HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/08/06 Item 09CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~~
~~~ CITY Of
CHULA VISTA
AUGUST 6; 2013; Item
ITE>\4 TITLE: A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION
OF Ai\' ORDINANCE FOR THE EASTERA' URBA\T
CENTER PEDESTRLAN BRIDGE DEV"ELOPA4ENT
Ii`4PACT FEE A\'D THE AREA OF BENEFIT
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTII~TG A REPORT
PREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT PL~N~ SING AI~TD
FINANCE GROUP RECOM?`4ENDIN'G A
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DE\%ELOPA~N'T I\4P.ACT
FEE TO FUND PEDESTRLAI~T BRIDGE
IMPROVE\4EIvTS WITHIN THE EASTER\' URBAN
CENTER
C. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA \%ISTA
ESTABLISHING A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DEVELOP?~gNT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FOR THE
EASTERS\' URBAI~T CE\TTER Ai\TD THE AREA OF
BENEFIT
5iIBMITTED BY: DEVELOP?`4ENT SE VICES DIRECTOR
RE~TE~i'ED BY: CITY 1~ZAi\TAGER
ASSISTrL\TT CITY ZAi\?AGER~
4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ \'O
Sli11i 1ARY
The Conditions of Approval for the Ota_v Ranch Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Tentative
Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 09-03) require the establishment of a Development Impact Fee
(DIF); or other funding mechanism to construct a pedestrian bridee that kill cross Eastlake
Parkes°ay and «211 connect the proposed development to Otav Ranch Village 11. The
proposed Pedestrian Bridge DIF Ordinance contained herein will fund 50% of the cost of
the bridee, as the other 50% ~~ill be covered by the Otav Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian
Bridge DIF established by City Ordinance No. 2003-2898. It is estimated that the
pedestrian bridge «~ill cost 52;808,415.00, hence the EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF, payable at
issuance of a building pemvt; mill be 5615.13 per Single-Family unit and 5456.10 per
Multi-Famih~ unit.
9-1
AUGUST 6, 20li, Item `~
Page 2 of 6
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a °`Projeer' as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines:
therefore; pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is
not subject to CEQA. Nohvithstanding the foregoing, the Development Services Director
has further determined that; pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section's 1~060(c)(2) and
15061(b)(3); there is also no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on
the environment; therefore; the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although environmental
review is not necessar}' at this time; environmental7eview will be required prior to the
approval of final desien plans and the awarding of construction contracts for facilities
funded through the Pedestrian Bridge DIF.
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing;
2. Approve the Resolution accepting the report prepared by Development Planning
and Finance Group recommending a Pedestrian Bridge DIF to fund pedestrian
bridge improvements within the EUC;
3. Approve the Ordinance establishing a Pedestrian Bridge DIF Program for the
EUC and the Area of Benefit.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION.
Pedestrian Bridge and Village Connectivity
On May 12, 2009, McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, now SLF IV/McMillin Millenia N, LLC
(`'Developer;" or "Omer''), filed a duly verified application for the subdivision of the
EUC property located within the northeastern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel of the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The EUC, which is described on Chula Vista
Tract 09-03, is also knoN'n as the "Otay Ranch Millenia Project."
As part of the Conditions of Approval set by Resolution No. 2009-225 for the Otay
Ranch EUC Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 09-03), the Developer was required to
provide securit}' for the construction of the pedestrian bridge, or to identifi' a fundins
mechanism for one-half of the cost, before the approval of the first Final Map co~~ering
Parcel 27 of said Tentative Map. The enactment of a Pedestrian Bridge DIF has been
determined to be the appropriate method of securing the funding for the construction of
the bridge and for the Developer to meet this obligation.
The objective of the construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge is to provide
a link between the major destinations of the Community Park site in Villages Two/Four
and the \Volf Canyon Open Space in Village Seven, located to the west of the EUC, and
Village Eleven and the Salt Creek Greenbelt to the east side of the EUC.
9-2
AUGUST 6.2015. Item
Page 3 of 6
Area of Benefit
The EUC Area of Benefit is comprised by hvo sepazate o«nerships, as sho~~n in Exhibit
".A' and described as follows:
i SLF IV/D4cDlillin Millenia .TV, LLC
The Ota}~ Ranch Millenia Project is a fully entitled D4aster Planned
Community vtith a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map; along
with a Development Agreement and a Construction of Pazks Agreement.
Millenia is planned for 2;983 Multi-Family residential units (MFD) and 5.4
million squaze feet of commercial uses.
Anticipated EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF = 2.983 ?`4FD x 5456.10~gD
Anticipated EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF = 51;360;546
i Otay Land Company, LLC
Otay Ranch Villase 9 has a portion of the property within the EUC. This
propern~, estimated to be 22 acres; is located north of Hunte Pazkway and
south of the Otay Ranch Millenia Project. This portion of the EUC is planned
for a maximum of 699 Multi-Family residential units and a 3.64-acre pazk.
Ota_v Ranch Village 9 has received approval of General Plan and General
Development Plan Amendments which aze needed for aproject-specific SPA
Plan.
Anticipated EUC Ped Bridge DIF = 699 MFD ~ 5456.10/~4FD
Anticipated EUC Ped Bridge DIF = $318;814
It is expected that the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge will sense to connect the
existing pedestrian trail systems within the Freeway Commercial/EUC to Otay Ranch
Villase 11. Land within The Millenia Project and portion of the Otav Ranch Villaee 9
(EUC portion) will benefit from the installation of this bridge primarih due to~(a)
location and proximity to the bridge; and (b) its ease of access to the bridle based on the
trail confisuration.
This proposed EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF (EUC PBDIF) will complement the cost of
the construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge, given that the other ~0% of
the cost is going to be covered by Otay Ranch Villase 11. City Council implemented the
Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF Program on February ]8; 2003 by
Ordinance No. 2898. Since the implementation of the Program; it has accumulated (as of
May 20li) approximately 51,097,047 for the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge
construction and it is expected to collect an additional 532;011 from future residential
construction ~yithin Village 11.
Fee Allocation Among Land Uses
The methodology used to calculate the EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF is explained in the
"City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development hnpact Fee Report for Eastern
9-3
AUGUST 6, 2013, Item
Paee 4 of 6
Urban Center (EUC), " prepazed by Development Planning & Financing Group; Inc,
dated Tune 17, 2013 (Attachment 1). In summary, the procedure taken is as follows:
~ Determining the Cost of the Pedestrian Bridge:
Based on the "Millenia-Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Overcrossing Tjpe
Selectio~a Report. "prepared by Simon Wong Engineering; dated May 6,
20li, and made part of the "City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee Report -for Eastern Urban Center (EUC)"
(Attachment 1) as Exhibit 4 of the abovementioned report, it was
estimated that the construction of the bridge would cost $2,808,415.
- Determining the Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Funds (Village 11
PBDIF) for the Construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge:
As of May 9, 2013; the fund for the Village 11 PBDIF had allocated assets
corresponding to the construction of the Eastlake Pazkway Pedestrian
Bridge of $1,097,036.00, with estimated additional funds of $32,011.00 to
be collected at the issuance of the building permits for the remaining units
within Village 11.
~ Determinine the Area of Benefit and the Population:
The Area of Benefit is composed by the two ovtmerships within the EUC:
SLF IV/McMillin Millenia JV, LLC (Millenia Project) with 2,983 Multi-
Fantily Dwelling Units, and Otay Land Company, LLC (Portion of Otay
Ranch Village 9) with 699 Multi-Family Dwelling Units.
The population within the Area of Benefit was estimated by using the
People per Household Factor (PPHF) of 2.61 people per Multi-Family
giving a total of 9,6]0 persons to be benefited by the construction of the
bridge.
- Determining the EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF:
Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge Total Construction Cost $2.808.415.00
Village 11 PBDIF Funds Corresponding to the Construction
01,129,047.00)
of the of the Eastlake Pedestrian Brid e
Remaining Cost of the Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge to be
$1.679,.167.00
Financed by the EUC
Population within Area of Benefit 9,610 persons
EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF per person X174.75
EUC`Ped'estnan Badge DIF per Single Family~Dw
ellingi~'~~= r `'p .rt.s~ ,'~'~.
,
.~,,.. * ti~y~~ ftt ,{~~~F ~,,~~a.~a cs~~ x~~,`.,, `*~;~,+;,~~x~~~i
'
U
~~
'
~' rS615 13/$FD~-,
~
nltc
a.<._xs~+
~~_~'E`~+D. ~3Y-Y..'fi~L~S.v.s..;nhv.?.
+k~tl;.'*,~~L`~..,.T.. ~ ~ !~._3:.~ 3.t-~F~"
:3gcY-
eee ma ~ ~a a -,.. ~ m
;:EUC~PedestrlanrBndge DIF per Mu1tt
,Fa
y DR ell
ing~,~
< a +t ~ -w' -is"'}"•~
<
"
'
,
~t
~
,
x
~wrn'y-~ ~ -_ ss xf1~ ~ e '~d r~rTr ' .~4K f." ° ~
Il
~
'
`
'
~
~ ~~
~ 5456 10/MFD~
'
~;,
nlt,,.$ ,.. .4`.
~.r tfi. ::.# ~ ...ftz
.~.n.~Se~ .
,'_ ~'
. 4'. ~Yt~: 7T_~-.l^
~
:n ~,~..e..i.:: ~r .,..A'. 5;
* 1Single-Family Dwelling Unit = 3.52 persons
** IMutti-Family Dwellins Unit = 2.61 persons
9-4
AliGUST 6.20li. Item
Page ~ of 6
DECISION 11'L4I+ER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the propem~ holdines of the Cit`~ Council and has found no propem
holdines ~~ithin d00 feet of the boundaries of the propem~, which is the subject of this
action~Staff is not independenth aware, nor has staff been informed by anv City Council
member. of anv other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of
interest in this matter.
CL"RRENT 1'~AR FISCAL I~ZPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. Developer will cover all costs and fees
associated with the creation of the Pedestrian Bridge DIF.
ONGOING FISCAL IDZPACT
The revenue of this Pedestrian Bridge DIF will be maintained sepazateh from the
General Fund. The Developer has paid for all costs related to the preparation of the
Report. The perpetual maintenance costs associated with the Eastlake Pazk-v<'ay
Pedestrian Bridge (lighting and graffiti removal) will be budgeted in Communit•~
Facilities District 141\4.
ATTACILIIENTS
Exltibit "A' : Are of Benefit for the EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF
Attachment l: "City of Chula i%ista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee
Report for Eastern Urban Center (EUC), " prepazed by
Development Planning & Financing Group. Inc; dated June 17,
2013.
Prepared by: Sandia Hernandea, Associate Engineer, Development Services Department
9-5
EXHIBIT "A"
AREA OF BENEFIT
FOR
THE EASTERN' URBAN CENTER
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (EUC PBDIF)
S OF
.OF
,FIT
SHIPS
206.6
222
..._ J. ___ __. __ _.7own do not
include the pertrneter arterials.
The acreage indicated for ownership
'B" is approximate.
9-6
EXHIBIT "A"
AREA OF BENEFIT
FOR
THE EASTERI~T URBAN CENTER
PEDESTRIAi\' BRIDGE DEVELOP?`~fENT ID~IPACT FEE (EUC PBDIF)
S OF
OF
FIT
~Hlrs
206.6
222
_ Jrnvn do not
indude the perimeter arterials.
the acreage indicated for o~merahip
B' is appr^ximate.
9-7
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMP-ACT FEE
REPORT FOR EASTERN URBAN CENTER (EUC)
JUNE 17, 2013
Prepared by:
`~
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & FINANCING GROUP, INC.
9-$
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
INDEX
DESCRIPTION PAGE
1. Background and Purpose of Report 2
2. Description of Pedestrian Bridge and Cost Estimate 3
3. Area of Benefit 4
4. Development within the Area of Benefit 4
5. Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Methodology 6
6. Implementation of Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee 7
Map of Pedestrian Bridge Location Exhibit 1
Area of Benefit Exhibit 2
Summary of Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Exhibit 3
Pedestrian Bridge Type Selection Report (Simon Wong
Engineering, dated May 6~', 2013) Exhibit 4
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Ordinance Exhibit 5
Eastern Urban Cenier (EUC) Pedestrian Bridle Development Impac[ Fee Report
June 17, 2013 Paee 1
9-9
1. Background and Purpose of Report
The Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report ("Report") is being prepared at
the request of SLF N MCMILLIN MILLENIA .N, LLC ("McD4illirr`). In connection
with developing residential and non-residential property in the Eastern Urban Center
("EUC"); the McMillin ~ "Millenia" project is currently conditioned to construct a
pedestrian bridge to connect the Eastern Urban Center property; including the Millenia
project; to Village 11. The enactment of a pedestrian bridge development impact fee
("PBDIF") has been determined to be the appropriate method of securing the funding for
the bridge. Fees have already been collected from 2,249 units which have been issued a
building permit within neighborhoods of the Village 11 project.
It is the City's intent that the cost of the pedestrian bridge be shared among the various
beneficiaries of the bridge. The purpose of the Report is to determine an appropriate
pedestrian bridge development impact fee based on the cost of the pedestrian bridle, the
area of benefit, the type of land use and its corresponding benefit. The bridge described
in this Report is considered an additional facility need of the City arising as a result of
new development. Government Code Section 66000 requires that a City establish a
reasonable relationship or "nexus" between a development project or class of
development projects, and the public improvements for which a development impact fee
is charged.
