HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPX-A_V8-PFFP_05-00-13Public Facilities
Financing Plan
Appendix A
C ITY OF C HULA V ISTA
O TAY R ANCH V ILLAGE 8 W EST SPA P LAN
DRAFT PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Prepared for:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVE.
CHULA VISTA CA. 91910
Prepared by:
6020 CORNERSTONE COURT WEST, SUITE 350
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
JUNE, 2013
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
i
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Overview............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Public Facility Cost and Fee Summary for Village 8 West SPA ................................... 1-4
2.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Overview............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Growth Management Threshold Standards .................................................................. 2-1
2.4 The Project ............................................................................................................................ 2-3
2.5 Public Facilities Finance Plan Boundaries ....................................................................... 2-3
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Existing Development ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Development Phasing Forecast ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Development Summary ........................................... 3-3
3.5 Development Phasing ....................................................................................................... 3-8
4.0 FACILITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.0.1 Facility Analysis Overview .................................................................................................. 4.1
4.0.2 Thresholds Standards and Mitigations ............................................................................. 4.1
4.1 TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 GMOC Threshold Standard ........................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1.1 GMOC Level of Service (LOS) Standards ................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.2 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.1-2
4.1.3 Traffic Impact Analysis and Methodology ................................................................. 4.1-2
4.1.4 Village 8 West SPA Trip Generation and Phasing ..................................................... 4.1-8
4.1.5 Threshold Compliance and Requirements .............................................................. 4.1-11
4.1.6 Freeway Segments ....................................................................................................... 4.1-27
4.1.7 Cost & Financing Project Traffic Improvements ...................................................... 4.1-28
4.2 POLICE .................................................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Threshold Standard ......................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.5 Adequacy Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4.2-2
4.2.6 Financing Police Facilities .............................................................................................. 4.2-5
4.2.7 Threshold Compliance and Requirements ................................................................ 4.2-6
4.3 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES .................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Threshold Standard ......................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4.3-2
4.3.5 Adequacy Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4.3-2
4.3.6 Financing Fire Service Facilities .................................................................................... 4.3-3
4.3.7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations ...................................................... 4.3-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
ii
4.4 SCHOOLS ............................................................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Threshold Standard ......................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.4-2
4.4.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4.4-3
4.4.5 School Sizing and Location ........................................................................................... 4.4-3
4.4.6 Financing School Facilities............................................................................................. 4.4-5
4.4.7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations ...................................................... 4.4-7
4.5 LIBRARIES ................................................................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.5.1 Threshold Standard ......................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.5-1
4.5.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.5 Adequacy Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4.5-2
4.5.6 Financing Library Facilities ............................................................................................. 4.5-3
4.5.7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations ...................................................... 4.5-4
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE ...................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.1 Park Threshold Standard ................................................................................................ 4.6-1
4.6.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.6-1
4.6.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.5 Project Park Requirements ............................................................................................ 4.6-1
4.6.6 Park Adequacy Analysis ................................................................................................ 4.6-3
4.6.7 Parkland, Open Space and Trails ................................................................................ 4.6-4
4.6.8 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 4.6-7
4.6.9 Financing Park Facilities ................................................................................................. 4.6-7
4.6.10 Financing Recreation Facilities ..................................................................................... 4.6-8
4.6.11 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations .................................................... 4.6-10
4.7 WATER ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1 Threshold Standard ......................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.2 Service Analysis: .............................................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.7.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.7-2
4.7.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4.7-3
4.7.5 Adequacy Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4.7-4
4.7.6 Existing Water Facilities ................................................................................................... 4.7-7
4.7.7 Proposed Facilities: ......................................................................................................... 4.7-8
4.7.8 Financing Water Facilities: ............................................................................................. 4.7-8
4.7.9 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations .................................................... 4.7-10
4.8 SEWER ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.1 Threshold Standard ......................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.8-2
4.8.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4.8-3
4.8.5 Adequacy Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4.8-3
4.8.6 Recommended Sewerage Facilities ........................................................................... 4.8-7
4.8.7 Financing Sewerage Facilities ...................................................................................... 4.8-8
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
iii
4.8.8 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations .................................................... 4.8-10
4.9 DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.9.1 Threshold Standard ......................................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................. 4.9-2
4.9.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4.9-2
4.9.5 Proposed Facilities .......................................................................................................... 4.9-3
4.9.6 Financing Drainage Facilities ........................................................................................ 4.9-8
4.9.7 Threshold Compliance ................................................................................................... 4.9-8
4.10 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.1 Threshold Standard ....................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.3 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations .................................................... 4.10-3
4.11 CIVIC CENTER ................................................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.1 City Threshold Standards ............................................................................................. 4.11-1
4.11.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.11.3 Adequacy Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.4 Financing Civic Center Facilities ................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.11.5 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations .................................................... 4.11-2
4.12 CORPORATION YARD ...................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Threshold Standards ..................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.3 Adequacy Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.4 Financing Corporate Yard Facilities .......................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.5 Threshold Compliance ................................................................................................. 4.12-2
4.13 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES ................................................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.1 Threshold Standard ....................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4.13-1
4.13.4 Financing Administration Facilities ............................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.5 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations .................................................... 4.13-2
4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE ............................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.1 Overview......................................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.2 Subdivision Exactions .................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.3 Development Impact Fee Programs ........................................................................ 4.14-1
4.14.4 Debt Finance Programs ............................................................................................... 4.14-2
4.14.5 Other Methods Used to Finance Facilities ................................................................ 4.14-2
4.14.6 Public Facility Finance Policies ................................................................................... 4.14-3
4.14.7 Cumulative Debt ........................................................................................................... 4.14-4
4.14.8 Maintenance Districts .................................................................................................. 4.14-6
4.14.9 Life Cycle Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 4.14-7
5.0 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 5-1
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
iv
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1.1- Summary of estimated DIF Revenues .......................................................... 1-6
Table 1.2 – Timing and Obligations for Facilities ........................................................... 1-7
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Exhibit 2.1- Otay Ranch Village 8 West Vicinity Map ................................................... 2-4
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Table 3.1 – Estimated Five-Year Residential Units Forecast, East Area ..................... 3-2
Exhibit 3.1- Site Utilization Plan .......................................................................................... 3-5
Exhibit 3.2 – Conceptual Phasing Plan ........................................................................... 3-6
Exhibit 3.3 – Ownership Map ............................................................................................. 3-7
Table 3.2 – Conceptual Phasing Summary .................................................................... 3-8
4.0 FACILITY ANALYSIS
Table 4.0.1- Facility Level of Service Analysis ................................................................. 4.1
4.1 TRAFFIC
Table 4.1.1- GMOC Level of Service (LOS) Definitions .............................................. 4.1-2
Exhibit 4.1.1- Project Traffic Impact Analysis Study Area .......................................... 4.1-3
Table 4.1.2 – Gross and Net Project Trip Generation Summary ............................ 4.1-10
Table 4.1.3A - Project Access and Direct Traffic Impact Mitigations .................. 4.1-20
Table 4.1.3B – Roadway Improvements Constructed by Others ........................ 4.1-23
Table 4.1.4 – Internal Street Improvements ............................................................... 4.1-24
Exhibit 4.1.2 - Village 8 West Internal Street Map ..................................................... 4.1-25
Table 4.1.5 – Freeway Segments ................................................................................ 4.1-27
Table 4.1.6 – Freeway Ramp Conditions With and Without Project .................... 4.1-27
Table 4.1.7 - Estimated Cost of Road Improvements ............................................. 4.1-28
Table 4.1.8 - Transportation Development Impact Fee Schedule ....................... 4.1-29
Table 4.1.9 - Estimated Project TDIF Revenue .......................................................... 4.1-30
Table 4.1.10 - Estimated Traffic Signal Fee Revenue ............................................... 4.1-30
4.2 POLICE
Table 4.2.1 - Historic Response Times, Priority I ............................................................ 4.2-2
Table 4.2.2 - Historic Response Times, Priority II ........................................................... 4.2-3
Table 4.2.3 – Modified Threshold for Priority I .............................................................. 4.2-4
Table 4.2.4 - Modified Threshold for Priority II .............................................................. 4.2-4
Table 4.2.5 – Public Facilities Fees for Police .............................................................. 4.2-6
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
v
4.3 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Table 4.3.1 –Current and Planned Fire Station Facilities ........................................... 4.3-2
Table 4.3.2 - Fire/EMS - Emergency Response Times Since 1999 ............................ 4.3-3
Table 4.3.3 - Public Facilities Fees for Fire/EMS ........................................................... 4.3-4
4.4 SCHOOLS
Table 4.4.1 - Student Generation by Phase ................................................................ 4.4-4
Table 4.4.2 –School Facilities Community Facility District by Development ......... 4.4-6
4.5 LIBRARIES
Table 4.5.1 – Current Library Facilities .......................................................................... 4.5-2
Table 4.5.2 – Forecasted Library Space Demand vs. Supply .................................. 4.5-3
Table 4.5.3 - Public Facilities Fees for Libraries by Phase .......................................... 4.5-4
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
Table 4.6.1 - Quimby Act Parkland Requirement for Village 8 West ..................... 4.6-2
Table 4.6.2 –Chula Vista Parkland Dedication Ordinance Standards .................. 4.6-2
Table 4.6.3 - Parkland Ordinance Dedication Requirements for Project ............. 4.6-2
Table 4.6.4 –Park Acres and Eligible Credits ............................................................... 4.6-3
Table 4.6.5 - Estimated Park Acreage Demand vs. Supply East of I -805 .............. 4.6-4
Table 4.6.6 - Village 8 West SPA Park Demand by Phase ........................................ 4.6-4
Table 4.6.7 - Village 8 West Preserve Conveyance Obligation .............................. 4.6-6
Table 4.6.8 - Park Development Component (PAD) Fees ....................................... 4.6-7
Table 4.6.9 - Park Acquisition Component (PAD) Fees ............................................ 4.6-8
Table 4.6.10 - Public Facilities Fees for Recreation Facilities .................................. 4.6-10
Exhibit 4.6.1 – Designated Parks and Open Space ................................................. 4.6-12
4.7 WATER
Table 4.7.1 - Potable Water Demands for Land Uses ............................................... 4.7-5
Table 4.7.2 - Potable Water Demands by Project Phase ......................................... 4.7-6
Table 4.7.3 - Average Recycled Water Demand by Land Use .............................. 4.7-7
Table 4.7.4 - Water Facilities by Phase ......................................................................... 4.7-9
Exhibit 4.7.1 –Otay Water District Central Area CIP ................................................ 4.7-12
Exhibit 4.7.2 – Off-site Potable Water Facilities ......................................................... 4.7-13
Exhibit 4.7.3 – On-site Potable Water Facilities ......................................................... 4.7-14
Exhibit 4.7.4 –Water Facilities Phasing Plan ............................................................... 4.7-15
Exhibit 4.7.5 – On-Site Recycled Water Facilities ..................................................... 4.7-16
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
vi
4.8 SEWER
Table 4.8.1 - Land Use Summary and Sewage Generation .................................... 4.8-2
Table 4.8.2 - Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Sewer Design Criteria ..................... 4.8-4
Table 4.8.3 - On-Site Sewage Generation .................................................................. 4.8-5
Table 4.8.4 - Upstream Off-Site Sewage Flows ........................................................... 4.8-6
Table 4.8.5 - Summary of EDUs by Phase .................................................................... 4.8-8
Table 4.8.6 - Salt Creek Sewer Basin Impact Fees ..................................................... 4.8-9
Table 4.8.7 - Residential Sewerage Participation Fee .............................................. 4.8-9
Table 4.8.8 - Sewer Facility Phasing ............................................................................ 4.8-12
Exhibit 4.8.1 – Off-Site Sewer Facilities ........................................................................ 4.7-13
Exhibit 4.8.2 – On-Site Sewer Facilities ........................................................................ 4.7-14
Exhibit 4.8.3 – On-Site Sewer Facilities Phasing ......................................................... 4.7-15
4.9 DRAINAGE
Table 4.9.1 - Pre & Post Development Storm Water Flows ....................................... 4.9-4
Table 4.9.2 – Storm Water Pollutants Generated By Land Use Type ...................... 4.9-7
Exhibit 4.9.1 - Drainage Basins and Major Storm Drains .......................................... 4.9-11
4.10 AIR QUALITY
Table 4.10.1 - CO2 Index Model Indicators ............................................................... 4.10-3
4.11 CIVIC CENTER
Table 4.11.1 - Public Facilities Fees for Civic Center ............................................... 4.11-2
4.12 CORPORATION YARD
Table 4.12.1 - Public Facilities Fees for Corporation Yard ...................................... 4.12-2
4.13 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
4.13.1 - Public Facilities Fees for Program Administration ...................................... 4.13-2
4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE
4.14.1 - Estimated Revenue Available for Debt Service ........................................ 4.14-5
4.14.2 - Net Bond Proceeds Annual Debt Service ................................................... 4.14-6
4.14.3 - Estimate of Facility Cost Potentially Funded from Debt Service ............. 4.14-6
5.0 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS – Appendix Tables ............................................................ 5.18
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
1-1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 OVERVIEW
This Public Facility Finance Plan (PFFP) addresses the public facility needs associated with the
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP). The developer-proposed project as described in the SPA Plan is
referred to as Village 8 West or the “Village 8 West SPA Plan” in this PFFP.
