,106,720 0.72 7.91 0.48 S 426 S 425 North Creekside Drive 18 322.1 3.00 3,106,700 5.63 7.89 3.76 322.10 322.10 S 425 S 424 North Creekside Drive 18 391.4 0.43 3,106,620 5.59 7.89 3.73 391.40 391.40 S 424 S 423 North Creekside Drive 18 337.4 0.43 3,106,550 5.01 7.89 3.34 337.40 337.40 S 423 S 422 North Creekside Drive 18 320.0 0.52 3,106,490 4.50 7.89 3.00 320.00 320.00 S 422 S 421 North Creekside Drive 18 375.2 0.34 3,106,380 4.28 7.89 2.86 375.20 375.20 S 421 421 S 420 South Creekside Drive 18 214.6 0.45 3,106,340 3.37 7.89 2.25 214.60 214.60 S 420 S 419 South Creekside Drive 18 279.2 0.44 3,106,270 3.06 7.88 2.04 279.20 279.20 S 419 S 418 South Creekside Drive 18 331.5 0.43 3,106,170 2.62 7.88 1.75 331.50 331.50 S 418 S 417 South Creekside Drive 18 234.3 0.44 3,106,100 2.09 7.88 1.40 234.30 234.30 S 417 S 416 South Creekside Drive 18 376.8 0.43 3,105,980 1.75 7.88 1.16 376.80 376.80 S 416 S 415 Salt Creek 18 183.3 8.21 3,234,110 0.88 8.20 0.59 S 415 S 414 Salt Creek 18 291.2 1.64 3,234,050 0.98 8.20 0.65 S 414 S 413 Salt Creek 18 295.0 1.22 3,234,000 0.96 8.20 0.64 S 413 S 379 Salt Creek 18 33.0 13.33 3,233,990 1.07 8.20 0.71 S 379 S 380 Salt Creek 20 9.1 0.88 3,649,920 1.05 9.24 0.63 S 380 S 381 Salt Creek 20 151.4 0.89 3,649,890 1.05 9.24 0.63 S 381 S 378 Salt Creek 20 25.0 3.32 3,649,880 0.72 9.24 0.43 S 378 S 410 Salt Creek 20 8.5 3.30 3,649,880 0.72 9.24 0.43 S 410 S 377 Salt Creek 20 91.2 6.35 3,649,870 0.77 9.24 0.46 S 377 S 362 Salt Creek 20 173.3 1.20 3,649,830 0.96 9.24 0.57 S 362 S 360 Salt Creek 20 346.7 1.07 3,649,750 0.99 9.24 0.59 S 360 S 358 Salt Creek 20 609.7 2.07 3,649,640 0.88 9.24 0.53 S 358 S 359 Salt Creek 20 564.0 0.86 3,649,510 1.06 9.24 0.63 S 359 S 357 Salt Creek 20 596.8 1.57 3,649,340 0.88 9.24 0.53 S 357 S 356 Salt Creek 24 470.9 0.86 3,649,200 0.94 9.24 0.47 S 356 S 355 Salt Creek 24 510.3 1.85 3,649,060 0.78 9.24 0.39 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Salt Creek Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline + Project Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) Page 6 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline + Project Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) S 355 S 354 Salt Creek 24 511.1 1.26 3,648,910 0.86 9.24 0.43 S 354 S 353 Salt Creek 24 509.8 0.82 3,648,750 0.95 9.24 0.48 S 353 S 352 Salt Creek 24 507.7 1.56 3,648,580 0.82 9.24 0.41 S 352 S 351 Salt Creek 24 501.7 1.72 3,648,420 0.91 9.24 0.46 S 351 S 350 Salt Creek 24 17.4 0.40 3,648,410 1.11 9.24 0.55 S 350 S 349 Salt Creek 24 403.1 0.32 3,648,210 1.27 9.24 0.63 S 349 S 348 Salt Creek 24 20.7 0.29 3,648,200 1.16 9.24 0.58 S 383 S 384 ROW 10 231.6 0.45 246,770 0.41 0.68 0.49 S 384 S 386 ROW 10 260.5 0.42 246,770 0.41 0.68 0.50 S 386 S 392 ROW 10 241.5 0.42 246,770 0.41 0.68 0.50 S 392 S 394 ROW 10 246.5 0.41 246,760 0.42 0.68 0.50 S 394 S 396 ROW 10 236.9 1.28 246,760 0.31 0.68 0.37 S 396 S 398 ROW 10 278.8 0.47 246,760 0.40 0.68 0.48 S 398 S 400 ROW 10 130.9 8.23 246,760 0.20 0.68 0.24 S 400 S 402 ROW 10 357.7 19.82 246,760 0.17 0.68 0.20 S 402 S 404 ROW 10 116.7 11.37 246,760 0.19 0.68 0.22 S 404 S 406 ROW 10 168.7 8.88 246,760 0.20 0.68 0.24 S 406 S 348 ROW 10 100.0 0.47 246,760 0.40 0.68 0.48 S 348 S 347 Salt Creek 24 566.1 0.32 3,894,670 1.31 9.89 0.66 S 347 S 282 Salt Creek 24 254.0 0.97 3,894,580 0.94 9.89 0.47 S 282 S 280 Salt Creek 24 83.4 8.38 3,894,550 2.41 9.89 1.21 83.40 83.40 S 280 S 278 Salt Creek 24 316.6 0.23 4,491,270 2.37 11.37 1.19 316.60 316.60 S 278 S 276 Salt Creek 24 400.0 0.23 4,491,020 2.26 11.37 1.13 400.00 400.00 S 276 S 274 Salt Creek 24 400.0 0.23 4,490,750 2.15 11.37 1.07 400.00 400.00 S 274 S 272 Salt Creek 24 187.4 0.23 4,490,590 2.03 11.37 1.02 187.40 187.40 S 272 S 270 Salt Creek 24 164.5 0.26 6,227,120 1.95 15.94 0.97 164.50 S 270 S 412 Salt Creek 24 200.0 3.30 6,227,050 0.89 15.94 0.44 S 412 S 268 Salt Creek 24 217.9 3.30 6,226,980 0.89 15.94 0.44 S 268 S 266 Salt Creek 24 24 146.5 4.09 6,226,930 0.85 15.94 0.42 S 266 S 264 Salt Creek 24 220.5 4.09 6,226,840 0.85 15.94 0.42 S 264 S 262 Salt Creek 24 348.9 6.31 6,226,770 0.79 15.94 0.40 S 262 S 341 Salt Creek 24 283.3 5.29 6,226,690 0.84 15.94 0.42 S 341 S 260 Salt Creek 24 400.0 4.25 6,226,560 1.15 15.94 0.58 S 260 S 258 Salt Creek 24 377.8 1.45 6,226,370 1.15 15.94 0.58 S 258 S 256 Salt Creek 24 328.2 1.45 6,226,200 1.37 15.94 0.68 S 256 S 376 Salt Creek 24 195.0 0.37 6,226,070 1.82 15.94 0.91 195.00 S 376 S 389 Salt Creek 30 3.3 30.30 6,226,060 0.51 15.94 0.21 S 389 S 375 Salt Creek 30 31.3 12.40 6,226,050 1.89 15.94 0.76 S 375 S 252 Salt Creek 30 299.5 0.11 6,225,700 2.08 15.94 0.83 S 252 S 250 Salt Creek 30 411.6 0.11 6,225,220 2.04 15.94 0.82 S 250 S 374 Salt Creek 30 305.0 0.11 6,224,900 1.86 15.94 0.74 S 374 S 244 Salt Creek 30 79.4 5.44 6,224,860 1.29 15.94 0.52 S 244 S 242 Salt Creek 30 257.6 0.33 6,224,600 1.48 15.94 0.59 S 242 S 240 Salt Creek 30 521.2 0.33 6,224,040 1.51 15.94 0.60 S 240 S 238 Salt Creek 30 175.3 0.77 6,223,910 1.18 15.94 0.47 S 238 S 236 Salt Creek 30 78.1 1.05 6,223,850 1.09 15.94 0.44 S 236 S 234 Salt Creek 30 565.7 1.05 6,223,460 1.09 15.94 0.44 S 234 S 232 Wiley Road 30 564.8 1.05 6,223,070 1.09 15.94 0.44 S 232 S 230 Wiley Road 30 312.3 1.54 6,222,850 1.36 15.94 0.54 Page 7 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline + Project Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) S 230 S 222 Wiley Road 30 596.8 0.31 6,222,140 1.55 15.94 0.62 S 222 S 220 Wiley Road 30 593.5 0.31 6,221,420 1.56 15.94 0.62 S 220 S 218 Wiley Road 30 519.4 0.31 7,270,270 1.71 18.50 0.68 S 218 S 216 Wiley Road 30 600.0 0.31 7,269,670 1.72 18.50 0.69 S 216 S 214 Wiley Road 30 600.0 1.06 7,269,280 1.39 18.50 0.55 S 214 S 212 Wiley Road 36 510.2 0.26 7,268,680 1.58 18.50 0.53 S 212 S 210 Wiley Road 36 342.1 0.19 7,268,200 1.70 18.50 0.57 S 210 S 208 Wiley Road 36 353.8 0.19 7,267,670 1.71 18.50 0.57 S 208 S 206 Wiley Road 36 289.5 0.19 7,267,250 1.70 18.50 0.57 S 206 S 204 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.19 7,266,230 1.73 18.50 0.58 S 204 S 202 Wiley Road 36 484.5 0.58 7,265,590 1.27 18.50 0.42 S 202 S 200 Wiley Road 36 594.8 0.58 7,863,770 1.31 20.11 0.44 S 200 S 198 Wiley Road 36 593.1 0.58 8,516,830 1.38 21.72 0.46 S 198 S 196 Wiley Road 36 594.8 0.58 8,516,070 1.38 21.72 0.46 S 196 S 194 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.58 8,515,290 1.38 21.72 0.46 S 194 S 192 Wiley Road 36 389.7 0.58 8,514,770 1.38 21.72 0.46 S 192 S 190 Wiley Road 36 439.9 0.58 8,514,180 1.38 21.72 0.46 S 190 S 188 Wiley Road 36 304.5 2.00 8,513,930 1.73 21.72 0.58 S 188 S 186 Wiley Road 36 470.1 0.19 8,513,060 1.92 21.72 0.64 S 186 S 184 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.19 8,511,930 1.93 21.71 0.64 S 184 S 182 Wiley Road 36 599.3 0.19 8,510,770 1.91 21.71 0.64 S 182 S 180 Wiley Road 36 594.3 1.40 8,510,160 1.11 21.71 0.37 S 180 S 178 Wiley Road 42 586.0 0.57 8,509,370 1.54 21.71 0.44 S 178 S 176 Wiley Road 42 524.7 0.19 8,508,320 1.74 21.71 0.50 S 176 S 175 Wiley Road 42 584.9 0.19 8,507,130 1.74 21.71 0.50 S 175 S 373 Wiley Road 42 289.5 0.19 8,506,510 1.67 21.71 0.48 S 373 S 372 Wiley Road 42 115.8 0.19 8,506,240 1.61 21.71 0.46 S 372 S 168 Wiley Road 42 302.4 0.19 8,505,590 1.70 21.71 0.49 S 168 S 166 Wiley Road 42 320.4 0.19 8,504,880 1.71 21.71 0.49 S 166 S 164 Wiley Road 42 426.7 0.19 8,503,930 1.72 21.71 0.49 S 164 S 162 Wiley Road 42 438.7 0.19 8,502,940 1.73 21.71 0.50 S 162 S 160 Wiley Road 42 438.7 0.19 8,501,930 1.73 21.71 0.49 S 160 S 157 Wiley Road 42 300.0 0.19 8,501,180 1.73 21.71 0.49 S 157 S 155 Wiley Road 42 494.8 0.19 9,739,730 1.84 24.76 0.53 S 155 S 153 Wiley Road 42 431.1 0.45 9,738,740 1.48 24.76 0.42 S 153 S 151 Wiley Road 42 593.0 0.86 9,737,880 1.55 24.76 0.44 S 151 S 149 Wiley Road 42 600.0 0.25 9,736,530 1.75 24.76 0.50 S 149 S 371 Wiley Road 42 684.4 0.25 10,748,280 1.84 27.43 0.53 S 371 S 145 Wiley Road 42 344.9 1.18 10,747,820 1.25 27.43 0.36 S 145 S 143 Wiley Road 42 443.3 1.04 10,746,980 2.19 27.43 0.63 S 143 S 141 Main Street 42 521.9 0.10 10,745,130 2.38 27.43 0.68 S 141 S 139 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,742,780 2.43 27.43 0.70 S 139 S 137 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,739,930 2.55 27.42 0.73 S 137 S 345 Main Street 42 136.0 0.10 10,739,230 10,739,230 2.54 27.42 0.72 S 345 S 135 Main Street 42 456.5 0.10 10,736,940 2.53 27.42 0.72 S 135 S 133 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,733,880 2.53 27.42 0.72 S 133 S 128 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,730,710 2.54 27.42 0.73 S 130 S 125 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,720,870 2.55 27.41 0.73 S 128 S 127 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,727,500 2.53 27.42 0.72 S 127 S 130 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,724,230 2.53 27.42 0.72 S 125 S 123 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,717,420 2.56 27.41 0.73 Page 8 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline + Project Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) S 123 S 121 Main Street 42 73.2 0.10 10,716,960 2.55 27.41 0.73 S 121 S 119 Main Street 42 265.4 0.10 10,715,380 2.55 27.41 0.73 S 119 S 117 Main Street 42 73.2 0.10 10,714,910 2.54 27.41 0.73 S 117 S 115 Main Street 42 199.4 0.10 10,713,720 2.53 27.41 0.72 S 115 S 113 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,710,190 2.53 27.41 0.72 S 113 S 111 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,706,610 2.53 27.41 0.72 S 111 S 408 Main Street 42 228.2 0.10 10,705,200 2.53 27.41 0.72 S 408 S 109 Main Street 42 371.9 0.10 10,702,910 2.53 27.41 0.72 S 109 S 107 Main Street 42 146.8 0.10 10,701,970 2.52 27.41 0.72 S 107 S 86 Main Street 42 955.6 0.10 10,696,080 2.50 27.40 0.72 S 86 S 85 Main Street 42 566.9 0.10 10,692,650 2.41 27.40 0.69 S 85 S 84 Main Street 42 287.7 0.10 10,691,030 2.28 27.40 0.65 S 84 S 83 Main Street 42 399.0 0.10 10,689,120 2.15 27.40 0.61 S 83 S 81 Main Street 42 269.1 1.49 14,544,310 1.85 37.81 0.53 S 81 S 70 Otay Valley Road 42 13.0 0.23 14,544,210 1.94 37.81 0.55 S 70 S 80 Otay Valley Road 42 42.1 0.19 14,544,000 2.01 37.81 0.57 S 80 S 79 Otay Valley Road 42 57.6 1.25 14,543,810 1.46 37.81 0.42 S 79 S 78 Otay Valley Road 42 84.8 1.25 14,543,540 1.46 37.81 0.42 S 78 S 77 Otay Valley Road 42 78.0 1.27 14,543,290 1.45 37.81 0.41 S 77 S 76 Otay Valley Road 42 293.5 1.39 14,542,430 1.42 37.81 0.40 S 76 S 75 Otay Valley Road 42 283.0 1.53 14,541,540 1.98 37.81 0.57 S 75 S 74 Otay Valley Road 42 12.0 0.25 14,541,450 2.07 37.81 0.59 S 74 S 73 Otay Valley Road 42 84.0 0.25 14,541,050 2.14 37.81 0.61 S 73 S 82 Otay Valley Road 42 212.5 0.29 14,540,070 2.17 37.81 0.62 S 82 S 72 Otay Valley Road 42 172.0 0.25 14,539,220 2.22 37.81 0.63 S 72 S 71 Otay Valley Road 42 133.4 0.25 14,538,530 2.23 37.81 0.64 S 71 S 55 Otay Valley Road 42 400.7 400.7 0.22 14,536,570 2.27 37.81 0.65 S 55 S 54 Otay Valley Road 42 18.2 0.22 14,536,450 1.95 37.81 0.56 S 54 S 62 Date Street 42 78.4 0.32 14,536,060 1.98 37.81 0.57 S 62 S 61 Date Street 42 8.0 1.50 14,536,010 1.41 37.81 0.40 S 61 S 53 Main Street 42 204.7 1.06 14,535,380 1.51 37.81 0.43 S 53 S 65 Main Street 42 129.7 1.11 14,534,910 1.95 37.81 0.56 S 65 S 66 Main Street 42 532.4 0.34 14,532,360 2.03 37.81 0.58 S 66 S 60 Main Street 42 497.0 1.35 14,530,820 1.43 37.81 0.41 S 60 S 59 Main Street 42 26.8 1.27 14,530,800 1.45 37.81 0.41 S 59 S 58 Main Street 42 502.7 1.11 14,529,040 2.11 37.81 0.60 S 58 S 57 Main Street 42 600.0 0.28 14,526,020 2.19 37.81 0.63 S 57 S 68 Main Street 42 584.7 1.24 14,524,140 1.46 37.80 0.42 S 68 S 67 Main Street 42 579.7 1.23 14,522,250 1.46 37.80 0.42 S 67 S 56 Main Street 42 41.6 2.02 14,522,110 1.33 37.80 0.38 S 56 S 63 Main Street 42 504.5 1.34 14,520,270 1.43 37.80 0.41 S 63 S 64 Main Street 42 467.0 0.97 14,518,670 1.84 37.80 0.53 S 64 S 69 Main Street 42 65.8 0.41 14,518,290 1.93 37.80 0.55 S 69 S 100 Main Street 42 600.0 0.41 14,514,990 2.43 37.80 0.69 S 100 S 99A Main Street 42 285.7 0.21 15,153,130 2.51 39.35 0.72 S 99A S 99 Main Street 42 314.3 0.20 1,441,530 0.92 3.57 0.26 S 99 S 98 Main Street 42 585.7 0.21 16,591,080 2.54 42.71 0.73 S 98 S 97 Main Street 42 594.7 0.76 16,588,570 1.92 42.71 0.55 S 97 S 96 Main Street 42 589.4 0.47 16,585,580 2.00 42.71 0.57 Page 9 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Baseline + Project Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) S 96 S 95 Main Street 42 51.1 0.47 16,585,280 2.00 42.71 0.57 S 95 S 101 Main Street 42 247.5 0.61 16,584,040 1.84 42.71 0.53 S 101 S 87 Main Street 42 593.4 0.61 16,581,080 1.84 42.71 0.53 S 87 S 90 Main Street 42 600.0 0.90 16,578,770 1.66 42.71 0.48 S 90 S 92 Main Street 42 575.0 0.73 16,576,010 2.01 42.71 0.57 S 92 S 91 Main Street 42 44.1 0.34 16,575,710 2.09 42.71 0.60 S 91 S 93 Main Street 42 155.9 0.34 16,574,760 2.14 42.71 0.61 S 93 S 89 Main Street 42 528.1 0.64 16,571,960 2.25 42.71 0.64 S 89 S 94 Main Street 42 375.0 0.36 16,569,510 2.44 42.71 0.70 S 94 S 369 Main Street 42 687.0 0.23 16,564,820 2.51 42.71 0.72 S 369 S 88 Main Street 42 204.5 2.68 16,564,050 2.07 42.71 0.59 S 88 S 105 Main Street 42 42 1110.4 0.38 16,557,180 2.15 42.71 0.62 Page 10 of 15 This page left intentionally blank Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 S 450 S 449 Hunte Parkway 15 105.8 0.55 900,720 0.62 2.28 0.49 S 449 S 448 Hunte Parkway 15 379.4 0.64 900,720 0.61 2.28 0.48 S 448 S 447 Hunte Parkway 15 408.6 0.58 900,710 0.61 2.28 0.48 S 447 S 446 Hunte Parkway 15 337.9 0.61 900,710 0.60 2.28 0.48 S 446 S 445 Hunte Parkway 15 394.3 0.68 900,700 0.58 2.28 0.46 S 445 S 444 Hunte Parkway 15 308.7 5.33 900,700 0.35 2.28 0.28 S 444 S 443 Hunte Parkway 15 96.0 15.71 900,690 0.42 2.28 0.34 S 443 S 442 Hunte Parkway 15 307.7 3.46 1,041,590 0.57 2.64 0.46 S 442 S 441 Hunte Parkway 15 401.7 1.01 1,041,580 0.57 2.64 0.46 S 441 S 440 Hunte Parkway 15 378.2 1.21 1,041,560 0.54 2.64 0.43 S 440 S 439 Hunte Parkway 15 358.0 2.50 1,041,550 0.56 2.64 0.44 S 439 S 438 Hunte Parkway 15 344.4 1.10 1,041,540 0.55 2.64 0.44 S 438 S 437 Hunte Parkway 15 317.4 1.83 1,041,520 0.49 2.64 0.39 S 437 S 436 Hunte Parkway 15 374.8 3.56 1,204,040 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 436 S 435 Salt Creek 15 390.0 1.05 1,204,010 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 435 S 434 434 Salt Creek 15 235.3 1.08 1,203,990 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 434 S 433 Salt Creek 15 392.1 1.05 1,203,960 0.62 3.05 0.49 S 433 S 432 Salt Creek 15 291.0 1.07 1,203,930 0.61 3.05 0.49 S 432 S 431 Salt Creek 15 288.7 1.07 1,203,900 0.61 3.05 0.49 S 431 S 430 Salt Creek 15 357.0 2.38 1,203,870 0.73 3.05 0.59 S 430 S 429 Salt Creek 18 536.0 0.38 1,203,790 0.84 3.05 0.56 S 429 S 428 North Creekside Drive 18 56.7 1.78 3,106,660 0.83 7.91 0.55 S 428 S 427 North Creekside Drive 18 127.3 3.10 3,106,650 0.71 7.91 0.47 S 427 S 426 North Creekside Drive 18 179.4 3.08 3,106,640 0.72 7.91 0.48 S 426 S 425 North Creekside Drive 18 322.1 3.00 3,106,620 5.63 7.89 3.76 322.10 322.10 S 425 S 424 North Creekside Drive 18 391.4 0.43 3,106,540 5.59 7.89 3.73 391.40 391.40 S 424 S 423 North Creekside Drive 18 337.4 0.43 3,106,470 5.00 7.89 3.34 337.40 337.40 S 423 S 422 North Creekside Drive 18 320.0 0.52 3,106,410 4.49 7.89 3.00 320.00 320.00 S 422 S 421 North Creekside Drive 18 375.2 0.34 3,106,300 4.28 7.89 2.86 375.20 375.20 S 421 421 S 420 South Creekside Drive 18 214.6 0.45 3,106,260 3.37 7.88 2.25 214.60 214.60 S 420 S 419 South Creekside Drive 18 279.2 0.44 3,106,190 3.06 7.88 2.04 279.20 279.20 S 419 S 418 South Creekside Drive 18 331.5 0.43 3,106,090 2.62 7.88 1.75 331.50 331.50 S 418 S 417 South Creekside Drive 18 234.3 0.44 3,106,020 2.09 7.88 1.40 234.30 234.30 S 417 S 416 South Creekside Drive 18 376.8 0.43 3,105,900 1.75 7.88 1.16 376.80 376.80 S 416 S 415 Salt Creek 18 183.3 8.21 3,233,990 0.88 8.20 0.59 S 415 S 414 Salt Creek 18 291.2 1.64 3,233,930 0.98 8.20 0.65 S 414 S 413 Salt Creek 18 295.0 1.22 3,233,880 0.96 8.20 0.64 S 413 S 379 Salt Creek 18 33.0 13.33 3,233,870 1.07 8.20 0.71 S 379 S 380 Salt Creek 20 9.1 0.88 3,649,790 1.05 9.24 0.63 S 380 S 381 Salt Creek 20 151.4 0.89 3,649,760 1.05 9.24 0.63 S 381 S 378 Salt Creek 20 25.0 3.32 3,649,750 0.72 9.24 0.43 S 378 S 410 Salt Creek 20 8.5 3.30 3,649,750 0.72 9.24 0.43 S 410 S 377 Salt Creek 20 91.2 6.35 3,649,740 0.77 9.24 0.46 S 377 S 362 Salt Creek 20 173.3 1.20 3,649,700 0.96 9.24 0.57 S 362 S 360 Salt Creek 20 346.7 1.07 3,649,620 0.99 9.24 0.59 S 360 S 358 Salt Creek 20 609.7 2.07 3,649,510 0.88 9.24 0.53 S 358 S 359 Salt Creek 20 564.0 0.86 3,649,380 1.06 9.24 0.63 S 359 S 357 Salt Creek 20 596.8 1.57 3,649,210 0.88 9.24 0.53 S 357 S 356 Salt Creek 24 470.9 0.86 3,649,070 0.94 9.24 0.47 S 356 S 355 Salt Creek 24 510.3 1.85 3,648,930 0.78 9.24 0.39 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Salt Creek Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Cumulative Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) Page 11 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Cumulative Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) S 355 S 354 Salt Creek 24 511.1 1.26 3,648,780 0.86 9.24 0.43 S 354 S 353 Salt Creek 24 509.8 0.82 3,648,620 0.95 9.24 0.48 S 353 S 352 Salt Creek 24 507.7 1.56 3,648,450 0.82 9.24 0.41 S 352 S 351 Salt Creek 24 501.7 1.72 3,648,290 0.91 9.24 0.46 S 351 S 350 Salt Creek 24 17.4 0.40 3,648,280 1.11 9.24 0.55 S 350 S 349 Salt Creek 24 403.1 0.32 3,648,080 1.27 9.24 0.63 S 349 S 348 Salt Creek 24 20.7 0.29 3,648,070 1.16 9.24 0.58 S 383 S 384 ROW 10 231.6 0.45 246,750 0.41 0.68 0.49 S 384 S 386 ROW 10 260.5 0.42 246,750 0.41 0.68 0.50 S 386 S 392 ROW 10 241.5 0.42 246,750 0.41 0.68 0.50 S 392 S 394 ROW 10 246.5 0.41 246,750 0.42 0.68 0.50 S 394 S 396 ROW 10 236.9 1.28 246,750 0.31 0.68 0.37 S 396 S 398 ROW 10 278.8 0.47 246,750 0.40 0.68 0.48 S 398 S 400 ROW 10 130.9 8.23 246,750 0.20 0.68 0.24 S 400 S 402 ROW 10 357.7 19.82 246,750 0.17 0.68 0.20 S 402 S 404 ROW 10 116.7 11.37 246,750 0.19 0.68 0.22 S 404 S 406 ROW 10 168.7 8.88 246,750 0.20 0.68 0.24 S 406 S 348 ROW 10 100.0 0.47 246,750 0.40 0.68 0.48 S 348 S 347 Salt Creek 24 566.1 0.32 3,894,530 1.31 9.89 0.66 S 347 S 282 Salt Creek 24 254.0 0.97 3,894,430 0.94 9.89 0.47 S 282 S 280 Salt Creek 24 83.4 8.38 3,894,410 2.38 9.89 1.19 83.40 83.40 S 280 S 278 Salt Creek 24 316.6 0.23 4,491,090 2.35 11.37 1.17 316.60 316.60 S 278 S 276 Salt Creek 24 400.0 0.23 4,490,840 2.24 11.37 1.12 400.00 400.00 S 276 S 274 Salt Creek 24 400.0 0.23 4,490,560 2.12 11.37 1.06 400.00 400.00 S 274 S 272 Salt Creek 24 187.4 0.23 4,490,400 2.00 11.37 1.00 187.40 187.40 S 272 S 270 Salt Creek 24 164.5 0.26 6,176,950 1.92 15.73 0.96 164.50 S 270 S 412 Salt Creek 24 200.0 3.30 6,176,880 0.88 15.73 0.44 S 412 S 268 Salt Creek 24 217.9 3.30 6,176,810 0.88 15.73 0.44 S 268 S 266 Salt Creek 24 146.5 4.09 6,176,770 0.84 15.73 0.42 S 266 S 264 Salt Creek 24 220.5 4.09 6,176,710 0.84 15.73 0.42 S 264 S 262 Salt Creek 24 348.9 6.31 6,176,620 0.79 15.73 0.39 S 262 S 341 Salt Creek 24 283.3 5.29 6,176,530 0.84 15.73 0.42 S 341 S 260 Salt Creek 24 400.0 4.25 6,176,400 1.14 15.73 0.57 S 260 S 258 Salt Creek 24 377.8 1.45 6,176,210 1.14 15.73 0.57 S 258 S 256 Salt Creek 24 328.2 1.45 6,176,030 1.33 15.73 0.66 S 256 S 376 Salt Creek 24 195.0 0.37 6,175,910 1.79 15.73 0.90 195.00 S 376 S 389 Salt Creek 30 3.3 30.30 6,175,910 0.51 15.73 0.20 S 389 S 375 Salt Creek 30 31.3 12.40 6,175,890 1.86 15.73 0.74 S 375 S 252 Salt Creek 30 299.5 0.11 6,175,550 2.05 15.73 0.82 S 252 S 250 Salt Creek 30 411.6 0.11 6,175,080 2.02 15.73 0.81 S 250 S 374 Salt Creek 30 305.0 0.11 6,174,770 1.84 15.73 0.74 S 374 S 244 Salt Creek 30 79.4 5.44 6,174,730 1.28 15.73 0.51 S 244 S 242 Salt Creek 30 257.6 0.33 6,174,470 1.47 15.73 0.59 S 242 S 240 Salt Creek 30 521.2 0.33 6,173,930 1.49 15.73 0.60 S 240 S 238 Salt Creek 30 175.3 0.77 6,173,800 1.17 15.73 0.47 S 238 S 236 Salt Creek 30 78.1 1.05 6,173,750 1.09 15.73 0.43 S 236 S 234 Salt Creek 30 565.7 1.05 6,173,370 1.09 15.73 0.43 S 234 S 232 Wiley Road 30 564.8 1.05 6,172,990 1.09 15.73 0.43 S 232 S 230 Wiley Road 30 312.3 1.54 6,172,770 1.34 15.73 0.54 Page 12 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Cumulative Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) S 230 S 222 Wiley Road 30 596.8 0.31 6,172,100 1.53 15.72 0.61 S 222 S 220 Wiley Road 30 593.5 0.31 6,171,410 1.54 15.73 0.62 S 220 S 218 Wiley Road 30 519.4 0.31 7,220,100 1.69 18.29 0.67 S 218 S 216 Wiley Road 30 600.0 0.31 7,219,470 1.70 18.29 0.68 S 216 S 214 Wiley Road 30 600.0 1.06 7,219,080 1.37 18.29 0.55 S 214 S 212 Wiley Road 36 510.2 0.26 7,218,450 1.57 18.29 0.52 S 212 S 210 Wiley Road 36 342.1 0.19 7,217,950 1.69 18.29 0.56 S 210 S 208 Wiley Road 36 353.8 0.19 7,217,410 1.70 18.29 0.57 S 208 S 206 Wiley Road 36 289.5 0.19 7,216,970 1.68 18.29 0.56 S 206 S 204 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.19 7,215,940 1.72 18.29 0.57 S 204 S 202 Wiley Road 36 484.5 0.58 7,215,290 1.26 18.29 0.42 S 202 S 200 Wiley Road 36 594.8 0.58 7,973,750 1.31 20.13 0.44 S 200 S 198 Wiley Road 36 593.1 0.58 8,626,830 1.38 21.74 0.46 S 198 S 196 Wiley Road 36 594.8 0.58 8,626,170 1.38 21.74 0.46 S 196 S 194 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.58 8,625,500 1.38 21.74 0.46 S 194 S 192 Wiley Road 36 389.7 0.58 8,625,050 1.38 21.74 0.46 S 192 S 190 Wiley Road 36 439.9 0.58 8,624,540 1.38 21.74 0.46 S 190 S 188 Wiley Road 36 304.5 2.00 8,624,290 1.73 21.74 0.58 S 188 S 186 Wiley Road 36 470.1 0.19 8,623,490 1.92 21.74 0.64 S 186 S 184 Wiley Road 36 600.0 0.19 8,622,450 1.93 21.74 0.64 S 184 S 182 Wiley Road 36 599.3 0.19 8,621,340 1.91 21.74 0.64 S 182 S 180 Wiley Road 36 594.3 1.40 8,620,670 1.11 21.74 0.37 S 180 S 178 Wiley Road 42 586.0 0.57 8,619,750 1.54 21.74 0.44 S 178 S 176 Wiley Road 42 524.7 0.19 8,618,690 1.74 21.74 0.50 S 176 S 175 Wiley Road 42 584.9 0.19 8,617,450 1.74 21.74 0.50 S 175 S 373 Wiley Road 42 289.5 0.19 8,616,830 1.67 21.74 0.48 S 373 S 372 Wiley Road 42 115.8 0.19 8,616,570 1.61 21.74 0.46 S 372 S 168 Wiley Road 42 302.4 0.19 8,615,920 1.70 21.74 0.49 S 168 S 166 Wiley Road 42 320.4 0.19 8,615,200 1.71 21.74 0.49 S 166 S 164 Wiley Road 42 426.7 0.19 8,614,230 1.72 21.74 0.49 S 164 S 162 Wiley Road 42 438.7 0.19 8,613,190 1.73 21.74 0.50 S 162 S 160 Wiley Road 42 438.7 0.19 8,612,130 1.73 21.74 0.49 S 160 S 157 Wiley Road 42 300.0 0.19 8,611,310 1.73 21.74 0.49 S 157 S 155 Wiley Road 42 494.8 0.19 9,884,800 1.85 24.87 0.53 S 155 S 153 Wiley Road 42 431.1 0.45 9,883,790 1.49 24.87 0.42 S 153 S 151 Wiley Road 42 593.0 0.86 9,882,800 1.55 24.87 0.44 S 151 S 149 Wiley Road 42 600.0 0.25 9,881,250 1.75 24.87 0.50 S 149 S 371 Wiley Road 42 684.4 0.25 10,879,700 1.84 27.43 0.53 S 371 S 145 Wiley Road 42 344.9 1.18 10,879,140 1.25 27.43 0.36 S 145 S 143 Wiley Road 42 443.3 1.04 10,878,140 2.19 27.43 0.63 S 143 S 141 Main Street 42 521.9 0.10 10,875,980 2.38 27.42 0.68 S 141 S 139 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,873,320 2.43 27.42 0.70 S 139 S 137 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,870,290 2.55 27.42 0.73 S 137 S 345 Main Street 42 136.0 0.10 10,869,570 2.53 27.42 0.72 S 345 S 135 Main Street 42 456.5 0.10 10,867,210 2.53 27.42 0.72 S 135 S 133 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,864,070 2.53 27.41 0.72 S 133 S 128 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,860,870 2.54 27.41 0.73 S 130 S 125 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,850,720 2.55 27.41 0.73 S 128 S 127 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,857,590 2.53 27.41 0.72 S 127 S 130 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,854,220 2.53 27.41 0.72 S 125 S 123 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,847,080 2.56 27.40 0.73 Page 13 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Cumulative Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) S 123 S 121 Main Street 42 73.2 0.10 10,846,580 2.55 27.40 0.73 S 121 S 119 Main Street 42 265.4 0.10 10,844,880 2.55 27.40 0.73 S 119 S 117 Main Street 42 73.2 0.10 10,844,370 2.54 27.40 0.73 S 117 S 115 Main Street 42 199.4 0.10 10,843,060 2.53 27.40 0.72 S 115 S 113 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,839,110 2.53 27.40 0.72 S 113 S 111 Main Street 42 600.0 0.10 10,834,980 2.53 27.40 0.72 S 111 S 408 Main Street 42 228.2 0.10 10,833,330 2.53 27.40 0.72 S 408 S 109 Main Street 42 371.9 0.10 10,830,610 2.53 27.40 0.72 S 109 S 107 Main Street 42 146.8 0.10 10,829,490 2.52 27.40 0.72 S 107 S 86 Main Street 42 955.6 0.10 10,822,430 2.50 27.39 0.72 S 86 S 85 Main Street 42 566.9 0.10 10,818,340 2.41 27.39 0.69 S 85 S 84 Main Street 42 287.7 0.10 10,816,360 2.28 27.39 0.65 S 84 S 83 Main Street 42 399.0 0.10 10,814,060 2.14 27.39 0.61 S 83 S 81 Main Street 42 269.1 1.49 14,669,130 1.85 37.80 0.53 S 81 S 70 Otay Valley Road 42 13.0 0.23 14,669,020 1.94 37.80 0.55 S 70 S 80 Otay Valley Road 42 42.1 0.19 14,668,770 2.01 37.80 0.57 S 80 S 79 Otay Valley Road 42 57.6 1.25 14,668,560 1.46 37.80 0.42 S 79 S 78 Otay Valley Road 42 84.8 1.25 14,668,270 1.46 37.80 0.42 S 78 S 77 Otay Valley Road 42 78.0 1.27 14,667,990 1.45 37.80 0.41 S 77 S 76 Otay Valley Road 42 293.5 1.39 14,667,040 1.42 37.80 0.40 S 76 S 75 Otay Valley Road 42 283.0 1.53 14,666,030 1.98 37.80 0.57 S 75 S 74 Otay Valley Road 42 12.0 0.25 14,665,930 2.07 37.80 0.59 S 74 S 73 Otay Valley Road 42 84.0 0.25 14,665,460 2.14 37.80 0.61 S 73 S 82 Otay Valley Road 42 212.5 0.29 14,664,250 2.17 37.80 0.62 S 82 S 72 Otay Valley Road 42 172.0 0.25 14,663,220 2.22 37.80 0.63 S 72 S 71 Otay Valley Road 42 133.4 0.25 14,662,370 2.23 37.80 0.64 S 71 S 55 Otay Valley Road 42 400.7 0.22 14,660,040 2.27 37.80 0.65 S 55 S 54 Otay Valley Road 42 18.2 0.22 14,659,910 1.95 37.80 0.56 S 54 S 62 Date Street 42 78.4 0.32 14,659,460 1.98 37.80 0.57 S 62 S 61 Date Street 42 8.0 1.50 14,659,400 1.41 37.80 0.40 S 61 S 53 Main Street 42 204.7 1.06 14,658,730 1.51 37.80 0.43 S 53 S 65 Main Street 42 129.7 1.11 14,658,190 1.95 37.80 0.56 S 65 S 66 Main Street 42 532.4 0.34 14,655,350 2.03 37.80 0.58 S 66 S 60 Main Street 42 497.0 1.35 14,653,680 1.43 37.80 0.41 S 60 S 59 Main Street 42 26.8 1.27 14,653,630 1.45 37.80 0.41 S 59 S 58 Main Street 42 502.7 1.11 14,651,680 2.11 37.80 0.60 S 58 S 57 Main Street 42 600.0 0.28 14,648,160 2.19 37.80 0.63 S 57 S 68 Main Street 42 584.7 1.24 14,646,200 1.46 37.80 0.42 S 68 S 67 Main Street 42 579.7 1.23 14,644,240 1.46 37.80 0.42 S 67 S 56 Main Street 42 41.6 2.02 14,644,080 1.33 37.80 0.38 S 56 S 63 Main Street 42 504.5 1.34 14,642,150 1.43 37.80 0.41 S 63 S 64 Main Street 42 467.0 0.97 14,640,490 1.84 37.80 0.53 S 64 S 69 Main Street 42 65.8 0.41 14,640,080 1.93 37.80 0.55 S 69 S 100 Main Street 42 600.0 0.41 14,636,500 2.43 37.80 0.69 S 100 S 99A Main Street 42 285.7 0.21 15,274,240 2.51 39.35 0.72 S 99A S 99 Main Street 42 314.3 0.20 1,441,530 0.92 3.57 0.26 S 99 S 98 Main Street 42 585.7 0.21 16,711,870 2.54 42.73 0.73 S 98 S 97 Main Street 42 594.7 0.76 16,709,040 1.92 42.73 0.55 S 97 S 96 Main Street 42 589.4 0.47 16,705,910 2.00 42.73 0.57 Page 14 of 15 Length Exceeding Length Exceeding d/D = 0.85 d/D = 1 Max Depth Peak Flow (cfs) d/D Notes Ultimate Conditions, Wet Weather, Cumulative Model Upsized Integrated Master Plan Model including Main Street Diversion U/S Node D/S Node Street Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Slope (%) Average Flow (gpd) S 96 S 95 Main Street 42 51.1 0.47 16,705,600 2.00 42.73 0.57 S 95 S 101 Main Street 42 247.5 0.61 16,704,270 1.84 42.73 0.53 S 101 S 87 Main Street 42 593.4 0.61 16,701,150 1.84 42.73 0.53 S 87 S 90 Main Street 42 600.0 0.90 16,698,580 1.66 42.73 0.48 S 90 S 92 Main Street 42 575.0 0.73 16,695,610 2.01 42.73 0.57 S 92 S 91 Main Street 42 44.1 0.34 16,695,290 2.09 42.73 0.60 S 91 S 93 Main Street 42 155.9 0.34 16,694,300 2.14 42.73 0.61 S 93 S 89 Main Street 42 528.1 0.64 16,691,370 2.25 42.73 0.64 S 89 S 94 Main Street 42 375.0 0.36 16,688,790 2.44 42.73 0.70 S 94 S 369 Main Street 42 687.0 0.23 16,683,870 2.51 42.73 0.72 S 369 S 88 Main Street 42 204.5 2.68 16,683,070 2.07 42.73 0.59 S 88 S 105 Main Street 42 1110.4 0.38 16,675,950 2.15 42.73 0.62 Page 15 of 15 This page left intentionally blank APPENDIX H Global Climate Change Analysis Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Prepared for Prepared by City of Chula Vista RECON Environmental, Inc. Public Services Building 200 1927 Fifth Avenue 276 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Chula Vista, CA 92010 P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 Contact: Stephen Power, AICP RECON Number 4829 May 31, 2012 Karen Bowling, Senior Environmental Analyst THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1.0 Introduction 2 1.1 Understanding Global Climate Change 2 1.2 Greenhouse Gases of Primary Concern 3 2.0 Project Description 4 2.1 Development Summary 4 2.2 Green Building/Energy Efficiency Standards 8 2.2.1 Energy Efficiency 8 2.2.2 Water Conservation 8 2.2.3 Materials Use and Waste Reduction 9 2.2.4 Pollutant Control and Heat Island Reduction 9 3.0 Existing Conditions 9 3.1 Environmental Setting 9 3.1.1 Regional Climate 9 3.1.2 State and Regional GHG Inventories 10 3.1.3 Consequences of Global Climate Change 12 3.2 Regulatory Background 13 3.2.1 International 13 3.2.2 National 16 3.2.3 State 18 3.2.4 Local 29 4.0 Significance Criteria and Analysis Methodologies 36 4.1 Determining Significance 36 4.1.1 Business-as-Usual 2020 Emissions 36 4.1.2 Scoping Plan Reduction Measures 37 4.1.3 Significance Thresholds 38 4.2 Methodology and Assumptions 39 4.2.1 Estimating Vehicle Emissions 40 4.2.2 Estimating Construction Emissions 41 4.2.3 Estimating Building Use Emissions 41 4.2.4 General Assumptions 44 Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 5.0 Impact Analysis 45 5.1 Project Emissions Relative to BAU 45 5.1.1 Impacts 45 5.1.2 Significance of Impacts 55 5.2 Project Consistency with Adopted Plans, Policies, and Regulations 58 5.2.1 Impacts 58 5.2.2 Significance of Impacts 60 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 60 7.0 References Cited 61 FIGURES 1: Regional Location 5 2: Aerial Photograph of Project 6 3: Proposed Land Uses 7 4: City Climate Zones 35 TABLES 1: Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes 3 2: California GHG Emissions in 1990 and 2004 10 3: San Diego County GHG Emissions in 2006 11 4: CARB Scoping Plan Recommended GHG Reduction Measures 21 5: California BAU 2020 GHG Emissions Forecast 37 6: CARB Scoping Plan Recommended GHG Reduction Measures within City’s Control 38 7: Future (Year 2020) Modeled Land Uses 40 8: GHG Emission Factors 44 9: Summary of Estimated GHG Emissions and Project Reductions from Non-Transportation Sources 57 ATTACHMENTS 1: Understanding Global Climate Change 2: Chula Vista Green Building Standards and Increased Energy Efficiency Standards Ordinances 3: GHG Emissions Calculations 4: SANDAG Trip Length Calculations Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 1 Executive Summary The proposed Otay Ranch General Development Plan (Proposed Project) is located south of Olympic Parkway, west and east of State Route 125 (SR-125) in the Otay Ranch community in the city of Chula Vista (City). The Proposed Project comprises a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) to allow the ultimate buildout of 6,050 residential units, 1.8 million square feet of commercial uses, 51.4 acres of schools, 50.0 acres of university use, 10.8 acres of community purpose facilities, 55.4 acres of park, and 2.2 million square feet of industrial uses. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the significance of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions that would occur from the construction and ongoing operation of the maximum allowable land uses under the proposed plan. The operational GHG emissions evaluated include emissions from vehicle use, electricity consumption, natural gas combustion, water use, and solid waste disposal. Significance was determined based on the City’s threshold requiring a 20 percent reduction in the Proposed Project’s overall GHG emissions compared to a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. This report concludes that the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be less than significant. A total of 222,284.04 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) of GHG emissions would be emitted by the Proposed Project each year above existing conditions. This estimate represents a nearly 28 percent reduction in total GHG emissions compared to the BAU condition, which would emit 307,078.01 MTCO2E of GHG emissions per year above existing conditions. This reduction is due to the Proposed Project’s incorporation of key vehicle emission reduction measures as well as increased energy-and water-saving design. Accounting for statewide regulations being imposed on on the auto and fuel industries to reduce vehicle GHG emissions statewide, and project-specific design that reduces average vehicle trip lengths, transportation-related BAU emissions would be reduced nearly 40 percent by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project’s average local daily trip length would be 4.62 miles for Village 8 West and 5.08 miles for Village 9. This trip length is less than the regional average trip length of 5.8 miles, and yields a substantially lesser VMT and total vehicle fuel consumption compared to BAU. Accounting for the Proposed Project’s increased energy-and water-saving design requirements, the non-transportation-related BAU emissions (i.e., emissions from energy and water use, solid waste disposal and construction activities) would be reduced 20 percent by the Proposed Project. This reduction results from substantially reduced BAU energy and water use as required in the proposed new General Plan (GP) Policy E 7.8 and in existing City ordinances. Given its vehicle, energy and water use GHG reduction features, the Proposed Project would generate total GHG emissions 28 percent lower than the total emissions projected Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 2 for BAU. The Proposed Project is therefore consistent with the City’s threshold and with the Scoping Plan and AB 32 year 2020 goals upon which it is based. The Proposed Project’s Climate Change impacts would be less than significant. 1.0 Introduction This report evaluates the significance of the Proposed Project’s contribution of GHG emissions to statewide GHG emissions and GHG emissions reduction targets. To evaluate the incremental effect of Proposed Project development on statewide and global climate change, it is important to have a basic understanding of the nature of the global climate change problem. 1.1 Understanding Global Climate Change Global climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth, which can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. The earth’s climate is in a state of constant flux with periodic warming and cooling cycles. Extreme periods of cooling are termed “ice ages,” which may then be followed by extended periods of warmth. For most of the earth’s geologic history, these periods of warming and cooling have been the result of many complicated, interacting natural factors that include volcanic eruptions which spew gases and particles (dust) into the atmosphere, the amount of water, vegetation, and ice covering the earth’s surface, subtle changes in the earth’s orbit, and the amount of energy released by the sun (sun cycles). However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the average temperature of the earth has been increasing at a rate that is faster than can be explained by natural climate cycles alone. With the Industrial Revolution came an increase in the combustion of carbon-based fuels such as wood, coal, oil, natural gas, and biomass. Industrial processes have also created emissions of substances that are not found in nature. This in turn has led to a marked increase in the emissions of gases that have been shown to influence the world’s climate. These gases, termed “greenhouse” gases, influence the amount of heat that is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere. Because recently observed increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere are related to increased emissions resulting from human activity, the current cycle of “global warming” is generally believed to be largely due to human activity. Of late, the issue of global warming or global climate change has arguably become the most important and widely debated environmental issue in the United States and the world. Because climate change is caused by the collective of human actions taking place throughout the world, it is quintessentially a cumulative issue. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 3 1.2 Greenhouse Gases of Primary Concern There are numerous GHGs, both naturally occurring and manmade. Table 1 summarizes some of the most common. Each GHG has variable atmospheric lifetime and global warming potential. The atmospheric lifetime of the GHG is the average time the molecule stays stable in the atmosphere. Most GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes, staying in the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of years. The potential of a gas to trap heat and warm the atmosphere is measured by its global warming potential or GWP. Specifically, GWP is defined as the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas, both direct and indirect, integrated over a specified period of time resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to some reference gas (U.S. EPA 2002). The reference gas for GWP is carbon dioxide which, as shown in Table 1, thus has a GWP of 1. The GHGs with higher GWPs have a greater global warming effect than carbon dioxide on a molecule by molecule basis. TABLE 1 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS (GWPs) AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES (YEARS) Gas Atmospheric Lifetime 100-year GWP 20-year GWP 500-year GWP Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1 1 1 Methane (CH4)a 12±3 21 56 6.5 Nitrous oxide (N20) 120 310 280 170 HFC-23 264 11,700 9,100 9,800 HFC-125 32.6 2,800 4,600 920 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 3,400 420 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 5,000 1,400 HFC-152a 1.5 140 460 42 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 4,300 950 HFC-236fa 209 6,300 5,100 4,700 HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300 3,000 400 CF4 50,000 6,500 4,400 10,000 C2F6 10,000 9,200 6,200 14,000 C4F10 2,600 7,000 4,800 10,100 C6F14 3,200 7,400 5,000 10,700 SF6 3,200 23,900 16,300 34,900 SOURCE: U.S. EPA 2002. a The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. Of the gases listed in Table 1, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide(N20) are produced by both biogenic (natural) and anthropogenic (human) sources. The remaining gases occur solely as the result of human processes. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic, made-made chemicals used as substitutes for ozone-depleting chloroflourocarbons in automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) such as CF4 are used primarily in aluminum production and Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 4 semiconductor manufacture. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment. These remaining gases are not of primary concern to the Proposed Project. CO2, CH4 and N20 are the GHGs of primary concern in this analysis. Carbon dioxide would be emitted by uses allowed under the Proposed Project during the combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles, from electricity generation and natural gas consumption, and from solid waste disposal. Smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide would be emitted from the same Project operations. More information on the background of global warming and GHGs can be found in Attachment 1, Understanding Global Climate Change. 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Development Summary The Otay Ranch GPA and GDPA (collectively known as the Proposed Project) is composed of two parcels of of land (Village 8 West and Village 9) located within the Otay Ranch villages planning area. The intent of the Proposed Project is to redefine village boundaries to create Village 8 West and Village 9 as cohesive and integrated village areas which correspond to the City’s General Plan. The Proposed Project also includes an 85-acre Regional Technology Park (RTP) within the Planning Area 10/University Site. The discretionary actions required to implement the Proposed Project include a GPA and Otay Ranch GDPA. The Proposed Project is located south of Olympic Parkway, west and east of State Route 125 (SR-125) in the Otay Ranch community in the eastern part of the City (Figure 1). The proposed GPA and GDPA would revise text and graphics relevant to the subject village areas in these plans to allow the ultimate buildout of 6,050 residential units, 1.8 million square feet of commercial and 2.2 million square feet of industrial uses, 10.8 acres of community purpose use, 51.4 acres of schools, and 55.4 acres of park park use on currently vacant land (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the land use plan of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project’s plan of land uses have been guided by principles that encourage walkability, mixed-use, alternative modes of transportation, and preservation of a large amount of open space. FIGURE 1 Regional Location Dulzura Jamul Jamacha Blossom Valley San Diego San Diego Imperial Beach Coronado Lake Poway La Jolla Brown Field Rancho Penasquitos Carmel Valley Lindbergh Field Airport MCAS Miramar Miramar Reservoir Solana Beach Del Mar Mission Bay San Diego Bay Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir El Capitan Reservoir San Vicente Reservoir Santee Lemon Grove El Cajon Poway La Mesa National City San Diego Chula Vista UNINCORPORATED Pacific Ocean C A L I F O R N I A M E X I C O §¨¦15 £¤67 Powa y Road Via de la Valle £¤56 §¨¦5 §¨¦805 £¤52 §¨¦8£¤94 £¤94 £¤125 M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig1_tech.mxd 11/1/2011 0 Miles 4[ Project Area Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Aerial Photograph of Project Area FIGURE 2 L o w e r O t a y R e s e r v o i r SR-125 O t a y R i v e r BROWN FIELD Village 9 Village 8 West T E L E G R A P H C A N Y O N R D 0 Feet 4,000 Image source: Copyright 2010 AerialsExpress, All Rights Reserved (flown Feb 2010) [ M:\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig2_tech.mxd 11/1/2011 Project Area Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Proposed Land Uses FIGURE 3 0 Feet 2,000[ \\server04\gis\JOBS3\4829\common_gis\fig3_air.mxd 1/24/2012 Project Boundary Village 8 West and Village 9 RTP Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 8 2.2 Green Building/Energy Efficiency Standards The proposed GPA includes the addition of a new energy-related Policy E 7.8 into the existing General Plan’s Environmental Element to “ensure that residential and nonresidential construction complies with all applicable City of Chula Vista energy efficiency measures that are in effect at the time of discretionary permit review and approval or building permit issuance, whichever is applicable.” The residential and non-residential construction that would be allowed by the Proposed Project would thus be subject to compliance with all relevant City energy efficiency and green building measures. The City currently has two key Municipal Code ordinances that require advanced water conservation, energy efficiency and other measures that would reduce the emission of GHGs. These ordinances are discussed later in Section 3.2.4.5 and Section 3.2.4.6 and are attached in their entirety as Attachment 2. An overview of the major GHG reducing benefits of these existing ordinances is described below. 2.2.1 Energy Efficiency In accordance with the City’s current energy code and Increased Energy Efficiency Standards (Municipal Code Chapter 15.26, Section 15.26.030), the Proposed Project development shall exceed the current 2008 California Energy Code’s residential energy efficiency standards by 15 percent. Projects would accomplish this through improved Heating, Ventilation, & Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems and duct seals; enhanced ceiling, attic and wall insulation; EnergyStar appliances; high-efficiency water heaters; energy-efficient three-coat stucco exteriors; energy-efficient lighting; and high-efficiency window glazing. These energy features would undergo independent third party inspection and diagnostics as part of the City’s verification and commissioning process. 2.2.2 Water Conservation In accordance with the City’s current Green Building Standards (Municipal Code Chapter 15.12), residential and commercial buildings would be required to be designed to use at least 20 percent less water per unit than buildings compliant with the existing plumbing code. This would be achieved through advanced plumbing systems such as parallel hot water piping or hot water recirculation systems, and fixtures such as ultra-low flow toilets, water-saving showerheads and kitchen faucets, and buyer-optional highefficiency clothes washers. As required by the Standards, the 20-percent reduction in potable water use shall be demonstrated by verifying each plumbing fixture and fitting meets the 20 percent reduced flow rate or by calculating a 20-percent reduction in the building water use baseline. In addition to these indoor water use conservation features, projects would be required to design outdoor landscaping that minimizes turf, maximizes drought-tolerant plants, and incorporates weather-based irrigation controllers, multi-programmable irrigat ion Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 9 clocks, and a high-efficiency drip irrigation system. Also at the time of final inspection, a manual shall be placed in each building that includes, among other things, information about water conservation. 2.2.3 Materials Use and Waste Reduction In accordance with the Green Building Standards and state and local laws, at least 50 percent of on-site construction waste and ongoing operational waste would be diverted from landfills through reuse and recycling. To further minimize waste, the Standards require projects to incorporate recycled materials for such things as flooring, and to use certified sustainable wood products and other recycled or rapidly renewable building materials where possible. Areas for storage and collection of recyclables and yard waste are also required to be provided for each residence. 2.2.4 Pollutant Control and Heat Island Island Reduction To maximize shade and reduce heat island effects, the landscape plans of subsequent projects would be required to include strategic location of deciduous trees and other vegetation, as well as the possible use of cool or green roofs. Impervious surfaces, including paved parking areas, are required to be minimized and pervious pavers and materials used instead where practical. No CFC-based refrigerants are allowed, and interior finishes, adhesives, sealants, paints and coatings, and carpet systems would be required to be low in VOCs (volatile organic compounds), and meet the testing and product requirements of one or more nationally recognized green product labeling programs. Compliance with these requirements shall be verified through documentation. 3.0 Existing Conditions 3.1 Environmental Setting 3.1.1 Regional Climate The climate of the region which encompasses the City of Chula Vista is identified as Mediterranean, which is characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Clear Clear skies predominate for much of the year due to a semi-permanent high-pressure cell located over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell also drives the dominant onshore circulation and helps to create subsidence and radiation temperature inversions. Subsidence inversions occur during the warmer months when descending air associated with the high-pressure cell comes in contact with cool marine air. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 10 Radiation inversions typically occur on winter nights when air near the ground cools by radiation and the air aloft remains warm. An average of 10 inches of rain falls each year from November to early April, while the remainder of the year is typically dry. Typically, measurable rain falls on 20 days per year, with only six of these days experiencing moderate (0.5 inch in 24 hours) rainfall. 3.1.2 State and Regional GHG Inventories 3.1.2.1 California GHG Inventory The CARB performs statewide inventories. The inventory is divided into nine broad sectors of economic activity: agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, forestry, high GWP emitters, industrial, recycling and waste, residential, and transportation. Emissions are quantified in million MTCO2E. Table 2 shows the estimated statewide GHG emissions for the years 1990, 2000, 2004, and 2008. TABLE 2 CALIFORNIA GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 1990, 2000, 2004, AND 2008 Sector 1990 Emissions in MMTCO2E (% total)1 2000 Emissions in MMTCO2E (% total)1 2004 Emissions in MMTCO2E (% total)1 2008 Emissions in MMTCO2E (% total)1 Sources Agriculture 23.4 (5%) 25.44 (6%) 28.82 (6%) 28.06 (6%) Commercial 14.4 (3%) 12.80 (3%) 13.20 (3%) 14.68 (3%) Electricity Generation 110.6 (26%) 103.92 (23%) 119.96 (25%) 116.35 (24%) Forestry (excluding sinks) 0.2 (<1%) 0.19 (<1%) 0.19 (<1%) 0.19 (<1%) High GWP --10.95 (2%) 13.57 (3%) 15.65 (3%) Industrial 103.0 (24%) 97.27 (21%) 90.87 (19%) 92.66 (19%) Recycling and Waste --6.20 (1%) 6.23 (1%) 6.71 (1%) Residential 29.7 (7%) 30.13 (7%) 29.34 (6%) 28.45 (6%) Transportation 150.7 (35%) 171.13 (37%) 181.71 (38%) 174.99 (37%) Unspecified Remaining2 1.3 (<1%) ------Subtotal 433.3 458.03 483.89 477.74 Sinks Forestry Sinks -6.7 (--) -4.72 (--) -4.32 (--) -3.98 (--) TOTAL 426.6 453.31 479.57 473.76 SOURCE: CARB 2007, 2010a. 1Percents may not total 100 due to rounding. 2The remaining are from unspecified fuel combustion and ozone depleting substance (ODS) substitute use which could not be attributed to an individual sector. As shown in Table 2, statewide GHG emissions totaled 433 MMTCO2E in 1990, 458 MMTCO2E in 2000, 484 MMTCO2E in 2004, and 478 MMTCO2E in 2008. According to data from the CARB, it appears that statewide GHG emissions peaked in 2004 and are now beginning to decrease (CARB 2010a). Transportation-related emissions consistently contribute the most GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation and industrial emissions. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 11 The forestry sector is unique because it not only includes emissions associated with harvest, fire, and land use conversion, but also includes removals of atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis, which is then bound (sequestered) in plant tissues. As seen in Table 2, the forestry sector consistently removes more CO2 from the atmosphere statewide than it emits. As a result, although decreasing over time, this sector represents a net sink, removing a net 6.7 MMTCO2E from the atmosphere in 1990, a net 4.7 MMTCO2E in 2000, a net 4.3 MMTCO2E in 2004, and a net 4.0 MMTCO2E in 2008. 3.1.2.2 San Diego County GHG Inventory A San Diego County regional emissions inventory was prepared by the University of San Diego that took into account the unique characteristics of the region. The 2006 emissions inventory for San Diego County is duplicated below in Table 3. The sectors included in this inventory are somewhat different than those in the statewide inventory. TABLE 3 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 2006 Sector 2006 Emissions in MMTCO2E (% total) 1 Agriculture/Forestry/Land Use 0.7 (2%) Waste 0.7 (2%) Electricity 9 (25%) Natural Gas Consumption 3 (8%) Industrial Processes & Products 1.6 (5%) On-Road Transportation 16 (45%) Off-Road Equipment & Vehicles 1.3 (4%) Civil Aviation 1.7 (5%) Rail 0.3 (<1%) Water-Borne Navigation 0.127 (<0.5%) Other Fuels/Other 1.1 (3%) Total 35.5 SOURCE: San Diego County Greenhouse Gas Inventory: An Analysis of Regional Emissions and Strategies to Achieve AB 32 Targets. Prepared by the University of San Diego School of Law, Energy Policy Initiative Center (EPIC), and available online at http://www.sandiego.edu/epic/ghginventory/. 1Percents may not total 100 due to rounding. Similar to the statewide emissions, transportation-related GHG emissions contributed the most countywide, followed by emissions associated with energy use. 3.1.2.3 City of Chula Vista GHG Inventory As part of monitoring its progress in attaining the goals of its CO2 Reduction Plan (see Section 3.2.4.2 below), the City of Chula Vista inventoried citywide GHG emissions in 2005 and 2008. The 2005 GHG Emissions Inventory was the first formal evaluation of Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 12 the City’s progress in reaching its emissions goals, and the 2008 GHG Emissions Inventory was the second formal evaluation (City of Chula Vista 2005, 2008a). The 2008 GHG Emissions Inventory separates emissions into two major categories, community and municipal. The community analysis represents the quantity of GHG emissions produced throughout the entire City in both public and private sectors. The municipal analysis represents emissions only from City facilities and operations. In 2008, community GHG emissions in the City totaled 934,630 MTCO2E. Transportation and mobile sources accounted for approximately 44 percent of this total. This is 29 percent higher than 1990 levels and 17 percent higher than 2005 levels citywide and is attributed to population growth. In 2008, municipal GHG emissions in the City totaled 16,817 MTCO2E. Transportation and mobiles sources accounted for approximately 46 percent of this total. Emissions from municipal buildings and the municipal vehicle fleet increased from 1990 levels but decreased 17 percent from the 2005 levels. 3.1.2.4 Project Site GHG Emissions The Proposed Project site is located in the south central portion of the Otay Ranch GDP area. The Otay Ranch GDP area is former agricultural ranch land historically used for ranching, grazing, and dry farming. It is currently vacant of development and is thus not a source of anthropogenic GHGs. Disturbed and undisturbed natural vegetation comprise the site’s dominant land cover. Natural vegetation and soils temporarily store and release carbon as part of the terrestrial carbon cycle. Plants absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis as they grow, store it in solid form during the life of the plant, and release it again as a gas when they die and decompose. Soil carbon accumulates from inputs of plants and animal matter, roots, and other living components of the soil ecosystem (e.g. bacteria, worms). Soil carbon is released through biological respiration, or through soil erosion and other forms of soil disturbance. These emissions of carbon dioxide from the Project site are not readily quantifiable, but are likely small from a regional perspective. Negligible emissions of methane and nitrous oxides may also be occurring due to on-site decomposition of wood, or any vegetative matter or waste, or to residue oxidation. 3.1.3 Consequences of Global Climate Change CARB projects a future statewide GHG emissions increase of over 23 percent (from 2004) by 2020 given current trends (CARB 2008c). The 2008 EPIC study predicts a countywide increase to 43 MMTCO2E or roughly 20 percent (from 2006) by 2020, given Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 13 a BAU trajectory. Global GHG emissions forecasts also predict similar substantial increases, given a BAU trajectory. The potential consequences of global climate change on the San Diego region are far reaching. The Climate Scenarios report, published in 2006 by the California Climate Change Center, uses a range of emissions scenarios to project a series of potential warming ranges (low, medium or high temperature increases) that may occur in California during the 21st century. Throughout the state and the region, global climate and local microclimate changes could cause an increase in extreme heat days; higher concentrations, frequency and duration of air pollutants; an increase in wildfires; more intense coastal storms; sea level rise; impacts to water supply and water quality through reduced snowpack and saltwater influx; public health impacts; impacts to near-shore marine ecosystems; reduced quantity and quality of agricultural products; pest population increases; and altered natural ecosystems and biodiversity. 3.2 Regulatory Background In response to rising concern associated with increasing GHG emissions and global climate change impacts, numerous plans, policies and regulations have been adopted at the international, national, state and local levels with the aim of reducing GHG emissions. 3.2.1 International 3.2.1.1 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer Human caused effects on the global atmosphere first became widely known to the public at large in the mid-1970s when it was discovered that a number of substances, particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration, when released into the atmosphere could cause the breakdown of significant quantities of the earth’s protective ozone (O3) in the stratosphere (i.e., the “ozone layer”). Somewhat concurrent with this was the discovery of the now well documented “ozone hole” over Antarctica. The ozone layer filters out most of the ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation reaching the earth. Therefore, destruction of the ozone layer would allow more UV-B radiation to reach the earth’s surface potentially leading to increases in skin cancer and other effects such as crop damage and adverse effects on marine phytoplankton. In response to these concerns, the Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer was established by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1977, and UNEP's Governing Council adopted the World Plan of Action on the Ozone Layer. Continuing efforts led to the signing in 1985 of the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 14 Ozone Layer. This led to the creation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), an international treaty designed to protect the stratospheric ozone layer by phasing out production of ozone depleting substances. The Montreal Protocol was adopted on September 16, 1987 and was enacted on January 1, 1989. The Protocol has been revised five times since 1989, most recently in 1999. This treaty is considered one of the most successful international treaties on environmental protection in the world, with ratification by 191 countries including the United States. By the end of 2006, the 191 parties to the treaty had phased out over 95 percent of ozone depleting substances (UNEP 2007). Because of this success, scientists are now predicting that the ozone hole will “heal” later this century. The elimination of these ozone-depleting substances also has benefits relative to global climate change because most of these substances are also potent GHGs with very high GWPs, ranging from 4,680 to 10,720 (UNEP 2007, Australian Government 2007). However, the phasing out of ozone depleting substances has led to an increase in the use of non-ozone depleting substances such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which, although not detrimental to the ozone layer, are also potent GHGs. As shown in Table 1, these substances have GWPs ranging from 140 to 11,700. 3.2.1.2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change In response to growing concern about pollutants in the upper atmosphere and the potential problem of climate change, the World Meteorological Organization and the UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC was tasked with assessing the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis for human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The most recent reports of the IPCC have emphasized the scientific consensus that real and measurable changes to the climate are occurring, that they are caused by human activity, and that significant adverse impacts on the environment, the economy, and human health and welfare are unavoidable. 3.2.1.3 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change In 1994, the Unites States joined a number of other nations in signing an international treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC recognized that global climate is a shared resource that can be affected by industrial and other emissions of greenhouses gases, and set an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenges posed by global climate Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 15 change. As with the Montreal Protocol, this treaty was ratified by 191 countries including the United States. Under this treaty, governments were to (UNFCCC 2007a): · Gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies and best practices; · Launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts; and · Cooperate with other nations in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The UNFCCC divided countries into three main groups according to differing commitments based on economic strength, vulnerability to adverse climate change impacts, and capacity to respond or adapt to climate change effects. The stronger economic nations, including the United States, were to provide financial and technological support to developing countries to enable them to undertake emissions reduction activities and to help them adapt to adverse effects of climate change. The UNFCCC was enacted in March 1994; however, it generally lacked powerful, legally binding measures. This led to the development of the Kyoto Protocol. 3.2.1.4 Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC Knowing that the UNFCCC did not contain the legally binding measures that would be required to meaningfully address global climate change, a conference of the UNFCCC signatory nations was held in Berlin in 1995 that launched a new round of discussions to determine more detailed and stronger commitments for industrialized countries (the Berlin Mandate). After two and a half years of negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in December 1997 (UNFCCC 2007c). While the 1997 Kyoto Protocol shared the UNFCCC’s objectives, it committed signatories to individual, legally binding targets to limit or reduce their GHG emissions. By March 1999, 84 countries, including the United States, had signed the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC 2009). Only Parties to the UNFCCC that have also become Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are bound by the Kyoto Protocol’s commitments. Governments become Parties to the Protocol by ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to it. Because of the complexity of the negotiations and uncertainty associated with the rules or how they would operate, several of the signing countries, including the United States, were reluctant to actually ratify the Protocol. Therefore a new round of negotiations was undertaken to flesh out the Kyoto Protocol’s rulebook. These negotiations concluded with the adoption of the Marrakesh Accords in 2001. With the adoption of the Marrakesh Accords, the Protocol was enacted in February 2005, and by July 2009, 184 governments had become Parties to the Protocol (UNFCCC 2007c, 2009). In December 2009, a Copenhagen Accord was held to address global climate change issues in the future; however, no further Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 16 measures were adopted. Another Accord is planned for December 2010 in Cancun, Mexico. Although a signer to the Kyoto Protocol, to date the U.S. has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, because it does not mandate emissions reductions from all countries, including several developing countries whose GHG emissions are expected to exceed emissions from developed countries within the next 25 years (U.S. EPA 2007a). 