To meet the requirements of Government Code 66000, the Report must demonstrate
compliance with the following items:
^ Identify the purpose of the fee;
^ Identify the use to which the fee will be put;
^ Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the. fee's use and
the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (i.e.. a "type"
nexus); and
^ Determine ho~v there is a reasonable relationship between the need.for the
public facility and the t}~pe of development project on which the fee is
imposed (i.e., a "burden' _ nexus). In addition, when a city imposes a fee as a
condition of development approval, i[ must determine how there is a
reasonable relationship behveen the amount of the fee and the cost of the
public facility or portion of that facility attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed.
Government Code Section 66000 also requires that a public agency segregate and
account for the fees received separate from the general fund. Additionally; if a public
agency has had possession of a developer fee for five years or more and has not
committed or expended the funds for a public facility,'then the public agency must make
a findins describins the continuing need for the fees each fiscal year after the five year
period has expired.V
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
June 17, 2013 Page 2
9-10
2. Description of Pedestrian Bridge and Cost Estimates
The pedestrian bridge included within this Report is described as the Eastlake Parkway
Pedestrian Bridle. The location of the bridle is depicted on the map attached to this
Repots as Exhibit 1. A summan~ of the total current 'estimated cost of constructing the
bridge. including sofr costs are summarized as follows:
Eastlake P6~°.
Bridge
Hard Cost
Construction Cost S 1.710.022
Contngency@ 10% 171;002
Total Hard Cost S 1.881;024
Total Hard Cost (rounded) [] ] S 1,882.000
Soft Cost
Design Cost @ I ~% S 282,300
Construction & Special Inspection Cost @ 1 ~% 282;300
Plan Check & Cin~ Inspection Cost @ 6% 112;920
Project Admin. (Aud¢) @ 2% 37;640
Program Admmisuation @ 5% 94,100
Devebpment Supen~ision @ 1.75% 32,935
Contingency @ 10% of Soft Costs 84.220
Total Soft Cost [2] S 926,415
Total Haul & Soft Cost [1 ] + [2] _ [3] S 2,808,415
The cost estimate shown above is based on a stud~• prepared by Simon \47ong Engineering
on A4av 6a'. 2013: the details of such estimate are described in Exhibit 4. The bridee will
be constructed as a three-span cast-in-place prestressed concrete box girder bridge.
Design features include haunched girders in each span; rectangular columns with stone
facade, and stained concrete superstructure. The bridge is planned to be 12 feet wide
with a 10 foot wide walkway, a minimum vertical clearance of 18 feet 6 inches. and 286
feet in length. A hard cost contingency factor of ] 0% has been applied.
The design cost includes the cost of preparing design-related plans; including the cost
associated with checking and reviewing such plans. The construction and special
inspection cost includes the City inspection cost and the cost of retaining an outside firm
with special experience in bridge inspections. The plan check and city inspection cost
includes the cost of Cite plan checking and inspections. The project administration cost
includes the City`s cost associated with verifi~ing and auditing bridge expenditures and
related documentation. The program administration cost includes the City`s cost
associated with monitoring and updating this fee program including; but not limited to,
tracking building permits and changes in land use, collecting the fee. and revising cost
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
June I7. 20li Paee 3
9-11
estimates to ensure the adequacy of this fee program. The development supervision cost
includes construction management and oversight.
3. Area of Benefit
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan has been designed, in part, to promote the
pedestrian and bicycle trials as alternatives to using an automobile to access the village
core and neighboring villages. The pedestrian bridge described in this Report is an
integral part of the overall Otay Ranch pedestrian trail system for the system to operate as
designed.
The Eastlake Parkway Bridge crosses Eastlake Parkway behveen Olympic Parkway and
Hunte Parkway near the intersection of Birch Road and serves to connect the existing
pedestrian trail system within Village 11 to the planned pedestrian trail system within the
EUC property (Planning Area 12). All of the properties within the EUC planning area
will benefit from the installation of this bridge primarily due to:-(i) its location and
proximity to the bridge; and (ii) its ease of access to the bridge based on the trail
configuration. Additionally, the properties are identified as part of the Eastern Urban
Center "village' for planning purposes under the Citys General Plan; General
Development Plan, and McD9illin's approved SPA plan. There is an existing PBDIF
program for Village 11 which was established to fund one-half of the anticipated cost of
the Eastlake Parkway Bridge as determined at the time such fee program was initially
established in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005. All residential properties in
Village 11 are required to pay to fund the construction of this bridge. At the time the
Village 11 PBDIF program was considered by the City Council, the City Council agenda
statement indicated that the portion of the bridge not funded by the Village 11 PBDIF
will be borne by the developer of Eastern Urban Center developments.
A summary of the areas of benefit ("AOB") based on the discussion above is as follows.
Village Developer Project Eastlake Pky.
Bridge
Eastern Urban Center McD4illin Millenia AOB
Eastern Urban Center OLC EUC (a) AOB
Village 11 N/A N/A AOB (b)
(a) Represents the portion of the EUC property being developed by Otay Land Company. LLC
("OLC"), located north of Hunte Parkway and south of the McMillin Millenia project.
(b) Village 11 is subject to an existing pedestrian bridge development impact fee program for its share
of the Eastlake Parkway Bridge. Village 11 is nearing full buildout and fees collected to date are
on hand with the City in a special account for such purpose. ~ +
4. Development within the Area of Benefit
The properties within the AOB described in this Report are in various stages of the
entitlement process. Property within the AOB has development approvals ranging from
General Plan and General Development Plan level designations (OLC) to a Tentative
Map and SPA plan approval (McMillin). An "A" Map allows the transfer of ownership
of individual neighborhood areas. A "B" Map functions as a final map and allows
property owners to obtain building permits and create individual .lots. However, no
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
June 17, 2013 Page 4
9-12
single famih~ development is anticipated in the EUC portion of the AOB. All of the units
in the EUC are anticipated to be multifamily units which typically are developed pursuant
to the recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code L3~2.
The current entitlement status and land use for propem~ within the AOB by project; is as
follows: '
McMillin:
A4illenia: This project is a fully entitled 206-acre master planned community,
with an approved SPA plan. Tentative Map, certified EIR; along with a Parks
Agreement and a Development Agreement. )\4illenia is planned for 2,983
multifamily residential units and 3.4 million square feet of commercial uses.
Phase 1 of the project is currently in the final eneineering phase. and a
eroundbreaking is anticipated late second quarter or early third quarter of
20 Li. - -
Otay Land Company (OLC):
EUC: This area consists of the portion of EUC located north of Hunte
Park~yav and south of the McMillin Millenia project, planned for 699
multifamily residential units and a 3.64 acre park. This project has received
approval of General Plan and General Development Plan amendments which
are needed for aproject-specific SPA plan. The SPA plan and Tentative Map
are expected to go before Cit}~ Council for approval in summer of 2013.
The land use assumptions in Exhibit 3 will serve as the basis for allocating the benefit of
the pedestrian bridge and determining the pedestrian bridge development impact fee in
this Report.
The residential land uses will have different deerees of benefit from the installation of a
pedestrian bridge. Residential units containing larger square footage will h~pically hold
more people per household than the residential units containing smaller square footage.
As such, residential units with a larger number of people per household will inure greater
benefit from using the pedestrian trail system and the pedestrian bridge than residential
units with a smaller number of people per household. The City utilizes people per
household factors ("PPHF") in determining the amount of parkland dedication required
by new development projects pursuant to Cite Ordinance; Chapter 17.10. The PPHF
used in Chapter 17.10 can serve as a reasonable method of allocating the bridge benefit to
residential uses. Chapter 17.10.040 applies PPHF to the following residential uses:
Sinsle Family Detached "SFD" 352 eo le er household
Muhi Family (`MF") 2.61 eo le er household
Chapter 17.10.040 also applies a factor of 1.50 persons per dwelline unit for hotel/motel
land uses; however; this factor is not utilized herein as the pedestrian bridge cost is not
allocated to commercial land uses as further described belo~y. Also; please note the
i\4ci\4illin SPA plan indicates slightly different PPHF factors of 33 for single famih~
detached and 2.58 for multifamily; however, since the OLC portion of the EUC property
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Pedestrian Bridee Development Impact Fee Report
]une 17, 20 ] 3 Pase 5
9-13
is not included in the McMillin SPA plan; the City Ordinance Chapter ] 7.10 was
determined to be a more appropriate source for the PPHF.
For purposes of clarification and the ease of program administration; we have developed
the following definitions-for the above mentioned residential land use categories:
"SFD" means a single residential unit on a single assessor's parcel in within a tract with a
density of less than or equal to 8 residential units per acre.
`MF" means any residential unit within a tract with a density greater than 8 residential
units per acre.
For purposes of allocating the bridge benefit to different types of residential uses, the
PPHF s described in the preceding table were used in this Report. The estimated
residential product types anticipated to be developed for each planning area, as noted in
Exhibit 3, were derived from the approved SPA Plan for the McMillin property and from
the current proposed Tentative Map for the OLC property.
The non-residential propert}~ consisting of mixed use, commercial, community purpose
facility; schools; and parks is considered to inure insignificant benefit from the
installation of the pedestrian bridge. A small number of employees related to the mixed
use, commercial, and community purpose facility uses may utilize the pedestrian trail
system and the bridge for fitness and recreation purposes during and after work hours,
however, the degree of this use and benefit inured to these types of properties is
considered immaterial and insignificant. 'these land uses do not generate pedestrian trail
users, instead their purpose is to serve or accommodate the residential users in the
villages. As such; mixed use, commercial, community purpose facility, school and park
uses within EUC are considered exempt from the pedestrian bridge fee obligation
described in this Report.
5. Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Methodology
The Steps or methodology used to develop the pedestrian bridge development impact fee
applicable to residential units ~rithin EUC is as follows:
Step ] : lletennine the total construction cost estimate for the bridge.
Step 2: Determine the amount of available funds for the Eastlake Parkway pedestrian
bridge from the existing PBD1F for Village l l and remaining fees to be collected for
future building permits in Village 11.
Step 3: Subtract from the total construction cost estimate in Step 1 the available and
anticipated funds determined in Step 2 to determine the net bridge cost estimate
allocable to EUC.
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
June U, 2013 Page6
9-14
Steo 4: For the AOB; determine the total number of people per planning area b}~
multiplying the actual and/or planned residential units within the planning area by the
applicable PPHF.
Step ~: Determine the total number of people within the AOB b_v summing the
results of each plannins area from Step 4.
Step 6: Determine the bridee cost allocable to a planning area by multiph~ing the
applicable bridle cost in Step 3 by the fraction obtained by dividing the total number
of people per planning area as determined in Step 4 by the total number of people
within the AOB as determined in Step ~.
Steo 7: Determine the applicable bridge cost per residential unit b~~ di~~idin~ the
bridge cost allocable to the plannins area as determined in Step 6 by the actual and/or
planned residential units within each planning area.
Exhibit 3 outlines on a detailed basis the methodoloey used to calculate the pedestrian
bridge development impact fee applicable to residential units within EUC.
6. Implementation of Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee
The City Council may periodicalh~ review the adequacy of the pedestrian bridle
development impact fee established in this Report and the attached Ordinance. The City
Council; by resolution; mati~ adjust the amount of this pedestrian bridle development
impact fee, as necessan~; to reflect changes in: (i) the Ensineerins News Record
Construction Cost Index; (ii) the cost of the pedestrian bridle; and (iii) the land use
assumptions used in this Report. The pedestrian bridge development impact fee is
required to be paid upon the issuance of a buildins permit.
A developer may request authorization from the City to construct the pedestrian bridee.
Upon application by a developer to construct a pedestrian bridee; an agreement shall be
prepared for City Council action which contains at least the following information and
requirements:
a) A detailed description of the project, including a preliminary cost estimate;
b) The developer shall (i) prepare plans and specifications for approval by the
Cite; (ii) secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the project. (iii)
secure all required permits; environmental clearances necessary for the
construction of the project; (iv) provide performance bonds; and (v) pay all
City fees and costs:
c) The developer shall advance all necessary funds to construct the project. The
City will not be responsible for any construction costs beyond those agreed to
in advance by the Cih~:
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
June 17, 2013 Paee 7
9-15
d) The developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for the construction.
Any extra work charges during construction shall be justified and
documented:
e) Whe^ all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the
developer shall submit verification to the City of payments made for the
construction. The City Manager shall make the final determination on
expenditures eligible for credit or cash reimbursement;
f) The City shall inspect all construction and verify quantities, in accordance
with the City and state code, to ensure the final improvement complies with
all applicable standards and is constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer:
g) The developer will receive a credit against the required development impact
fees during the issuance of building permits for the proposed development. If
the total construction cost amounts to more than the total required
development impact fees, the developer will be paid the excess cash when
funds are available as determined by the City Manager.
The ordinance attached herein as Exhibit ~ addresses, among other things, the developer
construction of the pedestrian bridge(s), the pedestrian bridge development impact fee,
the procedure for waiver or reduction of the development impact fee, and exemptions.
With the adoption of the pedestrian bridge development impact fee, the following
development impact fees identified in Exhibit 5 would apply.
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
June 17, 2013 Page 8
9-16
EXHIBIT 1
Map of Pedestr-ian Bridge Location
9-17
Pedestrian Bridge Location
125 m
h
Q
o~ymp'G
Bey -- Millenia -
Pa Eastlake
~~, Parkway
POC
Road
Qa
1 0 2009 4000 6900
Approximate Grephic Scalc
9-18
EXHIBIT 2
Area of Benefit
s-is
EUC Ownerships
CRES
"A" 206.6
"B" 22.2
..... ,~....,., ...;res shown do not
include the perimeterarterials.