Growth Management Program
The Chula Vista Growth Management Program (GMP) was first adopted by the City Council in
1991. The purpose of the GMP is to implement the City’s General plan and establish a
mechanism that helps to insure that development does not occur unless facilities and
improvements are available to support that development. The GMP does this by identifying all
facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate the land uses specified in the General
Plan, by indicating where and when facilities fall short of threshold level of service standards
established for each facility type, and by identifying the means by which additional facilities
shall be provided. The GMP is implemented through the Growth Management Oversight
Committee (GMOC) process. The GMOC monitors the impact of development on the City’s
ability to provide services. The thresholds monitored by the GMOC are as follows:
Traffic
Police
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Schools
Libraries
Parks, Trails and Open Space
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Civic Center
Corporation Yard
Air Quality
Fiscal Impacts
This PFFP for the Village 8 West project has been prepared under the requirements of the City of
Chula Vista’s GMP and the, Growth Management provisions of the General Plan.
The preparation of the PFFP is required in conjunction with the preparation of the SPA Plan for
the project to ensure that the development of the project is consistent with the overall goals and
policies of the City’s General Plan, the GMP, and the General Plan.
This PFFP is based upon the project information that has been presented in the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Sectional Plan Area (SPA), and prepared by William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc..
Facility Thresholds
Facility thresholds are indicators of the capacity of a given facility to meet increasing demand
from new development while remaining in compliance with the GMP Threshold Standards
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
1-2
established for each facility category1. When the established thresholds for a specific facility are
projected to be reached or exceeded based upon the analysis of the development of the
project, the PFFP identifies those facilities necessary for continued compliance with the GMP
and, where appropriate, outlines conditions of ap proval that would be applied to future project
entitlements. The PFFP does not propose a different development phasing from that proposed
by the Village 8 West SPA Plan, but requires that the development should be limited or reduced
until certain actions are taken to guarantee public facilities will be available or provided to meet
the Quality of Life Standards. Subsequent changes to the SPA Plan may require an amendment
to this PFFP.
Performance of Threshold-Driven Actions
Typically, as an applicant receives each succeeding development approval, the applicant
must perform a series of required actions intended to assure that facilities will be provided
concurrently with need. Failure to perform any required action will curtail additional
development approvals. The typical actions are illustrated below:
GDP:
Goals, objectives & policies established;
Facility thresholds established;
Processing requirements established.
SPA:
Facility financing refined and funding source identified consistent with GDP goals,
objectives & policies;
Facility demand and costs calculated consistent with adopted land uses and GDP -
defined methodologies;
Specific facility financing and phasing analysis performed to assure compliance with
Growth Management Thresholds;
Facilities sited and zoning identified.
Tentative Map:
Subdivision approval conditioned upon assurance of facility funding ;
Subdivision approval conditioned upon payment of fees, or the dedication,
reservation or zoning of land for identified facilities;
Subdivision approval conditioned upon construction of certain facility improvements.
1 Also found in Sec 19.09.04 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, (Growth Management Program
Policy and Ordinance)
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
1-3
Final Map:
Tentative Map conditions performed;
Lots created.
Building Permit:
Impact fees paid as required.
Role of the PFFP in the Entitlement Process
The critical link between the City’s Quality of Life thresholds and development entitlement is the
PFFP. Part II, Chapter 9, Section C of the GDP/SPA Processing Requirements, General
Development Plan Implementation, requires the preparation of a PFFP as a condition of
approval of all SPAs. This PFFP satisfies the GDP requirement. The PFFP requires the preparation
and approval of phasing schedules showing how and when facilities and improvements
necessary to serve proposed development will be installed or financed to meet the threshold
standards, including:
An inventory of present and future requirements for each facility based on GMP
standards;
A summary of estimated facilities costs;
A facility phasing schedule establishing the timing for installation or provisions of facilities ;
A financing plan identifying the method of funding for each facility required ;
A fiscal impact report analyzing SPA consistency with the requirements and conclusions
of the GDP.
General Municipal Code PFFP Provisions Applicable to the SPA Plan
1) Section 19.09.05D Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) provides that no SPA plan or
tentative subdivision map shall be approved, or deemed to be approved, without an
approved PFFP. Furthermore “No final map shall be approved until all the conditions of
the PFFP, the water conservation plan and the air quality plan have been met, or the
project applicant has provided adequate security to the city that said plans will be
implemented.” (CVMC 19.09.05E)
2) No development shall occur in a PFFP area if the demand for any public facilities and
services exceeds capacity and it is not feasible to increase capacity prior to completion
of development unless means, schedule and financing for increasing the capacity is
established through the execution of a binding agreement providing for installation and
maintenance of such facilities or improvements in advance of the City’s phasing
schedule (CVMC 19.09.05H)
3) The Chula Vista Municipal Code provides that, if the City Manager determines facilities or
improvements within a PFFP are inadequate to accommodate any further development
within that area, the City Manager shall immediately report the deficiency to the City
Council. If the City Council determines that such events or changed circumstances
adversely affect the health, safet y or welfare of City, the City may require amendment,
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
1-4
modification, suspension, or termination of an approved PFFP. (CVMC Section
19.09.100C)
4) The PFFP shall be implemented in accordance with CVMC 19.09.090. Future
amendments shall be in accordance with CVMC 19.09.100 and shall incorporate newly
acquired data, to add conditions and update standards as determined necessary by
the City through the required monitoring program.
PFFP Applicability and Compliance
This PFFP applies to all future projects within Village 8 West. Future projects will be reviewed for
consistency with the SPA Plan, this PFFP and the Village 8 West Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). Future projects that are determined to be inconsistent with the SPA Plan, PFFP and /or EIR
may require additional environmental review and may require amendments to the SPA Plan and
PFFP. The following also apply to the PFFP and the SPA Plan:
1) This PFFP analyzes the maximum allowable development potential for planning
purposes only. The approval of this plan does not guarantee specific development
densities.
2) The facilities and phasing requirements identified in this PFFP are based on the Village
8 West SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan.
3) The plan analysis is based upon the non-sequential and conceptual phasing
presented in the Village 8 West SPA Plan document. Significant changes to the
conceptual phasing plan may require an amendment to the PFFP.
4) Approval of this PFFP is contingent upon approval of the amendments to the General
Plan, the General Development Plan, and certification of the associated
Supplemental EIR (SEIR #09-01) by the City Council. the Village 8 West SPA Plan, and
the associated project level EIR.
5) Approval of this PFFP is contingent upon approval of the amendments to the General
Plan, the General Development Plan, and certification of the associated Village 8
West SPA and EIR 10-03 by the City Council.
1.2 PUBLIC FACILITY COST AND FEE SUMMARY FOR VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
The following tables identify and summarize the various facility costs and impact fees associated
with development of the project. The facilities and their estimated costs are identified in detail in
subsequent sections of this document. (NOTE: The costs contained in this PFFP are for illustrative
purposes only and are based upon estimates provided by the developer at the time of
preparation of this PFFP. The developer’s obligation to provide such facilities is not based on the
estimate of costs of such facilities as indicated herein.) The tables indicate a recommended
financing alternative based upon current Chula Vista practices and policies. However, where
another financing mechanism may be shown at a later date to be more effective, the City may
implement such other mechanisms in accordance with City policies. This will allow the City
maximum flexibility in determining the best use of public financing to fund publi c infrastructure
improvements.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
1-5
Transportation Improvements
The Traffic Impact Analysis by RBF Consulting, updated March 8, 2013, has identified on-site and
off-site road improvements that will be required in connection with the development of the
project. The estimated costs of street improvements are identified in Section 4.1 “Traffic”, Table
4.1.7. In the event the developer constructs a Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF)
improvement, the cost of the improvement may be eligible for credit against payment of TDIF
fees. The developer as a project exaction shall complete construction of non -TDIF eligible
improvements as required by the Village 8 West EIR and this PFFP. Table 4.1.7 lists both off-site
and on-site improvements.
TDIF Fees and traffic signal fees generated by the p roject are identified on Table 1.1. Funding for
street improvements may be accomplished in one or more possible funding alternatives such as:
Payment of TDIF fees.
Construction of improvements by developer with credit toward DIF fees on building
permits.