3.2.2 National 3.2.2.1 Clean Air Act, Title VI -Stratospheric Ozone Protection Similar to the Montreal Protocol discussed above, Title VI of the Clean Air Act was established to protect stratospheric ozone by phasing out the manufacture of ozonedepleting substances, and by restricting their use and distribution (U.S. EPA 2007b). Also similar to the Montreal Protocol, while successful in phasing out ozone depleting substances, Title VI has inadvertently led to an increase in the production and use of non-ozone depleting substitutes such as HFCs that are global warming gases with high GWPs and relatively long atmospheric lifetimes. 3.2.2.2 Climate Change Action Plan Adopted in 1993, the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) consists of voluntary actions to reduce all significant GHGs from all economic sectors. Backed by federal funding, the CCAP supports cooperative partnerships between the government and the private sector in establishing flexible and cost-effective ways to reduce GHG emissions. The CCAP encourages investments in new technologies, but also relies on previous actions and programs focused on saving energy, reducing transportation emissions, improving forestry management, and reducing waste. With respect to energy and transportation-related GHG emissions reductions, the CCAP includes the following (U.S. Global Change Research Information Office 1993). · Energy Demand Actions to accelerate the use of existing energy saving technologies and encourage the development of more advanced technologies. Commercial actions focus on installing efficient heating and cooling systems in commercial buildings and upgrading to energy-efficient lighting systems (the Green Lights program). The State Buildings Energy Incentive Fund provides funding to states for the development of public building energy management programs. Residential actions focus on developing new residential energy standards and building codes and providing money-saving energy efficient options to homeowners. · Energy Supply Actions to reduce emissions from energy supply. These actions focus on increasing the use of natural gas, which emits less CO2 than coal or oil, and Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 17 investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, which result in zero net CO2 emissions. Energy supply strategies also focus on reducing the amount of energy lost during distribution from power plants to consumers. · Transportation Actions to reduce transportation related emissions are focused on investing in cleaner fuels and more efficient technologies and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Also, the U.S. EPA and Department of Transportation (DOT) are to draft guidance documents for reducing VMTs for us in developing local clean air programs. 3.2.2.3 GHG Emissions Intensity Reduction Programs The GHG Emissions Intensity is the ratio of GHG emissions to economic output. In 2002, the U.S. GHG Emissions Intensity was 183 metric tons per million dollars of Gross Domestic Product (U.S. EPA 2007c). In February 2002, the U.S. set a goal to reduce this GHG Emissions Intensity by 18 percent by 2012 through various reduction programs. A number of ongoing voluntary programs have thus been instituted to reduce nationwide GHG emissions. These include (U.S. EPA 2007c): · Climate VISION Partnership: In 2003, this program established a partnership between 12 major industries and the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE), the U.S. EPA, the DOT and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The involved industries include electric utilities; petroleum refiners and natural gas producers; automobile, iron and steel, chemical and magnesium manufacturers; forest and paper producers; railroads; and cement, mining, aluminum, and semiconductor industries. These industries are working with the four agencies to reduce their GHG emissions by developing cost-effective solutions, measuring and reporting emissions, developing strategies for the adoption of advanced technologies, and implementing voluntary mitigation actions. · Cleaner Energy-Environment State Partnership: This program established a partnership between federal and state agencies to support states in implementing strategies and policies to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other cost-effective clean energies. States receive technical assistance from the U.S. EPA. · Climate Leaders: Climate Leaders is a U.S. EPA voluntary program that establishes partnerships with individual companies. Together they establish individual corporate goals for GHG emissions reduction and monitor their emissions to measure progress. More than 100 corporations that represent 8 percent of U.S. GHG emissions are involved in Climate Leaders. More than half have reached their emissions goals so far. · Energy Star: Energy Star was established in 1992 by the U.S. EPA and became a joint program with the U.S. DOE in 1996. Energy Star is a program that labels energy Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 18 efficient products with the Energy Star label. Energy Star enables consumers to choose energy efficient and cost saving products. More than 1,400 manufacturers use Energy Star labels on their energy efficient products. · Green Power Partnership: This program establishes partnerships between the U.S. EPA and companies and organizations that have bought or are considering buying green power, which is power generated from renewable energy sources. The U.S. EPA offers recognition and promotion to organizations that replace electricity consumption with green power. 3.2.2.4 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards The federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards determine the fuel efficiency of certain vehicle classes in the U.S. While the standards had not changed since 1990, in 2007, as part of the Energy and Security Act of 2007, the CAFE standards were increased for new light-duty vehicles to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020. In May 2009, President Obama announced further plans to increase CAFE standards to require light duty vehicles to meet an average fuel economy of 35.5 mpg by 2016. With improved gas mileage, fewer gallons of transportation fuel would be combusted to travel the same distance, thereby reducing nationwide GHG emissions associated with vehicle travel. 3.2.2.5 Mandatory Reporting of GHGs Rule Starting January 1, 2010, large emitters of heat-trapping gases are to begin collecting GHG data and reporting their annual GHG emissions to the U.S. EPA. Under this reporting Rule, approximately 10,000 facilities would be covered, accounting for nearly 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions. This mandatory reporting applies to fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 MTCO2E or more per year. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector are required to begin phasing in their GHG reporting starting with engine/vehicle model year 2011. 3.2.3 State The State of California has adopted a number of plans and regulations aimed at identifying statewide and regional GHG emissions caps, GHG emissions reduction targets, and actions and timelines to achieve the target GHG reductions. 3.2.3.1 EO S-3-05 – Statewide GHG Emission Targets This executive order (EO) signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005, established the following GHG emission reduction targets for the state of California: Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 19 · By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; · By 2020 reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; · By 2050 reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. This executive order also directs the secretary of the CalEPA to oversee the efforts made to reach these targets, and to prepare biannual reports on the progress made toward meeting the targets and on the impacts to California related to global warming, including impacts to water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry. With regard to impacts, the report shall also prepare and report on mitigation and adaptation plans to combat the impacts. The first Climate Action Team Assessment Report was produced in March 2006 and has been updated biennially. 3.2.3.2 AB 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act In response to Executive Order S-3-05, the California legislature passed passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Nuñez), the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006”, which was signed by the governor on September 27, 2006. It requires the CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB is also required to publish a list of discrete GHG emission reduction measures. Specifically, AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires CARB to (State of California 2006): · Establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions by January 1, 2008. ü In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emission limit of 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. · Adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs by January 1, 2009. ü In December 2007, CARB adopted regulations requiring the largest industrial sources to report and verify their GHG emissions. Facilities began tracking emissions in 2008 and reports were due June 1, 2009. Emissions reporting for 2008 was allowed to be based on best available data. Beginning in 2010, emissions reports are to be more rigorous and subject to third-party verification. This action builds on the earlier SB 177 (Sher) enacted in 2000 which established a nonprofit California Climate Action Registry for the purpose of administering a voluntary GHG emissions registry. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 20 · Adopt a plan by January 1, 2009 indicating how emission reductions will be achieved from significant GHG sources via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions. ü A Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved on December 12, 2008. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 174 million MTCO2E GHG emissions, or approximately 29 percent from the state’s projected 2020 emission level of 596 million MTCO2E under a BAU scenario. The Scoping Plan is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.2.3.3 below. · Adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG, including provisions for using both market mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms. · Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise CARB. ü In January 2007, the CARB appointed a ten member Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and appointed members to the Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee. · Ensure public notice and opportunity for comment for all CARB actions. ü A number of CARB documents, including the 2020 Emissions Forecast, the Scoping Plan, and the Draft Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds, have been circulated for public review and comment. · Prior to imposing any mandates or authorizing market mechanisms, CARB must evaluate several factors, including but not limited to impacts on California's economy, the environment and public health; equity between regulated entities; electricity reliability; conformance with other environmental laws; and ensure that the rules do not disproportionately impact low-income communities. 3.2.3.3 Climate Change Scoping Plan As directed by AB 32, the Climate Change Scoping Plan prepared by CARB in December 2008 includes the measures in Table 4 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB identified these reductions as necessary to reduce forecasted BAU 2020 emissions by approximately 174 MMTCO2E. CARB will update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years to allow evaluation of progress made and to correct the Plan’s course where necessary. As shown in Table 4, the majority of the reductions are to come from the two sectors that generate the most GHG emissions statewide—transportation and electricity generation. Transportation-related GHG emissions account for approximately 38 percent of the TABLE 4 CARB SCOPING PLAN RECOMMENDED GHG REDUCTION MEASURES Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted Towards 2020 Target In MMTCO2E (% subtotal)((% total)) 2 ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS RESULTING FROM THE COMBINATION OF CAPPED SECTORS AND COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES 146.7 California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards · Implement Pavley Standards · Develop Pavley II light-duty vehicle standards 31.7 (22%)((18%)) Energy Efficiency · Building/appliance efficiency, new programs, etc. · Increase CHP generation by 30,000 GWh · Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal) 26.3 (18%)((15%)) Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3 (14%)((12%)) Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 (10%)((9%)) Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets1 5 (4%)((3%)) Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 (3%)((3%)) Goods Movement · Ship Electrification at Ports · System-Wide Efficiency Improvements 3.7 (3%)((2%)) Million Solar Roofs 2.1 (2%)((1%)) Medium/Heavy Duty Trucks · Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction (Aerodynamic Efficiency) · Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization 1.4 (<1%)((<1%)) High Speed Rail 1.0 (<1%)((<1%)) Industrial Measures (for sources covered under cap&trade program) · Refinery Measures · Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Audits 0.3 (<.5%)((<.5%)) Additional Reductions Necessary to Achieve the Cap 34.4 (23%)((20%)) ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS RESULTING FROM UNCAPPED SECTORS 27.3 Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap&trade program) · Oil and Gas Extraction and Transmission 1.1 ((<1%)) High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 ((12%)) Sustainable Forests 5.0 ((3%)) Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1.0 ((.6%)) TOTAL REDUCTIONS COUNTED TOWARDS 2020 TARGET 1743 SOURCE: Table 2 of the Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Prepared by the California Air Resources Board, pursuant to AB 32 the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006. December 2008. 1 This number represents an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. CARB will establish regional targets for each Metropolitan Planning Organization following input of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee and a public stakeholders consultation process per SB 375. 2 (Percentages) are relative to the capped sector subtotal of 146.7 MMTCO2E, and ((percentages)) are relative to the total target reduction of 174 MMTCO2E, and may not total 100 due to rounding. 3 The total reduction for the recommended measures slightly exceeds the 169 MMTCO2E of reductions estimated in the BAU 2020 Emissions Forecast. This is the net effect of adding several measures and adjusting the emissions reduction estimates for some other measures. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 22 forecasted BAU 2020 emissions and over 36 percent of the targeted total reductions. Energy-related emissions (including those from electric power generation, commercial and residential energy use, and industrial oil and natural gas refineries) account for approximately 48 percent of the forecasted BAU 2020 emissions and more than 29 percent of the targeted total reductions. As indicated in Table 4 and described in greater detail in the following sections, the majority of these reductions in transportation-related and energy-related GHG emissions are to be achieved through statewide regulatory mandates affecting vehicle and fuel manufacture, public transit, and public energy utilities. The remaining reductions are to be achieved through direct regulation and price incentive measures affecting oil and gas extraction industries, forestry practices (including increased tree planting programs), landfill methane capture, and restrictions on high GWP gases (used in select industries). The three measures most applicable to the City’s control over land use planning and development are the Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets, the Energy Efficiency, and the Million Solar Roofs measures. Implementing these three measures accounts for a reduction of 33.4 MMTCO2E emissions, or approximately 20 percent, of the total statewide GHG emissions reductions. CARB also lists several other recommended measures which will contribute toward achieving the 2020 statewide reduction goal, but whose reductions are not (for various reasons, including the potential for double counting) additive with the measures listed in Table 4. These include state and local government operations measures, green building, mandatory commercial recycling and other additional waste and recycling measures, water sector measures, and methane capture at large dairies. The Scoping Plan reduction measures and complementary regulations are described further in the following sections, and are grouped under the two headings of Transportation-Related Emissions Reductions and Non-Transportation-Re ated Emissions Reductions as representative of the sectors to which they apply. Transportation-Related Emissions Reductions Transportation accounts for the largest share of the state’s GHG emissions. Accordingly, a large share of the reduction of GHG emissions from the recommended measures comes from this sector. To address emissions from vehicles, CARB is proposing a comprehensive three-prong strategy: reducing GHG emissions from vehicles, reducing the carbon content of the fuel these vehicles burn, and reducing the miles these vehicles travel. 3.2.3.4 AB 1493 – Pavley Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards AB 1493 (Pavley) enacted July 2002, directed CARB to adopt vehicle standards that lowered GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks to the maximum Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 23 extent technologically feasible, beginning with the 2009 model year. CARB adopted regulations in 2004 and applied to the U.S. EPA for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act to implement them. Under federal law, California is the only state allowed to adopt its own vehicle standards, but it cannot implement them until the U.S. EPA grants an administrative waiver. In December 2004 the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers sued CARB to block implementation of the new regulations and ultimately, in December 2007, a federal judge decided the case in favor of the CARB (Sacramento Bee 2007). Despite this ruling, the U.S. EPA denied CARB’s waiver request in February 2008. In January 2008, the State of California sued the U.S. EPA in an attempt to overturn the U.S. EPA’s denial (Marten Law Group 2008). CARB adopted amendments to its new regulations in September 2009 that would enforce AB 1493 but provide vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. On June 30, 2009, the U.S. EPA rejected its earlier waiver denial reasoning and granted California the authority to implement these GHG emissions reduction standards for new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. With this action, it is expected that the new regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 22 percent in 2012 and about 30 percent in 2016 (CARB 2010b) for a total reduction of 31.7 MMTCO2E counted toward the total statewide reduction target (CARB 2008b) (see Table 4). These reductions are to come from improved vehicle technologies such as small engines with superchargers, continuously variable transmissions, and hybrid electric drives. 3.2.3.5 EO S-01-07 – Low Carbon Fuel Standard This executive order signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in January 2007, directed that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 through a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). CARB adopted the LCFS as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32 in April 2009 and includes it as a reduction measure in its Scoping Plan (see Table 4). The LCFS is a performance standard with flexible compliance mechanisms intended to incentivize the development of a diverse set of clean, low-carbon transportation fuel options. Its aim is to accelerate the availability and diversity of low-carbon fuels such as biofuels, electricity and hydrogen, by taking into consideration the full life-cycle of GHG emissions. A 10 percent reduction in the intensity of transportation fuels is expected to equate to a reduction of 16.5 MMTCO2E in 2020. However, in order to account for possible overlap of benefits between LCFS and the Pavley GHG standards, CARB has discounted the contribution of LCFS to 15 MMTCO2E (CARB 2008b). Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 24 3.2.3.6 Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets The Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets measure included in the Scoping Plan identifies policies to reduce transportation emissions through changes in future land use patterns and community design, as well as through improvements in public transportation, that reduce VMT. By reducing the miles vehicles travel, vehicle emissions will be reduced. Improved planning and the resulting development are seen as essential for meeting the 2050 emissions target (CARB 2008b p. 20). CARB expects that this measure will reduce transportation-related GHG emissions by about 5 MMTCO2E or 4 percent of the total statewide reductions attributed to the capped sectors (Table 4). Specific regional reduction targets established through SB-375 will determine more accurately what reductions can be achieved through this measure. 3.2.3.7 SB 375 – Regional Emissions Targets SB 375 was signed in September 2008 and requires CARB to set regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle GHG emissions in accordance with the Scoping Plan measure described above. Its purpose is to align regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation to reduce GHG emissions by promoting high-density, mixed-use developments around mass transit hubs. CARB, in consultation with statewide Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), is to provide each affected region with passenger vehicle GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 by September 30, 2010. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the San Diego region’s MPO. On August 9, 2010 CARB released the staff report on the proposed reduction target for San Diego County, which was subsequently approved by CARB on September 23, 2010. The San Diego region will be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light light trucks 7 percent per capita by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 (SANDAG 2010a). The reduction targets are to be updated every 8 years, but can be updated every 4 years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. Once reduction targets are established, SB 375 requires MPOs in California to prepare and adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Enhanced public transit service combined with incentives for land use development that provides a better market for public transit will play an important role in the SCS. After the SCS is adopted by the MPO, the SCS will be incorporated into that region's federally enforceable RTP. SANDAG has completed work on the 2050 RTP, the first such plan in the state that will include an SCS (CARB 2010c; SANDAG 2010a). CARB is also required to review each final SCS to determine determine whether it would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction target Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 25 for its region. If the combination of measures in the SCS will not meet the region’s target, the MPO must prepare a separate Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) to meet the target. The APS is not a part of the RTP. As an incentive to encourage implementation of the SCS and APS, developers can obtain relief from certain requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for those projects that are consistent with either the SCS or APS (CARB 2010c). 3.2.3.8 EO S-7-04/SB 1505 – California Hydrogen Highway Network This executive order signed in 2004 designated California’s 21 interstate freeways as the “California Hydrogen Highway Network”, and directed the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and all other relevant state agencies to plan and build a network of hydrogen fueling stations along these roadways and in the urban centers. This EO also called for the rapid transition to a hydrogen economy in California by January 1, 2005. In response to this EO, SB 1505 (Lowenthal) was passed a year later requiring the CARB to adopt regulations to ensure that the production and use of hydrogen for transportation purposes contributes to the reduction of GHGs and other air contaminants (Union of Concerned Scientists 2007). a. Non-Transportation-Related Emissions Reductions In the energy sector, Scoping Plan measures aim to provide better information and overcome institutional barriers that slow the adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency technologies. They include enhanced energy efficiency programs to provide incentives for customers to purchase and install more efficient products and processes; and building and appliance standards to ensure that manufacturers and builders bring improved products to market. Over the long term, the recommended measures will increase the amount of electricity from renewable energy sources and improve improve the energy efficiency of industries, homes and buildings. While energy efficiency gains the largest emissions reductions from this sector, other land development applicable measures such as water conservation, materials use and waste reduction, and green building design and development practices, achieve additional emissions reduction. 3.2.3.9 Renewables Portfolio Standard The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) promotes diversification of the state’s electricity supply. Its purpose is to achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide; providing 33 percent of the state’s electricity needs met by renewable resources by 2020 (CARB 2008b). The RPS is included in CARB’s Scoping Plan list of reduction measures (see Table 4). Increasing the RPS to 33 percent is designed to accelerate the Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 26 transformation of the electricity sector, including investment in the transmission infrastructure and systems changes to allow integration of large quantities of intermittent wind and solar generation. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. Increased use of renewables would decrease California’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing emissions of GHGs from the electricity sector. CARB estimates that full achievement of the RPS would decrease statewide GHG emissions by 21.3 MMTCO2E (CARB 2008b). 3.2.3.10 Million Solar Roofs Program The Million Solar Roofs Program was created by SB 1 in 2006 and includes the CPUC’s California Solar Initiative and California Energy Commission’s (CEC) New Solar Homes Partnership. It requires publicly owned utilities to to adopt, implement and finance solar incentive programs to lower the cost of solar systems and help achieve the goal of installing 3,000 MW of new solar capacity by 2020. The Million Solar Roofs Program is one of CARB’s GHG reduction measures identified in the 2008 Scoping Plan (see Table 4). Achievement of the program’s goal is expected to equate to a reduction of 2.1 MMTCO2E in 2020 statewide BAU emissions, as counted toward the total statewide reduction of 173 MMTCO2E (CARB 2008b). 3.2.3.11 SB 1368 – Public Utility Emission Standards SB 1368 (Parata), passed in 2006, requires the CEC to set GHG emission standards for entities providing electricity in the state. The bill further requires that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prohibit electricity providers and corporations from entering into long-term contracts if those providers and corporations do not meet the CEC’s standards (Union of Concerned Scientists 2007). 3.2.3.12 Title 24, Part 6 -California Energy Code The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 is the California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978 in response to legislative mandates, establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy consumption. The Code is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies as they become available. The most recent amendments to the Code, known as Title 24 2008, or the 2008 Energy Code, became effective January 1, 2010. Title 24 2008 requires energy savings of 15–35 percent above the former Title 24 2005 energy code. At a minimum, residential buildings must achieve a 15 percent reduction in their combined space heating, cooling and water heating energy compared to the Title 24 2005 standards. Incentives in the form of rebates and tax breaks are provided on a sliding scale for buildings achieving energy efficiency above the minimum 15 percent reduction over Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 27 Title 24 2005. The reference to Title 24 2005 is relevant in that many of the State’s longterm energy and GHG reduction goals identify energy saving targets relative to Title 24 2005. By reducing California’s energy consumption, emissions of statewide GHGs may also be reduced. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submission and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the CEC. The compliance reports must demonstrate a building’s energy performance through use of CEC-approved energy performance software that shows iterative increases in energy efficiency given selection of various HVAC, sealing, glazing, insulation, and other components related to the building envelope. Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment and by the major building envelope systems such as space heating, space cooling, water heating, some aspects of the fixed lighting system, and ventilation. Non-building energy use or “plug-in” energy use (such as appliances, equipment, electronics, plug-in lighting) is independent of building design and not subject to Title 24. 