The acreage indicated for ownership
"8"is approximate.
tits/r
LIiY OF
CHULAVISTA
Eastern Urban Center
OTAY RANCH
MILLENIA
9-20
McMillin - Millenia
~1_ ~,."
.- I ~ \ `
\•.
`a~ 8 1 3 j A G ~\ ~\ \.
j' S5 69 PG i 99 9 GNP \ ,
% E STREET I \ \,
X30` Pc~ ~ I 5 t ~9i Pc ~ ~\•.
\ ~_~
/' ~3o`P / b 1 y~3P^ ~ ~aiPC~",off ~\\ ,\,•
\ _~ j - ~\ 9 c \ ,, '~ , '~\, 0.50 c
~ 302 ~ a 3y,
y ~.
I ~ \qPC \ ~ P `~ S' \ G
1 p3 Pc \8 3~~ Pc \ ~ `t\,, o~ Pc
•\ `\ \ ,CPC y~~ \\ y29PC~ ~` i\
~ `'"" y cN •. .
•\ ~ . \ \~ c 22 \ y~9 P
' ~---~- \ 'tic c~~ ,-~ ~`~\•
\ 2q asp Pc \\ y>~,~,PC ~\ ~ asp ~~ 2~ ,~
.,\ \
\ a~jo ~ Bg Pc \ \ p ~c E~ \\.\ aab~ `~ \~'\ .
pb ~ ~yOPC 2b \ - ^•
.~ ~-
2a ,` ~ -
~_
9-21
Otay Laod Compao~- - FUC Project Area
9-22.
EXHIBIT 3
Summary of Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee
9-23
~ c~~~~
EXHIBIT 3
SUMMARY OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PER UNIT
Eastlake
IEUC:
Pky Bridge
~SFD -Fee per Unit
IMF -Fee per Unit
$ 615.13 (a)
$ 456.10
Footnote:
(a) As there are no single family units plamled to be
constructured ui the Area of Benefit, the fee for Single
Family Detached units is based on the persons per
household (PPH) factor relative to Multifamily units
multiplied by the Multifamily fee per unit.
[ SFD PPH 3.52 - MF PPH 2.61 = 1.35 x $456.10=
$615.13].
9-24
EXHIBIT 3 . ~ [~~ ff~
Eastlake Pkv.
Bridge
Hard Cost
Construction Cost S 1.710.022
Contingency @ 10% 171.002
Total Hard Cost S 1.881.024
Total Hard Cost (rounded) [1] $ 1,882,000
Sofr Cost
Design Cost @ 1 ~% S 282;300
Construction & Special Inspection Cost @ 16% 282;300
Plan Check & City Inspection Cost @ 6% 112;920
Project Admin. (Audit) @ 2% 37;640
Program Administration @ 6% 94;100
Development Supen~ision @ 1.76% 32,936
Contingency @ 10% of Sofr Costs 84;220
Total Sofr Cost [2] $ 926.416
Total Hard R Soft Cost [1] + [2] _ [3] S 2,808,415
Less:
Available Funds (Villaee 11 PBDIF) S 1;097,036
Projected Future Villaee 11 PBDIF Collections 32.011
[4] S 1,129,047
Remaining Bridge Cost = [3] - [4] S 1,679,367
9-25
ERHIBIT3 ~~~~
Eastlake Pky Percentage of Village ll Ped Bridge DIF
Hunte Parkway Eastlake Park~~av
Bridge Bridge Total
Total Hard & Sofi Cost (a) $ 3,379,374 $ 1,933,704 $ 5,303;078
One Half of Bridge Cost $ 1;689.687 $ 961,852 $ 2;651;539
of Total 63.7% ~.a~~'s%ri36'3%.l 100.0%
Projected Fee Ret•enue from Remainiug Village 11 Units
Remaining Units Fee (effective
(b) 1011/12) Eastlake Pky
Fee Revenue Share Eastlake Pkv
Fee Revenue
Single Family - $ 2.241
Multifamily 53 $ 1.665 $ - 36.3%
$ 88,245 36.3% $ -
$ 32,011
Total 53 $ 88,245 " r$.;~;~"3201'~Y~"
Village 11 PBDIF Fund Balance
Fund 588 Balance (as of 5/9/13) (c) $ 3,024,202
Percentaee allocable to Eastlake Pkv Bridge 36.28°
Allocable Fund Balance for Eastlake Pky Bridge ;?%;`,'x;1;097;036'
Footnotes:
(a) Per Pedestrian Bridge DIF Report for Village 1 ], May 26, 2005.
(b) Per Brookfield Homes; !`1ay 22, 2013.
(c) Per Cih• of Chula Vista, slay 9; 2013.
9-26
EhFIIBTI3 ~~~ ff j~
U Lot
rea
escription
Gross
Acres
on Res SF
Res
Units
Res
Density'
Res
Produn
7vpe Persons
per house-
hold
Factor Total
Persons
per
Household
Cos[ per Plannino
Area
Cost per
Uoit
VeVillin - Dfillenia
1 4 BuSinesS District 11.00 225,641 - N/A
2 1 Gateway hfixed Use District 13.13 254,630 N/.4
3 1 Gateway Nixed Use District 5.67 73,050 N/.4
4 2 Nonhwmem Neighborhood Dismct 9.25 260 28 hff 2.61 679 118,586 S 416.10
5 6 Main Street District 2.13 17,685 Si 41 Dff 2.61 ?2i 39,590 S 416.10
6 6 Main Street Dismtt 417 36,765 180 42 hff 2.61 471 82,300 S 416.10
7 5 Mined Use CisidOf3ice Core District 7.06 15?,242 N/.4
8 6 Main Street District 3.02 ?5,875 127 42 MF 2.61 331 57,922 S 416.10
9 6 Main Street District 2.91 24,529 122 42 Aff 2.61 31S 55,582 S 416.10
10 3 Nonheastem Neighborhood District 2.81 117 41 Dff 261 305 53.42 S 416.10
11 3 Nonheaztem Neiehborhood District 3.08 4; 14 MF 2.61 Ili ?0,068 5 456.10
L 7 Eastern Gazewav District 3.63 51 14 MF 2.61 133 23.61 5 456.10
13 3 Northeastern Neighborhood District 3.07 127 42 MF 2.61 333 58,117 b 456.10
14 6 Main Street District 3.00 25,439 125 42 hff 2.61 326 56,947 S 456.10
15 6 Main Street District 3.15 ?7,094 li3 42 hff 2.fi1 341 60,65? S 456.10
16 5 Mixed Use CisiclOffice Core Dismtt S.SS 184,477 - NIA
l7 6 Main Street Distrin 2.63 51,161 112 42 hff 2.61 291 50,901 S 456.10
18 6 Main Street District 2.48 65,366 103 42 hff 2.61 215 41,976 S 456.10
19 3 Northeastern Neiehbarhood District 311 136 42 MF 2.61 354 61,823 S 456.10
20 7 Eastern Gazewav District 3.66 66 18 hff 2.61 172 30,103 S 456.10
21 10 Southeastern Neiehborhood Dismct 2.72 47 17 hff 2.61 123 21,437 S 456.10
22 10 Southeastern Neighborhood District 2.66 109 41 lff 2.61 285 49,731 S 456.10
23 9 Central Southern Neighborhood Dismct 2.50 118 42 Dff 2.61 308 53,827 S 456.10
24 9 Centml Southern Neiehborhood District 2.84 118 42 Dff 2.61 309 54,OL~ S 456.10
25 9 Central Southern Neighborhood District 4.51 162 36 MF 2.61 423 73,914 S 456.10
26 9 Elemema~~ School Site 6.84 N/A NIA NIA NL4 - NIA
27 10 Southeaztem Neiehborhood District 10.35 277 27 hff 2.61 73 126,3:0 S 456.10
2S 8 Southwestern Neighborhood District 9.54 360 38 MF 2.61 940 164,210 5 456.10
29 4 Business District 9.57 188,397 -
i N/A
.
OLC - EUC (Pnnlnn North o! Hun[e Pkv)
A NL4 Afulo(amih' 9A8 380 40 Dff 2.61 992 173,319 S 456.10
B-1 N/A hfulti(amilr 4.61 181 40 ASF 2.61 478 83,467 5 456.10
B-2 N/A Muti(amih' 3.69 136 35 Aff 2 61 355 62,030 S 456.10
C N/A Park 3.64 N/A N/.4 N/A N/A iT/A N/A N/A N/A
1
I I
I
9-27
EXHIBIT 4
Pedestrian Bridge Type Selection Report
(Simon Wong Engineering, dated.May 6, 2013)
s-2s
MILLENIA - EASTLAKE PARKWAY
PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
Type Selection Report
~~~ _
M I L L E N I A'
®®®
Prepared for:
SLF IV/McMILLIN MILLENIAJV, LLC
Prepared by:
Simon Wong Engineering
9968 Hibert Street, Second Floor
San Diego, CA 92131
May 6, 2013
Simon Wong Engineering
9-29
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Table of Contents
Site Location Map ................................................................. ........................................3
Vicinity Map ........................................................................... ........................................4
1. Introduction ................................................................... ........................................4
2. Design Criteria ............................................................... ........................................4
3. Geometry ....................................................................... ........................................5
4. Structure Type and Layout ........................................... ........................................5
5. Aesthetics ...................................................................... ........................................6
6. Seismic Assessment .....................:............................... ........................................7
7. Utilities .....................................:..................................... ........................................8
8. Construction Phasing ................................................... ........................................8
9. Structure Costs ............................................................. ........................................9
Appendix A-General Plan Estimates
Appendix B -Bridge General Plan and Foundation Plan
SWE Job No. 500.924
9-30
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Page 3
Site Location Map
CEANSIDE °VISTA
O CARLSBAD
SAN
~'~~ 78
~Cgpl,q 76 JULIAN
ENCINRAS RANCHO
BERNARDO
O
SOLANA BEACH 15 POWAY San Diego
s ° County
s7
0
MIRA SANiEE
MESA - 5 LAKESIDE
LA JO ALPINE
O
CLAIRE 0 ~ 12 8 O
63 EL Project
CA'1ON Location
~0 DIEGO
BEACH ° SAN
e
N Q noNAL
crrY a
CORONADO
CHULA
VISiA
0 2
IMPERIAL
BEACH ° SpIJ° 90 --~1FORNiA_~
Pacific __
0 3 8 12
Ocean -- ''~
MEXICO
Approximate Graphic S®le
(Miles)
~un~ MiuFNw - eASn.acie
PARKWAY POC
~a ~~a 8RE LOCATION MAP
~~~>~~
~. G ~,~,
m ~ aro-vta (asW xe-n+s Scale: As Noted Date: 8/14/12
SWE Job No. 500-924
9-31'
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Page 4
Vicinity Map
125 ro
m
ieW am
°'y"~P~~ Millenia -
Pa~„av Eastlake-
Parkway
POC
Birch ~JC~m a'~
Road a~' _ ,
Q
~ o zooo agog sooo
Approxlmate~ Graphic Scale
(Feet)
Introduction
The proposed Millenia -Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) located in the
community of Otay Ranch in the City of Chula Vista, California, is one bridge in a series
of structures developing the concept of a "walkable" community. This bridge would allow
pedestrians to cross over Eastlake Parkway and travel between Village 11 and the
Millenia development within Otay Ranch.
A Bridge Planning Study for the Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC was initially completed
in 2003 and updated in January 2013 as part of the Millenia Project for McMillin
Companies. That study was reviewed and accepted by the City of Chula Vista.
The recent planning study described the rationale for selecting a concrete box girder
bridge. This Type Selection Report does not reiterate all of the considerations described
in the Planning Study, but simply adds more details and summarize the pertinent issues
related to the final bridge design and construction.
2. Design Criteria
The design loading for this structure would follow the AASHTO LRFD Guide
Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. The bridge would be designed for
90 psf pedestrian loading without impact and H10 vehicular loading (half of a two-axle
vehicle design weight).
SWE Job No. 500.924
9-32
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Page 5
3. Geometry
The proposed geometry has the structure crossing Eastlake Parkway on a slight
2-degree skew to its centerline and located approximately 280 feet north of the
intersection with Hunte Parkway. The west abutment, located in Millenia, would be
located at the top of the proposed embankment fill with a pathway leading up to the
structure from the north and south sides. The east abutment would be located in
Village 11, connecting with an existing pathway that comes up from Eastlake Parkway
and Hunte Parkway.
The overall bridge length is expected to be approximately 286 feet long with an overall
bridge width of 12 feet and a walkway clear width of 10 feet.
Incompliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA), the maximum walkway slope on
the bridge cannot exceed 5 percent. The proposed longitudinal slope for this structure is
4.6 percent with across-slope of 1 percent to facilitate drainage. Stormwater runoff is
anticipated to flow across the eastern sidewalk approach into the existing drainage
swale.
4. Structure Type and Layout
The proposed superstructure for the Millenia Pedestrian Overcrossing is a three-span
cast-in-place prestressed concrete box girder structure, 286'-0" long and 12'-0" wide with
spans of approximately 68 feet, 148 feet, and 70 feet respectively. Over the columns,
the superstructure would be haunched, deepening parabolically from 4'-2" to 7'-6". This
superstructure type was identified in the 2013 Planning Study. This type of super-
structure would resemble other pedestrian structures located in the community that
cross Olympic Parkway and La Media Road and would create continuity throughout the
Villages of Otay Ranch. Post-tensioning the superstructure is recommended on this
project to minimize the potential for tension cracking in the deck over the supports.