Financing through assessment districts or Community Facility Districts (CFD).
Expenditure of available DIF account funds.
Construction of improvements by other developers.
Federal Funds.
Wastewater, Water and Drainage
Certain off-site sewer, drainage and water facilities are the responsibility of the developer if the
facility is needed to support the proposed development.
Schools
The proposed Village 8 West SPA Plan’s 2,050 residential units will generate approximately 556
elementary school students. To provide for future elementary school demand in Village 8 West, an
elementary school site of approximately 11.4 acres is planned within the project. The project’s
residential units will generate approximately 175 middle school age students. To provide for future
middle school demand in Village 8 West, a middle school site of approximately 20acres is planned
within the project. Final determination for the need for these school sites will be made by Chula Vista
Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District. The project will also generate
approximately 291 high school students. Currently, Village 8 West is within the Olympian High School
attendance area; however, enrollment at that school is expected to exceed capacity before Village
8 West has begun construction. However, another high school is being planned at the intersection of
Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway. The developer shall satisfy its obligations to mitigate the
Project’s impacts on school facilities as required by state law.
Other Public Facilities
The project will trigger development impact fees for libraries, police, fire services, civic center,
corporation yard, and other city public facilities. These facilities will be funded, in part, from
revenues generated from the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) at
building permit issuance.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
1-6
Altogether, the projected development impact fee revenues (including TDIF, traffic signal fee
and the PFDIF) by phase and facility for Village 8 West are identified on Table 1.1.
TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CITY DIF REVENUES BY PHASE & FACILITY
Source: City of Chula Vista Form 5509 - Development Checklist dated 10/1/12
Notes: (a) Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF).
(b) No city imposed DIF program in place for drainage improvements the Project developer is fully
responsible for all storm water management improvements through the Subdivision Ordinance and Storm Water
Manual.
(c) No City imposed DIF program for school facilities. However, all properties, including non -
residential, are assessed a fee and/or, if a Mello-Roos district is formed, a special tax to fully mitigate impacts on
school facilities caused by residential development.
(d) Includes both Development and Acquisition in lieu. Not applicable to non -residential projects.
(e) Facilities funded by Public Facilities DIF component.
(f) Includes Salt Creek Development Impact Fees includes Sewer Capacity Fees for residential only.
For phasing, refer to Land Use Assumptions Exhibit 3.2.
Totals rounded to nearest $1,000.
PFDIF and TDIF fees are based on the City of Chula Vista’s Development Checklist for Municipal
Code Requirements, Form 5509, revised October 1, 2012. Fees are subject to change as the
ordinance is amended by the City Council from time to time , unless stated otherwise in a
separate development agreement.
Table 1.2 identifies the timing and the obligation to provide each facility requirement.
Construction of these facilities is timed so that they are in place concurrent with need. Timing is
determined by applying the threshold standards of each facility to the need generated for that
facility by the development.
Facility Orange Blue Yellow Purple Green Total
Traffic (a)$6,130,176 $3,144,960 $7,223,424 $2,421,120 $3,124,992 $22,045,000
Traffic Signal $400,707 $205,574 $472,168 $158,260 $204,269 $1,441,000
Sewer (f)$1,941,210 $1,365,452 $2,999,203 $1,076,660 $1,261,561 $8,644,000
Drainage (b)$0
Water (b)$0
Schools (c)$0
Parks (d)$6,666,426 $5,015,440 $10,026,090 $3,885,200 $4,102,178 $29,695,334
Police (e)$888,995 $470,304 $1,414,758 $364,320 $559,957 $3,698,000
Fire (e)$536,655 $388,796 $774,094 $301,180 $307,992 $2,309,000
Library (e)$727,740 $441,620 $1,189,575 $342,100 $486,715 $3,188,000
Recreation (e)$552,240 $335,120 $902,700 $259,600 $369,340 $2,419,000
Civic Center (e)$1,291,087 $769,072 $2,012,424 $595,760 $802,532 $5,471,000
Corp. Yard (e)$242,557 $126,664 $317,744 $98,120 $111,741 $897,000
Administration (e)$283,685 $169,264 $441,905 $131,120 $176,219 $1,202,000
PFDIF Total $4,522,958 $2,700,840 $7,053,201 $2,092,200 $2,814,496 $19,184,000
Total $19,661,000 $12,432,000 $27,774,000 $9,633,000 $11,507,000 $81,009,334
Phase
Source: City of Chula Vista Form 5509 - Development Checklist dated 9/24/12
PFDIF Components
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
1-7
TABLE 1.2 TIMING AND OBLIGATION FOR FACILITY
Facility Developer Obligation
Timing of Facility
in terms of Village 8
West entitlements1
Eastern Area Transportation Improvements2 Pay TDIF Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Traffic Signals Developer secures and agrees to construct traffic
signals at the intersections of all internal Project
streets and the major road improvements below that
are developer's direct responsibility.3
With associated street
improvements when
triggered below
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR TDIF IMPROVEMENTS
Olympic Pkwy & Brandywine Ave
Modifications to the traffic signal
/intersection to provide a northbound right-
turn overlap phase.
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 1,388th EDU
Heritage Road
6 lane prime from Olympic Parkway to
Santa Victoria
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 1,388th EDU
Extension of roadway as a 6 lane prime
from Santa Victoria to Main Street.
Assumed to be constructed by others. Developer
will pay TDIF as mitigation for cumulative impact
to roadway.
Final Map containing
the 1,388th EDU
Widen the segment between Main and
Avenida de las Vista from two lanes to six
lane prime arterial
Assumed to be constructed by others. Developer
will pay TDIF as mitigation for cumulative impact
to roadway.
Final Map containing
the 1,388th EDU
Main Street Two lanes from La Media Avenue to
Magdalena
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 1st EDU
Complete construction to 4 lane Town
Center arterial
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 1,388th EDU
Eastern Project boundary to Eastlake
Parkway, including the SRT-125
overcrossing, as 6 lane Gateway
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 2,234th EDU
North and Southbound ramps at SR-125 Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 2,610th EDU
Heritage Road to western Project boundary
as a 6 lane Prime
Assumed to be constructed by others. Developer
will pay TDIF as mitigation for cumulative impact
to roadway.
Final Map containing
the 2,234th EDU
La Media Road
Two lanes from existing terminus to Project
Street "C"
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 1st EDU
Complete construction to 4 lane Town
Center arterial to Street "C"
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 1,388th EDU
Otay Valley Rd
4 lane major road from south of Main Street
to Project Street "A"
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 302nd EDU
4 lane major road from Street "A" in the
Project to southeastern Project boundary.
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 1,388th EDU
From southeastern Project boundary to
Street "A" in Village 9 as a 4-lane major,
including the SR-125 overcrossing.
Developer secures and agrees to construct. Final Map containing
the 2,610th EDU
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
1-8
TABLE 1.2 TIMING AND OBLIGATION FOR FACILITY (CONTINUED)
Facility Developer Obligation
Timing of Facility or
obligation in terms of
Village 8 West
entitlements
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER MAJOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
Sewer4
On-site Sewer Developer builds as subdivision improvements per
Subdivision Ordinance
Concurrent with
development
Off-site Sewer (Treatment Capacity) Pay Sewer Capacity Fees Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Connection to Salt Creek Sewer Developer builds as subdivision improvements per
Subdivision Ordinance
Prior to the Final Map
containing the 1st EDU
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Pay Salt Creek Interceptor Impact Fee and participate
in the Salt Creek DIF Update
Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Main Street Trunk, interim condition5 Construct the Main Street Trunk in Main Street sized
for the permanent condition. Provide a stub at the
western Project boundary for future connection to the
Main Street Trunk in Village 4. Install a diversion
structure in the Trunk to direct flow into the deep
sewer in Main Street and Otay Valley Road.
Concurrent with
development of the
Project areas that
flow into the Main
Street Trunk.
Main Street Trunk, permanent
condition5
Connect the Village 8 West reach of the Main Street
Trunk to the reach in Village 4, remove the diverter
and abandon the deep sewer in Main Street and Otay
Valley Road.
When the Main
Street Trunk is
completed in Village
4 and connected to
the Salt Creek
Interceptor to the
west
Drainage Developer builds as subdivision improvements per
Subdivision Ordinance
Concurrent with
development
Water6 Pay OWD Capacity Fees Pay @ purchase of
Water Meters
On- and off-site water Per SAMP Per SAMP and Fire
Marshal
Relocate City of San Diego water lines Developer/City of San Diego With 1st grading
permit
Police Pay PFDIF Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Fire Pay PFDIF Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Schools7 Designate Elementary School Site Per Agreement for
Community Facilities
District (CFD) for
School Facilities, or
prior to building
permit if paying fees
Designate Middle School Site
Pay SUHSD fees or form CFD
Pay CVESD fees or form CFD
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
1-9
TABLE 1.2 TIMING AND OBLIGATION FOR FACILITY (CONTINUED)
Facility Developer Obligation
Timing of Facility or
obligation in terms of
Village 8 West
entitlements
Libraries Pay PFDIF Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Parks
Community Developer dedicates land at first Final Map/Developer
pays in lieu fees prior to each DU building permit
Final Map containing
the 1st EDU
Neighborhood Developer dedicates land at first Final Map/Developer
pays in lieu fees prior to each DU building permit
Final Map containing
the 1st EDU
Town Center Developer dedicates land at first Final Map/Developer
completes construction
Prior to 383rd
Building Permit in
Orange Phase.
Recreation Pay PFDIF
Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Civic Center Pay PFDIF Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Corporation Yard Pay PFDIF Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Other Public Facilities Pay PFDIF Prior to issuance of
each building permit
Table 1.2 Notes
All improvements shall be constructed per the adopted conditions of subdivision approval, or secured to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
1Project timing thresholds for transportation improvements are found in the Village 8 West Traffic Impact Analysis report
dated March 8, 2013 by RBF Consulting. One Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) generates ten daily trips.
2 The developer is obligated to pay with each building permit the Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee
(TDIF) in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Construction by the developer of one or more of the TDIF-eligible
road improvements below may result in a credit against the fee, as det ermined by the City Engineer.
3 Developer is also obligated to pay the Traffic Signal Fee with each building permit, but will be eligible for a credit agains t
the fee for installation by the developer of signal improvements (see Traffic Section).
4Development shall not occur without adequate sewer capacity as determined by the City Engineer. See Sewer section for
specific facility requirements per phase.
5 The Main Street Trunk Sewer currently is an obligation to construct of Village 4 to the west of the Project. The Developer
shall be responsible for making the necessary modifications to connect to the system (See Sewer section 4.8.6)
6See Water section 4.7.7 for specific facility requirements per phase. Developer shall complete a SAMP prior to the first
Final Map. At this time, the SAMP will determine the water and reclaimed water facilities, on- and off-site development, to be
constructed/funded by the Developer. Otay Ranch Village 8 West will be required to provide all facilities needed to serve the
Project when constructed without reliance on the phased construction of adjacent projects, which are planned to provide
improvements.