3.2.3.13 Title 24, Part 11 – California Green Building Standards In 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger directed the California Building Standards Commission to work with state agencies on the adoption of green building standards for residential, commercial and public building construction for the 2010 code adoption process. A voluntary version of this California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11 in 2009. The 2010 version of CALGreen took effect January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of commercial, low-rise residential, and state-owned buildings; as well as schools schools and hospitals. It also includes voluntary tiers (I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory requirements and may also adopt the Green Building Standards with amendments for stricter requirements. The mandatory standards require: · 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels; · 50 percent construction/demolition waste must be diverted from landfills; · Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; and · Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 28 The voluntary standards require: · Tier I – 15 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 65 percent reduction in construction waste, 10 percent recycled content, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent cement reduction, cool/solar reflective roof. · Tier II – 30 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 75 percent reduction in construction waste, 15 percent recycled content, 30 percent permeable paving, 30 percent cement reduction, cool/solar reflective roof. Similar to the compliance reporting procedure described above for demonstrating energy code compliance, compliance with the CALGreen water reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms for both commercial and low-rise residential buildings. The water use compliance form must demonstrate a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced perplumbing-fixture water use rate. Related to CALGreen are the earlier Sustainable Building Goal (EO D-16-00) and Green Building Initiative (EO S-20-04). The 2000 Sustainable Building Goal instructed that all state buildings be constructed or renovated and maintained as models of energy, water and materials efficiency. The 2004 Green Building Initiative recognized further that significant reductions in GHG emissions can be achieved through the design and construction of new green buildings as well as the sustainable operation, retrofitting, and renovation of existing buildings. The CARB Scoping Plan includes a Green Building Strategy with the goal of expanding the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of new and existing buildings. Consistent with CALGreen, the Scoping Plan recognized that GHG reductions would be achieved through buildings that exceed minimum energy efficiency standards, decrease consumption of potable water, reduce solid waste during construction and operation, and incorporate sustainable materials. Green building is thus a vehicle to achieve the Scoping Plan’s statewide electricity and natural gas efficiency targets and to lower GHG emissions from waste and water transport sectors. In the Scoping Plan, CARB projects that an additional 26 MMTCO2E could be reduced through expanded green building (CARB 2008b, p.17). However, this reduction is not counted toward the BAU 2020 reduction goal to avoid any double counting, as most of these reductions are accounted for in the electricity, waste, and water sectors. Because of this, CARB has assigned all emissions reductions that occur as a result of green building strategies to other sectors for the purpose of meeting AB 32 requirements, but will continue to evaluate and refine the emissions from this sector. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 29 3.2.3.14 SB 97 – CEQA GHG Amendments SB 97 (Dutton) passed by the legislature and signed by the governor on August 24, 2007 required the office of Planning and Research (OPR) on or before July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency amendments to the CEQA guidelines to assist public agencies in the mitigation of GHGs or the effects of GHGs as required under CEQA, including the effects associated with transportation and energy consumption, and required the Resources Agency to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. Proposed amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions were submitted on April 13, 2009, adopted on December 30, 2009, and became effect March 18, 2010. Section 15064.4 of the amended Guidelines includes the following requirements for determining the significance of impacts from greenhouse greenhouse gas emissions. While the amendments require calculation of a project’s contribution they clearly do not establish a standard by which to judge a significant effect or a means to establish such a standard. (a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. 3.2.4 Local Since the early 1990s, Chula Vista has been engaged in multiple climate change forums including the UNFCCC, the International Cities for Climate Protection campaign and the U.S. Conference of Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement. The key plans and ordinances that the City has adopted and implemented to achieve citywide GHG emissions reductions are summarized below. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 30 3.2.4.1 ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection In 1992, the City participated in a program aimed at developing municipal action plans for the reduction of GHGs. This program—the Cities for Climate Protection Program— was sponsored by the International Council of Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and the UNEP. This program was developed by ICLEI and the UNEP in response to the UNFCCC, and in recognition that all local planning and development have direct consequences on energy consumption and cities exercise key powers over urban infrastructure, including neighborhood design and over transportation infrastructure such as roads, streets, pedestrian areas, bicycle lanes and public transport. 3.2.4.2 Chula Vista CO2 Reduction Plan Each participant in the ICLEI program was to create local policy measures to ensure multiple benefits to the city and at the same time identify a carbon reduction goal through the implementation of those measures. The carbon reduction goal was to fit within the realm of international climate treaty reduction goals. In its CO2 Reduction Plan developed in 1996 and officially adopted in 2000, Chula Vista committed to lowering its CO2 emissions by diversifying its transportation system and using energy more efficiently in all sectors. To focus efforts in this direction, the City adopted the international CO2 reduction goal of returning to pre-1990 levels (i.e. 20 percent below) by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, eight actions were identified, which when fully implemented, were anticipated to save 100,000 tons of CO2 each year. As a result of the 2005 GHG Emissions Inventory Report, in May 2007 staff reported to City Council that citywide greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 35 percent (mainly due to residential growth) from 1990 to 2005, while emissions on a per capita basis and from municipal operations decreased by 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively. As a result, the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to reduce the community’s GHGs in order to meet the City’s 2010 GHG emissions reduction targets. 3.2.4.3 Climate Change Working Group The CCWG, which is composed of residents, businesses, and community organization representatives, helps the City in developing climate-related programs and policies. In 2008, the CCWG reviewed over 90 carbon reduction measures and ultimately chose seven measures to recommend to City Council, which the Council subsequently adopted. The measures were designed to reduce or mitigate climate change impacts by reducing GHG emissions within Chula Vista to 20 percent below 1990 levels in keeping with its CO2 Reduction Plan and UNFCCC goals, but the horizon date was delayed to 2012 instead of 2010. The measures are described below in the following section. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 31 In October 2009, the City Council directed the CCWG to evaluate how the City could "adapt" to potential climate change impacts. The group will be meeting throughout 2010 to develop recommendations based on the City’s vulnerabilities and risks to climate change. 3.2.4.4 Chula Vista Climate Protection Measures On July 10, 2008, the City Council adopted implementation plans for seven climate protection measures to reduce GHG emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Since the adoption of these measures, the CARB published its BAU 2020 forecast and Scoping Plan described in Section 3.2.3.3, which established statewide reduction measures necessary to achieve the AB 32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This goal is reflected in the City’s adopted GHG significance thresholds for project-specific analysis under CEQA (see Section 4.1) Nonetheless, the implementation plans outline the detailed strategy for initiating, funding, and tracking the following measures (City of Chula Vista 2008b): 1. Clean Vehicle Replacement Policy for City Fleet: When City fleet vehicles are retired, they will be replaced through the purchase or lease of alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes. In addition, the City fleet will begin to pursue installing new fuel tanks to allow heavy-duty vehicles to convert to biodiesel fuel immediately. 2. Clean Vehicle Replacement Policy for City-Contracted Fleets: As contracts for City-contracted fleet services (such as transit buses, trash haulers and street sweeper trucks) are renewed, the City will encourage contractors to replace their vehicles with alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes through the contract bid process. In addition, the City will pursue implementing two hydrogen vehicle demonstration projects. 3. Business Energy Assessments: Although not mandatory, businesses will be encouraged to participate in a no no cost energy assessment of their facilities to help identify opportunities for them to reduce monthly energy costs. The business assessment will be integrated into the existing business licensing process and codified through a new municipal ordinance. 4. Green Building Standard: Chula Vista will implement a citywide, mandatory green building standard for new construction and major renovations. The new standard will have 3 main components: (1) a minimum energy efficiency (carbon equivalent) requirement of 15 percent above the 2005 Title 24, (2) the early adoption of the new California Green Building Codes for all residential and commercial projects, and (3) a Carbon Offset Fee available for projects not meeting the 15 percent above Title 24 threshold. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 32 5. Solar and Energy Efficiency Conversion Program: The City will create a community program to provide residents and businesses a streamlined, costeffective opportunity to implement energy efficiency improvements and to install solar/renewable energy systems on their properties. The City will develop a funding mechanism to allow program participants to voluntarily choose to place the improvement costs on their property’s tax rolls, thereby avoiding large upfront capital costs. In addition, the program will promote vocational training, local manufacturing, and retail sales opportunities for environmental products and services. To help stimulate the private-sector renewable market and lower the cost for installing renewable energy systems on new homes, the City will require all new residential buildings to include pre-wiring and pre-plumbing for solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems, respectively. 6. Smart-Growth Around Trolley Stations: The City will continue to implement the “Smart-Growth” design principles, which promote mixed-use and walkable and transit-friendly development, particularly in and around the E, H, and Palomar trolley stations. These principles were emphasized in the revised Chula Vista General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan. In particular, the City will initiate site planning, design studies and Specific Area Plan development to further support “Smart-Growth” development that complements greenhouse gas reductions. 7. Turf Lawn Conversion Program: The City will create a community program to provide residents and businesses a streamlined, cost-effective opportunity to replace their turf lawns with water-saving landscaping and irrigation systems. Some municipal turf lawn areas (such as medians, fire stations and nonrecreational park areas) will also be converted to act as public demonstration sites and to reduce monthly water water costs. The City will establish the model for water-wise landscaping for new development through an update of its Municipal Landscape Ordinance and Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. An Implementation Progress Report, published in February 2010, reports the implementation status and milestones for each measure. Most measures are meeting milestones outlined in their original implementation plans (City of Chula Vista 2010). 3.2.4.5 Chula Vista Green Building Standards Consistent with measure 4 above (Section 3.2.4.4), the City Council adopted the Green Building Standards ordinance (GBS ordinance) (Ordinance No. 3140) on October 6, 2009, which became effective November 5, 2009. This represents early adoption of the California Green Building Standards discussed in Section 3.2.3.13, with amendments to include major remodels (not just ground-up new construction) and all residential (not just low-rise single-family residential). Permit applications for all new/remodel residential and Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 33 non-residential projects submitted on or after November 5, 2009 are required to comply with the GBS ordinance. Through adherence to the GBS ordinance, new residential and non-residential construction, additions, remodels and improvements will benefit from enhanced energy efficiency, pollutant controls, interior moisture control, improved indoor air quality and exhaust, indoor water conservation, storm water management, and construction waste reduction and recycling. The complete Green Building Standards and Ordinance are included in Attachment 2. As required by the GBS ordinance, as part of the application for a building permit, construction plans and specifications shall indicate in the general notes or individual detail drawings the Green Building Standards and product specifications and methods of construction that are required. The Building Official may require the applicant to retain the services of a consultant having expertise in Green Building and or energy efficiency techniques to review and evaluate complex systems and/or alternate methods or materials of construction and provide recommendations as to compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. No building permit shall be issued for any project subject to the Standards until the Building Official has determined that the plans and specifications submitted for the building permit are in compliance with the requirements. Compliance verification shall be performed by the Building Official, who shall verify that the green building measures and specifications indicated on the permitted plans and construction documents are being implemented at foundation, framing, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and any other required inspections, and prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Additional inspections may be conducted as needed to ensure compliance, and during the course of construction and following completion of the project, the City may require the applicant to provide information and documents showing use of products, equipment and materials specified on the permitted plans and documents. If at any stage of construction the Building Official determines that the project is not being constructed in accordance with the permitted plans and documents, a Stop Order may be issued pursuant to CVMC Section 15 06 060 D. At the discretion of the Building Official, the stop work order may apply to the portion of the project impacted by noncompliance or to the entire project. The stop work order shall remain in effect until the Building Official determines that the project will be brought into compliance with the permitted plans and documents. Prior to final building approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy the Building Official shall review the information submitted by the applicant and determine whether the applicant has constructed the project in accordance with the permitted plans and documents. If the Building Official determines that the applicant has failed to construct the project in accordance with the permitted plans and documents, then the final building approval and final certificate of occupancy may be withheld until the Building Official determines that the project is in compliance with the GBS ordinance. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 34 3.2.4.6 Chula Vista Increased Energy Efficiency Standards On January 26, 2010, the City Council adopted the Increased Energy Efficiency Standards ordinance (Ordinance No. 3149). This ordinance became effective February 26, 2010 as section 15.26 of the Municipal Code, and permit applications submitted on or after this date are required to comply with these new energy efficiency standards. The ordinance is included in Attachment 2. Section 15.26.030 of the Municipal Code requires permit applications to comply with increased energy efficiency standards that achieve 15 to 20 percent greater efficiency than the requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), depending on climate zone. As shown in Figure 4, the City falls within two climate zones, zone 7 and zone 10. For climate zone 7, the Code requires: · All new low-rise residential building or additions, remodels or alterations to existing low-rise residential buildings where the additions, remodels or alterations are greater than 1,000 square feet of conditional floor area, shall use at least 15 percent less energy than the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards allow; and · All new non-residential, high-rise residential or hotel/motel buildings, or additions, remodels or alterations to existing non-residential, high-rise residential or hotel/motel buildings where the additions, remodels or alterations are greater than 10,000 square feet of conditioned floor area, shall use at least 15 percent less energy than the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Most of the City lies within climate zone 7 (including the Proposed Project), as shown in Figure 4. For areas further east in climate zone 10, the Municipal Code requires projects to use 20 percent less energy than the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards allow. This is to address the higher energy demands typically associated with warmer, inland locations that use more cooling and air conditioning systems. No City building permit shall be issued unless the permit application demonstrates to the Building Official compliance with the requirements of Section 15.26.030. Compliance is to be demonstrated based on a performance approach, using a CEC-approved energy compliance software program, as specified in the Title 24 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. 3.2.4.7 Regional Climate Action Plan The SANDAG Regional Climate Action Plan (RCAP) is a long-range policy (year 2030) that focuses on transportation, electricity and natural gas sectors. It complements the Regional Energy Strategy 2030 Update and feeds into the SANDAG Regional COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY of SAN DIEGO NATIONAL CITY IMPERIAL BEACH COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY of SAN DIEGO Otay Ranch Rolling Hills Ranch Sunbow II EastLake I Eastlake Greens Rancho\Del Rey I Golf Course Otay\Landfill San Miguel Ranch Terra\Nova Bonita\Long\Canyon Otay Ranch Village 1 Otay Ranch Village 5 Rancho Del Rey III Eastlake\Woods Rancho\Del Rey II Bella\Lago Sunbow I Otay\Ranch Eastlake\Vistas Eastlake\Trails Mid-\Bayfront Eastlake\Business\Park Amphitheater\ and\ Water Park Olympic\Training\Center Eastlake\Land\Swap Eastlake Village\Center Telegraph\Canyon\Estates Eastlake\Business\Center\ II Eastlake\Woods\West Auto\Park JH I L E F G MAIN K PALOMAR BAY THIRD OLYMPIC D OTAY LAKES I-5 FREEWAY NAPLES I-805 FREEWAY BRO ADWAY BONITA SR-54 FREEWAY ORANGE SECOND OXFORD HUNTE FIRST MOSS C HILLTOP MELROSE FIFTH TELEGRAPH CANYON NACIONLAMEDIA LANE WUESTE INDUSTRIAL CORRALCANYON BE YER BRANDYWINE FOURTH BUENA VISTA CENTRAL RANCHODEL REY PLAZABONITA MOUNT MIGUEL 30TH K SR-54 FREEWAY THIRD I-I-805 FR EEWAY C FIFTH I-5 FREEWAY HILLTOP 5 Village 1 Village 5 Village 2 EUC Village 11 Village 8 Village 6 Village 7 Village1 West University\West University\West Village 7 Village 4 Village 2 Village 3 Fwy Commercial Village 4 Village 2 Village 4 Village 4 Planning Area 18B Village 4 Bayfront (Future Development) Future Industrial Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 10FIGURE 4 City Climate Zones Map Source: City of Chula Vista Geographic Information System, February 2006 M:\JOBS3\4829\GCC\graphics\fig4.ai 10/18/10 Climate Zone Boundary 805 0 Feet 4800 Project Location 125 Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 36 Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). It is currently in process of being prepared and no regional GHG emissions caps or reduction targets have been identified. 4.0 Significance Criteria and Analysis Methodologies 4.1 Determining Significance To date, there have been no regional, state, or federal regulations establishing a threshold of significance to determine project-specific impacts of GHG emissions. As allowed by the CEQA Guidelines, after considering the thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies and experts, including those adopted by the Bay Area and San Joaquin Air Quality Management Districts and the various options reviewed by the CARB, the City has developed its own significance thresholds. The City’s thresholds are grounded in statute (AB 32) and executive order (EO S-3-05) and offer a way to achieve the 2020 goal of AB 32. The 2020 goal of AB 32 is to return statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The City’s threshold was established based on this goal of AB 32 and the reduction measures needed to achieve it as identified in the CARB Scoping Plan and as shaped by the assumptions of the businessas-usual (BAU) 2020 statewide forecast. 4.1.1 Business-as-Usual 2020 Emissions As described above in Section 3.2.3.2, AB 32 directed the CARB to develop a Scoping Plan that identified the reduction measures needed to achieve the targets established in AB 32/EO S-3-05. In order to assess the scope of the needed reductions, CARB first estimated BAU 2020 GHG emissions, as shown below in Table 5. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 37 TABLE 5 CALIFORNIA BAU 2020 GHG EMISSIONS FORECAST Sector Projected 2020 Emissions in MMTCO2E (% total) Transportation 225.4 (38%) Electric Power 139.2 (23%) Commercial and Residential 46.7 (8%) Industry 100.5 (17%) Recycling and Waste 7.7 (1%) High GWP 46.9 (8%) Agriculture 29.8 (5%) Forest Net Emissions 0.0 TOTAL 596.4 SOURCE: California 2020 GHG Emissions Forecast. Prepared by the CARB. Last updated October 2008; last reviewed May 28, 2010. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Accessed May 28, 2010. Table 5 represents the statewide GHG emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of the GHG reduction measures identified in the Scoping Plan. This forecast also assumed energy efficiency in commercial and residential buildings in accordance with the 2005 Title 24 energy code, water conservation in accordance with the 2006 plumbing code, and waste diversion in accordance with the 1989 Integrated Waste Management Act. In its transportation-related emissions forecast, CARB assumed that total statewide VMT would increase based on growth in statewide population and fixed average trip lengths and vehicle fleet mix. Based on these assumptions, CARB estimated that statewide BAU 2020 GHG emissions will be 596.4 MMTCO2E. 4.1.2 Scoping Plan Reduction Measures As discussed in Section 3.2.3.3, the Scoping Plan identifies 16 measures that would provide reductions allowing the state to achieve a total GHG emissions reduction of 174 MMTCO2E by 2020 (see Table 4). Of these measures, three are measures that are, to some extent, within the control of the City. The Scoping Plan reduction measures the City has control over are listed in Table 6 below and include the Energy Efficiency, Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets, and the Million Solar Roofs measures. Full statewide implementation of these three measures is projected to to result in a 33.4 MMTCO2E reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, for a 19.2 percent reduction in forecasted BAU 2020 emissions. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 38 TABLE 6 CARB SCOPING PLAN RECOMMENDED GHG REDUCTION MEASURES WITHIN CITY’S CONTROL Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted Towards 2020 Target in MMTCO2E Percentage of Total Reductions Counted Towards 2020 Target REDUCTIONS COUNTED TOWARDS 2020 TARGET WITHIN CITY CONTROL 33.4 19.2%1 Energy Efficiency 26.3 Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets 5.0 Million Solar Roofs 2.1 REDUCTIONS COUNTED TOWARDS 2020 TARGET NOT WITHIN CITY CONTROL (see Table 4) 140.6 80.8% TOTAL REDUCTIONS COUNTED TOWARDS 2020 TARGET 174 100% Based on Table 2 of the Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Prepared by the California Air Resources Board, pursuant to AB 32 the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006. December 2008. 119.2% is relative to the targeted total reduction of 174 MMTCO2E. The BAU 2020 forecast initially projected a targeted reduction of 169 MMTCO2E. The proportion of these three Scoping Plan measures would be 19.8 percent relative to that number. To conform to the Scoping Plan, a proposed project would have to provide the same proportional reduction relative to BAU that the Scoping Plan identifies for these three measures. Rounding this number up to the nearest whole number results in a 20 percent proportion. As allowed in the Scoping Plan, project reductions could come from any one or combination of the three identified measures or complementary measures. For example, energy-related reductions could come from improved building energy efficiency, advanced water conservation measures, or solid waste reduction measures. Transportation-related reductions could come from project features that encourage alternate travel choices, such as through public transportation proximity, subsidized transit passes, preferential parking for carpool vehicles and low-carbon vehicles, bicycle facilities, walking paths; or shorter vehicle trip lengths, such as through the integration of housing proximate to employment, recreation, and community services. In this latter regard, vehicle trip lengths associated with a given project would have to alter the average regional trip length in order to be sufficient enough to change the statewide VMT assumptions in the BAU emissions forecast and associated Scoping Plan vehicle emissions reduction estimates. 4.1.3 Significance Thresholds Based on the Scoping Plan and its associated BAU 2020 emissions forecast assumptions, the City has established the following City GHG thresholds of significance for land development projects. The City has determined that a project would have significant global climate change effects if it would: Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 39 · Conflict with or obstruct the achievement of the Scoping Plan reduction measures by not reducing its GHG emissions by at least 20 percent over that which would have been expected to occur in the BAU condition; or · Conflict with any other applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. These thresholds are grounded in statute (AB 32) and executive order (S-3-05), and supported by substantial evidence in the CARB’s BAU 2020 Forecast and Climate Change Scoping Plan. In addition, these thresholds are consistent with the amended CEQA Guidelines which state that cumulative impacts may be measured relative to a cumulative baseline that includes a …summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of GHG emissions. 4.2 Methodology and Assumptions Emission estimates were calculated for the three GHGs of primary concern (CO2, CH4, and N2O) that would be emitted from the Proposed Project’s construction and five sources of operational emissions: on-road vehicular traffic, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, water usage, and solid waste disposal. The method of quantifying GHG emissions in this analysis was based on methodologies recommended and used by several California air quality management districts (AQMD), including the South Coast and Bay Area AQMDs; as well as by the CARB. To evaluate the Proposed Project relative to the BAU 2020 Forecast, emissions of each source of GHGs were estimated first for a project-equivalent under BAU conditions, assuming building energy efficiency in accordance with the 2005 Title 24 energy code, water conservation in accordance with the the current plumbing code, and solid waste disposal quantities in accordance with current statewide legislation. A 20 percent reduction of this amount was then calculated in order to identify the targeted cap in GHG emissions attributable to the Proposed Project. Lastly, emissions of each source of GHGs were estimated for the Proposed Project assuming building energy and water efficiencies required in City ordinances and General Plan policy. This methodology allows for a comparison between the Proposed Project and BAU 2020 relative to the identified significance determination thresholds. These scenario analyses are included in Sections 5.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.2. Emissions calculations for all of these scenarios started with the following identical land use assumptions: Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 40 TABLE 7 FUTURE (YEAR 2020) MODELED LAND USES Land Use Quantity Residential 6,050 dwelling units Commercial 1,800,000 square feet Industrial 2,200,000 square feet Park 55.4 acres School 51.4 acres Community Purpose Facility 10.8 acres University 50.0 acres The land use assumptions in Table 7 reflect the total allowable buildout as envisioned in the Proposed Project for Village 8 West, Village 9 and the 85-acre RTP. By multiplying the GHG emissions calculated for the Proposed Project by a factor of 1.5, an expanded cumulative projects area can be accounted for that includes the Village 8 East and the Planning Area 10 projects. This analysis is provided in Section 5.1.1.3. Complete emissions calculations are contained in Attachment 3. 