The three-span arrangement places the bridge supports behind the sidewalks and
outside of the clear recovery zone, and metal beam guardrail protection would not be
required along the roadway. No bridge supports are proposed in the median of Eastlake
Parkway.
The superstructure would be supported by concrete seat-type abutments and concrete
columns founded on deep pile foundations. The proposed columns would be four-foot
by five-foot rectangular columns with precast stone fagade facings.
The proposed bridge supports are located in varying depths of engineered fill. The west
abutment would be located in an area that is expected to have up to 75 feet of fill that
would be placed as part of the Millenia grading work occurring during the summer of
2013. The column locations are located in approximately 44 feet and 20 feet of fill for
Bent 2 and Bent 3; respectively, that has been in place for approximately 12 years. The
east abutment is located in approximately 25 feet of fill that has also been in place for 12
years.
Based on preliminary estimates by Geocon, the west abutment has the potential to settle
up to 3.6 inches due to the height of the proposed fill. Deep pile foundations are
therefore recommended at this location to mitigate the potential for long-term settlement.
SWE Job No. 500-924
9-33
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Page 6
To minimize impacts to existing utilities and to minimize the potential for differential
settlement, deep pile foundations are also recommended for Bents 2 and 3 and
Abutment 4.
24-inch-diameter cast-In-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles are recommended at each
abutment, and 84-inch CIDH concrete piles are proposed at Bents 2 and 3.
5. Aesthetics
The following artificial precast stone fascia would be applied to the vertical faces of all
abutments, wingwalls, and columns:
Manufacturer: Eldorado Stone
Style and Color: Cliffstone Lantana
Description: Cliffstone is a
contemporary and versatile wall
stone with refined flat-planed faces
and distinctive textural details. The
mix of rectangular and lineal stones
offers a selection that is easy to
install and provides a clean balanced
symmetry. Stones range from 1.5
inches to 5.5 inches in height and 4
inches to 22 inches in length. This
manufactured product is lighter and
less expensive than genuine rock.
The concrete in all remaining exposed
surfaces, including the deck, would contain
color pigments (i.e., integral color, not a
surface stain). The proposed color admixture
would be "Coachella Sand C-15" by Scofield.
Bridge lighting would consist of LED luminaires mounted on 12-foot
straight poles (5-inch diameter) spaced intermittently on each bridge
curb. The poles would be dark bronze, situated on rectangular corbels
projecting outward 3 inches to 6 inches frdm.the edge of the bridge deck.
Lamps: Gardco GL13-1-1-70LA-NW-UNIV-BRP (see figure at right)
Poles: KIM PRA12-5125 SA DB
Custom decorative metal railings
with vinyl coated mesh would be
4'-6" tall along Spans 1 and 3 and
8'-0" tall in Span 2. Railings would
have breaks to accommodate the
light poles.
Anti-graffiti coatings are not
proposed for this structure.
~,~ oa,m ati ~I~ :mt„
i
~, oo ~,
~,,~oo .,... LL".~
a „~ ~ ...
~, e~
SWE Job No. 500-924
9-34
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Page 7
6. Seismic Assessment
The pedestrian structure would be designed far earthquakes in accordance with the
2007 Caltrans Fault Data Set and the 2010 Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC),
Version 1.6.
Per geotechnical recommendations based on the Caltrans ARS Online (v2.2.06) fault
database, the site is located closest to the seismically active Rose Canyon Fault Zone,
which is approximately 16.5 km east of the site with an assigned Maximum Credible
Earthquake (MCE) of 6.8. The horizontal peak bedrock acceleration from the ARS online
is 0.28g, where g represents the acceleration due to gravity.
Per geotechnical recommendations, the ARS online inputs are the following:
• Latitude: 32.613898
• Longitude: -116.959667
• Vs3a: 360 m/s
The following Seismic Design Parameters are recommended for the structure:
Brid a Name Recommended Foundation T e MCE Max ARS
Millenia -Eastlake Abutment 1: 24-inch CIDH piles
Parkway POC Bent 2: 84-inch CIDH piles 6.8 0.6558
Abutment 3: 24-inch CIDH Iles
An equivalent static analysis was performed on the proposed structure to determine
anticipated deflections under the seismic design parameters stated above. The overall
superstructure weight was estimated at 975 kips. The columns were assumed to be
five-foot by four-foot rectangular columns with approximately one percent steel with two
concentric #6 hoops spaced at 4 inches for the entire height of the column.
Per SDC 7.8.1, the abutments dominate the elastic response; therefore, a stiffness of
222 kips/in. was assigned to the abutments. Based on a moment curvature analysis, an
effective moment of inertia of 9.09 ft° and 6.10 ft° for the strong and weak directions,
respectively, was determined for each column. An equivalent static analysis resulted in
the following displacement demands:
Direction Period sec I ARS (g) Dis lacement in
Lon itudinal 0.40 I 0.536 0.86
Bent 2 Transverse 1.02 0.346 3.55
Bent 3 Transverse 0.78 0.400 2.36
Based on the assumed 1 percent steel and concentric #6 hoops for confinement, the
following displacement capacities were calculated:
Direction ~~ Dc (in) 100%~~ + 30%~i (in) 30%4~ + 100%~i (in)
in
Longitudinal 0.90 5.69 6.59 1.93 3.81
Bent 2
Longitudinal 0.58 4.46 5.04 1.57 2.62
Bent 3
SWE Job No. 500.924
9-35
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Page 8
Direction ~~ ~~ 4c (in) 100%4i + 30%4T (in) 30%4~ + 100%oT (in)
Transverse 4.86 25.23 30.09 1.93 3.81
Bent 2
Transverse 4.86 18.15 23.01 1.57 2.62
Bent 2
This shows that the expected capacity of the bents exceeds the expected demands.
Although a geotechnical report is npt yet available, the potential for liquefaction is
considered low due to the very dense to hard nature of the Otay Formation, ,
recommended remedial grading, and the lack of permanent groundwater table.
7. Utilities
The following utilities have been identified within the construction zone for this structure:
• Traffic Signal and Street Lighting Conduits (in parkway near Bent 2)
• Storm Drain (in roadway near Bent 2)
• Reclaimed Water (in roadway near Bent 2)
• Water Lines (in roadway near Bent 3)
• Gas (in parkway near Bent 3)
• SDG&E (in parkway near Bent 3)
• AT&T (in parkway near Bent 3)
The proposed structures foundations have been located so that they would not impact
these utilities.
8. Construction Phasing
Construction phasing of the Millenia -Eastlake Pedestrian Overcrossing is anticipated.
Construction of the west abutment, located within the McMillin Millenia development,
would be undertaken as part of the grading improvements, which include a retaining wall
that supports the approach walkways. The grading is expected to begin in the summer
of 2013. The remainder of the bridge is expected to be constructed approximately 10
years after the site has been fully developed.
When the superstructure is constructed, falsework would be necessary including several
falsework bents in the median of Eastlake Parkway. The southbound falsework opening
width is anticipated to be 36 feet and would allow for two through lanes and shoulders.
The northbound opening is also anticipated to be 36 feet to accommodate two through
lanes and shoulders. Minimum temporary vertical clearance is assumed to be 16
inches.
Temporary traffic barriers (K-rail) would be placed adjacent to falsework openings to
protect the falsework bents. At least two overnight full road closures and traffic detours
would be required to erect and remove bridge falsework beams.
Traffic control plans would need to accommodate the left turn from southbound Eastlake
Parkway onto eastbound Hunte Parkway.
S W E Job No. 500-924
9-36
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Page 9
Although a storage area for contractor use is currently available south of the intersection
of Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway, in 10 years, when the bridge construction is
anticipated, this area may be developed and unavailable.
9. Structure Costs
Cost estimates for the bridge are as follows:
Millenia -Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Overcrossing
General Plan Estimate
Appendix Description Cost Estimate Cost per Square
Foot
A-1 Only Abutment 1 without Trail $144,000 N/A
A-2 Only Abutment 1 with Trail $607,000 - N/A
A-3 Bridge without Abutment 1 or Trail $1,322,000 $350/sf
A-4 Entire Bridge without Trail $1,417,000 $375/sf
A-5 Entire Bridge with Trail $1,882,000 N/A
A-6 Project Hard and Soft Costs $2,808,000 N/A
General Plan Estimates are included in Appendix A and include 10 perceht contingency
and 10 percent mobilization. All costs are for FY2013.
The cost for the western approach trails and retaining walls is estimated to be
approximately $421,544 and was included in the costs estimates on Appendix A-2 and
A-5. Cost for traffic control is estimated to be approximately $158,360 and was included
in the bridge superstructure cost estimates. Soft costs such'as bridge design,
construction engineering, administration, and inspection are estimated to total
approximately $926,415. Appendix A-6 consists of tables showing the detailed cost
estimates for the approach trail retaining walls and traffic control and a table with the soft
cost estimates. Total project costs are estimated to be approximately $2,808,000.
SWE Job No. 500-924
9-37
Millenia-Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Appendix A -General Plan Estimates
SWE Job No. 500-924
9-38
GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE
(Abutment 1 Costs Only; Does Not Include Trail)
ENGINEER: K. GAZAWAY
DATE: 6/74!13
COMPANY: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
REVIEW ED BY: C. GUSHING DATE: 05!3!73
STRUCTURE: EASTLAKE PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
REM NO. CONTRACT REMS UNR QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
7 MOBILIZATION (70"/o OF BRIDGE REMS) LS 7 577,823 511,823
2 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 50 5250 512,500
3 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 26 5250 56,500
4 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 73 52,000 526,000
5 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 13 - _ 5900 571,700
6 9AR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 7,300 52.10 515,330
7 24'CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 231 5200 546,200
B ARCHRECTURAL FINISH (STONE FACADE) SF 580
SUBTOTAL 5130.053
CONTINGENCIES (70%) 513,005
TOTAL 5743.058
FOR BUDGET PURPOSES USE 5144,000
COMMENTS:
7. Stone tayade at Abut 1 will be installed during remainder of bridge construction
2. Includes onty bridge items of work
Legend: CY -Cubic Yards
EA -Each
LB -Pounds
LF -Linear Feet
LS-Lump Sum
A-1
9-39
GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE
(Abutment 1 and Trail Costs Only)
ENGINEER: K. GAZAWAY DATE: 6/14/13 COMPANY: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
REVIEWED BY: C. GUSHING DATE: 05/3/13
STRUCTURE: EASTLAKE PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
ITEM NO. CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION (10 % OF BRIDGE ITEMS) LS 1 $11,623 $11,823
2 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 50 $250 572,500
3 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 26 $250 56,500
4 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 13 $2,000 $26,000
5 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 13 _ _ $900 571,700
6 - BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 7,300 52.70 515,330
7 24' CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 231 $200 546,200
8 ARCHITECTURAL FINISH (STONE FACADE) SF $50
9 TRAIL AND RETAINING WALL (SEE ESTIMATE DETAIL INCLUDED) 5427,544
SUBTOTAL 5551,597
CONTINGENCIES (70%) 555,160
TOTAL $606,757
FOR BUDGET PURPOSES USE $607,000
COMMENTS:
1. Stone fayade at Abut 1 will be installed during remainder of bridge construction
2. Includes only bridge items of work, except for trail and retaining wall costs noted.
Legend: CY -Cubic Yards
EA -Each
LB -Pounds
LF -Linear Feet
LS-Lump Sum
A-2
9-40
GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE
(Bridge Costs Only; Does Not Include Abutment 7 or Trail)
ENGINEER: K. GAZAWAY DATE: 6/74113 COMPANY: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
REVIEWED BY: C. GUSHING DATE: 0513/13
STRUCTURE: EASTLAKE PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
LENGTH: 286'-0' ~ WIDTH: 12'-0' DECK AREA (SF): 3432
ITEM NO. CONTRACT REMS UNIT OUANTITV PRICE AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION (10%OF BRIDGE fiEMS) LS 1 594,791 594,791
2 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 63 5200 512,600
3 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 41 5225 59,113
4 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 317_ _ 57,100 5348,700
5 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 13 5900 511,700
6 PRESTRESSING CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE LB 8,400 53.10 526,040
7 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 112,300 51.05 5117,915
B METAL BRIDGE RAILING 4'-6' LF 304 5150 545,600
9 ME7AL BRIDGE RAILING 8'-0' LF 300 5200 560,000
10 JOINT SEAL (MR 2~ LF 24 520D 54,800
11 24' CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 175 5200 535,000
12 84' CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING - LF 107 51,000 5107,000
13 ARCHITECTURAL FINISH (STONE FACADE) SF 1,184 535.00 541,440
14 BRIDGE LIGHTING LS 1 5126.000 5128,000
15 TRAFFIC COMROL (SEE ESTIMATE DETAIL INCLUDED) 5158,360
SUBTOTAL 51,201,058
CONTINGENCIES (10%)~ 5720.106
TOTAL 51,321,164
FOR BUDGET PURPOSES USE 51,322,000
SO FT COST S 349.96
COMMENTS
1. Pile foundations assumed with depth of piles and numher of piles estimated. Actual foundation will be determined during design
once Sails Report has been providetl.
2. Includes ohty bddge items of wodc. Site grading, Bridge embankment construction and metal beam guardrail not included in this estimate.