7 Developer shall comply with State law regarding mitigation of impacts to school facilities, which may include formation of
a CFD (Mello-Roos districts) for school facilities and/or payment and crediting of fees. Compliance with the mitigation
requirements shall be demonstrated prior to the issuance of a building permit. (See School section 4.4.7)
8 Developer may bond and construct the entire bridge or create a funding mechanism prior to the first final Map for the
Project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 2 INTRODUCTION
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
2-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 OVERVIEW
The City of Chula Vista looks comprehensively at the issues dealing with development and the
additional impacts it places on public facilities and services. The approval of the Growth
Management Element set the stage for the creation of the City’s Growth Management Program
that addresses growth related issues.
The Chula Vista City Council first adopted the Growth Management Program and Implementing
Ordinance No. 2448 on May 28, 1991. These documents implement ed the Growth Management
Element of the General Plan, and establish ed a foundation for carrying out the development
policies of the City by directing and coordinating future growth in order to guarantee the timely
provision of public facilities and services.
The Growth Management Program requires a Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) to be
prepared for future development projects requiring a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan or
Tentative Map. The contents of the PFFP are governed by Section 19.09.060 of the Municipal
Code, which requires that the plan show how and when the public facilities and services
identified in the Growth Management Program will be installed or financed.
2.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of all PFFP’s in the City of Chula Vista is to implement the City's Growt h
Management Program and to meet the General Plan goals and objectives, specifically those of
the Growth Management Element. The Growth Management Program ensures that
development occurs only when the necessary public facilities and services exist or are p rovided
concurrent with the demands of new development. The Growth Management Program requires
that a PFFP be prepared for every new development project, which requires either SPA Plan or
tentative map approval. Similarly, amendments to a SPA Plan may require an amendment or a
supplement to the PFFP.
The PFFP is intended to be a dynamic and flexible document. The goal of the Financing Plan is to
assure adequate levels of service are achieved for all public facilities impacted by the project. It
is understood that assumed growth projections and related public facility needs are subject to a
number of external factors, such as the state of the economy, the City's future land use approval
decisions, etc. It is also understood that the funding sources specified herein may change due to
financing programs available in the future or requirements of either state or federal law. It is
intended that cost estimates contained herein are for illustrative purpose only and it is expected
that the actual costs of such improvements will vary over time. These cost changes are not
considered revisions to the PFFP and may be handled administratively. W hereas, significant
revisions to the facilities-driven growth phases are to be accomplished through an update
process via an amendment to or a supplement to the PFFP.
2.3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT THRESHOLD STANDARDS
City Council Resolution No. 13346 identified eleven public facilities and services with related
threshold standards and implementation measures that shall be monitored under the GMP.
These public facilities and services were listed in a policy statement dated November 17, 1987
and have subsequently been refined based on recommendations from the Growth
Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
2 INTRODUCTION OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
2-2
The public facilities, services, and threshold standards that are monitored include:
Traffic
Police
Fire/EMS
Schools
Libraries
Parks and Recreation
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Air Quality
Fiscal
During development of the Growth Management Program two new facilities were added to the
list of facilities to be analyzed in the PFFP:
Civic Facilities
Corporation Yard
Threshold standards are used to identify when new or upgraded public facilities are needed to
mitigate the impacts of new development. Development approvals will not be made unless
compliance with these standards can be met. These threshold standards have been prepared
to guarantee that public facilities or infrastructure improvements will keep pace with the
demands of growth.
A. THE THRESHOLD STANDARDS FALL INTO THREE GENERAL CATEGORIES:
1) A performance standard measuring overall level of service is established for police, fire
and emergency medical services, sewers, drainage facilities, and traffic;
2) A ratio of facilities to population is established for park and recreation facilities, and
libraries; and
3) A qualitative standard is established for schools, water, air quality, and fiscal impacts.
The qualitative standard pertains to some services that are provided by agencies outside of the
city -- schools are provided by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater
High School District; water service is provided by two independent water districts (Otay Water
District and Sweetwater Authority); and sewer service is provided by the City of Chula Vista
which has an agreement with the City of San Diego to treat the wastewater. Finally, the air -
quality and fiscal threshold standards do not relate to specific public services but are intended
to determine whether growth is having an adverse impact on two other measures of quality of
life: the air quality within the region and the City's overall fiscal health.
B. THE THRESHOLD STANDARDS ARE APPLIED IN THREE WAYS:
1) Many of the standards were used in the development and evaluation of the city's
General Plan to ensure that quality-of-life objectives are met at the time of General Plan
build-out during a 20-to-25 year period;
2) Certain standards are used in the evaluation of individual development projects to
determine the possible impacts of the project and to apply appropriate conditions an d
requirements in order to mitigate those impacts; and
3) All of the standards are monitored by the Growth Management Oversight Commission
(GMOC) on an annual basis to ensure that the cumulative impacts of new growth do not
result in a deterioration of quality of life, as measured by these standards.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 2 INTRODUCTION
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
2-3
2.4 THE PROJECT
The Otay Ranch is located in southwestern San Diego County approximately 3.5 miles east of
downtown Chula Vista and 13 miles southeast of downtown San Diego. The ranch is grouped
geographically into three distinct parcels: the Otay Valley parcel; the San Ysidro Mo untains
parcel; and the Proctor Valley parcel. The 9,449-acre Otay Valley parcel is the largest parcel
and is located within the City of Chula Vista. The remaining parcels are primarily located within
the unincorporated area of the county (see Regional Vicinity/Location Map Exhibit 2.1).
The Village 8 West project (Project) area is located at the southerly edge of the Otay Valley
Parcel of Otay Ranch. The Project is located at the intersection of Main Street (Formerly Rock
Mountain Road) and La Media Road. The Project is surrounded by Village 4, Village 7, Village 8
East, and the Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Open Space Preserve area. The
Project area currently consists of undeveloped land with the exception of a water supply
reservoir owned by the City of San Diego . A SPA Plan for Village 8 West was submitted by the
Project’s developer. The SPA Plan is described further in Section 4.3 of this PFFP.
2.5 PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN BOUNDARIES
Section 19.12.070 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that the City establish the
boundaries of the PFFP at the time a SPA Plan or Tentative Map(s) is submitted by the applicant.
The boundaries shall be based upon the impact created by the project on the existing and
future need for facilities. The project boundaries will correlate the proposed development
project with existing and future development proposed for the area of impact to provide for the
economically efficient and timely installation of both on -site and off-site facilities and
improvements required by the development. In establishing the boundaries for the PFFP, the City
shall be guided by the following considerations:
1) Service areas, drainage, sewer basins, and pressure zones that serve the project;
2) Extent to which facilities or improvements are in place or available;
3) Ownership of property;
4) Project impact on public facilities relationships, especially the impact on the City’s
planned major circulation network;
5) Special district service territories;
6) Approved fire, drainage, sewer, or other facilities or improvement master plans.
The PFFP for the project addresses public facilities which are within the SPA Plan boundaries.
However, the PFFP also addresses certain facilities (streets, drainage, sewer, police, fire, schools,
etc.) that are impacted beyond the boundaries of the SPA Plan.
2 INTRODUCTION OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
2-4
EXHIBIT 2.1 VICINITY MAP
Source: Village 8 West SPA Plan
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
3-1
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to quantify how the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan (Project) will be analyzed in relationship to all other projects that are at some
stage in the City’s development process. The Gro wth Management Program addresses the issue
of development phasing in relationship to location, timing, and fiscal/economic considerations.
Based upon the overall elements to be considered when projecting the phasing of development and
policies contained in the Growth Management Program, the City was able to forecast where and
when development will take place and produced a 5-year Development Phasing Forecast.
Subsequent to the approval of the Growth Management Program, the forecasted development
phasing has been updated periodically as facility improvements are made and the capacity for new
development becomes available. The current update is summarized on Table 3.1.
The specific factors, which affect the development -phasing forecast, include the status of
development approvals and binding development agreements, and the need to address
capacity issues for sewage treatment by the San Diego metropolitan area was tewater
treatment system (METRO). These components were reviewed as part of this PFFP in conjunction
with the requirement to provide facilities and services concurrent with the demand created by
the Project to maintain compliance with the threshold standa rds.
The management of future growth requires coordination of activities of the various City departments
as well as with both the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School
District and the Otay Municipal Water District that serve the City of Chula Vista. The development
phasing forecast is a component of the City of Chula Vista’s Growth Management Program. The
Development Services Department provides annual growth forecasts for two time frames: 18 months
and a 5-year period. This information enables City departments and the other aforementioned service
agencies to assess the probable impacts that growth may have on maintaining compliance with the
City’s facilities and service Threshold Standards. In addition, with this data, City departments and the
other service agencies will be able to report potential impacts to the GMOC.
3.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
As a starting point, the PFFP considers all existing development up to November, 2011 as the
base condition. This information is based upon City of Chula Vista Department growth
management monitoring data. According to this and other data, the population of the City as
of January 1, 2011 is estimated at 249,3821.
1 Total population from: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for
Cities, Counties, and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2011 and 2012.
Sacramento, California, May 2012. Note: the 2010 Census gives Chula Vista’s population as
243,916 (Population and Housing Occupancy - Status 2010 State-Place)
3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
3-2
For the purposes of projecting facility demands for the Otay Ranch Vi llage 8 West SPA the City of
Chula Vista utilizes a population coefficient2 of 3.30 persons per single family dwelling unit and
2.58 persons per multi-family dwelling unit (2.81 overall). These factors are used throughout this
PFFP to calculate facility demands from approved projects. The coefficients have been
confirmed for use in the PFFP by the Development Services Department. The same coefficient s
will be used for calculating the specific facility demands of the Project. One exception to this is
the calculation of parkland dedication and development fees, which are based on the Chula
Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17.10 that defines population coefficients of 3.52 persons per
single family dwelling unit and 2.61 persons per multi-family dwelling unit.