4.2.1 Estimating Vehicle Emissions Vehicle emissions were estimated using emission factors developed by the Bay Area AQMD and EPA in a fuel-based methodology using the following equation: E = EF X Fuel X C X GWP Where E is emission in metric tons per year; EF is an emission factor normalized for engine fuel consumption and expressed in units of pounds of GHG per gallon of transportation fuel; Fuel is the total quantity of fuel consumed per year; C is a constant reflecting the conversion of pounds to metric tons; and GWP is the global warming potential of each GHG. This fuel-based method is based on the equation used in CARB’s OFFROAD2007 and EMFAC2007 models to estimate off-and on-road vehicle emissions: E = EF X Pop X AvgHp X Load X Activity where E is emission in tons per day; EF is an emission factor expressed in units of work done by the engine (e.g., g/bhp-hr); Pop is the engine population (number of engines in use); AvgHp is the average rated power of these engines; Load is the load on the engines relative to their average rated power; and Activity is the average annual hours of use per engine. However the fuel-based method simplifies the equation by using emission factors normalized for fuel consumption and allows the use of readily available and accurate regional fuel sales data. This method of calculating vehicle emissions also has the advantage of being able to estimate emissions for all three primary GHGs, while Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 41 some computer models such as URBEMIS2007 can only directly estimate CO2 emissions. The fuel-based calculation is thus commonly used to estimate regional emissions from the transportation sector (UCTC 1996, 2000), and is similar to the method CARB used in their BAU 2020 emissions forecast, which used statewide fuel sales data and statewide average VMT. In this analysis, annual fuel consumption is obtained by multiplying the Proposed Project ADT obtained from the traffic study (LLG 2011) by the local (for the Proposed Project) and regional average (for BAU) trip lengths determined by SANDAG (2009, 20010b). The total VMT derived from this calculation is then multiplied by average vehicle mileage as identified by Caltrans to obtain total fuel consumption. This value is then multiplied by the emission factors in Table 8 to estimate GHG emissions. 4.2.2 Estimating Construction Emissions Construction activities emit GHGs primarily though combustion of fossil fuels in the engines of off-road construction equipment (mostly diesel) and in the on-road vehicles of the construction workers. Smaller amounts of GHGs are also emitted through the energy use embodied in any water use (for fugitive dust control) and lighting for the construction activity. Construction emissions are not accounted for in the BAU 2020 forecast, and reductions in construction emissions are not specifically identified in the CARB Scoping Plan. However, the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) has recently recommended that total construction emissions be amortized over 30 years and added to operational emissions (AEP 2010). Typically, project-level information is used to calculate construction emissions. In this analysis, given lack of project-specific information, construction emissions were estimated by multiplying the proposed land uses (Table 7, above) by annual construction emission rates of 0.077 MTCO2E per residential dwelling unit and 0.006 MTCO2E per square foot of non-residential use. These values were obtained through review of other project-level analyses (City of San Diego 2010a, 2010b). 4.2.3 Estimating Building Use Emissions For estimates of non-transportation related operational emissions, total projected energy, water, and waste demands were multiplied by emission factors for each emission source and each GHG. 4.2.3.1 Electricity and Natural Gas Estimates GHG emissions associated with electricity use were calculated by multiplying the total number of dwelling units, commercial and industrial square footage, and park, school, and community purpose facility acreages by the average electricity consumption rates Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 42 used in CARB’s 2011 California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) obtained from the CEC end-use surveys for residential and non-residential uses (CEC; 2004 and 2006). These values were then multiplied by the electricity generation GHG emission factors contained in Table 8. For the BAU calculations, 2006 statewide average electricity consumption rates of 590.88 kilowatt hours (kWh) per single-family residential unit per month, 360.39 kWh per multi-family residential unit per month, 14.10 kWh per commercial square foot per year, 17.60 kWH per industrial square foot per year, 6.35 kWh per school square foot per year, 11.35 kWh per university square foot per year, and 9.38 kWh per square foot per year of park and community purpose uses were used, consistent with the BAU 2020 forecast assumption of building energy efficiency in accordance with the Title 24, Year 2005 energy code. For the Proposed Project calculations, a 30 percent improvement in residential and nonresidential building energy efficiency was assumed based on the requirements of the Increased Energy Efficiency ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code. This ordinance is described in Section 3.2.4.6 and would achieve a 15 percent reduction in building energy use compared to the existing 2008 Title 24 energy code and thus a 30 percent reduction in building energy use compared to BAU assumptions. GHG emissions associated with natural gas were also calculated using rates obtained from CalEEMod/the CEC and the natural gas generation GHG emission factors shown in Table 8. Statewide monthly average natural gas consumption rates of 5,198.70 cubic feet per single-family residential unit, 3,128.97 cubic feet per multi-family residential unit, 2.90 cubic feet of natural gas per square foot of commercial space, 1.29 cubic feet per square foot of school space, 3.48 cubic feet per square foot of university space, 2.77 cubic feet per square foot of community purpose facility, 0.25 cubic feet per square foot of active park use, and 241,611 cubic feet per industrial consumer (assuming a minimum 2-acre lot size) were used to calculate BAU emissions. For the Proposed Project calculations, a 30 percent improvement in building energy efficiency was assumed based on the requirements of the Municipal Code as described above. These values were then multiplied by the emission factors in Table 8 for natural gas consumption to obtain estimated quantities of GHG emissions. 4.2.3.2 Water Use Emissions Estimates The GHG emissions associated with water use are calculated by multiplying the embodied energy in a gallon of potable water by the total number of gallons projected to be consumed by the project and then by the electricity generation GHG emission factors. For these estimates, it is assumed that water delivered to the Project site would have an embodied energy of 2,779 kWh/acre foot or 0.0085 kWh/gallon (Torcellini 2003). Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 43 To calculate the projected water demand of the Project and BAU, water demand rates by land use type were obtained from the October 2008 Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan Update (WRMP) and multiplied by the proposed quantities of residential units and non-residential square footage projected for buildout of the Proposed Project. BAU water use assumptions based on the 2008 WRMP would be as follows: singlefamily residential units would consume 500 gallons per day (gpd) per unit; multi-family residential would consume 255 gpd1 per unit; schools and universities would consume 1,785 gpd per acre, parks would consume approximately 2,155 gpd per acre, community purpose facilities would consume approximately 893 gpd per acre, commercial uses would consume 0.14 gpd per square foot; and industrial uses would consume 0.07 gpd per square foot. Applying conservation measures required in the City’s GBS Ordinance, described in Section 3.2.4.5, the Proposed Project’s water use would achieve a 20 percent reduction in water consumption (and associated embodied energy) compared to BAU assumptions. Therefore, accounting for the advanced conservation measures of the Proposed Project, BAU/WRMP water consumption rates were adjusted as follows: single-family residential units would consume 400 gpd per unit; multi-family residential units would consume 204 gpd per unit; schools and universities would consume 1,428 gpd per acre; parks would consume approximately 1,724 gpd per acre, community purpose facilities would consume 714.4 gpd per acre, commercial uses would consume 0.11 gpd per square foot; and industrial uses would consume 0.06 gpd per square foot. 4.2.3.3 Solid Waste Emissions Estimates For both the BAU calculations and the Proposed Project calculations, a countywide average waste disposal rate was used and was obtained from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) as included in CalEEMod. While the Proposed Project would implement lumber and other materials conservation in accordance with the City’s Green Building Standards (see Section 3.2.4.5) and likely generate less landfill waste than average, these savings cannot be estimated at this time. CalRecycle maintains a list of different waste generation rates for residential, commercial, and other uses. The multi-family residential waste generation rates range from 3.6 to 8.6 pounds per unit per day, the single-family residential waste generation rates ranged up to 11.4 pounds per unit per day, and the commercial generation rates range from 0.0025 to 0.046 pounds per square foot per day (CalRecycle 2009). To be 1Recommended rate of 300 gpd/unit reduced by 0.85 to account for reclaimed water use. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 44 conservative, the higher generation rates of 11.4 pounds daily per single-family dwelling unit, 8.6 pounds per unit per day for multi-family residential, 2.60 pounds per square foot per day for schools and universities, 11.4 pounds per square foot per day for community purpose facilities, 4.76 tons per acre per year for park uses, and 0.046 pounds per square foot per day for commercial and industrial uses were used to determine the total volume of waste by weight. These values were then multiplied by emissions factors used in the EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) for the different material classes (glass, metal, plastic, etc.) and two different waste streams (to landfill or to recycling). For the landfill estimates, landfill gas recovery for energy was assumed, and for both the landfill and recycling estimates, a truck haul distance of 20 miles and frequency of once per week. Local recycling and disposal (to landfill) percentages (of total waste generated) were also obtained from CalRecycle and reflect current waste disposal practice in accordance with the statutory 50 percent diversion mandate. 4.2.4 General Assumptions The emission factors used to calculate vehicle, electricity and natural gas GHG emissions are shown below. TABLE 8 GHG EMISSION FACTORS Gas Vehicle Emission Factors (pounds/gallon gas)1 Electricity Generation Emission Factors (pounds/MWh)2, 3 Natural Gas Combustion Emission Factors (pound/million ft3)4 Carbon Dioxide 19.564 1,340 120,000 Methane 0.00055 0.0111 2.3 Nitrous Oxide 0.0002 0.0192 2.2 1SOURCE: BAAQMD 2006. 2SOURCE: U.S. DOE 2002. 3Emissions associated with water use are calculated from the embodied energy in a gallon of water multiplied by the same emissions factors for electricity generation. Waste emissions were similarly calculated using the U.S. EPA Waste Reduction model (WARM) emission factors specific to each waste type (e.e.g., glass, metal, plastic). 4SOURCE: U.S. EPA 1998. Emissions estimated for each of the five emission sources are summed and expressed in terms of total metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent or MTCO2E. CO2-equivalent emissions are the preferred way to assess combined GHG emissions because they give weight to the GWP of a gas. The GWP, as described above in Section 1.1, is the potential of a gas to warm the global climate in the same amount as an equivalent amount of emissions of CO2. CO2 thus has a GWP factor of 1. Methane (CH4) has a GWP factor of 21 and nitrous oxide (N20) has a GWP of 310, which means they have a greater global warming effect than CO2. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 45 5.0 Impact Analysis 5.1 Project Emissions Relative to BAU 5.1.1 Impacts To evaluate the significance of the Proposed Project’s contribution of GHG emissions relative to statewide emissions and BAU reductions, GHG emissions from transportation, electricity, natural gas and water consumption, solid waste disposal, and construction activities, were estimated first for BAU, then for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project calculations account for GHG emissions reductions from project-specific design features as well as applicable statewide emissions reduction programs. 5.1.1.1 BAU Emissions a. Transportation-Related Emissions Transportation-related GHG emissions comprise the largest contributor to existing and forecast GHG emissions, accounting for 38 percent of the total statewide forecasted BAU 2020 emissions (CARB 2008c). On-road vehicles alone account for 35 percent of the total forecasted BAU 2020 emissions. Transportation-related GHG emissions are generated from the combustion of fossil fuels (primarily gasoline and diesel) in vehicle engines. The quantity and type of transportation fuel consumed determines the amount of GHGs emitted from a vehicle. Therefore, not only are vehicle engine and fuel technologies of importance, but so too are the amount of vehicle trips and trip distances that motorists travel. The traffic study projects that the proposed buildout of Villages 8 West, 9 and the 85-acre RTP would generate 113,073 ADT (LLG 2011). Based on the regional average trip length of 5.8 miles (SANDAG 2009) and an average fuel economy of 18.80 mpg for 2020 (Caltrans 2009), a total of 655,823 vehicle miles would be traveled each day and 34,884 gallons of vehicle fuel would be consumed each day under BAU conditions. Using the vehicle emissions factors contained in Table 8, the combustion of this fuel would result in the emission of 113,416.15 MTCO2E each year assuming BAU. b. Electricity Emissions Electric power generation accounted for the second largest sector contributing to existing and projected statewide GHG emissions, comprising 24 percent of the total statewide BAU 2020 emissions (CARB 2008c). Buildings use electricity for lighting, heating and cooling. Electricity generation entails the combustion of fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which are then stored and transported to end users. A Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 46 building’s electricity use is thus associated with the off-site or indirect emission of GHGs at the source of electricity generation (i.e. the power plant). Based on 887 single-family residences, 5,163 multi-family residences, 51.4 acres of schools, 50.0 acres of university use, 10.8 acres of community purpose use, 1.8 million square feet of commercial, 2.2 million square feet of industrial space, and 55.4 acres of park space, buildout under BAU assumptions would annually consume 159,018 MWh of electricity. The residential uses would consume approximately 28,618 MWh, the school uses would consume approximately 14,218 MWh, the university uses would consume approximately 24,655 MWh, the community purpose space would consume 4,413 MWh, the commercial uses would consume a maximum of 25,380 MWh, and the industrial uses would consume a maximum of 27,320 MWh each year. The park acreage could consume up to 15,845 MWh annually if developed into active recreational facilities such as a health or racquet club. Passive park space would consume less electricity. These estimates are based on average electricity consumption rates for southern California as identified by the CEC in the URBEMIS 2007 and 2011 CalEEMod air emissions models (CEC; 2004 and 2006). This quantity of electricity consumption equates to the emission of 17,474.49 MTCO2E each year from residential uses, 15,497.51 MTCO2E each year from commercial uses, 8,681.51 MTCO2E each year from schools, 15,054.79 MTCO2E each year from university uses, 2,694.54 MTCO2E each year from community purpose uses, 13,822 MTCO2E each year from active park uses, and 23,874.88 MTCO2E each year from industrial uses; totaling 97,099.72 MTCO2E each year. c. Natural Gas Emissions Buildings combust natural gas primarily for heating and cooking purposes, resulting in the emission of GHGs. GHG emissions associated with natural gas combustion are estimated by multiplying the total number of dwelling units by average residential natural gas consumption rates and then by their respective GHG emissions factors. Based on 887 single-family residences, 5,163 multi-family residences, 1.8 million square feet of commercial space, 51.4 acres of schools, 50.0 acres of university use, 10.8 acres of community purpose use, 55.4 acres of park space, and 2.2 million square feet of industrial space, buildout under BAU assumptions would annually consume 583.48 million cubic feet of natural gas. The residential uses would consume approximately 249.19 million cubic feet, the commercial uses would consume approximately 62.64 million cubic feet, the schools would consume approximately 34.70 million cubic feet, the university uses would consume approximately 90.86 million cubic feet, community purpose uses would consume approximately 15.62 million cubic feet, park uses would consume up to approximately 7.24 million cubic feet, and the industrial uses would consume approximately 123.22 million cubic feet each year. This equates to the emission of 13,646.41 MTCO2E GHG emissions each year from residential uses, 3,430.31 MTCO2E each year from commercial uses, 1,900.49 MTCO2E each year from schools, 4,975.86 MTCO2E each year from university uses, 855.33 MTCO2E each year Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 47 from community purpose facilities, 396.46 MTCO2E each year from park uses, and 6,747.90 MTCO2E each year from industrial uses; totaling 31,952.76 MTCO2E GHG emissions each year. d. Water Use Emissions The provision of potable water consumes large amounts of energy associated with source and conveyance, treatment, distribution, end use, and wastewater treatment. This type of energy use is known as embodied energy. Water delivered to the site would have an embodied energy of 2,779 kWh/acre foot or 0.0085 kWh/gallon. Multiplying the proposed 887 single-family residential units, 5,163 multi-family residential units, 51.4 acres of school use, 50.0 acres of university use, 55.4 acres of parks, 10.8 acres of community purpose, 1.8 million square feet of commercial space, and 2.2 million square feet of industrial space, by the WRMP daily water demand rates of 500 gpd per single-family residential unit, 255 gpd per multi-family unit, 1,785 gpd per school acre, 1,785 gpd per university acre, 2,155 gpd per park acre, 893 gpd per community purpose acre, 0.14 gpd per commercial square foot, and 0.07 gpd per industrial square foot, yields a total daily combined water demand of 2,388,355 gallons under BAU assumptions. Annual BAU water demand would total approximately 904,325,679 gallons. Of this annual total, approximately 642,423,725 gallons would be associated with residential uses, 33,488,385 gallons would be associated with school uses, 32,576,250 gallons would be associated with school uses, 43,576,255 gallons would be associated with park uses, 3,520,206 gallons would be associated with community purpose uses, 91,980,000 gallons with commercial uses, and 56,760,858 gallons would be associated with industrial uses. The embodied energy demand associated with this total water use would equate to 7,686.77 MWh per year. Multiplying this value by the electricity emission factors for the three primary GHGs of concern in Table 8 yields an estimated annual emission associated with BAU water use of 4,693.69 MTCO2E. e. Solid Waste Emissions The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills, incineration, and from the combustion of transportation fuel in the haul trucks that transport waste. Based on 6,050 residential units, 1.8 million square feet of commercial space, 2.2 million square feet of industrial space, 10.8 acres of community purpose facilities, 51.4 acres of schools, 50.0 acres of university use, and 55.4 acres of park space, buildout under BAU assumptions would annually generate approximately 52,396 tons of solid waste each year. The residential uses would generate approximately 9,948 tons, the commercial uses would generate approximately 15,111 tons, the school uses would generate approximately 2,911 tons, the university use would generate approximately 2,831 tons, Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 48 the community purpose facility would generate approximately 2,682 tons, the park would generate approximately 264 tons, and the industrial uses would generate approximately 18,650 tons each year. GHG emissions associated with the disposal or diversion of this waste would equal approximately 8,370.33 MTCO2E per year. f. Construction Emissions Based on estimates of construction-related emissions for typical residential and nonresidential projects, approximate annual emission rates of 0.077 MTCO2E per residential dwelling unit and 0.006 MTCO2E per non-residential square foot were determined. Multiplying these values by the proposed 6,050 residential units, 4 million square feet of commercial/industrial use, 51.4 acres of schools (converted to 1.79 million square feet based on a conservative coverage ratio of 0.80:1), 50.0 acres of university use (converted to 1.74 million square feet based on a conservative coverage ratio of 0.80:1), 10.8 acres of community purpose facility (converted to 376,358 square feet based on a conservative 0.80:1 coverage ratio) and 55.4 acres of park use (converted to 603,306 square feet of park structure space based on a conservative structure/park acre ratio of 0.25:1) results in annual construction emissions of 51,545.36 MTCO2E. 5.1.1.2 Proposed Project Emissions a. Transportation-Related Emissions Proposed Project Average Trip Length Relative to Regional VMT The BAU 2020 forecasted increase in transportation-related GHG emissions is dominated by an increase in emissions from on-road passenger vehicles; hence the emphasis in the CARB Scoping Plan on measures to reduce GHG emissions from onroad passenger vehicles (refer to Table 4). CARB’s estimated growth in vehicle emissions resulted from projected growth in statewide VMT due primarily to statewide population growth as projected by the Department of Finance. CARB’s statewide VMT VMT projections held average vehicle trip length and vehicle fleet mix constant. The BAU trip length for the San Diego region would thus be 5.8 miles, as currently reported by SANDAG (2009). If a plan or project were to add motorists or to increase local trip lengths to such a degree that the regional average trip length was increased, regional and potentially statewide VMT could be increased. The project would thus be considered to generate vehicle GHG emissions in excess of those accounted for in the BAU 2020 Emissions Forecast. By extension, it would also be considered to generate vehicle emissions beyond those accounted for in the Scoping Plan reduction measures. Patterns of development can increase, decrease, or have no effect at all on travel choices, depending on their location and design. For example, through provision of Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 49 public transit, carpooling, and walking and biking amenities, and by bringing more people closer to more destinations, the City can increase low carbon travel and decrease onroad VMT. These are the types of strategies identified in the Scoping Plan’s Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets measure. CARB expects that this measure will reduce transportation-related GHG emissions by about 5 million MTCO2E, or 3 percent of the total statewide GHG reductions (see Table 4). The Proposed Project is surrounded by existing or planned residential and mixed-use development to the north and west, with some neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the vicinity. Within the Proposed Project, a mix of residential, commercial, and recreational uses would be provided. These proximities would encourage walking and biking and relatively short local vehicle trips, as reflected in the shorter-than-regionalaverage trip lengths SANDAG identified for Villages 8 West and 9 (SANDAG 2010b). Compared to the regional average daily vehicle trip length of 5.8 miles, the average daily trip length for Village 8 would be 4.62 miles and the average daily trip length for Village 9 would be 5.08 miles. SANDAG trip length calculations are contained in Attachment 4. The average daily trip length for the RTP in the Planning Area 10/University Site was not determined but industrial park trip lengths are typically shorter than residential trip lengths and the same as commercial trip lengths (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2008). Because the Proposed Project would not increase the regional trip length, its projected vehicle-emissions would be consistent with forecasted vehicle emissions, and its cumulative contribution to statewide vehicle emissions would be less than significant. According to the traffic analysis, the Proposed Project would generate 113,073 ADT at buildout (LLG 2011). Of Of this total ADT, 43,564 ADT would be associated with Village 8 West, 56,123 ADT would be associated with Village 9, and the remaining 13,386 ADT would be associated with the RTP in the Planning Area 10/University Site. Average local trip length data provided by SANDAG for the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) for Villages 8 West and 9 identify an average daily trip length of 4.62 miles for TAZ #4391 (i.e., Village 8 West) and 5.08 miles for TAZ #4373 (i.e., Village 9) (SANDAG 2010b). The RTP and Planning Area 10/University Site fall within TAZ #4353. This TAZ was not included in the SANDAG trip length model. Therefore, the SANDAG regional average trip length of 5.8 miles was used to estimate VMT for the RTP. Multiplying these trip length averages by their associated ADTs results in a daily VMT for the Proposed Project of 564,010; with 201,266 daily VMT resulting from Village 8 West, 285,105 daily VMT resulting from Village 9, and 77,639 daily VMT resulting from the RTP. Overall Transportation Emissions Using the same fuel economy figure used in the above paragraph to estimate BAU vehicle emissions, the projected daily VMT of 564,010 would result in an annual vehicle emissions generation of 97,538.09 MTCO2E. However, as identified in the Section 3.2 Regulatory Background, there are several plans and regulations aimed at reducing transportation-related GHG emissions nationally and statewide by 2020, by increasing Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 50 average vehicle fuel economy, decreasing average engine combustion emissions, and decreasing average VMT and trip length. The key regulations affecting vehicle emissions include the national CAFE Standards which would increase average vehicle fuel economy to 35 mpg by 2020; the state Pavley GHG Vehicle Emissions Standards which set increasingly stringent emissions limits on vehicles, requiring improvement in vehicle engine technologies; and the state LCFS which reduces the carbon content of vehicle fuels. All of these actions have been approved by either the national or state legislatures and are coming into effect on a staggered timeline, with 2016 being the earliest vehicle model year affected. As shown in Table 4, CARB estimates that an approximate 46.7 MMTCO2E reduction, or 32 percent of the reduction target for capped sources and 27 percent of the the total 174 MMTCO2E reduction target, would be achieved through full implementation of just the Pavley and LCFS transportation-related regulatory actions. A third action, the Vehicle Efficiency Measure, is estimated by CARB to add another 4.5 MMTCO2E, or 2.5 percent, to the total statewide reductions. The national CAFE Standards, while not quantified in the CARB Scoping Plan, would likely contribute to further reductions in statewide vehicle GHG emissions. It can be assumed that newer vehicles associated with the Proposed Project would benefit from these regulations, and estimated vehicle emissions would accordingly decrease. By accounting for the Scoping Plan measures already adopted, and the reduced vehicle trip lengths, the estimated vehicle emissions associated with the Proposed Project would decrease by 40 percent (with approximately 10 percent coming from the reduced vehicle trip lengths and nearly 30 percent from the state regulations), resulting in GHG emissions of 68,276.67 MTCO2E (compared to the 113,416.15 MTCO2E estimated for BAU). In order to fully evaluate the significance of the Proposed Project’s vehicle emissions reductions relative to the BAU 2020 vehicle emissions forecast and the Scoping Plan’s vehicle emissions reductions, it is necessary to look at the Proposed Project in terms of its average trip length and effects on regional VMT. b. Electricity Emissions Buildout of the Proposed Project would be subject to the Chula Vista Green Building and Increased Energy Efficiency ordinances of the City’s Municipal Code. These two ordinances are described in Section 3.2.4.5 and Section 3.2.4.6 and would achieve a 30 percent reduction in building energy (electricity and natural gas) use compared to BAU assumptions and a 20 percent reduction in potable water consumption (and associated embodied energy) compared to BAU assumptions. Based on the energy savings required in the City’s Increased Energy Efficiency ordinance, the proposed 6,050 residential units, 1.8 million cubic feet of commercial Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 51 space, 10.8 acres of community purpose facility use, 51.4 acres of schools, 50.0 acres of university use, 55.4 acres of park space, and 2.2 million square feet of industrial space would annually consume 111,312.92 MWh of electricity. The residential uses would consume approximately 28,617.65 MWh, the commercial uses would consume approximately 17,766 MWh, the school uses would consume approximately 9,952 MWh, the university use would consume approximately 17,258 MWh, the community purpose space would consume 3,089 MWh, active park uses would consume approximately maximum of 15,845 MWh, and the industrial uses would consume approximately 19,124 MWh each year. This equates to the emission of 12,232.14 MTCO2E each year from residential uses,10,848.26 MTCO2E each year from commercial uses, 6,077.06 MTCO2E each year from school uses, 10,538.35 MTCO2E each year from university use, 9,675.40 MTCO2E each year from active park uses, 1,886.18 MTCO2E each year from community purpose facilities, and 16,712.41 MTCO2E each year from industrial uses; totaling 67,969.80 MTCO2E each year. As shown in Table 4, the CARB Scoping Plan includes a Renewables Portfolio Standard which requires public utilities to acquire an increasing proportion of their energy supply from renewable energies. By 2020, 33 percent of all statewide electricity generation is to come from renewable energies. This would result in a statewide emissions reduction of 26.3 MMTCO2E