3. Stone fayade at Abut 1 will be installed during remaiMer of bridge construction -
Legentl: CY -Cubic Yards
EA -Each
LB -Pounds
LF -Linear Feet '
LS-Lump Sum
A-3
9-41
GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE
(Bridge Costs Only; Does Not Include Trail)
ENGINEER: K. GAZAWAY DATE: 6/14/13 COMPANY: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
REVIEWED BY: C. GUSHING DATE: 05/3/13
STRUCTURE: EASTLAKE PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
LENGTH: 286'-0' WIDTH: 12'-0" DECK AREA (SF) : 3432
ITEM NO. CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF BRIDGE ITEMS) LS 1 $102,640 5102,640
2 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 98 $140 $13,720
3 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 65 $200 $12,900
4 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 330-_ $1,100 5363,000
5 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 14 $600 $8,400
6 PRESTRESSING CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE LB 8,400 53.10 $26,040
7 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 110,000 51.05 $115,500
e METAL BRIDGE RAILING 4'-6" LF 304 $150 $45,6D0
9 METAL BRIDGE RAILING 8'-0" LF 300 ~ $200 $60,000
10 JOINT SEAL (MR 2") LF 24 $200 $4,800
11 24" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 500 $200 $100,000
12 84" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 107 $1,000 $107,000
13 ARCHITECTURAL FINISH (STONE FACADE) SF 1184 $35.00 $41,440
14 BRIDGE LIGHTING ~ ~ LS 1 $128,000 5128,000
15 TRAFFIC CONTROL (SEE ESTIMATE DETAIL INCLUDED) 5158,360
SUBTOTAL ~ $1,287,400
CONTINGENCIES (10%) $128,740
TOTAL $1,416,140
FOR BUDGET PURPOSES USE $1,417,000
SO FT COST $ 375.12
COMMENTS
1. Pile foundations assumed with depth of piles and number of piles estimated. Actual foundation will be determined during design
once Soils Report has been provided.
2. Includes only bridge items of work. Site grading, Bridge embankment construction and metal beam guardrail not included in this estimate.
3. Stone fagade at Abut 1 will be installed during remainder of bridge construction
Legend: CY-Cubic Yards
EA-Each
LB -Pounds
LF -Linear Feet
LS -Lump Sum
A-4
9-42
GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE
(Costs Include Trail and Abutment 7)
ENGINEER: K. GAZAWAY
REVIEWED BY: C. GUSHING
DATE: 6/14113
DATE: OSr3/13
COMPANY: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
STRUCTURE: EASTLAKE PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
LENGTH: 286'-0' WIDTH:
77-0' DECK AREA (SF) : 3432
ITEM NO. CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION (10%OF BRIDGE ITEMS) LS 7 5702,736 5102,738
2 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 113 5740 575.820
3 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 67 5200 573,300
4 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 330_ _ 57,700 5363,000
5 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 26 5600 S75.600
6 PRESTRESSING CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE ~ LB 8,400 53.70 526.040
7 9AR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 179,600 57.05 5725,580
8 METAL BRIDGE RAILING 4'-6' LF 304 5750 545,600
9 METAL BRIDGE RAILING 8'-0' LF 300 5200 560,000
10 JOINT SEAL (MR 7) LF 24 5200 54,800
11 24' CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 406 5200 581,200
12 84' CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 107 57,000 5707,000
13 ARCHITECTURAL FINISH (STONE FACADE) ~ SF 7184 535.00 541,440
14 BRIDGE LIGHTING LS 1 5728,000 5128,000
75 TRAIL AND RETAINING WALL (SEE ESTIMATE DETAIL INCLUDED) 5421,544
76 TRAFFIC CONTROL (SEE ESTIMATE DETAIL INCLUDED) 5758,360
SUBTOTAL - 57,710,022
CONTINGENCIES (10%) 5771,002
TOTAL 57,881,024
FOR BUDGET PURPOSES USE 51,882,000
SO FT COST 5 496.26
COMMENTS
1. Pile foundations assumed with depth of piles and number of piles estimated. AGUaI foundation will he d=_lertnined during design
once Soils Report has been provided.
2. Includes onty bridge items of vrork. Site grading, Bddge embankment construction and metal beam guardrail not includetl in this estimate.
3. Stone fayade at Abut 1 will be installed during remainder of bridge wnstruction
Legend: CY -Cubic Yards
EA -Each
LB -Pounds
LF -Linear Feet
LS-Lump Sum
A-5
9-43
GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE
ENGINEER:
REVIEWED BY:
STRUCTURE:
Total Hard Cost:
K. Gazaway COMPANY: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
McMillin DATE: 06/14/13
EASTLAKE PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
$1,882,000
Total Project Cost: $2,808,415
SOFT COST:
Desi n Cost @ 15% $282,300
Construction & S ecial Ins ection Cost@ 15 % $282,300
Plan Check & Cit Ins ection Cost @ 6% $112,92D
Pro'ect Admin. Audit @ 2% $37,640
Pro ram Administration@ 5% $94,100
Develo ment Su rvision @ 1.75% $32,935
Conlin enc @ 10% $84,220
TOTAL SOFT COST: $926,415
TRAIL AND RETAINING WALL
Item Ouanti Unit Unit Price Extension
Retainin Wall 512 LF $550 $281,600
Fence 8 Hantlrail 744 LF $130 $96,720
6"Curb 744 LF $16.00 $11,904
4" PCC Sidewalk 6264 SF $5.00 $31 320
TOTAL W/OUT CONTINGENCY: $421,544
TRAFFIC CONTROL AND TEMPORARY SIGNAL
Description ~ Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension
Traffic Control Plan and Permit 1 LS $5,500 $5,500
Construction Area Si ns 16 EA $75.00 $1,200
Directional Arrow Boartls 2 Each, Rental 6 MO. $1,650 ~ $9,900
Cones / Glu Down Delineators 120 EA $20.00 $2,400
Tem ra Std in & Removal Allowance 1 LS $7,500 $7,500
Set U Traffic Control a Hrs $270 $2,160
Remove Traffic Control 8 Hrs $225 $1,800
Set K -Rail 1280 LF $16.00 $20,480
Rent K -Rail @ 6 Months 1280 LF $9.00 $11,520
Crash Cushion Arra 4 Sets $4,700 $18,800
Maintain Traffic Control Equip. /Fuel
Arrow Boards 24 Wks $650 $15,600
Pedestrian Shelter-One Sitle Only 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
Tratfic Control Subtotal - $98,360
Temporary Signal Allowance with
interconnect to Hunte Parkway, wood
poles,(2) cameras, controller, meter
pedestal 8 two signal heads.
1
LS
$60,000
$60,000
TOTAL W/OUT CONTINGENCY: $158,360
A-6
9-44
Millenia-Eastlake Parkway POC Type Selection Report
Appendix B -General Plan and Foundation Plan
SW E Job No. 500-924
9-45
w~~ ~
err. ,._.,, r.r, ,ee e.
~R~ ~ a
u [e ~
I
p
x
aWV
IB
V
.-a xlu [t5[w[x[I
'
.e
-
w>le[ rs.rc
Z _... ~.
... .. _
•
~ us
n. ~ ~
.~xis.
.~ C
~~ ~
__ ~ ~' eJ
T
°~"5'
______NTT~
~ "i ~
.
-°~
~A1:
- ~ .i. .~e wc~.u m.oe -
p ~
rter x
' eE.: a ni.. ix.euu co.~
~ ~4
o.w ErEV..iu .. m.w
,
~a-w 'z.w
,,•ro ~z.ao
aEVATKJN ~
. za a ~ -
-.art ~~~ \I~ II ("",-I I wl~il~ce6e- j11
-_-ter_-__.-_ _-_-s"~-..
,
1' , o g ~
~ ~ r ~
'u e`--''---~
t
; ,r
e` roar a.r~ t~ o
I .ar a .
Y"~ /;
,..
,a-a-° p
rae ar r,a r 1vPlca~secnoN
ve - ~ e
RAN ~m~.,... a.«. e, e. ..a. .~.
••-
® 309. PLAN SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
•VS
IOOU-X%
1mIfY11 ~GSMR P1B6PAY POC
9-46
~~ ~ 1l I I I ~ ~ m.~i,
i ~~ I ;,
m~ I I 'i 'I i 1 I
~ °o
_~ f Mv¢ • rl I
~~ I VIII °~J '~ I
zI
.. 1_"_.~ ._ _.i._.__ _}.
' ,.
I,~r 11111111111 ~ ` ~ ~ ~~
'lip..--Ir~vi `
PILE ~~T• VOLE
• ~Iwl
laa Im lir . •qlm Irrl l ~i m I t~ i n 1••1 Is.
1 t II%rocal I I I
lu'al. cal 1 I 1 I
1 I v eb ca I 1 I 1 I 1
. xt, ~~ ~~ ~ I i~ '-' ~i~'I~e
c.I. Inc w .:. ~.~I~Im. _e.
I PL
max ~^
.. I`J ~... m s n ra n c..alm
t. O bm.rr t'4 a fa rlir
a. 7 pvrrr }'4 sIa [I} rib
®tl~ -~
~- ~~ 307. PLAN SU°_UITTAI
'°°_"' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
~ - - I e° IOILd ~LL ..16 P1II~lT M ® 1~1_YS
9-47
EXHIBIT 5
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Ordinance
9-48
ORDINAI~TCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DE\TELOPMENT IMIPACT FEE PROGRAA4 FOR THE
EASTERN URBAN' CENTER :Si\TD THE AREA OF
BEI~TEFIT
R'HEREAS, the Conditions of Approval for the Otay Ranch Eastem Urban
Center Tentative Subdivision A4ap (C.V.T. 09-03) require the establishment of a
Development Impact Fee (DIF), or other funding mechanism to construct a pedestrian
bridle that ~~ill cross Eastlake Pazkwav and will connect the Otav Ranch 1\4illenia
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Project to Otav Ranch Village 11: and
V~'HEREAS; land ~~ithin Otay Ranch Millenia EUC will benefit from the
installation of the Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge primarily due to: (a) location and proximity
to the bridge: and (b) its ease of access to the bridge based on the trail configuration; and
V~'HEREAS; the"Millenia-Eastlake Parb-way Pedestrian Overcrossing T}pe
Selection Report, "prepared by Simon R'ong Engineering, dated DZay 6; 2013 estimated
that the construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge would cost
52.808.41 x.00: and
V~'I-IEREAS, the proposed EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF (EUC PBDIF) Ordinance
contained herein will fund ~0% of the cost of the bridge; as the other ~0% will be covered
by the Otav Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF established by City Ordinance No.
2003-2898: and
VVI-IEREAS. the methodolosv used to calculate the EUC PBDIF to cover the cost
of the Eastlake- Pazk~~ay Pedestrian Bridge is explained in the "City of Chula Vista
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Eastern Urban Center (EUC), "
prepazed by Development Planning & Financing Group; Inc, dated June 17; 2013; and
R'HEREAS; the City Council determined based upon the evidence presented at
the Public Hearing; including; but not limited to; the Report and other information
received by the City Council in the course of the Public Hearing,; that imposition of the
EUC PBDIF on all development within the EUC is necessary in order to protect the
public health. safety and welfaze and to ensure effective implementation. of the CiR~`s
General Plan: and
W7-IEREAS. the Citv Council has determined that the amount of the EUC PBDIF
levied by this Ordinance does not exceed the cost of providing the Eastlake Pazkway
Pedestrian Bridge.
9-49
Ordinance No.
Paae 2
NOR', THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
ordain as follows:
Section 1. Environmental Review
The Development Sen~ices Director has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined
that the activit}~ is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the
activity is not subject to CEQA. Although environmental review is not necessary at this
time, environmental review will be required prior to the approval of final design plans
and the awarding of construction contracts for facilities funded through Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee.
Section 2. Acceptance of Report
The City Council has reviewed the proposed "City of Cnula Vista Pedestrian
Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Eastern Urban Center (EUC), "prepared by
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc., dated June 17, 2013 (the "Report"); and
has accepted the Report by Resolution No: 2013- , in the form on file in the
Office of the Cit}~ Clerk.
Section 3. Facilities
The facilities (Facilities) to be financed by the EUC PBDIF relate to the
construction of the Eastlake Pazkway Pedestrian Bridge, which are fully described in the
Report. The City Council may modify or amend the list of projects herein considered to
be part of the Facilities by v,~ritten resolution in order to maintain compliance with the
City's Capital Improvement Program or to reflect changes in land development.
Section 4. Territory to Which Fee is Applicable
The azea of the City of Chula Vista to which the EUC PBDIF applies to is defined
in the Report as the Eastern Urban Center Area of Benefit (the "Area of Benefit') The
Area of Benefit is comprised by rivo sepazate ovt~nerships, as shown in Exhibit 2 of the
Report and described as follows:
~ SLF IV/McMillin Millenia JV, LLC
The Otay Ranch Millenia Project is a fully entitled Master Planned
Community with a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved
Sectional Planning Area- (SPA) Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map, along
with a Development Agreement and a Construction of Parks Agreement.
Millenia is planned for 2,983 Multi-Family residential units and 3.4 million
squaze feet of commercial uses.
- Otay Land Company, LLC
Otay Ranch Village 9 has a portion of the property within the EUC. This
property, estimated to be 22 acres, is located north of Hunte Parkway and
south of the Otay Ranch Millenia Project.- This portion of the EUC is planned
for a maximum of 699 Multi-Family residential units and a 3.64-acre park.
9-50
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Otav Ranch Village 9 has received approval of General Plan and General
Development Plan Amendments which are needed for aproject-specific SPA
Plan.
Section 5. Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish the EUC PBDIF in order to provide
the necessary financing to construct the Facilities within the Area of Benefit.