3.3 DEVELOPMENT PHASING FORECAST
A summary of the latest five-year development-phasing forecast is shown in Table 3.1. The table
presents an estimate of the amount of development activity anticipated to the end of year
2016. The total number of dwelling units permitted for Eastern Chula Vista by the December 2016
is approximately 5,537. It should be noted that these projections are estimates and are used for
analytical purposes only and unless a development agreement or other legal instrument
guarantees facility capacity, some projects with varying levels of entitlement may not have
committed capacity. 3
TABLE 3.1 ESTIMATED FIVE-YEAR RESIDENTIAL UNIT GROWTH FORECAST 2011 THROUGH 2016
Forecast of Units Permitted from November
2011 through December 2016
Approximate
Units
Remaining
After 2016
Projects MF SF Total Total
Otay Ranch 3,138 1,741 4,879 15,422
Eastlake 454 0 454 0
Rolling Hills Ranch 0 67 67 0
Bella Lago 17 36 53 0
San Miguel Ranch 84 84 0
Sub - Total 3,693 1,844 5,537 15,422
Eastern Territory
Population1 9,528 6,085 15,613 43,306
Western Chula Vista 338 25 363 8,000
Total Units 4031 1,869 5,900 23,422
Total Population 10,400 6,168 16,568 65,7712
1Household occupancies: multi-family: 2.5 pphh, single family: 3.3 pphh, overall: 2.81 pphh
2 Total population growth of approximately 82,000 is consistent with the SANDAG 2050
Regional Growth projection for the City of Chula Vista: 330,400
Source: City of Chula Vista GMOC 2012 Annual Report, June 2012.
2 Based on Census 2000 Housing Occupancy data for Chula Vista (does not include Boat, RV,
Van occupants) It is assumed that 'Single Family' includes both attached and detached units.
(These occupancy factors are also used in the Village 8 West SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis).
3 A year to year estimate of how many building permits will be issued has been developed for
general planning purposes, but should not be relied upon for exactness. The total number of
permits that will be issued over the next five years is the best estimate however many variables
may and will affect what the actual distribution will be.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
3-3
3.4 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
The vision for the Project is to develop a cohesive community with inter-connected uses and
provide a range of residential housing units. The proposed land-use of residential, commercial
and community uses are designed to provide a mixed-use environment that serves the needs of
residents and employees. The SPA plan focuses on promoting a walkable and bikeable
community with less emphasis on automobile trips.
The extension of La Media Road and Main Street through the project will be constructed as a
pair of couplets serving as major access routes. A town square will be located in the center of
the couplet and surrounded by mixed-use and park space. Single family housing is planned in
the southern portion of the Project. The circulation system will provide for pedestrians, local bus
and rapid bus transit connections. This system will provide efficient access throughout the Village
and to the ultimate bus rapid transit line serving this region.
Pursuant to the Village 8 West SPA, the Project will contain:
2,050 residential dwelling units;
50,000 square feet of office space;
250,000 square feet of commercial retail;
28 acres of park;
23.5 acres of open space;
An Elementary School;
A Middle School; and
5.8 acres of community purpose facilities.
2 Bus stops
The Site Utilization Plan (Exhibit 3.1) shows the location of the Project amenities. A reservoir
owned and operated by the City of San Diego is located in the central portion of the Project
and will remain as development occurs around it. The Project area is approximately 320 acres
including the reservoir site. Other than the City of San Diego parcel, all the land is under the
single ownership of the Otay Land Company (see Exhibit 3.3).
The Site Utilization and Conceptual Phasing Summary on Table 3.2, shows the following maximum
components proposed within the Project: 1,429 multi-family and 621 single family residential units,
300,000 square feet of office/commercial retail and other supporting land uses within the
Project. The discretionary phase of the Project requires the adoption of a SPA Plan,
Environmental Impact Report and Tentative Map.
This PFFP and in the particular the SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis (F IA) in Chapter 5 is based on the
land uses described in the SPA Site Utilization Plan and the phasing summary in Table 3.2. If the
Project were to develop with less than the overall indicated floor area of commercial/retail, the
developer will be required to revise this PFFP, and the FIA, to identify other revenues streams that
3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
3-4
would replace the lost City revenues associated with those land uses and demonstrate that the
Project is fiscally sustainable with the reduced commercial/retail development.
The development pattern and interior circulation arrangement is illustrated on the Project’s Site
Utilization Plan and the Conceptual Phasing Plan (Exhibit 3.2). The number of units and
commercial square feet within each planning area are estimates only. Units and commercial
uses may be transferred between planning areas provided that uses being transferred are
consistent with the site utilization of the receiving planning area and that the overall density of
each transect (zoning area) remains consistent with the density ranges (measured in dwelling
units per acre) specified for each transect. Table 3.2 reflects the maximum target for residential
units and commercial/retail floor area in the Project.
The mixed-use nature of the Project makes it difficult to categorize those uses by acreage since
a single building (on a single parcel) may include different uses a t different levels (e.g.,
commercial at street level and office or residential uses on upper levels). Because of the
difficulty in assigning a building site to a unique use category, the Project’s SPA Plan emphasizes
the appropriate character and mix of uses in identified planning areas for consistency with the
Otay Ranch GDP rather than acreage statistics. Consistent with the note to the GDP Land Use
Table, non-residential uses are quantified in terms of square feet of building floor area in -lieu of
site acreage. Correspondingly, residential use is quantified in terms of number of dwelling units
instead of acreage. These statistics will allow for the proper accounting of development intensity
within the Project regardless of location within mixed-use structures.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
3-5
EXHIBIT 3.1 – OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
Source: Village 8 West SPA Plan
3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
3-6
EXHIBIT 3.2 – OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SITE CONCEPTUAL PHASING PLAN
Source: Village 8 West SPA Plan
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
3-7
EXHIBIT 3.3-OWNERSHIP MAP
City of San Diego
reservoir and
pipeline
3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
3-8
3.5 DEVELOPMENT PHASING
The Project developer has proposed five non-sequential phases illustrated by the Conceptual
Phasing Plan Exhibit 3.2 with units and acreages listed in the corresponding Table 3.2 below. Each
phase consists of one or more planning areas shown in the SPA Plan Exhibit 2.1 and Table 2.1. The
development of the Project will proceed in phases according to the anticipated market
demand for development within the Project.
TABLE 3.2 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST
CONCEPTUAL PHASING SUMMARY
Sequential phasing is frequently inaccurate because of unforeseen market changes or
regulatory constraints. Therefore, the Village 8 West SPA plan permits non-sequential phasing by
imposing specific facilities requirements for each development increment regardless of which
phase it is located. This will ensure that the Project development is adequately served and City
threshold standards are met. Construction of the internal streets, which serve multiple phases,
shall be phased according to the provisions of this PFFP (see Traffic Section 4.1.5)
The SPA plan also allows density transfers between planning areas of up to 15% without a SPA
plan amendment in accordance with the provisions set forth in the SPA.
Conceptual Phase
Mixed-Use
Residential
(units)
(18-45 du/ac)
Multi-Family
(units)
(11-18 du/ac)
SF
Detached
(units)
(3-6 du/ac)
Single Family
(units)
(6-11 du/ac)
Mixed-Use
Commercial
(sq. ft.)
Parks
(acres)
Schools
(acres)
CPF
(acres)
Orange 218 122 117 174,000 3.0
Blue 124 160
Yellow 681 95 126,000 17.4 20.2
Purple 90 130 7.5
Green 313 11.4 5.8
Total 899 530 331 290 300,000 27.9 31.6 5.8
Land Use
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4 FACILITY ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4-1
4.0 FACILITY ANALYSIS
4.01 OVERVIEW
This portion of the Village 8 West PFFP contains 13 separate subsections for each facility
addressed by this report. Of the 13 facilities, 11 have adopted threshold standards; the Civic
Center and Corporation Yard do not. Table 4.1 highlights the level of analysis for each facility.
TABLE 4.0.1 – LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
Facility Citywide East of I-805 Service Area Sub-basin Special District
Traffic X X
Police X
Fire/EMS X X
Schools X
Libraries X
Parks, Recreation & OS X
Water X X
Sewer X
Drainage X
Air Quality X
Civic Center X
Corp. Yard X
Fiscal X X
Each subsection analyzes the impact of Village 8 West project based upon the adopted Quality
of Life Standards. The analysis is based upon the specific goal, objective, threshold standard and
implementation measures. The proposed Village 8 West SPA Plan is used to determine facility
adequacy and is referenced within the facility section.
4.02 THRESHOLD STANDARDS & MITIGATION
Each facility analysis is based upon the specific project processing requirements for that facility,
as adopted in the Growth Management Program. These indicate the requirements for
evaluating the project consistency with the threshold ordinance at various stages (General
Development Plan, SPA Plan/Public Facilities Finance Plan, Tentative Map, Final Map and
Building Permit) in the development review process.
A service analysis section is included which identifies the service provided by each facility. The
existing plus forecasted demands for the specific facility are identified in the subsection based
upon the adopted threshold standard.
4 FACILITY ANALYSIS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4-2
Each facility subsection contains an adequacy analysis follo wed by a detailed discussion
indicating how the facility is to be financed. The adequacy analysis provides a determination of
whether or not the threshold standard is being met and the finance section provides a
determination if funds are available to guarantee the improvement. If the threshold standard is
not being met, mitigation is recommended in the Threshold Compliance and Recommendations
subsection which proposes the appropriate conditions or mitigation to bring the facility into
conformance with the threshold standard.
The inclusion of threshold standards and recommended threshold compliance measures in each
facility subsection in this PFFP is not meant to imply that the indicated compliance measures are
comprehensive, or all inclusive of every impact mitigation measure with which the Village 8 West
must comply. The project-level Environmental Impact Report for the Village 8 West contains the
complete mitigation measures to reduce to a level that is less than significant the impacts to the
following facility categories included in this PFFP:
Transportation/Traffic
Police Services
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Schools
Libraries
Parks, Trails and Open Space
Water and Recycled Water
Wastewater
Hydrology and Water Quality
Air Quality
All Project approvals including tentative and final maps, building permits, site plan review and
condition use permits shall comply with all mitigation measures as set forth in the Village 8 West
Final EIR. If any of the compliance measures recommended in this PFFP are in conflict with any
similar mitigation measures in the Final EIR, the Final EIR shall prevail.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-1
4.1 TRAFFIC
4.1.1 GMOC THRESHOLD STANDARD
1) Citywide: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, as measured by observed
average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a
LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day.
2) West of Interstate 805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard
above may continue to operate at their current LOS, but shall not worsen.
4.1.1.1 GMOC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS FOR ARTERIAL ROADS
The following are notes to the GMOC Threshold Standards for arterial roads found in CVMC
Chapter 19.09.040. There are no GMOC standards for local residential streets. Also, in
accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan there are no LOS standards
established for internal streets.
A. Arterial segment LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours,
excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations.
B. Urban and suburban arterials are defined as surface highways having signal spacing of
less than two miles with average weekday traffic volumes greater than 10,000 vehicles per
day.
C. Arterial segments are stratified into three classifications:
i. Class I arterials are roadways where free-flow traffic speeds range between 35 mph
and 45 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile is less than four. There is
no parking and there is generally no access to abutting property.
ii. Class II arterials are roadways where free-flow traffic speeds range between 30 mph
and 35 mph, and the number of signalized intersections per mile ranges between four
and eight. There is some parking and access to abutting properties is limited.
iii. Class III arterials are roadways where free-flow traffic speeds range between 25 mph
and 35 mph, and the number of signalized intersections per mile is closely spaced. There
is substantial parking and access to abutting property is unrestricted.