and is a reduction that is counted toward the total 2020 emissions reduction target. As a result of implementation of the Renewables Portfolio Standard, GHG emissions from electricity generation needed to supply the Project would likely decline as energy supply shifts from fossil-fuel based energies to renewable energy. Renewable energies have zero to little carbon content and their use in electricity generation emits fewer GHGs. GHGs. c. Natural Gas Emissions Buildout of the Proposed Project would be subject to the Increased Energy Efficiency ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code. This ordinance is described in Section 3.2.4.6 and would achieve a 15 percent reduction in building energy use compared to the existing energy code (Title 24, Year 2008), which equates to a 30 percent reduction in building energy and natural gas use compared to BAU assumptions. Based on the energy savings required in the City’s Increased Energy Efficiency ordinance, the proposed 6,050 residential units, 1.8 million square feet of commercial space, 10.8 acres of community purpose facility, 51.4 acres of schools, 50.0 acres of university use, 55.4 acres of parks, and 2.2 million square feet of industrial use would annually consume 408.44 million cubic feet of natural gas. The residential uses would consume approximately 174.44 million cubic feet, the commercial uses would consume approximately 43.85 million cubic feet, the community purpose facility would consume approximately 10.93 million cubic feet, the schools would consume approximately 24.29 million cubic feet, the university use would consume approximately 63.60 million cubic feet, the park uses would consume approximately 5.07 million cubic feet, and the Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 52 industrial uses would consume 86.25 million cubic feet each year. This equates to the emission of 9,552.49 MTCO2E of GHGs each year from residential uses, 2,401.22 MTCO2E each year from commercial uses, 598.73 MTCO2E each year from community purpose facilities, 1,330.34 MTCO2E each year from schools, 3,483.10 MTCO2E each year from university use, 277.52 MTCO2E each year from park uses, and 4,723.53 MTCO2E each year from industrial uses; totaling 22,366.93 MTCO2E of GHG emissions each year. d. Water Use Emissions Buildout of the Proposed Project would be subject to the Green Building Standards in the City’s Municipal Code. This ordinance is described in Section 3.2.4.5 and would achieve a 20 percent reduction in water use compared to the existing plumbing code (year 2006) and BAU assumptions. An adjustment to the WRMP daily water demand rates identified identified above for BAU were thus made to account for the City’s more stringent water conservation design requirements. Multiplying the proposed 887 single-family residential units, 5,163 multi-family residential units, 51.4 acres of schools, 50.0 acres of university use, 54.4 acres of park use, 10.8 acres of community purpose, 1.8 million square feet of commercial space, and 2.2 million square feet of industrial space, by adjusted WRMP daily water demand rates of 400 gallons per single-family residential unit, 204 gallons per multi-family unit, 1,428 gallons per school acre, 1,428 gallons per university acre, 1,724 gallons per park acre, 714.4 gallons per community purpose acre, 0.11 gallon per commercial square foot, and 0.06 gallon per industrial square foot, yields a total daily combined water demand of 1,982,084 gallons for the Proposed Project. Annual project water demand would total approximately 723,460,543 gallons. Of this annual total, approximately 513,938,980 gallons would be associated with residential uses, 26,790,708 gallons would be associated with school uses, 26,061,000 gallons would be associated with university use, 34,861,004 gallons with park uses, 2,816,165 gallons would be associated with community purpose uses, 73,584,000 gallons with commercial uses, and 45,408,686 gallons would be associated with industrial uses. This water usage amounts to approximately 20 percent less than the average water use for residential and non-residential uses built to the current plumbing code. The embodied energy demand associated with the Proposed Project’s total water use would equate to 6,149.41 MWh per year. Multiplying this value by the electricity emission factors for the three primary GHGs of concern in Table 8 yields an estimated annual emission associated with water use of 3,754.95 MTCO2E. While not shown in Table 4, the CARB Scoping Plan includes other reduction strategies not counted toward the 2020 target reduction of 174 MMTCO2E statewide. CARB estimates that their recommended water sector measures would reduce an additional 4.8 MMTCO2E by 2020. These are measures required of water suppliers that would improve energy and other efficiencies associated with water supply. Thus, it is possible that the embodied energy and resulting GHG emissions associated with supplying potable water to the Proposed Project would decrease somewhat by 2020. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 53 e. Solid Waste Emissions While the Proposed Project would implement lumber and other materials conservation in accordance with the City’s Green Building Standards (see Section 3.2.4.5) and likely generate less landfill waste than average BAU, these savings cannot be estimated at this time. Therefore, for purposes of this program-level estimation, the Proposed Project is considered to generate the same amount of waste and associated GHG emissions as that under BAU: 52,397.07 tons of solid waste each year, resulting in 8,370.33 MTCO2E of GHG emissions each year. Future development in accordance with the Proposed Project would be required to implement lumber and other materials conservation in conformance with the Green Building Standards in effect at the time of project submittal that would likely exceed average or BAU practice. The importance of this action is revealed in CalRecycle’s annual Statewide Waste Characterization Study (2008), which noted that inerts and other materials accounted for nearly one-third (29 percent) of the statewide waste stream, with lumber representing nearly 15 percent. The largest change in the overall waste stream was an increase, from 22 percent to 29 percent, in this materials class, largely due to an increase in lumber. As shown in Table 4, the CARB Scoping Plan includes Recycling and Waste measures that would reduce statewide emissions by roughly 1.0 MMTCO2E by 2020. This is to be achieved through improved landfill methane capture. Also, while not shown in Table 4, the CARB Scoping Plan includes other waste sector reduction strategies not counted toward the statewide 2020 emissions reduction target. CARB estimates that these additional waste and recycling sector measures would provide up to an additional 10 MMTCO2E reduction by 2020. Thus, it is possible that the embodied energy and emissions resulting from disposing of the Proposed Project’s solid waste may decrease somewhat by 2020 due to these measures. f. Construction Emissions The Proposed Project would generate the same approximate amount of construction emissions as BAU, 51,545.36 MTCO2E per year. The Scoping Plan does not identify any measures specific to reducing GHG emissions from construction activities. However, the reduction measure affecting heavy-duty vehicle emissions would potentially encompass off-road construction equipment and reduce emissions through improved engine technology and conversion to non-diesel, low carbon fuels. Thus, as with the majority of the Scoping Plan’s transportation-related reduction measures, reductions in construction emissions would have to come from emissions limits on construction equipment, redesign of construction equipment technology, and/or conversion to low carbon fuels. These measures are outside the control of the City or project-specific design. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 54 5.1.1.3 Cumulative Projects GHG Emissions While the GHG analysis for the Proposed Project is, in consideration of the global nature of climate change, a cumulative analysis, an additional detailed cumulative analysis is provided based on probable future projects (foreseeable) projects within the Project Area. These projects include Village 8 East and Planning Area 10/University Site. This quantitative analysis of the potential cumulative impacts is based on the ratio of ADTs attributed to the foreseeable projects compared to ADTs from the Proposed Project. Specifically, total project generated ADTS (113,073) were divided into total ADT for the cumulative study area (174,700) resulting in a coefficient of 1.5. This coefficient is applied to all GHG emission factors to estimate cumulative emission levels. a. Transportation-Related Emissions The Cumulative Projects transportation-related GHG emissions would amount to approximately 102,415.00 MTCO2E per year, or 1.5 times the 68,276.67 MTCO2E per year projected for the Proposed Project. This emissions estimate takes into account a less-than-regional-average local trip length and state regulations affecting vehicle engine and fuel manufacture. The reduction in BAU vehicles emissions from these GHGreducing aspects of the Cumulative Projects would be approximately 40 percent; with approximately 10 percent resulting from smart-growth circulation patterns and 30 percent resulting from statewide regulations. b. Electricity Emissions Buildout of Cumulative Projects would be subject to the Chula Vista Increased Energy Efficiency Standards ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code. Individual developments would thus be required to achieve at least a 30 percent reduction in building energy (electricity and natural gas) use compared to BAU assumptions. Based on the cumulative coefficient of 1.5, Cumulative Projects would emit approximately 101,954.71 MTCO2E each year. c. Natural Gas Emissions As stated above in buildout of Cumulative Projects would be subject to increased energy efficiency requirements that would save 30 percent building energy and natural gas use compared to BAU assumptions. Based on the cumulative coefficient of 1.5, Cumulative Projects would emit approximately 33,550.40 MTCO2E of GHG emissions each year associated with natural gas combustion. d. Water Use Emissions Buildout of Cumulative Projects would also be subject to the water saving requirements of the City’s Green Building Standards ordinance. Individual projects would thus be required to achieve a 20 percent reduction in potable water consumption (and Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 55 associated embodied energy) compared to BAU assumptions. This water usage amounts to approximately 20 percent less than the average water use for residential and commercial uses built to the current plumbing code. Based on the cumulative coefficient of 1.5, the estimated annual emissions associated with Cumulative Projects water use would be 5,632.43 MTCO2E. e. Solid Waste Emissions While Cumulative Projects would implement lumber and other materials conservation in accordance with the City’s Green Building Standards (see Section 3.2.4.5) and likely generate less landfill waste than average BAU, these savings cannot be estimated at this time. Therefore, for purposes of this program-level estimation, buildout of Cumulative Projects is based only on the multiplier of 1.5, without additional credit for conservation measures, amounting to approximately 12,555.50 MTCO2E of GHG emissions each year. f. Construction Emissions Approximately 77,318.04 MTCO2E per year of construction emissions would be generated by construction of the Cumulative Projects, based on the 1.5 multiplier relative to the Proposed Project. 5.1.2 Significance of Impacts 5.1.2.1 Target Emissions Based on the calculated BAU project-equivalent emissions and the goal of a 20 percent reduction in BAU 2020 emissions, an emissions cap for the Proposed Project can be determined. As shown in the Table 9 in Section 5.1.2.3 below, the total estimated BAU emissions would be 307,078.01 MTCO2E each year. A 20 percent reduction in this amount would equal 245,662.41 MTCO2E each year. Therefore, the Propose Project would be considered to be consistent with the Scoping Plan and AB 32 Year 2020 goals if it were to emit total annual emissions resulting from electricity, natural gas and water use, solid waste disposal and construction activities, equal to or less than 245,662.41 MTCO2E. 5.1.2.2 Proposed Project Project GHG Reduction Features As described in Section 2.1, the Proposed Project is a GPA and GDPA to allow the ultimate development of up to 6,050 residential units, 1.8 million square feet of commercial and 2.2 million square feet of industrial uses, 10.8 acres of community purpose use, 51.4 acres of schools, 50.0 acres of university use, and 55.4 acres of park Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 56 use. As part of the GPA, proposed text revisions to the GP’s Environmental Element, Objective E7 would include the following new Policy E 7.8: Objective E 7 Promote energy conservation through the efficient use of energy and through the development of local, non-fossil fuel-based renewable sources of energy. Policy E 7.8: Ensure that residential and non-residential construction complies with all applicable City of Chula Vista energy efficiency measures that are in effect at the time of discretionary permit review and approval or building permit issuance, whichever is applicable. This new policy would ensure that all subsequent projects comply with, at a minimum, the existing GBS ordinance and Increased Energy Efficiency Standards ordinance. These two City ordinances are included as Attachment 2 and are hereby incorporated by reference. As described in Sections 3.2.4.5 and 3.2.4.6 respectively, these two ordinances require all new development and redevelopment or remodels over a threshold size to incorporate design that achieves at least 20 percent greater water conservation than the current plumbing code and 15 percent greater energy efficiency than the current 2008 Title 24 energy code (i.e., 30 percent greater energy efficiency than the 2005 Title 24 energy code). As required in the ordinances, building permits for subsequent development in accordance with the Proposed Project would be thoroughly reviewed by the Building Official for compliance with the ordinances prior to approval. As part of the building permit application, project construction plans and specifications shall indicate the energy and GBS standards, product specifications, and method of construction, in the general notes or individual drawings. No building permit shall be issued for any project until the Building Official has determined that the plans and specifications are in compliance compliance with the requirements of the ordinances. Additional inspections may be conducted as needed to ensure compliance and if at any stage of construction the Building Official determines that the project is not being constructed in accordance with the permitted plans and documents, a stop order may be issued that will remain in effect until the Building Official allows. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Building Official shall review all relevant information and determine whether the project has been built in accordance with the permit. If the Building Official determines that a project applicant has failed to construct the project in accordance with the permitted plans and documents, then the final building approval and certificate of occupancy may be withheld. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 57 5.1.2.3 Proposed Project GHG Reductions Relative to BAU 2020 The total GHG emissions attributed to vehicle use and building occupancies for BAU and the Proposed Project are summarized below in Table 9. The Proposed Project is estimated to generate a total of 222,284.04 MTCO2E GHG emissions (68,276.67 from vehicle use and 154,007.38 MTCO2E from non-transportation-related sources) each year above existing conditions. BAU is estimated to generate a total of 307,078.01 MTCO2E of GHG emissions each year above existing conditions (113,416.15 MTCO2E from vehicle use and 193,661.86 MTCO2E from non-transportation-related sources). This Proposed Project total reduction of 84,793.96 MTCO2E equates to a 28 percent reduction in BAU emissions, and results from the Proposed Project’s incorporation of smart-growth vehicle circulation patterns, lower-emitting vehicles given state regulations, and advanced energy efficiency and water conservation design that would reduce GHG emissions associated with energy and water use. Of the total Proposed Project reduction, a 39,654.48 MTCO2E, or 20 percent, reduction in non-vehicular BAU would result from the advanced energy efficiency and water conservation design alone. Other Proposed Project features that may reduce GHG emissions, such as landscaping, heat island reduction, lumber conservation, and other actions required in the City’s Green Building Standards were not readily quantifiable and are not included in the Proposed Project’s emissions estimate. TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS AND PROJECT REDUCTIONS RELATIVE TO BAU (MTCO2E) Emission Source BAU Project-Equivalent Target Emissions Proposed Project Percent Reduction Vehicles Use 113,416.15 --68,276.67 40 Electricity Use 97,099.72 --67,969.80 30 Natural Gas Use 31,952.76 --22,366.93 30 Water Consumption 4,693.69 --3,754.95 20 Solid Waste Disposal 8,370.33 --8,370.33 0 Construction 51,545.36 --51,545.36 0 TOTAL 307,078.01 245,662.41 222,284.04 28 As shown in Table 9, a 20 percent reduction in BAU GHG emissions would equal 245,662.41 MTCO2E per year. The Proposed Project would generate an estimated 222,284.04 MTCO2E per year. Based only on increased energy and water savings afforded by the proposed General Plan Policy 7.8 and existing City ordinances, the Proposed Project would reduce non-transportation-related BAU emissions by 20 percent. Factoring in vehicle emissions reductions, the Proposed Project would reduce overall BAU emissions by 28 percent, thereby exceeding the City’s significance threshold of a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to BAU 2020. Impacts Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 58 associated with the Proposed Project’s contribution of GHGs to cumulative statewide emissions would therefore be less than significant. 5.1.2.4 Cumulative Projects GHG Emissions The Cumulative Projects annual GHG emissions would total approximately 333,426.06 MTCO2E per year. Under BAU, annual GHG emissions would approximate 460,617.01 MTCO2E per year. These quantities were derived by multiplying the estimates derived through the above BAU and Proposed Project emissions calculations by a factor of 1.5 to reflect the proportionally greater intensity of development allowed through buildout of projects in an expanded cumulative projects area or that includes Village 8 East and Planning Area 10. These calculations provide a cursory estimate of the magnitude of GHG emissions that would occur under Cumulative Projects buildout. Given that individual projects projects within the Cumulative Projects area would be subject to the City’s existing Green Building Standards and Increased Energy Efficiency Standards ordinances, and the proposed GPA new policy E.7.8, future emissions from these projects would be ensured to be at least 20 percent below BAU GHG emissions; and would more likely, as is the case with the Proposed Project, provide reductions in BAU GHG emissions ranging from 20 to 28 percent. The Proposed Project’s contribution to these Cumulative Projects GHG emissions would not be significant; and climate change impacts associated with the Cumulative Projects buildout is anticipated to be less than significant. 5.2 Project Consistency with Adopted Plans, Policies, and Regulations 5.2.1 Impacts The regulatory plans and policies discussed extensively in Section 3.0 above aim to reduce national, state, and local GHG emissions by primarily targeting the largest emitters of GHGs: the transportation and energy sectors. Plan goals and regulatory standards are thus largely focused on the automobile industry and public utilities. For the transportation sector, the reduction strategy is generally three pronged: to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles by improving engine design; to reduce the carbon content of transportation fuels through research, funding and incentives to fuel suppliers; and to reduce the miles these vehicles travel through land use change and infrastructure investments. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 59 For the energy sector, the reduction strategies aim to: reduce energy demand; impose emission caps on energy providers; establish minimum building energy and green building standards; transition to renewable non-fossil fuels; incentivize homeowners and builders; fully recover landfill gas for energy; expand research and development; and so forth. 5.2.1.1 Local Plans As discussed above in Section 5.2.2, the Proposed Project would achieve substantial GHG reductions through green building design that includes increase energy efficiency and improved water conservation, sustainable materials use, waste reduction, lumber conservation, indoor air quality, and heat island reduction. These GHG-reducing design features would be incorporated into subsequent projects as required in the City’s Green Building Standards and the Increased Energy Efficiency Standards adopted by ordinance into the Municipal Code. Verification and commissioning of these features would occur through independent third party inspection and diagnostics as part of development permit review and approval. The Proposed Project would thus be consistent with the City’s CPAP and Climate Protection Measures relevant to private land use and development. 5.2.1.2 State Plans EO S-3-05 established GHG emission reduction targets for the state, and AB 32 launched the Climate Change Scoping Plan that outlined the reduction measures needed to reach these targets. The Scoping Plan and its implementing and complementary regulations are discussed at length in Section 3.2. Also, in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 above, the Project’s consistency with the state reduction targets for transportation, energy and other emissions associated with land use and development, is demonstrated. In short, the Proposed Project was shown to provide a 20 percent reduction in non-transportation-related BAU emissions, and a 28 percent reduction in overall BAU emissions, consistent with the percent reduction targeted in the Scoping Plan for land development-related emissions. In addition, the Proposed Project was demonstrated in Section 5.1 to not increase regional VMT, and is therefore consistent with recommendations in the Scoping Plan and assumptions in the BAU 2020 Forecast pertaining to transportation-related emissions. The Proposed Project is also consistent with state goals regarding climate change adaptation and the Scoping Plan’s recommendation to expand the use of green building practices in order to reduce the carbon footprint of new buildings and better adapt them to climate change. The Proposed Project, by providing a 20 percent reduction in non-transportation-related GHG emissions compared to BAU, may be seen to exceed its fair share in achieving the state’s reduction target given that the reduction measures and quantities identified in the Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 60 Scoping Plan that relate specifically to land development (the Regional Transportation-Related Measure, the Building Energy Efficiency measure, and the Million Solar Roofs measure) add up to approximately 20 percent of the total reduction needed statewide. 5.2.2 Significance of Impacts The Proposed Project is consistent with the goals and strategies of local and state plans, policies, and regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions from land use and development. Impacts would be less than significant. 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Assuming full implementation of statutory regulations establishing vehicle and fuel emissions limits and technology improvements and shorter than average trip lengths, ADT associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would result in approximately 68,276.67 MTCO2E of GHG emissions each year above existing conditions. conditions. This estimate represents a nearly 40 percent reduction in vehicular GHG emissions compared to the BAU condition which would result in 113,416.15 MTCO2E of transportation-related GHG emissions per year above existing conditions. Because the Proposed Project’s average local trip length would not be large enough to increase the regional average vehicle trip length or regional VMT, its vehicle emissions are consistent with the state’s forecasted 2020 BAU vehicle emissions and sector-wide reductions. The Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative transportation-related GHG emissions is therefore less than significant. The Proposed Project is estimated to generate 154,007.38 MTCO2E of nontransportation-related GHG emissions each year above existing conditions, and BAU is estimated to generate 193,661.86 MTCO2E of non-transportation-related GHG emissions each year above existing conditions. Implementation of the Proposed Project would thus result in a 20 percent reduction in BAU 2020 non-transportation-related emissions, thereby meeting the 20 percent reduction target established by the City consistent with AB 32 and the CARB Scoping Plan. The Proposed Project’s nontransportation-related emissions reduction of approximately 39,654.48 MTCO2E would result from design features required to be incorporated into subsequent development proposals that substantially reduce energy and water use. The Proposed Project’s overall contribution to cumulative GHG emissions would therefore not be significant and would not conflict with or obstruct the goals and strategies of local and state plans, policies, and regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions from land development. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 61 7.0 References Cited American Water Works Association 2001 Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. Amy Vickers. August. Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) 2010 Spring 2010 Advanced CEQA Workshop. San Diego Chapter. May 13. Australian Government 2007 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Department of the Environment and Water Resources (DEWR). Obtained from the DEWR website at http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone/legislation/montp.html on July 27, 2007. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2006 Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2008 CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January. 2007 California 1990 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. November 16. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2007 California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. November 16. 2008a Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California environmental Quality Act. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal. October 24. 2008b Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Accessed from the CARB website April 15, 2010 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. December. 2008c California 2020 GHG Emissions Forecast. Accessed June 1, 2010 from the CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Last updated October 2008; last reviewed May 28, 2010. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 62 2010a Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – 2000 to 2008. Obtained from the CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (last updated May 12, 2010) on December 28. 2010b Climate Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Obtained from the CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm, last reviewed March 10, 2010, on April 22. 2010c Senate Bill 375 – Regional Targets. Obtained from the CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm on October 29. California Clean Cars Campaign 2006 Fact Sheet: California’s Vehicle Global Warming Pollution Reduction Regulations: How it Works. http://www.calcleancars.org/factsheets/staffproposal.pdf. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2009 2008 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast. Division of Transportation System Information Program. June. California Energy Commission (CEC) 2009 California Energy Commission website, http://www.energy.ca.gov/ab118/index.html accessed on August 5. 2006 Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS). 2006 (as cited in the California Emissions Estimator Model, v1.1, 2011). Available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus. 2004 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS). 2004 (as cited in the California Emissions Estimator Model, v1.1, 2011). Available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/rass. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) 2005 California Hydrogen Blueprint Plan. Volume 1 Draft Final Report. March. California, State of 2004 Climate Change Emission Control Regulations – Fact Sheet. Obtained from the CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/cc_newfs.pdf on May 24, 2007. 2005 Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles; Request for Waiver of Preemption Under Clean Air Act Section 209(b). Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 63 California Air Resources Board. December 21. Obtained from the CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/docs/waiver.pdf on May 24, 2007. 2006 Press Release -Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Office of the Governor. September 27. Obtained from the Governor’s website at http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/pressrelease/4111/on May 24, 2007. 2009b News Release: California Adopts Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Accessed from the CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr042309b.htm. April 23. CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery) 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Contractors Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. April. 2009 Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Residential and Commercial Establishments. Accessed from the CalRecycle website at http://www. calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates. Updated December 30. Chula Vista, City of 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Accessed June 23 from the Chula Vista city government website at http://www.chulavistaca.gov/clean/conservation/Climate/documents/GHG_2008InventoryRep rt_FINAL.pdf. September 18. 2006 Climate Zones Map. City of Chula Vista Geographic Information System. Accessed June 10, 2010 from the Chula Vista city government website at http://www.chulavistaca.g v/city_services/development_services/planning_buil ding/Development_Services_Center/documents/climateZonesSm2_000.pdf. February. 2008a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Accessed June 23 from the Chula Vista city government website at http://www.chulavistaca.gov/clean/conservation/Climate/documents/GHG_2008InventoryReport_FINAL.pdf. September 18. 2008b City of Chula Vista Climate Protection Measures. 