Section 6. Establishment of Fee
The methodology used to calculate the EUC PBDIF is explained in the Report In
summan~; the procedure taken is as follows:
Determining the Cost of the Pedestrian Bridge:
Based on the "Millenia-Eastlake Park+vm~ Pedestrian Overcrossing Tipe
Selection Report. "prepared by Simon \'~'ong Engineering. -dated Mav 6,
20L3, and made part of the "City of Chula Y"ista Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee Report for Eastern Urban Center (EUC)" as
Exhibit 4 of the abovementioned report. it was estimated that the
construction of the bridge would cost 52.808.416.00.
Determining the Otav Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Funds (Village 11
PBDIF) for the Construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge:
As of Mav 9. 2013. the fund for the Village 11 PBDIF had allocated assets
corresponding to the construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian
Bridge of 51.097.036.00. with estimated additional funds of 532.011.00 to
be collected at the issuance of the building permits for the remaining units
within Village 11.
~ Determining the Area of Benefit and the Population:
The Area of Benefit is composed by the tv+o o++verships within the EUC:
SLF IV/McA4illin Millenia .TV; LLC (A4illenia Project) with 2,983 Multi-
Family Dwelling Units; and Otay Land Company. LLC (Portion of Otay
Ranch Village 9) with 699 Multi-Family Dwelling Units.
The population ~~ithin the Area of Benefit was estimated by using the
People per Household Factor (PPHF) of 2.61 people per Multi-Family
giving a total of 9:610 persons to be benefited by the construction of the
bridge.
i Detemuning the EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF:
Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge Total Construction Cost 52,808;416.00
Village 11 PBDIF Funds Corresponding to the Construction (51,129;047.00)
of the of the Eastlake Pedestrian Bridle
Remaining Cost of the Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge to be
51
679
367.00
Financed by the EUC ,
;
Po ulation within Area of Benefit 9.610 ersons
9-51
Ordinance No.
Yage 4
EUC Ped Bridge DIF er erson $174.7
I. sa s- - r 5= x ~ e r ~ar-~ia
EUC Pedestrian Bridge D~ per S ngle FamtlyhDwelhng ~,~
.Unltn_x,,'4.rc:;:b`~:`i~' a'.x'~sm.-ui"ar~~ s...:+°~'~;2 ~.k~L`cA,w-:+.~, M,~ - ~~r$s ~. ~ .
~~,t$615T13/SFD~t
*1c~.a.c~:.., ~s,`"!~c~~i~N'
EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF pertiMulti=Family Dwelliiig`'
~~-- ~ ~ ~t ~*` ~ ~~ ~+~-~~ . '~e
p~Unlt _.~. ~~+s .~. ~ S'r 4,.f~.:~~. .~,a~ sue M~u<_ r..~,'~ ~,'~ ~s~ .~ ~''-~ r ```~ ,-
~545610/MFD~;
.ti*a',...~~'+°~at ...t.r_'+'w~'s,
* 1Single-Family Dwelling Unit = 3.52 persons
** 1Multi-Family Dwelling Unit = 2.61 persons
Section 7. Due on Issuance of Building Permit
The EUC PBDIF shall be paid in cash upon the issuance of a residential building
permit. Early payment is not permitted. No building permit shall be issued for
residential development projects located within the EUC Area of Benefit unless the
developer has paid the EUC PBDIF imposed by this ordinance.
Section 8. Determination of Equivalent Dwelling Units - -
Residential land uses shall be converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units for the
purpose of this fee based on the following table:
Land Use People per Household Equivalent Dwelling Units
(EDUs
Single-Family 3.52 1
("SFD")*
Multi-Family 2,61 0.74
*"Single-Family Dwelling" shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision,
planning area_ or neighborhood ~a~ith a net density of 8 units per acre or less as shown on
the approved tentative map for said subdivision.
**"Multi-Family Dwelling" shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision,
.planning area or neighborhood with a net density of greater than 8 units per acre as
shown on the approved tentative map for said subdivision.
Section 9. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advanced Payment Prohibited
The EUC PBDIF for each development shall be calculated at the time of building
permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not wheti the
tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan
check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit.
Section 10. Purpose and Use of Fee
. The purpose of the EUC PBDIF is to pay for the planning, design, construction,
and/or financing (including the cost of interest and other financing costs as appropriate)
of the Facilities, or reimbursement to the City or, at the discretion of the City Manager or
designee; if approved in advance and in writing, to other third parties for advancing costs
actually incurred for planning. designing. constructing, or financing the Facilities. Any
use of the EUC PBDIF shall receive the advance consent of the City Manager. and be
used in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Development Impact Fee.
9-52
Ordinance Ivo.
Paee ~
Section 11. Amount of Fee; Establishing 117aster Fee Schedule
The initial EUC PBDIF shall be calculated at the rate of 5616.li per Sinele-
Famih Dwelline Unit (SFD); and 5466.10 per Multi-Family Dwellins Unit (h4FD).
Chapter 16 -Development & In-Lieu Fees of the Master Fee Schedule is hereby
amended to add the "Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee."
under the "Pedestrian Bridge DIF" Section. The additional IanQuase shall read as
follows: V V
Eastem Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee (EUC PBDIFI:
Applicable: Eastem Urban Center (EUC): (1) Otay Ranch A4illenia Project; and (2)
Portion of Otav Ranch Village 9 delimited to the north by the Ota_v Ranch
A•fillenia Project and to the south by Hunte Parkway
Single Famih•, per Dwelling Unit (DU) ........................................5616.13
Multi Family; per Dwelling Unit (DU) ..........................................5466.10
Section 12. Authorih' for Accounting and Expenditures
The proceeds collected from the imposition of the EUC PBDIF shall be deposited
into a public facility-financing fund. (°Eastem Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee Fund'', or altemativeh• herein "Fund"); which is hereby created
and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this ordinance. The Director of
Finance is' authorized to establish various accounts within the Fund for Facilities
identified in this ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the Fund for the
purposes set forth herein in accordance with the Facilities Phasing Plan as specified in the
CVMC 19.09.060, or Capital Improvement Plan adopted by the City Council.
Section 13. Findings
The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. The establishment of the EUC PBDIF is necessar}~to protect the public health;
safety and welfare and to ensure the effective implementation of the City's
General Plan.
B. The EUC PBDIF is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the
construction of the Facilities concurrent with the need for these Facilities arid.to
ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for grou4h-impacted public
facilities.
C. The amount of the fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost
of providing the Facilities for which the fee is collected.
D. \rew development projects within the Area of Benefit will generate a significant
amount of pedestrian traffic that the current pedestrian facilities cannot service;
therefore construction of the Facilities will be needed to sen~ice new development
projects.
9-53
Ordinance No.
Page 6
Section 14. Impact Fee Additional to other Fees and Charges
The EUC PBDIF established by this Section is in addition to the requirements
imposed by other City laws, policies, or regulations relating to the construction or the
financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or
developments.
Section 15. Mandatory Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty to
Tender Reimbursement Offer
Whenever a developer is required as a condition of approval of a development
permit to construct or cause the construction of the Facilities or a portion thereof, the
City may require the developer to install the Facilities according to design
specifications approved by the City and in the size or capacity necessary to .
accommodate estimated pedestrian traffic as indicated in the Report and subsequent
amendments. If such a requirement is imposed, the City shall offer, at the City's
option; to reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees
aze collected, or give a credit against the EUC PBDIF levied by this ordinance or
some combination thereof, in the amount of the costs incurred by the developer that
exceeds their contribution to such Facilities as required by this ordinance, for the
design and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that
particulaz Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the EUC PBDIF.
The City ma}' update the EUC PBDIF calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to
making such offer. This duty to offer to give credit or reimbursement shall be
independent of the developer s obligation to pay the EUC PBDIF.
Section 16. Voluntary Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty of City to
Tender Reimbursement Offer
if a developer is willing and agrees in writing to design and construct a portion of
the Facilities in conjunction with the execution of a development project within the
Area of Benefit, the City may, as part of a written agreement, reimburse the developer
from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or. give a credit
against the EUC PBDIF levied by this ordinance or some combination thereof, in the
amount of the costs incurred by the developer that exceeds their contribution to such
Facilities as required by this ordinance, for the design and construction of the Facility
not to exceed the estimated cost of the particular Facility as included in the
calculation and updating of the EUC PBDIF and in an amount agreed to in advance of
their expenditure in writing by the City. The City may update the EUC PBDIF
calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to making such offer. .This duty to
extend credits or offer reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's
obligation to pay the EUC PBDIF.
Section 17. Procedure for Entitlement to Reimbursement Offer
The City's duty to extend a reimbursement offer to a developer pursuant to
Section 15 of 16 above; shall be conditioned on the developer complying with the
following terms and conditions:
9-54
Ordinance No.
Page 7
a. A'ritten authorization shall be requested by the developer from the City and issued
by the City Council by N=ritten resolution before developer may incw any costs
eligible for reimbwsement relatine to the construction of the Facilities; excluding
any ti=ork attributable to a specific subdivision project.
b. The request for authorization shall contain the follo«ing information; and the City
Manager may from time to time impose:
(1) Detailed description of the work to be conducted by the developer ~=ith
the preliminary= cost estimate.
c. If the Citv Manager grants authorization; it shall be by ~~a-itten agreement ~~=ith the
Developer, and on the follo~~=ing conditions among such conditions as the City
Manager may from time to time impose:
(1) Developer shall prepare all plans and specification and submit same to
the City Manager for approval;
(2) Developer shall secure and dedicate any= rieht-of-~~=ay= required for the
improvement work:
(3) Developer shall secwe all required permits and environmental
clearances necessan= for construction of the improvement;
(4) Developer shall provide performance bonds in a form and ~~ith a
surety satisfactory to the Cih=Manager:
(5) Developer shall pay all Cit}= fees and costs;
(6) Developer shall defend, indemnifi=, protect and hold harmless the City;
its elected and appointed officers; agents; employees; and volunteers
(`Indemnitees") from and against anv and all claims; demands, causes of
action. costs; expenses; liability, loss, damaee or injury; in law or equip=;
to property or persons; includins wroneful death; in anv manner arisine
out of or incident to anv alleeed acts, omissions, neelieence. or willful
misconduct of Developer its officials; officers; employees. agents, and
convectors (~`Indemnitors'), associated ~~=ith the improvements. This
indemnity provision does not include any claims, damages, liability=; costs
and expenses (including «=ithout limitations, attorneys fees) arising from
the sole neelieence or sole willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. Also
covered under the indemnity obligations is liabilih= arising from;
connected with; caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or
passive negligent acts or omissions of the Indemnitees, which may be in
combination ~ti~th the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the
Indemnitors:
9-55
Ordinance No.
Page 8
(7) The Developer shall advance all necessary funds for the
improvements, including the costs for the design and construction of the
Facilities. The City will not be responsible for any of the costs of
constructing the Facilities;
(8) The Developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for work to
be done. The construction contract shall be granted to the lowest qualified
bidder. Any claims for additional pa}nnent for extra work or chazges
during construction shall be justified and shall be documented to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works;
(9) The developer shall provide a detailed cost estimate, which itemizes
those costs of the construction attributable to the improvements. Soils
Engineering shall be limited to 7.5 percent of the projected cost, Civil
Engineering shall be limited to 7.5 percent of the hard cost, and landscape
architecture shall be limited to 2 percent of the landscaping cost. The
estimate is preliminary and subject to final determination by the Director
of Public Works upon completion of the Public Facility Project;
(10) The agreement may instruct that upon determ-ination of satisfactory
incremental completion of the Public Facility Project, as approved and
certified by the Public Works Director, the City may pay the developer
progress payments in an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the estimated
cost of the construction completed to the time of the progress payment.
but shall provide in such case for the retention of 25 percent of such costs
until issuance by the City Manager of a Notice of Completion;
(11) .The agreement may provide that any funds owed to the Developer as
reimbursements may be applied to the Developer's obligation to pay the
EUC PBDIF for building permits to be applied for in the future;
(12) When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City
Manager; the Developer shall submit }verification of payments made for
the construction of the project to the City. The Director of Public Works
shall make the final determination on expenditures which are eligible for
reimbursement;
(13) After the Public Works Director has made final determination of
expenditures eligible for reimbursement, the parties may agree to offset
the Developer's duty to pay the EUC PBDIF required by this ordinance
against the City's duty to reimburse the developer;
(14) After offset, if any funds are due the Developer under this section, the
City Manager may at its option, reimburse the Developer from the Fund
either in cash or over time as fees are collected, or give a credit against the
EUC PBDIF levied by this ordinance or some combination thereof. in the
9-56
Ordinance No.
Ya~e y
amount of the costs incurred by the Developer that exceeds their required
contribution to such Facilities as required by this ordinance; for the design
and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that
particulaz Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the EUC
PBDIF and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in
~;ritine by the City A4anaeer:
(li) A Developer may transfer a credit against the EUC PBDIF to another
Developer with the ~~zitten approval of the Director of Public R'orks; at
his/her sole discretion.
Section 18. Procedure for Fee A4odification
Any Developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a
development project; contends that application of the EUC PBDIF imposed by this
ordinance is unconstitutional or unrelated to miti¢ation of -the burdens of the
development; may apply to the City Council for a waiver or modification of the EUC
PBDIF or the manner in which it is calculated. The application shall be made in writing
and filed ~~ith the Cit}= Clerk no later than ten (10) days after notice is given of the public
hearing on the development permit application for the project; or if no development
permit is required; at the time of the filing of the building permit application. The
application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of ~yaiver or modification,
and shall provide engineering and accounting report sho„=ing the overall impact on the
EUC PBDIF and the ability of the City to complete construction of the Facilities b}=
making the modification requested by the applicant. The City Council shall make
reasonable efforts to consider the application within sist}= (60) days after its filing. The
decision of the Cit}= Council shall be final. The procedure provided b}= this section is
additional to any other procedure authorized b_v law for protection or challengins the
EUC PBDIF imposed by this ordinance. y
Section 19. Fee Applicable to Public Agencies
Development projects by public agencies, including schools; shall be exempt from
provisions of the EUC PBDIF.