D. The LOS measurement of arterial segments and freeway ramps shall be a growth
management consideration in situations where proposed developments have a significant
impact at interchanges.
E. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to the anticipated deterioration of
LOS below established standards.
F. The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining art erial lengths and classifications shall
follow the procedures detailed in Chapter 11 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and
shall be confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer.
G. During the conduct of future traffic monitoring program field surveys, intersections
experiencing significant delays will be identified. The information generated by the field
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-2
surveys will be used to determine possible signal timing changes and geometric and/or
traffic operational improvements for the purpose of reducing intersection delay.
H. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the following table:
TABLE 4.1.1-GMOC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS
Level of Average Travel Speed (mph)
Service Class I Class II Class III
A > 35 > 30 > 25
B > 28 > 24 > 19
C > 22 > 18 > 13
D > 17 > 14 > 9
E > 13 > 10 > 7
F < 13 < 10 < 7
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (1994).
4.1.2 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues for
Traffic Facilities (CVMC 19.09.60):
a. Identify on-site and off-site impacts and improvements by phase of Project development;
and.
b. Provide cost estimates for improvements.
4.1.3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY
A. Village 8 West Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
In conformance with requirements of the Congestion Management Program (CMP), an analysis
of CMP freeways and arterials is required for any project that generates 2,400 daily or 200 peak
hour trips (As detailed in the 1991 Congestion Management Program). This analysis: Traffic
Impact Analysis Report (TIA) for Otay Ranch Village 8 West, (Project), March 8, 2013 by RBF
Consulting was prepared for the City of Chula Vista. The TIA is the basis of the Traffic Section of
this PFFP and addresses both the existing and planned circulation system and land use
conditions assumed for the years 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. The TIA also recommends traffic
impact mitigation measures and outlines the incremental circulation improvements based upon
planned Project phasing and land development estimated to occur in the TIA study area.
Further, the TIA also includes an evaluation of the proposed transit routes within Otay Ranch
Village 8 West.
The TIA study area is generally bounded by Olympic Parkway to the north, Hunte Parkway to the
east, Main Street and/or Otay Valley Road to the south and Interstate 805 (I -805) to the West
(see Exhibit 4.1.1). All signalized intersections, freeway interchanges and arterial segments within
this area were analyzed under various scenarios by RBF Consulting. (see TIA for scenario details).
The proposed circulation network (described later in this section) was analyzed in a General Plan
Amendment (GPA) and General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), which were prepared
to account for changes in the circulation network and land use from the 2005 Adopted General
Plan. The GPA and GDPA were approved as part of PCM-09-11 and GPA 09-01.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-3
EXHIBIT 4.1.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY AREA
Source: Village 8 West TIA, March, 2013 Exhibit 3
Traffic volumes, for the analysis years 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 were forecast using the Series 11
South Bay Sub Area traffic model produced by San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG). In collaboration with City of Chula Vista staff and SANDAG, RBF Consulting provided
input regarding the land use and network assumptions for each scenario year used in each
model run produced by SANDAG, for each study year beginning in 2015.
To determine the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections, intersection movement
counts were taken on a typical weekday during the a.m. (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00
to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were also collected along most
roadway segments over a 24-hour period. Traffic count data provided by the City of Chula Vista
from previous traffic studies were used if available.
The traffic impact analysis for this Project was conducted under two methodologies: using
GMOC procedures and on a CEQA project level (both short-term and long-term analyses).
B. GMOC Analysis
As a part of the City’s Growth Management Program, the City monitors the operating conditions
along Olympic Parkway on an annual basis. Under the City’s Growth Management Ordinance
(GMO), the threshold for a cumulative impact on an arterial road segment is considered to be
LOS D for more than 2 hours. To monitor new development in the eastern area of the City with
respect to the existing available capacity on Olympic Parkway, an expanded traffic analysis
was prepared and documented as the Olympic Parkway Capacity Enhancement Analysis,
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-4
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, August, 2011 (LLG Study). The LLG study determined if and when
GMO thresholds are projected to be reached or exceeded, and whether mitigation measures
are necessary to remain compliant with the requirements of the GMP. In conformance with the
requirements of the GMP, a peak-hour arterial analysis was conducted on the segment of
westbound Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and Oleander Avenue under short-term
conditions (Years 0-4) based on the City of Chula Vista’s Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP)
methodology. The Chula Vista TMP is used to assess the operating performance of the City’s
arterial street system in order to determine compliance with the Threshold Standards of the
GMP/GMOC.
Analysis of roadway segments under the GMOC requires a more detailed analysis using this
methodology if the typical planning analysis using volume-to-capacity ratios on an individual
segment indicates a potential impact to that segment. The GMOC analysis uses the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology of average travel speed based on actual
measurements on the segments as listed in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring
Program.
Based on the LLG study, the segment of westbound Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road
and Oleander Avenue during a.m. peak hours would be the first to fall below GMO traffic
threshold standards as traffic volumes increase over time with the Village 8 West project and
other projects east of I-805. The analysis demonstrated that GMO thresholds would not be
reached along Olympic Parkway until building permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued
for projects east of I-805.
C. Recommended GMOC Mitigation Measures
Mitigation for the cumulative impacts to the segments of Olympic Parkway between Heritage
Road and Oleander Avenue is set forth as follows:
The projected 2,463 dwelling unit threshold is used by the City to determine when cumulative
impacts may occur along the corridor. The following mitigation measure is identified in the
Project TIA:
1. Olympic Parkway: Heritage Road to Oleander Avenue Prior to the issuance of the
building permit for the 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of I -805 commencing
from April 4, 20111, the applicant may implement one of the following measures:
a. Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that
the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding GMO t raffic
threshold standards; or
b. Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional
necessary capacity to comply with the GMO traffic threshold to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer; or
c. Agree to the City Engineer’s selection of an alternative method of maintaining GMO
traffic threshold compliance; or
1 For purposes of this provision building permits; issued after April 4, 2011 shall be counted against the 2,463
number referred to herein.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-5
d. Enter into an agreement, approved by the City, with other Otay Ranch developers
that alleviates congestion and achieves GMO traffic threshold compliance for
Olympic Parkway. The agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation
infrastructure that will need to be constructed; the parties that will construct said
needed infrastructure; a timeline for such construction, and provide assurance s for
construction, in accordance with the City’s customary requirements, for said
infrastructure.
2. If GMO compliance cannot be achieved through 1a, b, c, or d above, then the City
shall stop issuing new building permits after building permits for 2,463 dwelling units (DU)
have been issued for any development east of I-805 after April 4, 2011, until such time
that GMO traffic threshold standard compliance can be assured to the satisfaction of
the City Manager.
3. These measures shall constitute full compliance with growth management objectives
and policies in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with
regard to traffic thresholds set forth in the GMO.
D. CEQA Level Project Analysis
The Project TIA also analyzed the Project’s impacts in the short-term, existing conditions up to 4
years, and long-term, more than 4 years and at five-year increments up to Project build-out at
year 2030. The long-term analysis was based on the Project phasing presented in Table 4.1.2.
The CEQA -level project analysis uses the following thresholds of significance criteria to identify
cumulative and direct impacts under the short-term and long-term conditions:
Short-term (for existing conditions to 4 years)
Per the City’s thresholds of significance for short-term analyses, roadway sections may be
defined as either links or segments. A link is typically that section of roadway between two
adjacent Circulation Element intersections and a segment is defined as that combination of
contiguous links used in Growth Management Plan Tr affic Monitoring Program.
Analysis of roadway segments under short-term conditions may require a more detailed analysis
using the GMOC methodology if the typical planning analysis using volume-to-capacity ratios
on an individual segment indicates a potential impact to that segment. The GMOC analysis
uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology of average travel speed based on
actual measurements on the segments as listed in the Growth Management Plan Traffic
Monitoring Program.
A. Intersections
1. Project direct impact if both the following criteria are met:
a) LOS E or LOS F; and
b) Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume
2. Cumulative impact if only a) above is met.
B. Street Segments
If the planning analysis using the volume-to-capacity ratio indicates LOS C or better,
there is no impact. If the planning analysis indicates LOS D, E or F, the GMOC method
should be utilized. The following criteria would then be utilized.
1. Project direct impact if all the following criteria are met:
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-6
a) LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F for 1 hour;
b) Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume; and
c) Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
2. Cumulative impact if only a) above is met.
Long-term (4 or more years)
Per the City’s thresholds of significance for long-term analyses, the City of Chula Vista adopted
General Plan identifies a project to result in a significant impact if one of the following criteria is
met:
A. Intersections
1. Project direct impact if both the following criteria are met:
(a) Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
(b) Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
2. Cumulative impact if only (a) above is met.
B. Street Segments
Use the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio methodology only.
1. Project direct impact if all three of the following criteria are met:
(a) Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F;
(b) Project trips comprise 5% or more of total segment volume; and
(c) Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
2. Cumulative impact if only a) above is met. However, if the intersections along a
LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is
considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual
roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If segment Level of
Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS.
Direct impacts must be mitigated by the project. This includes the construction of improvements
that reduce the project impacts to less than significant. Cumulative impacts will be mitigated to
a less than significant level, which may include payment of Transportation Development Impact
fees (TDIF) for roadway improvement projects included in the TDIF program.
E. Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions
Throughout the TIA, assumptions are made regarding both land development and the
constructed road network within the study area. The assumptions for the constructed road
network arise in three ways:
1. Road improvements are required for Project access and frontag e requirements. The
City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance specifies that all land development must
construct adjacent roadway and intersection improvements as a project exaction.
The Subdivision Ordinance also specifies the maximum number of units that may take
access from a local street without additional connections to collector or circulation
element roadways. Therefore, the completion of identified major roads and adjacent
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-7
intersection improvements within the Project are necessary for the Project’s
compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance; the TIA assumes the Project will comply
with all City policies and standards; or,
2. Improvements are recommended as a direct Project impact mitigation measure in a
previous study year and become part of the “Mitigat ed Road Network” of a given
study year; or,
3. Certain circulation element roadways are assumed to be constructed by others as
either access or frontage improvements, or are the direct impact mitigation
measures for other projects in the study area. The TIA makes realistic assumptions
regarding the future improvements to the roadway network that are needed to serve
the projected development in the study area. The rationale for assuming that these
roads will be constructed by others (not the Project applicant) is based upon
assumption that all new development must comply with the City’s GMOC policy that
requires the construction of major infrastructure in conjunction with the need
generated by new development.
F. Assumed Roadways
If, however, future land development in the study area does not follow the phasing as
assumed by the Project TIA and the assumed roads are not constructed and open for
traffic by specified building permit thresholds, the mitigation requirements for this
Project provide a mechanism whereby development of the Project will cease until
either the assumed roads are constructed, or alternative measures are approved.