2010 Climate Protection Measures: Implementation Progress Report. Accessed June 23 from the Chula Vista city government website at http://www.chulavistaca.gov/clean conservation/Climate/documents/CCWGClimateMeasures_18-MonthProgressReport_FINAL.pdf. February. Institute of Transportation Engineers 2008 Trip Generation: An Informational Report. 8th Edition. December. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 64 Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis [for the] Chula Vista General Plan & General Development Plan Amendment[s] for Otay Land Company. February. Marten Law Group 2008 California Sues EPA over Vehicle Emissions Standards. Accessed May 19, 2008 at: http://www.martenlaw.com/news/?20080109-calif-sues-epa. Otay Water District 2008 Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan Update. October. Rimpo and Associates 2007 URBEMIS 2007 for Windows, Version 9.2.4. Sacramento Bee 2007 “California gets a win on emissions-cut law,” by Dale Kasler, December 13. Accessed May 19, 2008 at: http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm? action=detail&pk=CAL-EMISSIONSCUT-12-13-07. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2009 Transportation: Roads and Highways. Accessed from the SANDAG website at http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?subclassid=10&fuseaction=home.subclassh ome. November 13. 2010a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Set. Accessed from the SANDAG website at http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?newsid=666&fuseaction=news.detail on October 29. 2010b Average Trip Length By Mile for TAZ 4391 and TAZ 4373. Obtained by City of Chula Vista staff from SANDAG staff via personal communications on July 12. San Diego, City of 2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report for the Nakano Project. May 24. 2010a Heritage Bluffs Climate Change Analysis. Prepared by Urban Crossroads. April. 2010b Global Climate Change Analysis for Las Casitas, City of San Diego. Prepared by RECON Environmental Inc. July. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 65 Torcellini, P., Long, N., and Judkoff, R. 2003 Consumptive Water Use for U.S. Power Production. Technical Report # NRELTP-550-33905. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, CO. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 2007 SB 1368 (Perata) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance Standard for Major Power Plant Investments – A Fact Sheet of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Obtained from the UCS web site at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/SB-1368-Perata-fact-sheet.pdf on June 7, 2007. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2007 Achievements in Stratospheric Ozone Protection, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Progress Report 1987–2007. Obtained from the UNEP website at http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Acheivements-E.p f on May 23, 2007. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2007a The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Obtained from the UNFCCC website at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php on May 23, 2007. 2007b Parties & Observers. Obtained from the UNFCCC website at http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php on May 24, 2007. 2007c Kyoto Protocol. Obtained from the UNFCCC website at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php on May 24, 2007. 2009 Status of Ratification. Obtained from the UNFCCC website at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php on July 24, 2009. University of California Transportation Center (UCTC) 1996 A Fuel-Based Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory. Brett Singer and Robert Harley. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California Berkeley. Reprinted from the Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. 2000 A Fuel-Based Assessment of Off-Road Diesel Engines Emissions. Andrew Kean, Robert Sawyer and Robert Harley. Departments of Mechanical, Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California Berkeley. Reprinted from the Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. November. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 66 U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) 2002 Updated State-level Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients for Electricity Generation 1998-2000. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Energy Information Administration. April. Obtained from the DOE website at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/e-supdoc-u.pdf on February 16, 2007. U.S Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2006 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption and Expenditures Tables. Table C14. Electricity Consumption and Expenditure Intensities for Non-Mall Buildings. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1998 AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion. July. 2002 Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential Values – Excerpt from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program, Office of Atmospheric Programs. April. 2007a International Cooperation. Obtained from the EPA Climate Change website at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/internationalcoo eration.html on May 24, 2007. 2007b Ozone Depletion Rule and Regulations. Obtained from the EPA Ozone Depletion website at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/index.html on May 23, 2007. 2007c U.S. Climate Policy and Actions. Obtained from the EPA Climate Change website at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html on May 25, 2007. 2008a California Greenhouse-Gas Waiver Request. Obtained from the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ca-waiver.htm on May 19, 2008. 2008b Waste Reduction Model. Obtained from the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ ycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html. 2009 Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States. Detailed Tables and and Figures for 2008. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. November. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 67 United State Global Change Research Information Office (GCRIO) 1993 U.S. Climate Change Action Plan. Obtained from GCRIO website at http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html on May 31, 2007. Global Climate Change Analysis for Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) Page 68 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 Understanding Global Climate Change Understanding Global Climate Change Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 FIGURE 1 Greenhouse Effect Source: UNEP/GRID–Adrenal 2002a FIGURE 2 Temperature and CO2 Concentration Source: UNEP/GRID–Adrenal 2000 FIGURE 3 Comparison between Modeled and Observed Temperature Source: UNEP/GRID–Adrenal 2002b FIGURE 4 The Main Characteristics of the Four SRES Storylines and Scenario Families Source: IPCC 2000 Schematic illustration of SRES scenarios. Four qualitative storylines yield four sets of scenarios called "families": A1, A2, B1, and B2. Altogether 40 SRES scenarios have been developed by six modeling teams. All are equally valid with no assigned probabilities of occurrence. The set of scenarios consists of six scenario groups drawn from the four families: one group each in A2, B1, B2, and three groups within the A1 family, characterizing alternative developments of energy technologies: A1FI (fossil fuel intensive), A1B (balanced), and A1T (predominantly non-fossil fuel). Within each family and group of scenarios, some share "harmonized" assumptions on global population, gross world product, and final energy. These are marked as "HS" for harmonized scenarios. "OS" denotes scenarios that explore uncertainties in driving forces beyond those of the harmonized scenarios. The number of scenarios developed within each category is shown. For each of the six scenario groups an illustrative scenario (which is always harmonized) is provided. Four illustrative marker scenarios, one for each scenario family, were used in draft form in the 1998 SRES open process and are included in revised form in this report. Two additional illustrative scenarios for the groups A1FI and A1T are also provided and complete a set of six that illustrate all scenario groups. All are equally sound. By 2100 the world will have changed in ways that are difficult to imagine -as difficult as it would have been at the end of the 19th century to imagine the changes of the 100 years since. Each storyline assumes a distinctly different direction for future developments, such that the four storylines differ in increasingly irreversible ways. Together they describe divergent futures that encompass a significant portion of the underlying uncertainties in the main driving forces. They cover a wide range of key "future" characteristics such as demographic demographic change, economic development, and technological change. For this reason, their plausibility or feasibility should not be considered solely on the basis of an extrapolation of current economic, technological, and social trends. The A1 storyline and scenario family describes a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. Major underlying themes are convergence among regions, capacity building, and increased cultural and social interactions, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. The A1 scenario family develops into three groups that describe alternative directions of technological change in the energy system. The three A1 groups are distinguished by their technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1FI), non-fossil energy sources (A1T), or a balance across all sources (A1B)3 . The A2 storyline and scenario family describes a very heterogeneous world. The underlying theme is self-reliance and preservation of local identities. Fertility patterns across regions converge very slowly, which results in continuously increasing global population. Economic development is primarily regionally oriented and per capita economic growth and technological change are more fragmented and slower than in other storylines. The B1 storyline and scenario family describes a convergent world with the same global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, as in the A1 storyline, but with rapid changes in economic structures toward a service and information economy, with reductions in material intensity, and the introduction of clean and resource-efficient technologies. The emphasis is on global solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability, including improved equity, but without additional climate initiatives. The B2 storyline and scenario family describes a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability. It is a world with continuously increasing global population at a rate lower than A2, intermediate levels of economic development, and less rapid and more diverse technological change than in the B1 and A1 storylines. While the scenario is also oriented toward environmental protection and social equity, it focuses on local and regional levels. FIGURE 5 CO2 Scenarios Source: UNEP/GRID–Adrenal 2005a FIGURE 6 Surface Temperature Scenarios Source: UNEP/GRID–Adrenal 2005b FIGURE 7 Persistence Effect Source: IPCC 2001 After CO2 emissions are reduced and atmospheric concentrations stabilize, surface air temperature continues to rise by a few tenths of a degree per century for a century or more. Thermal expansion of the ocean continues long after CO2 emissions have been reduced, and melting of ice sheets continues to contribute to sea-level rise for many centuries. This figure is a generic illustration for stabilization at any level between 450 and 1,000 ppm, and therefore has no units on the response axis. Responses to stabilization trajectories in this range show broadly similar time courses, but the impacts become progressively larger at higher concentrations of CO2. Understanding Global Climate Change Page 19 Land-use change and forestry often act as sinks, thus reducing a nation’s total GHG emissions. Because nations that are not included in Annex I to the Convention (Non-Annex I Parties comprised of 122 nations) are largely developing countries, emissions data for these countries are more sporadic and incomplete. The most recent emissions data from non-Annex I Parties indicate that total emissions from these nations were approximately 11,931 Tg CO2 equivalent, including land use-change and forestry (UNFCCC 2005). As such, using the most recent data available for Annex I and Non-Annex I Parties, 2004 global emissions of GHGs were approximately 28,008 Tg CO2 equivalent, including land-use change and forestry. Each year, the U.S. EPA prepares an inventory of GHG emissions and sinks report. The report provides information on GHG emissions and sink sources and is used to develop policies and track progress. Inventories are submitted to the UN. The most recent final report, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007, was completed in April 2009 (U.S. EPA 2009). The 2010 update is currently undergoing public review. The U.S. EPA also provides guidance for states to develop GHG inventories. The Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 completed in December 2006, including subsequent revisions to the in-state electricity production estimates, is the most recent report for California (State of California 2006b, 2007). Tables 3 and 4 summarize the national GHG emissions in 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 through 2007, and State GHG emissions from 1990 through 2004, respectively. TABLE 3 NET NATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS (Tg CO2 Equivalent) Year CO2 CH4 N2O HFCs, PFCs, and SF61 Total2 National Population3 Total (Mg CO2 Eq) per Capita 1990 4,235.3 616.6 315.0 90.5 5,257.3 249,464,396 21.1 1995 4,556.9 615.8 334.1 105.5 5,612.3 262,803,276 21.4 2000 5,237.7 591.1 329.2 132.8 6,290.7 282,194,308 22.3 2005 4,968.1 561.7 315.9 140.2 5,985.9 295,895,897 20.2 2006 4,964.4 582.0 312.1 142.1 6,000.6 298,754,819 20.1 2007 5,040.8 585.3 311.9 149.5 6,087.5 301,621,157 20.2 SOURCE: U.S. EPA 2009 1Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride 2Totals may vary from the sum of the sources due to independent rounding 3U.S. Census Bureau 2009 Tg = terragrams = one million metric tons; Mg = megagrams = one metric ton FIGURE 8 CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuels per Capita (2001) Source: State of California 2006b FIGURE 9 Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparison (2002 data) Source: State of California 2006b ATTACHMENT 2 Chula Vista Green Building Standards and Increased Energy Efficiency Standards Ordinances Chula Vista Green Building Standards Per Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, Green Building Standards, the following green building measures shall apply to all new residential construction, remodels, additions, and alterations, and to all new nonresidential construction, remodels, additions, and tenant improvements. Definitions “Building Official” means the officer or other designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter, or duly authorized representative. “Composite wood products” include hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard. Composite wood products does not include hardboard, structural plywood, structural panels, structural composite lumber, oriented strand board, glued laminated timber as specified in “Structural Glued Laminated Timber” (ANSI A190.1-2002) or prefabricated wood I-joists. “Energy Code” means the California Energy Code, as adopted and amended by the City in Chapter 15.26 of the Municipal Code. “Green Building” means a holistic approach to design, construction, and demolition that minimizes the building’s impact on the environment, the occupants, and the community. “Infiltration” means an uncontrolled inward air leakage from outside a building or unconditioned space, including leakage through cracks and interstices, around windows and doors and through any other exterior or demising partition or pipe or duct penetration. “MERV” means filter minimum efficiency reporting value, based on ASHRAE 52.2-1999. “Moisture content” means the weight of the water in wood expressed in percentage of the weight of the oven-dry wood. “Outdoor Air” (Outside air) means air taken from outdoors and not previously circulated in the building. “VOC” means volatile organic compound and is broadly defined as a chemical compound based on carbon chains or rings with vapor pressures greater than 0.1 millimeters of mercury at room temperature. These compounds typically contain hydrogen and may contain oxygen, nitrogen and other elements. See California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 17, Section 94508(a). Standards Buildings and building sites shall be designed to include the following green building measures: A. Storm Water Management and Discharge Control. Municipal Code Section 14.20 B. Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal and Recycling. Municipal Code Section 8.25.095 C. Energy Efficiency. Buildings shall meet the requirements of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section15.26 D. Air Sealing. 1. Joints and openings. Openings in the building envelope separating conditioned space from unconditioned space must be sealed by a method acceptable to the building official. 2. Other openings. Whole house exhaust fans shall have insulated louvers or covers that close when the fan is off. Covers or louvers shall have a minimum insulation value of R-4.2. 1 E. Water Use 1. Indoor Water Use a. 20% Savings. A schedule of plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings that will reduce the overall use of potable water within the building by 20% shall be provided. The reduction in potable water use shall be demonstrated by one of the following methods. i. A calculation demonstrating a 20% reduction in the building “water use baseline” as established in Table 1 shall be provided, or ii. Each plumbing fixture and fitting shall meet the 20% reduced flow rate specified in Table 2 b. Multiple showerheads serving one shower shall not exceed the maximum flow rates specified in the 20% reduction column contained in Table 2 or the shower shall be designed to only allow one showerhead to be in operation at a time. TABLE 1 WATER USE BASELINE Fixture Type Flow-rate2 Duration Daily uses Occupants 3,4 Showerheads 2.5 gpm @80 psi 8 min. 1 X Showerheads Residential 2.5 gpm @80 psi 8 min. 1 X Lavatory Faucets Residential 2.2 gpm @60 psi 0.25 min. 3 X Kitchen Faucets 2.2 gpm @60 psi 4 min. 1 X Replacement Aerators 2.2 gpm @60 psi X Wash Fountains 2.2 [rim space (in.) /20 gpm @60 psi] X Metering Faucets 0.25 gallons/cycle .25 min. 3 X Metering Faucets for Wash Fountains .25 [rim space (in.) /20 gpm @60 psi] .25 min. X Gravity tank type Water Closets 1.6 gallons/flush 1 flush 1 male1 3 female X Flushometer Tank Water Closets 1.6 gallons/flush 1 flush 1 male1 3 female X Flushometer Valve Water Closets 1.6 gallons/flush 1 flush 1 male1 3 female X Electromechanical Hydraulic Water Closets 1.6 gallons/flush 1 flush 1 male1 3 female X Urinals 1.0 gallons/flush 1 flush 2 male X Fixture “Water Use” = Flow rate x Duration x Occupants x Daily uses 1 Except for low-rise residential occupancies, the daily use number shall be increased to three if urinals are not installed in the room. 2 The Flow-rate is from the CEC Appliance Efficiency Standards, Title 20 California Code of Regulations; where a conflict occurs, the CEC standards shall apply. 3 For low rise residential occupancies, the number of occupants shall be based on two persons for the first bedroom, plus one additional person for each additional bedroom. 4 For non-residential occupancies, refer to Table A, Chapter 4, 2007 California Plumbing Code, for occupant load factors. 2 TABLE 2 FIXTURE FLOW RATES Fixture Type Flow-rate Maximum flow rate at 20% Reduction Showerheads 2.5 gpm @80 psi 2 gpm @80 psi Lavatory Faucets Residential 2.2 gpm @60 psi 1.8 gpm @60 psi Kitchen Faucets 2.2 gpm @60 psi 1.8 gpm @60 psi Wash Fountains 2.2 [rim space (in.) /20 gpm @60 psi] 1.8 [rim space (in.) /20 gpm @60 psi] Metering Faucets 0.25 gallons/cycle 0.2 gallons/cycle Metering Faucets for Wash Fountains 0.25 [rim space (in.) /20 gpm @60 psi] 0.20 [rim space (in.) /20 gpm @60 psi] Gravity tank type Water Closets 1.6 gallons/flush 1.28 gallons/flush1 Flushometer Tank Water Closets 1.6 gallons/flush 1.28 gallons/flush1 Flushometer Valve Water Closets 1.6 gallons/flush 1.28 gallons/flush1 Electromechanical Hydraulic Water Closets 1.6 gallons/flush 1.28 gallons/flush1 Urinals 1.0 gallons/flush 0.8 gallons/flush 1 Includes water closets with an effective flush rate of 1.28 gallons or less when tested per ASME A112.19.2 and ASME A112.19.14. F. Pollutant Control 1. Covering of duct openings and protection protection of mechanical equipment during construction. At the time of rough installation until final startup of the heating and cooling equipment, all duct and other related air distribution component openings shall be covered to reduce the amount of dust or debris which may collect in the system. 2. Finish material. Finish materials shall comply with the following: a. Adhesives and sealants. Adhesives used on the project shall meet the following requirements: i. Aerosol adhesives shall meet the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 17, commencing with Section 94507. ii. Adhesives, adhesive primers, and bonding primers shall comply with Table 3 Table 3 Adhesive VOC Limit. Less Water and Less Exempt Compounds in Grams per Liter Architectural Applications VOC Limit Indoor Carpet Adhesives 50 Carpet Pad Adhesives 50 Outdoor Carpet Adhesives 150 Wood Flooring Adhesive 100 Rubber Floor Adhesives 60 Subfloor Adhesives 50 Ceramic Tile Adhesives 65 VCT and Asphalt Tile Adhesives 50 Dry Wall and Panel Adhesives 50 Cove Base Adhesives 50 Multipurpose Construction Adhesives 70 Structural Glazing Adhesives 100 Single Ply Roof Membrane Adhesives 250 3 b. Paints and coatings. Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with Table #4 Table 4 Coating VOC Limits Grams of VOC Per Liter of Coating, Less Water and Less Exempt Compounds Coating Category Limit Bond Breakers 350 Clear Wood Finishes Varnish Sanding Sealers Lacquer 275 275 275 275 Clear Brushing Lacquer 275 Concrete-Curing Compound 100 Dry-Fog Coatings 150 Fire-Proofing Exterior Coatings 350 Flats 50 Floor Coatings 50 Graphic Arts (Sign) Coatings 500 Industrial Maintenance (IM) Coatings High Temperature IM Coatings Zinc-Rich IM Primers 100 420 100 Japans/Faux Finish Coatings 350 Magnesite Cement Coatings 450 Mastic Coatings 300 Metallic Pigmented Coatings 500 Multi-Color Coatings 250 Nonflat Coatings 50 Pigmented Lacquer 275 Pre-Treatment Wash Primers 420 Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 100 Quick-Dry Enamels 50 Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 100 Recycled Coatings 250 Roof Coatings Roof Coatings, Aluminum 50 100 Roof Primers, Bituminous 350 Rust Preventative Coatings 100 Shellac Clear Pigmented 730 550 Specialty Primers 100 Stains Interior 100 250 Swimming Pool Coatings Repair Other 340 340 Waterproofing Sealers 100 Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 100 Wood Preservatives Below-Ground Other 350 350 4 Verification of compliance with this section shall be provided at the request of the building official. Documentation may include, but not limited to, the following: a. Manufacturers product specification. b. Field verification of on-site product containers. 3. Carpet systems. a. All carpet installed in the building interior shall meet the testing and product requirements of one of the following: i. Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label or Green Label Plus Program. ii. CA Dept. of Public Health Standard Practice for the testing of VOCs (Specification 01350). iii. Department of General Services, California Gold Sustainable Carpet Standard. iv. Scientific Certifications Systems Indoor AdvantageTM Gold. b. Carpet cushion. All carpet cushion installed in the building interior shall meet the requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label program. c. Carpet adhesive. All carpet adhesive shall meet the requirements of Table 3. 4. Composite wood products. Hardwood, plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard composite wood products used on the interior or exterior of the building shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in Table 5. Table 5 Formaldehyde Limits Maximum formaldehyde emissions in parts per million Phase 1 Phase 2 Product Current Limits Jan 1, 2010 Jan 1, 2011 Jan 1, 2012 Jul 1, 2012 Hardwood Plywood Veneer Core 0.08 0.05 Hardwood Plywood Composite Core 0.08 0.05 Particle Board 0.18 0.09 Medium Density Fiberboard 0.21 0.11 Thin Medium Density Fiberboard (max. thickness of 8 mm) 0.21 0.13 Documentation. Verification of compliance with this section shall be provided as requested by the building official. Documentation shall include at least one of the following. a. Product certifications and specifications. b. Chain of custody certifications. c. Other methods acceptable to the building official. G. Indoor Moisture Control 1. Moisture content of building materials. Building materials with visible signs of water damage shall not be installed. Wall and floor framing shall not be enclosed when the framing members exceed 19% moisture content. Moisture content shall be verified in compliance with the following. a. Moisture content shall be determined with either a probe-type or a contact-type moisture meter. 5 b. Moisture readings shall be taken at a point 2 feet to 4 feet from the grade stamped end of each piece to be verified. c. At least three random moisture readings shall be performed on wall and floor framing with documentation acceptable to the building official provided at the time of approval to enclose the wall and floor framing. H. Indoor Air Quality and Exhaust 1. Bathroom exhaust fans. Mechanical exhaust fans required in rooms containing a bathtub, shower, or tub shower combination shall be ENERGY STAR compliant and shall terminate outside the building. 2. Filters. Heating and air conditioning filters shall be rated at MERV 6 or higher. Duct system design shall account for pressure drop across the filter. I. Operation and Maintenance manual. At time of final inspection of a new residential or commercial building, the builder shall place in the building an Operation and Maintenance manual that is acceptable to the Building official. It shall contain directions to the owner or occupant that the manual shall remain with the building throughout the life cycle of the structure. 