Section 20. Assessment District
If any assessment; community facilities district or special taxing district is
established to design, construct and pay for any or all of the Facilities ("Work
Alternatively Financed"), the o~yner or Developer of a project may apply to.the City
Council for reimbursement from the Fund or a credit in an amount equal to that portion of
the cost included in the calculation of the EUC PBDIF amibutable to the Work
Altematiyeh= Financed. In this regazd, the amount of the reimbursement shall be based
on the costs included in the Report, as amended from time to time; and therefore; will not
include any portion of the fmancing costs associated with the formation of the assessment
or other special taxing district.
9-57
Ordinance No.
race to
Section 2l. Expiration of this Ordinance
This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when the City Council
determines that the amount of EUC PBDIF which has been collected reaches an amount
equal to the cost of the Facilities.
Section 22. Time Limit for Judicial Action
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this
ordinance, or its application, shall be brought within the time periods as established by
Government Code Section's 66020(d)(1) and 66022 as applicable.
Section 23. Other Not Previously Defined Terms
For the purpose of this ordinance, the following words or phrases shall be
construed as defined in this Section, unless from the context it appeazs that a different
meaning is intended.
(a) ``Building Permit` means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code as adopted by reference by the City.
(b) ``Developer' or "Ov<~ner' means the owner of Property, which is the subject of this
Agreement; anyone authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the Property, and
any and all of owner's successors in interest, whether individual, partnership,
corporation; or other entity such as a Home Owners' Association; regardless of
the manner of transfer; including purchase, devise, or gift.
(c) "Development Project" or "Development" means any activity described in
Section 66000 of the State Government Code.
Section 24. Severability
If any portion of this ordinance; or its application to any person or circumstance,
is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of
competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity,
unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the
remaining portions of the ordinance;' or its application to any other person or
circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declazes that it would
have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the
ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Section 25. Construction
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this ordinance to supplement,
not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this ordinance shall be
construed in light of that intent.
Section 26. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day afrer its final
passage.
9-58
Ordinance \o.
Page I 1
Section 27. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented by
Kelly G..Brou:?hton
Development Services Director
Approved as to Form b}~
Glen R. Gooeins
Cit,~ Attorney
laEnoineertLAh'DDE~Mrojetu~Eaztem Urban CrnterlPed BrideetEUCPedBridseDIFLCOrd-7.lo.li-InterimFinal.doc
9-59
RESOLUTION NO. 20li-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A REPORT
PREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND
FINANCE GROUP RECOMMENDING A PEDESTRIAN'
BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO FUND
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER
WHEREAS; the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center Tentative Map Conditions of
development require the establishment of a Development Impact Fee (DIF), or other
funding mechanism to construct a pedestrian bridge that will cross Eastlake Parkway and
will connect the proposed development to Otay Ranch Village 11; and
WHEREAS; the Development Planning & Finance Group prepared the report
titled "City of Chula ~ Vista Pedesb•ian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) ° (the "Report"), dated June 17, 2013; and
WHEREAS; said Report provides the .criteria and methodology followed in
determining the Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee (EUC
PBDIF); and
\VHEREAS; said Report incorporates the "Millenia-Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian
Overcrossing Tvpe Selection Report, " dated May 6, 2013, prepared by Simon Wong
Engineering, providing a preliminary design and cost estimate of the proposed bridge;
and
WHEREAS, staff has ,reviewed the report and recommends City Council
appr i val; and
.l WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed
actwity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has
determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 1 X378 of the State
CEQA Guidelines; .therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Development Services Director has further determined that, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section's 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3), there is also no possibility that the
activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the activity is not
subject to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, although environmental review is not necessary at this time,
environmental review will be required prior to the approval of final design plans and the
awarding of construction contracts for facilities funded through EUC PBDIF.
1:\Attomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\08 06 13\EUCPedE3ridgeDlF-CCReso-7 24 13-F[NAL.doc
7/26/2013 7:d i Ab1 -
9-60
NO\\'. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOL\'ED that the Cin= Council of the Cim of
Chula Vista does hereby accept the report prepazed by Development Planning R
Financing Group titled "City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee
Report for Eastern Urban Center (EUC), " dated June 17; 2013; recommendine a
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee to fund Pedestrian Bridge Improvements
«~ithin the Otav Ranch Eastern Urban Center. A copy of the Report shall be kept on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
Presented by
Kelly G. Broughton
Development Sen=ices Director
Approved as to form by
/_ Gle R.
LCity Attorney
7:Wttomey\F7N.4L RESOS AND ORDINANCES~Oli\08 06 li\EUCPedBrideeDlF-CCReso-7 24 li-FINAL.doc
7/26/2013 1:47 A1,9
9-61
ORDINANCE N0.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHINTG A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FOR THE
EASTERN URBAN CENTER AND THE AREA OF
BENEFIT
WHEREAS, the Conditions of Approval for the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban
Center Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 09-03) require the establishment of a
Development Impact Fee (DIF), or other funding mechanism to construct a pedestrian
bridge that will cross Eastlake Parkway and will connect the Otay Ranch Millenia
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Project to Otay Ranch Village 1 1; and
~~'FIEREAS; land within Ota}' Ranch Millenia EUC will benefit from the
installation of the Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge primazily due to: (a) location and proximity
to the bridge: and (b) its ease of access to the bridge based on the trail configuration; and
WHEREAS; the "Millenia-Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Overcrossing Type
Selection Report, "prepared by Simon Wong Engineering, dated May 6, 2013 estimated
that the construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge would cost
$2,808,415.00; and
WHEREAS; the proposed EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF (EUC PBD[F) Ordinance
contained herein v\'ill fund 50% of the cost of the bridge, as the other 50% will be covered
by the Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF established by City Ordinance No.
2003-2898: and
WHEREAS, the methodology used to calculate the EUC PBDIF to cover the cost
of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge is explained in the "City of Chula Vista
Pedestrian-Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Eastern Urban Center (EUC), "
prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc, dated June 17, 2013; and
WHEREAS; the City Council determined based upon the evidence presented at
the Public Hearing, including, but not limited to, the Report and other information
received by the City Council in the course of the Public Hearing, that imposition of the `
EUC PBDIF on all development within the EUC is necessary in order to protect the
public health, safety and welfare and to ensure effective implementation of the Citys
General Plan: and
WHEREAS, the City Council has detemtined that the amount of the EUC PBDIF
levied by this Ordinance does not exceed the cost of providing the Eastlake Park~va}'
Pedestrian Bridge.
1:Wttorneo\FIN'AL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\08 O6 13\EUCPedl3ridgeDlF-CCOrd-7 29 13-FIN'AL.doc
7/30/2013 1133 AM
9-62
Ordinance No.
Paee 2
NO«'; THEREFORE; the Ciri Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
ordain as folloss~s: '
Section 1. Environmental Review
That the proposed activity seas res~iewed for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City Council has determined that the activity
is not a "Project" as defined under Section 1378 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
therefore, pursuant to Section 1 ~060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is
not subject to CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing; the City Council has further
determined that; pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section's 1~060(c)(2) and li061(b)(3);
there is also no possibility that the activity may have a sienificant effect on the
environment therefore, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although environmental
review is not necessazy at this time; em'ironmental review will be required prior to the
approval of final desien plans and the awarding of construction contracts for facilities
funded through the Pedestrian Bridge DIF.
Section 2. Acceptance of Report
The City Council has reviewed the proposed "City of Chula I%ista Pedestrian
Brrdge Development Lnpact Fee Report for Eastern Urban Center (EUC), "prepared by
Development Planning & Financing Group; Inc., dated June 17; 2013 (the "Report"), and
has accepted the Report by Resolution, in the form on file in the Office of the Cit•- Clerk.
Section 3. Facilities
The facilities (Facilities) to be financed by the EUC PBDIF relate to the
construction of the Eastlake Pazkwav Pedestrian Bridge. which aze fully described in the
Report. The City Council may modif}~ or amend the list of projects herein considered to
be part of the Facilities by written resolution in order to maintain compliance with -the
Cin~'s Capital Improvement Program or to reflect changes in land development. .
Section 4. Territon~ to Which Fee is Applicable
The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the EUC PBDIF applies to is defined
in the Report as the Eastern Urban Center Area of Benefit (the "Area of Benefit ). The
Area of Benefit is comprised by nvo separate ownerships. as shoscn in Exhibit 2 of the
Report and described as folloss's:
~ SLF IVn4cAlillin A~Iillenia Jl', LLC
The Otay Ranch D4illenia Project is a fully entitled Master Planned .
Community with a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Subdivision A4ap; along
with a Development Agreement and a Construction of Pazks Agreement.
Millenia is planned for 2,983 Multi-Family residential units and 3.4 million
square feet of commercial uses.
J:Wrtomer\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\?013\08 06 I3\EUCPedBrideeDIF-CCOrd-7 29_li-FINAL.doc
i/30/2013 11:33 AD1
9-63
Ordinance No.
Paee 3
- Otay Land Company, LLC
Otay Ranch Village 9 has a portion of the property within the EUC. This
property. estimated to be 22 acres, is located north of Hunte Parkway and
south of the Otay Ranch Millenia Project. This portion of the EUC is planned
for a maximum of 699 Multi-Family residential units and a 3.64-acre park.
Otay -Ranch Village 9 has received approval of General Plan and General
Development Plan Amendments which are needed for aproject-specific SPA
Plan.
Section 5. Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish the EUC PBDIF in order to provide
the necessary financing to construct the Facilities within the Area of Benefit.
Section 6. Establishment of Fee
The methodology used to calculate the EUC PBDIF is explained in the Report In
summary; the procedure taken is as follows:
- Determining the Cost of the Pedestrian Bridge:
Based on the "Millenia-Eastlake ParkN~ay Pedestrian Overcrossing Type
Selection Report. "prepared by Simon Wong Engineering; dated May 6;
2013, and made part of the "Ciq~ of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee Report for Eastern Urban Center (EUC)" as
Exhibit 4 of the abovementioned report, it was estimated that the
construction of the bridge would cost $2,808,415.00.
Determining the Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Funds (Village 11
PBDIF) for the Construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge:
As of May 9, 2013, the fund for the Village 1 I PBDIF had allocated assets
corresponding to the construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian
Bridge of $1,097,036.00, with estimated additional funds of $32,011.00 to
be collected at the issuance of the building perntits for the remaining units
within Village 11.
- Determining the Area of Benefit and the Population:
The Area of Benefit is composed by.the two ownerships within the EUC:
SLF IV/h4cMillin Millenia JV, LLC (Millenia Project) with 2;983 Multi-
Famih~ Dwelling Units, and Otay Land Company; LLC (Portion of Otay
Ranch Village 9) with 699 Multi-Family Dwelling Units.
The population within the Area of Benefit was estimated by using the
People per Household Factor (PP,HF) of 2.61 people per Multi-Family
giving a total of 9,610 persons to be benefited by the construction of the
bridge.
1:\Attorney\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\OS 06 13\EUCI'edl3ridgeDlF-CCOrd-7 29 13-FINAL.doc
7/30/2013 11;33 AAA
9-64
Ordinance No.
Page 4
Determining the EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF:
Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge Total Construction Cost ~ . 52;808;41.00
Village 11 PBDIF Funds Corresponding to the Construction
(51
129
047.00)
of the of the Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge ;
;
Remaining Cost of the Eastlake Pedestrian Bridge to be
51
679
367
00
Financed by the EUC .
.
.
Population within Area of Benefit 9.610 persons
EUC Ped Bridge DIF er erson ~ 5174.7 p
:EUC Pedestrian~Bridge DIF•per Single FamtlyiD«eling
=;S61a13/SFD-. ;
-
EUC Pedestrian B>-id
e DIF pei•
Dlulti Famil
cD«
li
g ~
.
g
.
~
e
n
.. ~
Ui4
t ~ ,
`SAa6.10/1IFD
i
:>:
- -
* I Single-Famil}' Dwelling Unit = 352 persons
** t Multi-Famih• Dwelling Unit = 2.61 persons
Section 7. Due on Issuance of Building Permit
The EUC PBDIF shall be paid in cash upon the issuance of a residential building
permit. Early payment is not permitted. No building permit shall be issued for
residential development projects located within the EUC Area of Benefit unless the
developer has paid the EUC PBDIF imposed by this ordinance.
Section 8. Determination of Equivalent Dwelling Units
Residential land uses shall be converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units for the
purpose of this fee based on the following table:
Land Use People per Household Equivalent Dwelling Units
DUs
Single-Family
D4ulti-Famih~ 2.61 0.74
("MFD")*
*"Single-Family Dwelling' shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision;
planning area, or neighborhood with a net densin~ of 8 units per acre or less as sho~am on
the approved tentative map for said subdivision.
**"D4ulti-Family Dwelling' shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision.
planning area or neighborhood with a net density of greater than 8 units per acre as
sho~~m on the approved tentative map for said subdivision.
J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDI\A,\CES~?Oli\OS 06 13\EUCPedBridgeDlF-CCOrd-7 ?9 li-FI\AL.doc
7/30/20 Li 1133 AD1
9-65
Ordinance No.
Page 5
Section 9. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advanced Payment Prohibited
The EUC PBDIF for each development shall be calculated at the time of building
permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the
tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan
check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit.