There are three circulation element imp rovements that were assumed in the Project
TIA which fall into this category:
Construction of Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street by 2025;
Widening of Heritage Road from the existing Class II Collector (2-lanes) to a 6-
Lane Prime between Main Street and Avenida de las Vistas by 2025;
Construction of Main Street from Heritage Road to La Media Road by 2030.
See the Project TIA for a complete discussion of the above.
The following mitigation measure assures that the Project does not proceed without the
assumed road improvements:
1. Development in the Project will stop until those assumed future roadways are
constructed by others; or
2. City shall determine whether there is a need for the incomplete roadway segments;
or
3. Developer shall construct the missing roadway links and receive TDIF credit for those
improvements as applicable; or
4. An alternative measure is selected by the city in accordance with the City of Chula
Vista Growth Management Ordinance.
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-8
5. All measures selected shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
4.1.4 VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA TRIP GENERATION AND PHASING
The following section describes the proposed Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Project including
the estimated project trip generation, distribution, and assignment for the traffic impact analysis
years: 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030.
A. Project Trip Generation
The vision for Village 8 West is to develop as a cohesive community with inter-connected land
uses including a range of residential land use densities. The Project’s land-use plan is designed
to provide a complementary, mixed-use environment with a focus on promoting a walkable
and bikeable community. As a result, vehicular trip reductions were applied to the TIA to
account for walking, biking as well as transit trips. The TIA assumed that a number of trips will
travel between the different land uses within the Project, and will not utilize the surrounding
arterial roadway network. As a result, the trips are considered internal to the Project.
Since regional and local bus transit services will be provided within the Project, a transit trip
credit of 5 percent was applied to the residential and office land uses. As a result, the total
transit trip capture credit for the project at build-out resulted in a reduction of 2,154 ADT,
including 173 a.m. peak-hour trips (80 in, 93 out) and 214 p.m. peak-hour trips (121 in, 93 out).
The Project is planned to be built in phases. The TIA, upon which this section of the PFFP is based,
utilized the land uses shown in Table 4.1.2.
Table 4.1.2 shows the net new trip generation for Otay Ranch Village 8 West project (proposed
minus internal and transit reductions). As shown in the table, the net trip generation of the
proposed project at build-out of the Project would total 26,104 ADT (net of internal capture and
transit reduction), including 2,662 a.m. peak-hour trips (1,208 in, 1,455 out,2) and 2,769 p.m. peak-
hour trips (1,654 in, 1,115 out).
B. Project Phasing
The development of Otay Ranch Village 8 West will occur in phases and will no t be fully
constructed for many years. Therefore the TIA includes an evaluation of intermediate years:
2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. The phasing and trip generation assumptions of the TIA are reflected
in Table 4.1.2. Approximately 7 percent of the project is assumed to be built by 2015, 40 percent
of the Project is assumed to be built by 2020, 82 percent of the Project is assumed to be built by
2025, and full build-out of the Project assumed by 2030.
As shown in Table 4.1.2, the Project generates a net total of 3,018 ADT by Year 2015, an addition
of 10,857 for a net total of 13,875 ADT, by Year 2020, an addition of 8,462 for a net total of 22,337
ADT by Year 2025 and an addition of 3,767 ADT by 2030 resulting in a net cumulative 26,104 ADT
through build-out (Year 2030).
For this PFFP the following discussion includes the thresholds for access/frontage and for CEQA
mitigation to be constructed, as more fully described below. The Project is estimated to
generate a net total of 302 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) through Year 2015 (no reductions
2 Difference is due to rounding error
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-9
are applied to residential uses), (1,388 EDUs) through Year 2020, 2,234 EDUs through Year 2025
and 2,610 EDUs at build-out (Year 2030)(see TIA).
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-10
TABLE 4.1.2-GROSS AND NET TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
2015 2020 2025 2030 Total
Trips at
Build-
out Land Use Trips Per
Units
/ksf/ac Trips EDU1s
Units/
ksf/ac Trips EDUs
Units/
ksf/ac Trips EDUs
Units/
ksf/ac Trips EDUs
Single Family 10 105 1,050 105 354 3,540 354 162 1,620 162
0 6,210
Multi-Family 8 246 1,968 196.8 824 6,592 659.2 359 2,872 287.2
0 11,432
Elementary School 100 Acre
0
0 11.4 1,140 114
0 1,140
Middle School 105 Acre
21 2,205 221 2,205
Office 20 Ksf
0 50 1,000 100
0
0 1,000
Commercial/Retail 80 Ksf
0 40 3,200 320 150 12,000 1200 60 4,800 480 20,000
Community Purpose 30 Ksf
0
0
0 5.8 174 17.4 174
Park
(Active Recreation) 50 Acre
0
0 8 400 40 9.4 470 47 870
Urban
& Neighborhood
Park 5 Acre 0 5.5 27.5 2.75 5.1 25.5 2.55 0 53
Total
3,018 302 14,360 1,436 18,058 1,806 7,649 544
Cumulative Total
3,018 302
17,378 1,738 35,436 3,544
43,084 4,308 43,084
Percentage of Total 7% 40% 82% 100%
Internal Capture
0 0
2634 263
11326 1,133
14,826
Transit Reduction
0 0
869 86.9
1772 177
2,154
Net Trip Cumulative Total w ith ADT EDU 3,018 302 13,875 1387 22,337 2234 26,104 2610
1 EDU=Equivalent (single family) Dwelling Unit thresholds for mitigation measures.
Source: Village 8 West Traffic Impact Analysis, March 8, 2013, RBF Consulting
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-11
4.1.5 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. MAJOR ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS
The findings of the TIA show that GMOC thresholds will be met with the implementation of the
following recommended mitigation measures for intersections and roadway segments, reducing
the identified impacts to less than significant. The recommended mitigation measures of the TIA for
each analysis year: Existing Conditions with Project, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 and the
corresponding Project equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) thresholds for each mitigation measure are
set forth in the identified tables and exhibits found in the Project TIA.
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLUS PROJECT TRIPS
The Existing Conditions plus Project Trips represent the traffic conditions of the existing street
network with the addition of Project trips at ultimate build -out (see TIA Tables 9 and 10 for the
existing plus Project intersection and roadway LOS summary). This scenario represents a “snap-
shot” in time and does not account for changes in traffic volumes and roadway infrastructure
un-related to the Project which would occur over the long term build-out of the Project. The
specific geometrics of the intersections and roadway segments in the study area as they
currently exist are presented in TIA Exhibits 5A and 7 , respectively.
Existing Conditions plus Project Trips Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The results of the traffic impact analysis for the Existing Conditions plus Project show that two
intersections are forecast to operate at deficient LOS under these conditions. For each of the
two impacted intersections, listed below, the Project trips added to the intersections exceed the
City of Chula Vista’s threshold of significance. Therefore, both intersections are forecast to result
in direct project impacts.
Olympic Parkway / 805 Northbound Ramps
Main Street /Magdalena Avenue
Four roadway segments are forecast to operate at deficient LOS under Existing Conditions plus
Project conditions. The Project trips added to the deficient segments listed below exceed the
City of Chula Vista’s threshold of significance. Therefore, all four segments are forecast to be
directly impacted by the project:
Olympic Parkway:
- from I-805 to Brandywine Avenue;
- from Brandywine Avenue to Heritage Road; and
- from Heritage Road to La Media Road.
Magdalena Ave from Birch Road to Main Street
The Project, however, is planned to be constructed in a series of phases over a period of nearly
20 years. This phasing would not require construction of all the improvements at once, but rather
such improvements will be constructed as is needed to mitigate impacts of the phased
development; all as described in the Project TIA. The improvements identified for the Project’s
2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 development scenarios, as listed in Project TIA Tables 14, 18, 22 and
26, and summarized below, would mitigate these direct impacts.
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-12
2. 2015 CONDITIONS
The 2015 Conditions analysis includes anticipated land uses and traffic associated with
development expected to occur in the study area by the year 2015. The 2015 Conditions
assumes Project-generated trips associated with the construction of 105 single -family and 246
multi-family residential dwelling units within Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA. The 2015 Conditions
assume SR 125 continues to function as a toll facility.
2015 Impacts with Project and Mitigation Measures
The following improvements are required for Project access and subdivision frontage, per TIA
Table 14. Therefore, the applicant shall be required to secure and agree to construct these
improvements prior to the approval of the final map for the Project containing the 1st EDU:
Main Street:
Construct Main Street from La Media Road to Magdalena Avenue as a two-lane, two-way
street to provide access to Village 8 West;
La Media Road:
Construct La Media Road from existing terminus south of Santa Luna St. to Planning Areas N, I
& J South of Main Street as a two-lane, two-way street to provide access to Village 8 West;
Main Street/La Media Road (intersection #19):
Install traffic signal;
Main Street/Magdalena Avenue (intersection #20):
Construct west leg of Intersection and modify existing striping and install stop sign on
southbound approach.
Otherwise, the TIA finds that there are no direct Project impacts under the 2015 conditions.
The Project will contribute to its fair share through payment of the TDIF for mitigation of the
following cumulative impact identified in Table 14 of the TIA:
Intersection:
Olympic Parkway/I-805 NB Ramps
Recommended GMOC Mitigation Measures
As discussed in the GMOC Analysis in Section 4.1.3 above, a cumulative impact on Olympic
Parkway between Heritage Road and Oleander Avenue is projected to occur when the threshold of
2,463 dwelling units east of I-805 is reached. The following mitigation measures are recommended for
the potential cumulative impact:
1. Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and Oleander Avenue: Prior to the issuance of
the building permit for the 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of I -805
commencing from April 4, 2011 the applicant may implement one of the following
measures:
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-13
a. Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that
the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding GMO traffic
threshold standards; or
b. Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional
necessary capacity to comply with the GMO traffic threshold to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer; or
c. Agree to the City Engineer’s selection of an alternative method of maintaining GMO
traffic threshold compliance, or
d. Enter into an agreement, approved by the City, with other Otay Ranch developers
that alleviates congestion and achieves GMO traffic threshold compliance for
Olympic Parkway. The agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation
infrastructure that will need to be constructed; the parties that will construct said
needed infrastructure; a timeline for such construction, and provide assurances for
construction, in accordance with the City’s customary requirements, for said
infrastructure.
2. If GMO compliance cannot be achieved through 1a, b, c or d above, then the City shall
stop issuing new building permits after building permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been
issued for any development east of I -805 after April 4, 2011, until such time that GMO
traffic threshold standard compliance can be assured to the satisfaction of the City
Manager.
3. These measures shall constitute full compliance with growth management objectives
and policies in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with
regard to traffic thresholds set forth in the GMO.