6 ATTACHMENT 3 GHG Emissions Calculations OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS GHG_Calculations_OtayRanch_REVwIndustrial.xls BAU GHG EMISSIONS (i.e., WITHOUT REDUCTION MEASURES) Emission Source CO2 N20 CH4 Total CO2 Eq Emissions (metric tons/year) Vehicular Emissions 112,991.36 358.08 66.71 113,416.15 Electricity Usage Emissions 2,682.16 11.91 0.47 97,099.72 Natural Gas Usage Emissions 31,759.48 180.50 12.78 31,952.76 Water Usage Emissions 4,672.12 0.04 0.07 4,693.69 Solid Waste Emissions 8,370.33 Construction Emissions 51,545.36 Global Warming Potential 1.00 310.00 21.00 Total CO2 Eq Emissions 307,078.01 TARGET: 20 PERCENT REDUCTION IN BAU 245,662.41 PROJECT REDUCED GHG EMISSIONS Emission Source CO2 N20 CH4 Total CO2 Eq Emissions (metric tons/year) Reduction in BAU: Vehicular Emissions 68,020.94 1.91 0.70 68,276.67 39.800 percent Electricity Usage Emissions 1,877.51 8.34 0.33 67,969.80 30.000 percent Natural Gas Usage Emissions 22,231.63 126.35 8.95 22,366.93 30.000 percent Water Usage Emissions 3,737.70 0.03 0.05 3,754.95 20.000 percent Solid Waste Emissions 8,370.33 0.000 percent Construction Emissions 51,545.36 0.000 percent Global Warming Potential 1.00 310.00 21.00 Total CO2 Eq Emissions 222,284.04 27.613 percent TOTAL 84,793.96 MTCO2E TOTAL reduction BAU non-vehicular: 193,661.86 MTCO2E Project non-vehicular: 154,007.38 MTCO2E Reduction in BAU non-vehicular 39,654.48 MTCO2E percent reduction non-vehicular 20.48 % Summary OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS BAU VEHICLE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS Parameters Average Fuel Economy: 18.80 miles per gallon (mpg) Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 113,073.00 trips Average Trip Length: 5.80 miles (SANDAG 2009) VMT per Day: 655,823.40 miles VMT per Year: 239,375,541.00 miles Total Gallons of Fuel (per day): 34,884.22 Total Gallons of Fuel (per year): 12,732,741.54 gallons per year Vehicle Emission Factors (pounds/gallon) CO2 19.56400 CH4 0.00055 N2O 0.00020 Vehicle Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 249,103,355.54 2,204.62 112,991.36 1.00 112,991.36 CH4 7,003.01 2,204.62 3.18 21.00 66.71 N2O 2,546.55 2,204.62 1.16 310.00 358.08 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 113,416.15 PROJECT VEHICLE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS Accounting for State Regulations and Project-Specific Trip Lengths Parameters Average Fuel Economy: 18.80 miles per gallon (mpg) Average Daily Traffic (ADT) -Village 8 West: 43,564.00 trips Average Trip Length -Village 8 West: 4.62 miles (SANDAG 2010b) VMT per per Day -Village 8 West: 201,265.68 miles per day Average Daily Traffic (ADT) -Village 9: 56,123.00 trips Average Trip Length -Village 9: 5.08 miles (SANDAG 2010b) VMT per Day -Village 9: 285,104.84 miles per day Average Daily Traffic (ADT) -RTP Village 10: 13,386.00 trips Average Trip Length -RTP Village 10: 5.80 miles (SANDAG 2009) Vehicle OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS VMT per Day -RTP Village 10: 77,638.80 miles per day Total ADT (combining Village 8W, 9 and RTP) 113,073.00 Total ADT Total VMT per Day: 564,009.32 miles per day Total VMT per Year: 205,863,401.80 mils per year Total Gallons of Fuel per Day: 30,000.50 Total Gallons of Fuel: 10,950,180.95 gallons Vehicle Emission Factors (pounds/gallon) CO2 19.56400 CH4 0.00055 N2O 0.00020 Vehicle Emissions (accounting for Project average trip lengths) Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 214,229,340.04 2,204.62 97,172.78 1.00 97,172.78 CH4 6,022.60 2,204.62 2.73 21.00 57.37 N2O 2,190.04 2,204.62 0.99 310.00 307.95 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 97,538.09 Reduced Vehicle Emissions (accounting for State regulations in addition to shorter Project average trip lengths) Low Carbon Fuel Standards Reduce emissions from transportation fuels by 10 percent AB 1493 Pavley I Reduce emissions acorss passenger fleet by 18 percent Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 149,960,538.03 2,204.62 68,020.94 1.00 68,020.94 CH4 4,215.82 2,204.62 1.91 21.00 40.16 N2O 1,533.03 2,204.62 0.70 310.00 215.56 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 68,276.67 Percent Reduction in BAU 0.397998723 Vehicle OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS BAU Residential Parameters Single-Family Consumption per Unit per Month: 590.88 kWh per consumer per month average Single-Family Consumption per Unit per Year: 7,090.56 kWh per consumer per year Number of Single-Family Units: 887.00 units Single-Family Total Consumption (kWh): 6,289,326.72 kWh per year Single-Family Total Consumption (MWh): 6,289.33 MWh per year Multi-Family Consumption per Unit per Month: 360.39 kWh per consumer per month average Multi-Family Consumption per Unit per Year: 4,324.68 kWh per consumer per year Number of Multi-Family Units: 5,163.00 units Multi-Family Total Consumption (kWh)): 22,328,322.84 kWh per year Multi-Family Total Consumption (MWh): 22,328.32 MWh per year Combined Residential Total Consumption (kWh): 28,617,649.56 kWh per year Combined Residential Total Consumption (MWh): 28,617.65 MWh per year [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 20,032.35 MWh per year] School Parameters Annual Consumption per Square Foot: 6.35 kWh per/square foot/year 6.35 kWh/size/year for elementary school Total School Acreage: 51.40 acres Total School Square Footage: 2,238,984.00 square feet Total School Consumption (kWh): 14,217,548.40 kWh Total School Consumption (MWh): 14,217.55 MWh [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 9,952.28 MWh per year University Parameters Annual Consumption per Square Foot: 11.32 kWh per/square foot/year 11.35 kWh/size/year for colleges Total University Acreage: 50.00 acres Total University Square Footage: 2,178,000.00 square feet Total University Consumption (kWh): 24,654,960.00 kWh Total University Consumption (MWh): 24,654.96 MWh [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 17,258.47 MWh per year Park Parameters Annual Consumption per Square Foot: 9.38 kWh per square foot per year for health or racquet club 0.00 for city park or recreational swimming pool Total Park Acreage: 55.40 acres 9.38 for health club Total Park Square Footage: 2,413,224.00 square feet Total Park Consumption (kWh): 22,636,041.12 kWh 9.38 for racquet club historic Total Park Consumption (MWh): 22,636.04 MWh [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 15,845.23 MWh per year Community Purpose Parameters Annual Consumption per Square Foot: 9.38 kWh per square foot per year for place of worship 9.38 kWh/size/year for place of worship historic Total Community Purpose Acreage: 10.80 acres 9.38 kWh/size/year for place of health club total Community Purpose Square Footage: 470,448.00 square feet Total Community Purpose Consumption (kWh): 4,412,802.24 kWh Total Community Purpose Consumption (MWh): 4,412.80 MWh [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 3,088.96 MWh per year Commercial Parameters Annual Consumption per Square Foot: 14.10 kWh per square foot per year Total Commercial Square Feet: 1,800,000.00 square feet Total Commercial Consumption (kWh): 25,380,000.00 kWh Total Commercial Consumption (MWh): 25,380.00 MWh [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 17,766.00 MWh per year Industrial Parameters Annual Consumption per Square Foot: 17.60 kWh per square foot per year Total Industrial Square Feet: 2,221,560.00 square feet Total Industrial Consumption (kWh): 39,099,456.00 kWh Total Industrial Consumption (MWh): 39,099.46 MWh [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 27,369.62 MWh per year Total Combined Annual Consumption in MWh: 159,018.46 MWh per year [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 111,312.92 MWh per year] Electricity OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS Electricity Generation Emission Factors (pounds/MWh) CO2 1,340.0000 CH4 0.0111 N2O 0.0192 Residential Electricity Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 38,347,650.41 2,204.62 17,394.20 1.00 17,394.20 CH4 317.66 2,204.62 0.14 21.00 3.03 N2O 549.46 2,204.62 0.25 310.00 77.26 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 17,474.49 [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 12,232.14 MTCO2Eq per year] School Electricity Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 19,051,514.86 2,204.62 8,641.62 1.00 8,641.62 CH4 157.81 2,204.62 0.07 21.00 1.50 N2O 272.98 2,204.62 0.12 310.00 38.38 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 8,681.51 [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 6,077.06 MTCO2Eq per year] University Electricity Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 33,037,646.40 2,204.62 14,985.62 1.00 14,985.62 CH4 273.67 2,204.62 0.12 21.00 2.61 N2O 473.38 2,204.62 0.21 310.00 66.56 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 15,054.79 [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 10,538.35 MTCO2Eq per year] Park Electricity Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 30,332,295.10 2,204.62 13,758.50 1.00 13,758.50 CH4 251.26 2,204.62 0.11 21.00 2.39 N2O 434.61 2,204.62 0.20 310.00 61.11 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 13,822.00 MTCO2Eq per year] [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 9,675.40 Community Purpose Electricity Emissions Total Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 5,913,155.00 2,204.62 2,682.16 1.00 2,682.16 CH4 48.98 2,204.62 0.02 21.00 0.47 N2O 84.73 2,204.62 0.04 310.00 11.91 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 2,694.54 [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 1,886.18 MTCO2Eq per year] Commercial Electricity Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 34,009,200.00 2,204.62 15,426.31 1.00 15,426.31 CH4 281.72 2,204.62 0.13 21.00 2.68 N2O 487.30 2,204.62 0.22 310.00 68.52 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 15,497.51 [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 10,848.26 MTCO2Eq per year] Industrial Electricity Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 52,393,271.04 2,204.62 23,765.18 1.00 23,765.18 CH4 434.00 2,204.62 0.20 21.00 4.13 N2O 750.71 2,204.62 0.34 310.00 105.56 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 23,874.88 MTCO2Eq per year] [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 16,712.41 Total Combined Electricity Emissions Total Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 213,084,732.81 2,204.62 96,653.59 1.00 96,653.59 CH4 1,765.10 2,204.62 0.80 21.00 16.81 Electricity OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS N2O 3,053.15 2,204.62 1.38 310.00 429.32 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 97,099.72 [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 67,969.80 MTCO2Eq per year] PROJECT GHG REDUCTIONS Consume 30 percent less energy than BAU by 111,312.92 MWh per year electricity consumption exceeding Title 24 Year 2005 by 30 percent: 67,969.80 MTCO2Eq per year generation Diffference between Project and BAU: 29,129.92 MTCO2Eq per year Percent Reduction in BAU: 30.00 percent Electricity OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS BAU Residential Parameters Single Family Consumption per Unit per Month: 5,198.70 cubic feet per month per RASS Single Family Consumption per Unit per Year: 62,384.40 cubic feet per year Single Family Units: 887.00 units Multi-Family Consumption per Unit per Month: 3,128.97 cubic feet per month Multi-Family Consumption per Unit per Year: 37,547.64 cubic feet per year Multi-Family Units: 5,163.00 units Total Residential Consumption (cubic feet): 249,193,428.12 cubic feet per year Total Residential Consumption (million cubic feet): 249.19 million cubic feet per year [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 174.44 million cubic feet per year] School Parameters per CEUS conversion: School Consumption per Square Foot per Year: 15.50 cubic feet 16.00 kBtu/sqft/year School Consumption per Square Foot per Month: 1.29 cubic feet 16,000.00 Btu/sqft/year Total School Acreage: 51.40 acres 0.155 hundred cubic feet/year 103,225.806 Total School Square Footage: 2,238,984.00 square feet 15.50 cubic feet/year Total School Consumption (cubic feet): 34,704,252.00 cubic feet per year Total School Consumption (million cubic feet): 34.70 million cubic feet per year [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 24.29 million cubic feet per year University Parameters per CEUS conversion: University Consumption per Square Foot per Year: 41.72 cubic feet 42.97 kBtu/sqft/year University Consumption per Square Foot per Month: 3.48 cubic feet 42,970.00 Btu/sqft/year Total University Acreage: 50.00 acres 0.417 hundred cubic feet/year Total University Square Footage: 2,178,000.00 square feet 41.72 cubic feet/year Total University Consumption (cubic feet): 90,862,776.70 cubic feet per year Total University Consumption (million cubic feet): 90.86 million cubic feet per year [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 63.60 million cubic feet per year Park Parameters per CEUS conversion: Park Consumption per Square Foot per Year: 3.00 cubic feet 3.10 kBtu/sqft/year Park Consumption per Square Foot per Month: 0.25 cubic feet 3,100.00 Btu/sqft/year 103,333.333 Total Park Acreage: 55.40 acres 0.03 hundred cubic feet/year Total Park Square Footage: 2,413,224.00 square feet 3.00 cubic feet/year Total Park Consumption (cubic feet): 7,239,672.00 cubic feet per year Total Park Consumption (million cubic feet): 7.24 million cubic feet per year [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 5.07 million cubic feet per year Community Purpose Parameters per CEUS conversion: Community Consumption per Square Foot per Year: 33.20 cubic feet 34.20 kBtu/sqft/year Community Consumption per Square Foot per Month: 2.77 cubic feet 34,200.00 Btu/sqft/year 103,012.048 Total Community Purpose Acreage: 10.80 acres 0.33 hundred cubic feet/year total Community Purpose Square Footage: 470,448.00 square feet 33.20 cubic feet/year Total Community Consumption (cubic feet): 15,618,873.60 cubic feet per year Total Community Consumption (million cubic feet): 15.62 million cubic feet per year [Project Reduction of 30 Percent = 10.93 million cubic feet per year Commercial Parameters Retail Consumption per Square Foot per Month: 2.90 cubic feet per CEUS Retail Consumption per Square Foot per Year: 34.80 cubic feet Retail Amount: 1,800,000.00 square feet Office Consumption per Square Foot per Month: 2.00 cubic feet per month Office Consumption per Square Foot per Year: 24.00 cubic feet per year Office Amount: 0.00 square feet Total Office Consumption (cubic feet): 62,640,000.00 cubic feet per year Total Office Consumption (million cubic feet): 62.64 million cubic feet per year [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 43.85 million cubic feet per year] Industrial Parameters Consumption per Consumer per Month: 241,611.00 cubic feet per consumer per m per EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2006) Consumption per Consumer per Year: 2,899,332.00 cubic feet per consumer per year Industrial Amount 2,221,560.00 square feet Minimum Lot Area: 52,272.00 square feet* *For lot area = 2 acres (Zoning Ordinance) Maximum Number of Consumers: 42.50 Consumers FAR = 0.6 Total Consumption (cubic feet): 123,221,610.00 cubic feet per year (2 acres)(43,560 sq ft per acre)(0.6) = 52,272 sq ft Total Industrial Consumption (million cubic feet): 123.22 million cubic feet per year [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 86.26 million cubic feet per year] Total Combined Annual Consumption: 583.48 million cubic feet per year [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 408.44 million cubic feet per year] Natural Gas OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS Natural Gas Combustion Emission Factors (pounds/million cubic feet) CO2 120,000.0 CH4 2.3 N2O 2.2 Residential Natural Gas Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 29,903,211.37 2,204.62 13,563.87 1.00 13,563.87 CH4 573.14 2,204.62 0.26 21.00 5.46 N2O 548.23 2,204.62 0.25 310.00 77.09 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 13,646.41 [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 9,552.49 MTCO2Eq per year] School Natural Gas Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 4,164,510.24 2,204.62 1,888.99 1.00 1,888.99 CH4 79.82 2,204.62 0.04 21.00 0.76 N2O 76.35 2,204.62 0.03 310.00 10.74 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 1,900.49 [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 1,330.34 MTCO2Eq per year] University Natural Gas Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 10,903,533.20 2,204.62 4,945.76 1.00 4,945.76 CH4 208.98 2,204.62 0.09 21.00 1.99 N2O 199.90 2,204.62 0.09 310.00 28.11 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per per Year: 4,975.86 [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 3,483.10 MTCO2Eq per year] Park Natural Gas Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 868,760.64 2,204.62 394.06 1.00 394.06 CH4 16.65 2,204.62 0.01 21.00 0.16 N2O 15.93 2,204.62 0.01 310.00 2.24 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 396.46 [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 277.52 MTCO2Eq per year] Community Purpose Facility Natural Gas Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 1,874,264.83 2,204.62 850.15 1.00 850.15 CH4 35.92 2,204.62 0.02 21.00 0.34 N2O 34.36 2,204.62 0.02 310.00 4.83 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 855.33 [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 598.73 MTCO2Eq per year] Commercial Natural Gas Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 7,516,800.00 2,204.62 3,409.56 1.00 3,409.56 CH4 144.07 2,204.62 0.07 21.00 1.37 N2O 137.81 2,204.62 0.06 310.00 19.38 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 3,430.31 [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 2,401.22 2,401.22 MTCO2Eq per year] Industrial Natural Gas Emissions Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 14,786,593.20 2,204.62 6,707.08 1.00 6,707.08 CH4 283.41 2,204.62 0.13 21.00 2.70 N2O 271.09 2,204.62 0.12 310.00 38.12 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 6,747.90 [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 4,723.53 MTCO2Eq per year] Total Combined Natural Gas Emissions Total Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 70,017,673.49 2,204.62 31,759.48 1.00 31,759.48 CH4 1,342.01 2,204.62 0.61 21.00 12.78 N2O 1,283.66 2,204.62 0.58 310.00 180.50 TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 31,952.76 [Project Reduction of 30 percent = 22,366.93 MTCO2Eq per year] PROJECT GHG REDUCTIONS Exceed Title 24 Year 2005 by 30 percent: 30 percent reduction in BAU CO2Eq 22,366.93 Natural Gas OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS Consume 30 percent less energy than BAU Natural Gas OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS WATER EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS BAU Residential Parameters Single Family Demand per Unit per Day: 500.00 gallons per day (gpd) Single Family Demand per Unit per Year: 182,500.00 gallons per year (gpy) Single Family Units: 887.00 units Multi-Family Demand per Unit per Day: 255.00 gallons per day (gpd) Multi-Family Demand per Unit per Year: 93,075.00 gallons per year (gpy) Multi-Family Units: 5,163.00 units Total Daily Residential Water Demand (gal): 1,760,065.00 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Residential Water Demand (gal): 642,423,725.00 gallons per year (gpy) 642,423,725.00 check School/Educational Parameters School Demand per Acre per Day: 1,785.00 gallons per day (gpd) School Demand per Acre per Year: 651,525.00 gallons per year (gpy) School Acres Amount: 51.40 acres Total Daily Schools Water Demand (gal): 91,749.00 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Schools Water Demand (gal): 33,488,385.00 gallons per year (gpy) 33,488,385.00 check University Parameters University Demand per Acre per Day: 1,785.00 gallons per day (gpd) University Demand per Acre per Year: 651,525.00 gallons per year (gpy) University Acres Amount: 50.00 acres Total Daily University Water Demand (gal): 89,250.00 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual University Water Demand (gal): 32,576,250.00 gallons per year (gpy) 32,576,250.00 check Park Parameters Park Demand per Acre per Day: 2,155.00 gallons per day (gpd) Park Demand per Acre per Year: 786,575.00 gallons per year (gpy) Park Acres Amount: 55.40 acres Total Daily Park Water Demand (gal): 119,387.00 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Park Water Demand (gal): 43,576,255.00 gallons per year (gpy) 43,576,255.00 check Commercial Parameters Commercial Demand per Square Foot per Day: 0.14 gallons per day (gpd) Commercial Demand per Square Foot per Year: 51.10 gallons per year (gpy) Commercial Amount: 1,800,000.00 square feet Water UnitBAU OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS Total Daily Commerical Water Demand (gal): 252,000.00 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Commercial Water Demand (gal): 91,980,000.00 gallons per year (gpy) 91,980,000.00 check Community Purpose Facility Community Demand per Acres per Day: 893.00 gallons per day (gpd) Community Demand per Acre per Year: 325,945.00 gallons per year (gpy) Community Facility Amount: 10.80 acres Total Daily CommunityWater Demand (gal): 9,644.40 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Community Water Demand (gal): 3,520,206.00 gallons per year (gpy) 3,520,206.00 check Industrial Parameters Industrial Demand per Square Foot per Day: 0.07 gallons per day (gpd) Industrial Demand per Square Foot per Year: 25.55 gallons per year (gpy) Industrial Amount 2,221,560.00 square feet Total Daily Industrial Water Demand (gal): 155,509.20 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Industrial Water Demand (gal): 56,760,858.00 gallons per year (gpy) 56,760,858.00 check Total Combined Daily Water Demand: 2,477,604.60 gallons per day (gpd) Total Combined Annual Water Demand: 904,325,679.00 gallons per year (gpy) 904,325,679.00 check Parameters Daily Water Use: 2,477,604.60 gallons Annual Water Use: 904,325,679.00 gallons Embodied Energy Rate: 0.0085 kWh per gallon Total Annual Water Energy Use (in kWh): 7,686,768.2715 kWh per year Total Annual Water Energy Use (in MWh): 7,686.77 MWh per year 7,686.77 check Electricity Generation Emission Factors (pounds/MWh) CO2 CH4 1,340.0000 N2O 0.0111 0.0192 Water Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 10,300,269.48 2,204.62 4,672.12 1.00 4,672.12 CH4 85.32 2,204.62 0.04 21.00 0.81 N2O 147.59 2,204.62 0.07 310.00 20.75 Water UnitBAU OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 4,693.69 Water UnitBAU OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS WATER EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS PROJECT GHG REDUCTIONS Residential Parameters Single Family Demand per Unit per Day: 400.00 gallons per day (gpd) Single Family Demand per Unit per Year: 146,000.00 gallons per year (gpy) Single Family Units: 887.00 units Multi-Family Demand per Unit per Day: 204.00 gallons per day (gpd) Multi-Family Demand per Unit per Year: 74,460.00 gallons per year (gpy) Multi-Family Units: 5,163.00 units Total Daily Residential Water Demand (gal): 1,408,052.00 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Residential Water Demand (gal): 513,938,980.00 gallons per year (gpy) School/Educational Parameters School Demand per Acre per Day: 1,428.00 gallons per day (gpd) School Demand per Acre per Year: 521,220.00 gallons per year (gpy) School Acres Amount: 51.40 acres Total Daily Schools Water Demand (gal): 73,399.20 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Schools Water Demand (gal): 26,790,708.00 gallons per year (gpy 26,790,708.00 check University Parameters University Demand per Acre per Day: 1,428.00 gallons per day (gpd) University Demand per Acre per Year: 521,220.00 gallons per year (gpy) University Acres Amount: 50.00 acres Total Daily University Water Demand (gal): 71,400.00 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual University Water Demand (gal): 26,061,000.00 gallons per year (gpy 26,061,000.00 check Park Parameters Park Demand per Acre per Day: 1,724.00 gallons per day (gpd) Park Demand per Acre per Year: 629,260.00 gallons per year (gpy) Park Acres Amount: 55.40 acres Total Daily Park Water Demand (gal): 95,509.60 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Park Water Demand (gal): 34,861,004.00 gallons per year (gpy) 34,861,004.00 check Commercial Parameters Commercial Demand per Square Foot per Day: 0.11 gallons per day (gpd) Commercial Demand per Square Foot per Year: 40.88 gallons per year (gpy) Commercial Amount: 1,800,000.00 square feet Water UnitPROJ OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS Total Daily Commerical Water Demand (gal): 201,600.00 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Commercial Water Demand (gal): 73,584,000.00 gallons per year (gpy) Community Purpose Facility Facility Demand per Acre per Day: 714.40 gallons per day (gpd) Facility Demand per Acre per Year: 260,756.00 gaLlons per year (gpy) Facility Acres Amount: 10.80 acres Total Daily Facility Water Demand (gal): 7,715.52 gallons per day (gpd) Total Facility Park Water Demand (gal): 2,816,164.80 gallons per year (gpy) 2,816,164.80 check Industrial Parameters Industrial Demand per Square Foot per Day: 0.06 gallons per day (gpd) Industrial Demand per Square Foot per Year: 20.44 gallons per year (gpy) Industrial Amount 2,221,560.00 square feet Total Daily Industrial Water Demand (gal): 124,407.36 gallons per day (gpd) Total Annual Industrial Water Demand (gal): 45,408,686.40 gallons per year (gpy) Total Combined Daily Water Demand: 1,982,083.68 gallons per day Total Combined Annual Water Demand: 723,460,543.20 gallons per year 723,460,543.20 check Parameters Daily Water Use: 1,982,083.68 gallons Annual Water Use: 723,460,543.20 gallons Embodied Energy: 0.0085 kWh per gallon Total Annual Water Energy Use (in kWh): 6,149,414.62 kWh Total Annual Water Energy Use (in MWh): 6,149.41 MWh Electricity Generation Emission Factors (pounds/MWh) CO2 1,340.0000 CH4 0.0111 N2O 0.0192 Water Emissions Pounds Pounds per Metric Ton Metric Tons GWP CO2 Eq CO2 8,240,215.59 2,204.62 3,737.70 1.00 3,737.70 CH4 68.26 2,204.62 0.03 21.00 0.65 N2O 118.07 2,204.62 0.05 310.00 16.60 Water UnitPROJ OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 3,754.95 Water UnitPROJ OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS SOLID WASTE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS BAU/PROJECT Residential Parameters Single Family Pounds Generated per Unit per Day: 11.40 pounds Single Family Pounds Generated per Unit per Year: 4,161.00 pounds Number of Single Family Units: 887.00 units Total Single Family Pounds Generated per Year: 3,690,807.00 Multi Family Pounds Generated per Unit per Day: 8.60 pounds Multi Family Pounds Generated per Unit per Year: 3,139.00 pounds Number of Multi Family Units: 5,163.00 units Total Multi Family Pounds Generated per Year: 16,206,657.00 Total Residential Pounds Generated per Year: 19,897,464.00 pounds Total Residential Tons Generated per Year: 9,948.73 tons School and University Parameters Tons Generated per 1000 Square Feet (SF) per Year: 1.30 tons/1000SF/year Tons Generated per Square Feet per Year: 0.0013 tons/SF/year Pounds Generated per Square Feet per Day: 2.60 pounds Number of Square Feet: 4,416,984.00 square feet (SF) Number of 1000 Square Feet: 4,416.98 1000 SF Total School Tons Generated per Year: 5,742.08 tons Park Parameters Tons Generated per Park Acre per Year: 4.76 tons/acre/year Pounds Generated per Park Acre per Year: 9,520.00 pounds/acre/year Number of Acres: 55.40 acres Total Park Tons Generated per Year: 263.70 tons Community Purpose Parameters Tons Generated per 1000 SF per Year: 5.70 tons/1000SF/year Tons Generated per Square Feet per Year: 0.0057 tons/SF/year Pounds Generated per Square Feet per Day: 11.40 pounds Number of Square Feet: 470,448.00 square feet (SF) 10.8 acres Number of 1000 Square Feet: 470.45 1000 SF Total Community Purpose Tons Generated per Year: 2,681.55 tons Commercial Parameters Pounds Generated per Square Foot per Day: 0.046 pounds Pounds Generated per Square Feet per Year: 16.79 pounds Total Commercial Square Feet: 1,800,000.00 square feet Total Pounds Generated per Year: 30,222,000.00 pounds Total Office Tons Generated per Year: 15,111.00 tons Solid Waste OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS Industrial Parameters Pounds Generated per Square Foot per Day: 0.046 pounds Pounds Generated per Square Foot per Year: 16.79 pounds Total Industrial Square Feet: 2,221,560.00 square feet Total Pounds Generated per Year: 37,299,992.40 pounds Total Industrial Tons Generated per Year: 18,650.00 tons Total Combined Tons Generated per Year: 52,397.07 tons Material WARM Input Catergory Percent Generated Percent Recovered Percent Landfilled Paper Mixed Paper (General) 31.0% 55.5% 44.5% Glass Glass 4.9% 23.1% 76.9% Metals Mixed Metals 8.4% 34.6% 65.4% Plastics Mixed Plastics 12.0% 7.1% 92.9% Rubber and Leather Mixed MSW 3.0% 14.3% 85.7% Textiles Mixed MSW 5.0% 15.3% 84.7% Wood Dimensional Lumber 6.6% 9.6% 90.4% Other Mixed MSW 1.7% 25.6% 74.4% Food Scraps Food Scraps 13% 2.5% 97.5% Yard Trimming Yard Trimmings 13.2% 64.7% 35.3% Miscellaneous Inorganic Waste Mixed MSW 1.5% 0.0% 100.0% TOTAL 100.0% Enter These Values Into the EPA WARM Model Material WARM Input Catergory Tons Generated Tons Recovered Tons Landfilled Paper Mixed Paper (General) 16,243.1 9,014.9 7,228.2 Glass Glass 2,567.5 593.1 1,974.4 Metals Mixed Metals 4,401.4 1,522.9 2,878.5 Plastics Mixed Plastics 6,287.6 446.4 5,841.2 Rubber and Leather Mixed MSW 1,571.9 224.8 1,347.1 Textiles Mixed MSW 2,619.9 400.8 2,219.0 Wood Dimensional Lumber 3,458.2 332.0 3,126.2 Other Mixed MSW 890.8 228.0 662.7 Food Scraps Food Scraps 6,654.4 166.4 6,488.1 Yard Trimming Yard Trimmings 6,916.4 4,474.9 2,441.5 Miscellaneous Inorganic Waste Mixed MSW 786.0 0.0 786.0 TOTAL 52,397 17,404 34,993 5,868.5 853.7 5,014.8 Enter WARM Value Here: TOTAL metrics tons of CO2 Eq per Year: 8,370.33 CO2 Eq Solid Waste OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS BAU and PROJECT GHG CALCULATIONS Residential Parameters Emissions per Residential Unit Construction: 0.077 MTCO2E per unit per year Number of Residential Units being Constructed: 6,050.00 units Total Annual Residential Construction Emissions: 465.85 MTCO2E per year Commercial Parameters Emissions per Commercial Square Foot Construction: 0.006 MTCO2E per square foot per year Commercial Amount Being Constructed: 1,800,000.00 square feet Total Annual Commerical Construction Emissions: 10,800.00 MTCO2E per year Community Purpose Facility Parameters Emissions per Square Foot of CPFConstruction: 0.006 MTCO2E per square foot per year CPF Amount Being Constructed (Total Acres): 10.80 acres CPF Amount Being Constructed (Acres)1: 8.64 acres CPF Structure Amount Being Constructed (Square Feet)1: 376,358.40 square feet Total Annual CPF Construction Emissions: 2,258.15 MTCO2E per year CPF = Community Purpose Facility 1 = Determined by multiplying total CPF acreage by coverage ratio of 0.80:1. School Parameters Emissions per Square Foot of School Construction: 0.006 MTCO2E per square foot per year School Amount (Total Acres): 51.40 acres School Amount Being Constructed (Acres)1: 41.12 acres School Structure Amount Being Constructed (Square Feet)1: 1,791,187.20 square feet Total Annual School Construction Emissions: 10,747.12 MTCO2E per year 1 = Determined by multiplying total school acreage by coverage ratio of 0.80:1. University Parameters Emissions per Square Foot of University Construction: 0.006 MTCO2E per square foot per year University Amount (Total Acres): 50.00 acres University Amount Being Constructed (Acres)1: 40.00 acres University Structure Amount Being Constructed (Square Feet)1: 1,742,400.00 square feet Total Annual University Construction Emissions: 10,454.40 MTCO2E per year 1 = Determined by multiplying total school acreage by coverage ratio of 0.80:1. Construction OTAY RANCH GHG CALCULATIONS Park Parameters Emissions per Square Foot of Park Structure Construction: 0.006 MTCO2E per square foot per year Park Amount Being Constructed (Acres): 55.40 acres Park Amount Being Constructed w/Structure (Acres)*: 13.85 acres Park Structure Amount Being Constructed (Square Feet)*: 603,306.00 square feet Total Annual Park Structure Construction Emissions: 3,619.84 MTCO2E per year *Determined by multiplying total park acreage by structure coverage ratio of 0.25:1. Industrial Parameters Emissions per Industrial Square Foot Construction: 0.006 MTCO2E per square foot per year Industrial Amount Being Constructed: 2,200,000.00 square feet Total Annual Industrial Construction Emissions: 13,200.00 MTCO2E per year Total Annual Combined Construction Emissions: 51,545.36 MTCO2E per year Construction OTAY RANCH GHG CALGCHUGLA_CTIaOlcNuSlations_OtayRanch_REVwIndustrial.xls CUMULATIVE PROJECT EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS: BAU GHG EMISSIONS SUMMARY Emission Source Total CO2 Eq Emissions (metric tons/year) Vehicular Emissions 113,416.15 Electricity Usage Emissions 97,099.72 Natural Gas Usage Emissions 31,952.76 Water Usage Emissions 4,693.69 Solid Waste Emissions 8,370.33 Construction Emissions 51,545.36 Total CO2 Eq Emissions 307,078.01 PROJECT REDUCED GHG EMISSIONS SUMMARY Emission Source Total CO2 Eq Emissions (metric tons/year) Vehicular Emissions 68,276.67 Electricity Usage Emissions 67,969.80 Natural Gas Usage Emissions 22,366.93 Water Usage Emissions 3,754.95 Solid Waste Emissions 8,370.33 Construction Emissions 51,545.36 Total CO2 Eq Emissions 222,284.04 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS GHG EMISSIONS SUMMARIES ASSUMING BAU ASSUMPTIONS -Multiply BAU Emissions by 1.5 Emission Source Total CO2 Eq Emissions (metric tons/year) Vehicular Emissions 170,124.22 Electricity Usage Emissions 145,649.58 Natural Gas Usage Emissions Emissions 47,929.14 Water Usage Emissions 7,040.53 Solid Waste Emissions 12,555.50 Construction Emissions 77,318.04 Total CO2 Eq Emissions 460,617.01 ASSUMING PROJECT REDUCTIONS -Multiply Propoposed Project Emissions by 1.5 Emission Source Total CO2 Eq Emissions (metric tons/year) Vehicular Emissions 102,415.00 Electricity Usage Emissions 101,954.71 Natural Gas Usage Emissions 33,550.40 Water Usage Emissions 5,632.43 Solid Waste Emissions 12,555.50 Construction Emissions 77,318.04 Total CO2 Eq Emissions 333,426.06 Percent Reduction in BAU 27.6131674 percent Cumulative ATTACHMENT 4 SANDAG Trip Length Calculations <k0k O O O ..°....,.,, OO O D "EEI L U >on LLID Oh Dr N ZWzO! -J<F©p uJ OI O>t W-.l M cq zHiL.9 ZJ z OO LLI IU HP M UJ L9 OO Cg W> U_ ©)<C'3 O u3 EE CO r-t O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OO O O OOOO OO O O OO OO O O O OOO O O O O O f J P4 Pq O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O >, > 0 0 I I OO OOO OZ u Z O O0-O r e-{Dr-I:: O O22 O O::I24 ¢ c:r--I--F-. + I--}'-'r-r-' ( O O O A A A O A A A . .;r--( I .r'-r-A A L L r--E :5 1--.Ur--r-r-O I r -A A r r u -OA A A OI-0 X 0 O OA A A A A A A AUdiO D r 03 Orv3 O1 rOr '5. UL,3 >U OOO O O O O OO O O O O Oh O O r-I I . O00 -40 ¢O rq Oh PY oo O rN l . L O I -O --I P O0 O O O O O O O • ° • • • , .... , OO r LO O Cxl 'q---I O --I O O > > O O I I I I OO OOO OZI Zl : --I--I--' , + I'--t-L Or--OZZl--OZZ ( ¢; O O O A A A O A A O->Z, -Q_A A A _A A t--'r-A A -( OA A A 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000000000000 0000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO LL8 0J O O OO OO O OOOO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O OO O .. EE . . • • • ....... • • O i O O O O O O O O O OO O O O OO O O O ...,.. , ........ ,,.4. .... rD O O O O O O O O OO O O >o A O' 1--.Ur--r--O O A A A A A A A A U r-O > > o o E> EE> EOO OOO OZ ZI Or--r -O .r---O 'r L E I--I--" . + I'----,r--" r O O I I --er I I , ,r E O --" I E E I E E E L r E ': I -'O O Or O O O L' ' O O O O A A A O A A AI--. >Z " D-A A A O-A A A E-E r---A A r-LAA OA A A b O A A A A A A A A U i -O E3