Section 10. Purpose and Use of Fee
The purpose of the EUC PBDIF is to pay for the planning, design; construction,
and/or financing (including the cost of interest and other financing costs as appropriate)
of the Facilities, or reimbursement to the City or, at the discretion of the City Manager or
designee, if approved in advance and in writing, to other third parties for advancing costs
actually incurred for planning, designing; constructing, or financing the Facilities. An}'
use of the EUC PBDIF shall receive the advance consent of the City Manager and be
used in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Development Impact Fee.
Section 11. Amount of Fee; Establishing Master Fee Schedule
The initial EUC PBDIF shall be calculated at the rate of $615.13 per Single-
Family Dwelling Unit (SFD); and $456.10 per Multi-Family Dwelling Unit (MFD).
Chapter l6 -Development & In-Lieu Fees of the Master Fee Schedule is hereby
amended to add the "Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee;"
under the "Pedestrian Bridge DIF" Section. The additional language shall read as
follows:
Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bride Development Impact Fee (EUC PBDIF):
Applicable: Eastern Urban Center (EUC): (1) Otay Ranch Millenia Project; and (2)
Portion of Otay Ranch Village 9 delimited to the north by the Otay Ranch
Millenia Project and to the south by Hunte Parkway
Single Family, per Dwelling Unit (DU) ........................................$615. ] 3
Multi Family, per Dwelling Unit (DU) .....:....................................$456.10
Section 12. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures
The proceeds collected from the imposition of the EUC PBDIF shall be deposited
into a public facility-financing fund ("Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee Fund", or alternatively herein "Fund"), which is hereby created
and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this ordinance. The Director of
Finance is. authorized to establish various accounts within the Fund for Facilities
identified in this ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the Fund for the
purposes set forth herein in accordance with the Facilities Phasing Plan as specified in
CVMC 19:09.050; or Capital Improvement Plan adopted by the City Council.
J:\P.ttorney\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\08 06 13\EUCPedl3ridgelllF-CCOrd-7 29 I3-FINAL.doc
7/30/2013 11:33 AM
9-66
Ordinance No.
Page 6
Section 13. Findings
The Ciri' Council hereby makes the follo~~irle findings:
A. The establishment of the EUC PBDIF is necessaran~to protect the public health.
safety and welfaze and to ensure the effective implementation of the City's
General Plan.
B. The EUC PBDIF is necessary to ensure that funds ~»ll be available for the
construction of the Facilities concurrent v`~ith the need for these Facilities and to
ensure certainri' in the capital facilities budgeting for gro~~2h-impacted public
facilities.
C. The amount of the fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost
of providing the Facilities for which the fee is collected.
D. New development projects within the Area of Benefit will generate a significant
amount of pedestrian traffic that the current pedestrian facilities cannot service;
therefore construction of the Facilities will be needed to service new development
projects.
Section 14. Impact Fee Additional to other Fees and Charges
The EUC PBDIF established by this Section is in addition to the requirements
imposed by other City laws, policies, or regulations relating to the construction or the
financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or
developments.
Section I5. i\'Iandatory Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty to
Tender Reimbursement Offer
Whenever a developer is required as a condition of approval of a development
permit to construct or cause the construction of the Facilities or a portion thereof. the
City may require the developer to install the Facilities according to design
specifications approved by the City and in the size or capacity necessary to
accommodate estimated pedestrian traffic as indicated in the Report and subsequent
amendments. If such a requirement is imposed; the City shall offer; at the City s
option, to reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees
aze collected, or give a credit against the EUC PBDIF levied by this ordinance or
some combination thereof; in the amount of the costs incurred by the developer that
exceeds their contribution to such Facilities as required by this ordinance: for the
design and construction of the Facilit}~ not to exceed the estimated cost of that
particulaz Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the EUC PBDIF.
The City may update the EUC PBDIF calculation; as City deems appropriate prior to
making such offer. This durv to offer to give credit or reimbursement shall be
independent of the developer's obligation to pay the EUC PBDIF.
1:\.4ttomea\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\08 06 131EUCPedBrideeDlF-CCOrd-7 29 U-FINAL.doc
7/30/2013 11:33 A~1
9-67
Ordinance No.
Page 7
Section 16. Voluntary Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty of City to
Tender Reimbursement Offer
If a developer is willing and agrees in NTiting to design and construct a portion of
the Facilities in conjunction with the execution of a development project within the
Area of Benefit. the City may, as part of a written agreement, reimburse the developer
from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees aze collected, or give a credit
against the EUC PBDIF levied by this ordinance or some combination thereof, in the
amount of the costs incurred by the developer that exceeds their contribution to such
Facilities as required by this ordinance, for the design and construction of the Facility
not to exceed the estimated cost of the. particular Facility as included in the
calculation and updating of the EUC PBDIF and in an amount agreed to in advance of
their expenditure in ~~siting by.the City. The City may update the EUC PBDIF
calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to
extend credits or offer reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's
obligation to pay the EUC PBDIF.
Section 17. Procedure for Entitlement to Reimbursement Offer
The City's duty to extend a reimbursement offer to a developer pursuant to
Section 15 of 16 above, shall be conditioned on the developer complying with the
following terms and conditions:
a. Written authorization shall be requested by the developer from the City and issued
by the City Manager by written authorization before developer may incur any
costs eligible for reimbursement relating to the construction of the Facilities,
excluding any work attributable to a specific subdivision project.
b. The request for authorization shall contain the following information:
(1) Detailed description of the work to be conducted by the developer with
the preliminary cost estimate.
c. If the City Manager grants authorization, it shall be by N~itten agreement with the
Developer on the following conditions and on any additional conditions as the
City Manager may impose:
(1) Developer shall prepare all plans and specification and submit same to
the City Manager for approval;
(2) Developer shall secure and dedicate any right-of--way required for the
improvement work;
(3) Developer shall secure all required permits and environmental
clearances necessary for construction of the improvement;
1:Wttorney\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\20 L3\OS 06 13\EUCPedBridgeD[F-CCOrd-7 29 13-FINAL.doc
7/30/2013 I I:33 AM
9-68
Ordinance \b.
Paee 8
(4) Developer shall provide performance bonds in a form and with a
surety satisfactory to the Cirv Manager:
(5) Developer shall pay all City fees and costs;
(6) Developer shall defend, indemnif}'; protect and hold harmless the Cin;
its elected and appointed officers; agents, employees, and volunteers
("Indemnitees") from and against any and all claims. demands; causes of
action, costs, expenses; liabilit\~; loss; damase or injury; in law or equih_
to propem~ or persons, including \\TOneful death; in any manner arisins
out of or incident to any alleged acts. omissions: negligence,. or willful
misconduct of Developer. its officials; officers, employees; agents; and
contractors ("Indemnitors -), associated with the improvements.. This
indemnity provision does not include any claims: damages; liability, costs
and expenses (including without limitations, attorneys fees) arising from
the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. Also
covered under the indemnity' obligations is liability arising from;
connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or
passive negligent acts or omissions of the Indemnitees; which may be in
combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the
- Indemnitors:
(7) The Developer shall advance all necessary funds for the
improvements; including the costs for the design and construction of the
Facilities. The City will hot be responsible for any of the costs of
constructine the Facilities:
(8) The Developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for work to
be done. The construction contract shall be granted to the lo\vest qualified
bidder. Anv claims for additional payment for extra work or charges
during construction shall be justified and shall be documented to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works:
(9) The developer shall provide a detailed cost estimate; which itemizes
those costs of the construction attributable to the improvements. Soils
Engineering shall be limited to 7.~ percent of the projected cost; Civil
Engineering shall be limited to 75 percent of the hard cost; and landscape
azchitecture shall be limited to 2 percent of the landscaping cost. The
estimate is preliminary and subject to final determination b}~ the Director
of Public \'t~orks upon completion of the Facilities
(10) The agreement ma}' instruct that upon determination of satisfactory
incremental completion of the Facilities; as approved and certified by the
Public Works Director; the Cit_v may pay the developer progress payments
in an amount not to exceed 7~ ~ percent of the estimated cost of the
J:Wttornev\FINAL RESOS .AND ORDI\'.4NCES\?013\OS 06 13\EUCPedBridaeDlF-CCOrd-7?9 li-FIi\'AL.doc
7/30/20li 11:33 :L\7
9-69
Ordinance No.
Page 9
construction completed to the time of the progress payment, but shall
provide in such case-for the retention of 25 percent. of such costs until
issuance bti' the City Manager of a Notice of Completion;
(11) The agreement may provide that any funds owed to the Developer as
reimbursements may be applied to the Developer's obligation to pay the
EUC PBDIF for building permits to be applied for in the future;
(12) When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City
Manager, the Developer shall submit verification of payments made for
the construction of the Facilities to the City. The Director of Public
Works shall make the final determination on expenditures which aze
eligible for reimbursement;
(13) After the Public \>,'orks Director has made final determination of
expenditures eligible for reimbursement, the parties may agree to offset
the Developers duty to pay the EUC PBDIF required by this ordinance
against the City's duty to reimburse the developer;
(14) After offset, if any funds are due the Developer under this section, the
Cii)' Manager may at its option, reimburse the Developer from the Fund
either in cash or over time as fees are collected, or give a credit against the
EUC PBDIF levied by this ordinance or some combination thereof; in the
amount of the costs incurred by the Developer that exceeds their required
contribution to such Facilities as required by this ordinance; for the design
and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that
particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the EUC
PBDIF and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in
N7iting by the City Manager;
(15) A Developer may transfer a credit against the EUC PBDIF to another
Developer with the v~itten approval of the Director of Public ~~'orks; at
his/her sole discretion.
Section 18. Procedure for Fee Modification
Any Developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a
development project, contends that application of the EUC PBDIF imposed by this
ordinance is unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the
development; may apply to the City Council for a waiver or modification of the EUC
PBDIF or the manner in which it is calculated. The application shall be made in writine
and filed with the City Clerk no later than ten (10) days after notice is given of the public
hearing on the development permit application for the project, or if no development
permit is required; at the time of the filing of the building permit application. The
application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver or modification,
and shall provide engineering and accounting report showing the overall impact on the
J:\Attorne7\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\20I3\08 06 13\EUCPedBridgelllF-CCOrdJ 29 13-FiNAL.doc
7/30/20li 1133 AD9
9-70
Ordinance I\TO.
Page 10
EUC PBDIF and the abilip' of the City to complete construction of the Facilities by
makini=_ the modification requested by the applicant. The Citv Council shall make
reasonable efforts to consider the application \\~thin sixty (60) days after its filing. The
decision of the City Council shall be final. The procedure provided b_v this section is
additional to am' other procedure authorized b_v law for protection or challenging the
EUC PBDIF imposed by this ordinance.
Section 19. Fee Applicable to Public Agencies
Development projects by public agencies; including schools, shall be exempt from
provisions of the EUC PBDIF.
Section 20. Assessment District
If anv assessment; community facilities district or special taxing district is
established to design; construct and pay for any or all of the Facilities ("A'ork
Alternatively Financed"), the oNmer or Developer of a project may apply to the City
Council for reimbursement from the Fund or a credit in an amount equal to that portion of
the cost included in the calculation of the EUC PBDIF attributable to the Work
Alternatively Financed. In this regazd, the amount of the reimbursement shall be based
on the costs included in the Report, as amended from time to time, and therefore; \vill not
include an}' portion of the financing costs associated with the formation of the assessment
or other special taxing district.
Section 21. Expiration of this Ordinance
-This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect ~\'hen the City Council
determines that the amount of EUC PBDIF n'hich has been collected reaches an amount
equal to the cost of the Facilities.
Section 22. Time Limit for Judicial Action
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review; set aside. void or annul this
ordinance; or its application; shall be brousht \vithin the time periods as established b\'
Government Code Section's 66020(d)(1) and 66022 as applicable.
Section 23. Other Not Previousl}' Detined Terms
For the purpose of this ordinance, the follo\ving words or phrases shall be
construed as defined in this Section, unless from the context it appeazs that a different
meanine is intended.
(a) "Building Permit" means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code as adopted by reference by the Cip'.
(b) "Developer" or "O\vrter' means the o~+mer of Propem'; \vhich is the subject of this
Agreement anyone authorized -to act on behalf of the ov<mer of the Propert}'; and
am' and all of o\vners successors in interest; whether individual; partnership,
corporation; or other entity such as a Home Ov`ners' Association, regazdless of
the manner of transfer, including purchase, devise, or gift.
(c) "Development Project° or "Development means any activity described in
Section 66000 of the State Government Code.
1:~4ttomev\FR.'AL. 1tESOS Ai\'D ORDii\A;\CES~013\OS O6 li\EliCPedBrideeDlF-CCOrd-7 ?9 li-FI\AL.doc
7/30/2013 1133 Ai\1
9-71
Ordinance No.
Page 11
Section 24. Severability
If any portion of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance,
is for any reason held to be invalid; unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of
competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity,
unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the
remaining portions of the ordinance, or its application to any other person or
circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would
have adopted each section, sentence; clause or phrase of this ordinance, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the
ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Section 25. Construction
The Cit}~ Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this ordinance to supplement,
not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and Federal law and this ordinance shall be
construed in light of that intent.
Section 26. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final
passage.
Section 27. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented by
Kelly G. Broughton
Development Services Director
1:\Attomey\FIIdAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\08 06 13\L'UCPedl3ridgeDlP-CCOrd-7 29 13-FINAL.doc
7/30/2013 11:33 AM
9-72
Approved as to Form by