3. 2020 CONDITIONS
The 2020 Conditions includes analysis of land uses and traffic associated with development
expected to occur by that year. In addition to the development assumed in 2015, the 2020
Conditions includes Project-generated trips associated with the construction of an additional
354 single family and 824 multi-family residential dwelling units, 50,000 square feet of office use,
40,000 square feet of commercial retail and 5.5 acres of park within the Project.
2020 Impacts with Project and Mitigation Measures
The following improvements are required for Project access and subdivision frontage, per Table
18 of the TIA. Therefore, prior to approval of the final map containing the 302nd EDU, or the final
map for planning areas requiring the following improvements as listed in Table 4.1.4, whichever
comes first, the applicant shall construct the Project access and frontage improvements:
Otay Valley Road:
Construct Otay Valley Road from south of Main Street to Village 8 West Street “A” as 4-
lane Major road.
In addition, the Year 2020 scenario assumes that the mitigation measures identified for the Year
2015 scenario would be implemented, plus the construction of the above improvements to Otay
Valley Road required for access and frontage.
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-14
The following are direct Project impacts in 2020:
Intersections:
Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue
Segments:
Olympic Parkway: Heritage Road to La Media Road
As mitigation for direct Project impacts, prior to approval of the final map containing the 1,388 th
EDU the applicant shall construct, or secure and agree to construct, the following direct Project
impact mitigation measures:
Santa Victoria Road:
Construct Santa Victoria Rd. from Heritage Road to La Media Road;
Heritage Road:
Construct Heritage Rd. from Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road;
Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue (intersection #3):
Construct Traffic signal/intersection improvements to provide 1) a northbound right-turn
overlap phase; and 2) secure or construct the extension of the westbound left turn
pocket, if not already completed by 2015.
The Project will contribute to its fair share through payment of the TDIF for mitigation of the
following cumulative impacts identified in Table 18 of the TIA:
Olympic Parkway/I-805 northbound ramps (intersection)
Olympic Parkway: I-805 northbound ramps to Brandywine Avenue
Olympic Parkway: Brandywine Avenue to Heritage Rd.
Heritage Road: Main Street to Avenida de las Vista
4. 2025 CONDITIONS
The 2025 Conditions include analysis of anticipated land uses and traffic associated with land
development expected to occur by 2025. In addition to the development assumed in 2015 and
2020, the 2025 scenario includes Project -generated trips associated with the construction of an
additional 162 single family and 359 multi -family residential dwelling units, 150,000 square feet of
commercial retail, an elementary school and 13 acres of park within the Project.
2025 Impacts with Project and Mitigation Measures
The following improvements are required for Project access and subdivision frontage, or as
mitigation for direct Project impacts, per Table 22 of the TIA. Therefore, prior to approval of the
final map containing the 1,388th EDU, or the final map for planning areas requiring the following
improvements as listed in Table 4.1.4, whichever comes first, the applicant shall have
constructed the Project access and frontage improvements:
Main Street:
Construct the remaining two lanes through the couplet, and install traffic signals at the new
couplet intersections. Restripe Main Street as one-way for each leg of the couplet;
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-15
La Media Road:
Construct the remaining two lanes through the couplet, including traffic signals at the new
couplet intersections. Restripe La Media Road as one-way for each leg of the couplet;
Main Street/Magdalena Avenue Intersection:
Restripe the Main Street/Magdalena Ave. intersection to include dual eastbound left turn
lanes and one eastbound through lane and install a traffic signal;
Otay Valley Road:
Construct as a four lane major road from Village 8 West Street “A” to the southeastern
Project boundary. Install stop control on side streets until traffic signal is warranted
In addition, the Year 2025 scenario assumes that the mitigation measures identified for the Year
2020 scenario would be implemented plus the construction of the following off-site
improvements:
1. Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street
2. Restriping of southbound Heritage Rd. to include dual left turn lanes, three
through lanes and one right turn lane;
3. Widening of Heritage Road from Main Street to Avenida de las Vistas from a
Class II collector to a six lane Prime;
4. Olympic Parkway/Santa Victoria Road intersection; and,
5. Santa Victoria Road/Heritage Road intersection
The following are direct Project impacts in 2025:
Intersections:
Birch Road/La Media Road
Birch Road/Eastlake Parkway
Main Street/Eastlake Parkway
Segments:
Birch Road: La Media Road to SR-125
Magdalena Avenue: Birch Road to Main Street
Eastlake Parkway: Birch Road to Main Street
As mitigation for direct Project impacts, prior to approval of the final map containing the 2,234 th
EDU the applicant shall construct, or secure and agree to construct, the following direct Project
impact mitigation measures:
Main Street:
Construct Main Street from Village 8 West eastern boundary to Eastlake Parkway including
SR-125 overcrossing.
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-16
The Project will contribute to its fair share through payment of the TDIF for mitigation of the
following cumulative impact identified in Table 22 of the TIA:
Olympic Parkway: Heritage Rd. to La Media Rd.
Roadways and improvements assumed to be built by others and by Project as Direct Impact
Mitigation (by 1,388th EDU)
Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Ave intersection:
Complete intersection traffic signal modifications including northbound right turn overlap
phase and extension of westbound left-turn pocket (if not completed by 2020).
Santa Victoria Road:
Construct Santa Victoria Road between La Media Rd. and Heritage Rd. (if not constructed
by 2020, mitigation for Project direct impact)
Heritage Road:
Construct Heritage Rd. from Olympic Parkway to Main Street; re-stripe southbound Heritage
Road to include dual left turn lanes, three through lanes and one right turn lane;
Widening of Heritage Road:
Widen Heritage Rd. from Main Street to Avenida de las Vistas from a Class II Collector (2-
lanes) to a 6-Lane Prime, including the bridge over the Otay River.
The above improvements are required to be constructed prior to the construction of the 1,388th
EDU of the Project. No additional development may occur until the roadway mitigations (as
described in the TIA) are in place. If the Project equivalent dwelling unit count for 2020 is
reached (1,388 EDU) prior to the completion of all of the above-listed assumed and planned off-
site and on-site improvements being constructed and open to traffic, then one of the following
steps shall be taken as determined by the City Engineer:
1. Development in Village 8 West will stop until those assumed future roadways are
constructed by others; or
2. City shall determine whether there is a need for the incomplete roadway segments. A
number of factors, including changes to the tolling structure at SR-125, may affect the traffic
patterns in the Otay Ranch. Additional traffic analysis of the r oadway network and levels of
service assessment may be necessary to determine if such improvements are necessary and
the scope and timing of additional circulation improvements; or
3. Developer shall construct the missing roadway links and receive TDIF credit for those
improvements as applicable; or
4. An alternative measure is selected by t he City in accordance with the City of Chula Vista
Growth Management Ordinance.
5. All to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
5. 2030 CONDITIONS
The 2030 Conditions include analysis of forecast traffic volumes from land uses and traffic
associated with land development expected to occur by 2030. In addition to the development
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-17
and mitigations assumed through 2025, this scenario assumes build -out of the Project to include
the construction of a middle school, an additional 60,000 square feet of commercial retail, and
9.4 acres of park.
2030 Impacts with Project and Mitigation Measures
The following improvements are required for Project access and subdivision frontage, or as
mitigation for direct Project impacts, per Table 26 of the TIA. Therefore, prior to approval of the
final map containing the 2,234th EDU, or the final map for planning areas requiring the following
improvements as listed in Table 4.1.4, whichever comes first, the applicant shall construct the
Project access and frontage improvements:
Village 8 West Street “A”:
Construct Village 8 West Street “A” as a local street from Main Street to Otay Valley
Road. Provide signalized access at Otay Valley Road and at Main Street when signal
warrants are met
The following are direct Project impacts in 2030:
Intersections:
Birch Road/La Media Road
Birch Road/SR-125 northbound ramps
Birch Road/Eastlake Parkway
Main Street/I-805 northbound ramps
Main Street/La Media Couplet
− Westbound Main Street/Northbound La Media Road
− Eastbound Main Street/Southbound La Media Road
− Eastbound Main Street/Northbound La Media Road
Main Street/Magdalena Avenue
Main Street/Eastlake Parkway
Segments:
Main Street: I-805 to Brandywine Avenue
Main Street: Brandywine to Heritage Road
As mitigation for direct Project impacts, prior to approval of the final map containing the 2,610 th
EDU the applicant shall construct, or secure and agree to construct, the following direct Project
impact mitigation measures:
Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Ave intersection:
Complete intersection traffic signal modifications including northbound right turn overlap
phase and extension of westbound left-turn pocket (if not completed by 2025)
Santa Victoria Road:
Construct Santa Victoria Road between La Media Rd. and Heritage Rd. (if not constructed
by 2025)
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-18
Otay Valley Road:
Construct Otay Valley Road from Village 8 West eastern boundary to Village 9 “Street A”
including the SR-125 Overcrossing;
Main Street
Construct SR-125 northbound and southbound ramps at Main Street. This measure is also
a mitigation measure for cumulative impacts to the following:
Main Street/I-805 southbound ramps (intersection)
Birch Road: La Media Road to SR-125
Birch Road: SR-125 to Eastlake Pkwy
The Project will contribute to its fair share through payment of the TDIF for mitigation of the
following cumulative impacts identified in Table 26 of the TIA:.
Heritage Road: Main Street to Entertainment Circle
Heritage Road: Entertainment Circle to Avenida de las Vistas
Eastlake Parkway: Birch Road to Main Street
Roadways Assumed to be Built by Others (by 2,234th EDU)
The TIA assumes the following improvements would be constructed by others prior to 2030:
Main Street:
Construction of Main St. from Heritage Road to La Media Road as 6-lane prime arterial
The above improvements plus the 2025 roadway mitigations (as described in the TIA) are
required to be constructed prior to the construction of the first EDU following the 2025
development phase (2,234 EDUs). No additional development may occur until the 2025
roadway mitigations are in place. If the Project equivalent dwelling unit count for 2025 is
reached (2,234 EDUs as shown in TIA Tables 26), prior to the completion of all of the above-listed
assumed and planned off-site and on-site improvements being constructed and open to traffic,
then one of the following steps shall be taken as determined by the City Engineer:
1. Development in Village 8 West will stop until those assumed future roadways are
constructed by others; or
2. City shall determine whether there is a need for the incomplete roadway segments. A
number of factors, including changes to the tolling structure at SR-125, may affect the traffic
patterns in the Otay Ranch. Additional traffic analysis of the roadway network and levels of
service assessment may be necessary to determine if such improvements are necessary and
the scope and timing of additional circulation improvements; or
3. Developer shall construct the missing roadway links and receive TDIF credit for those
improvements as applicable; or
4. An alternative measure is selected by the City in accordance with the City of Chula Vista
Growth Management Ordinance.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-19
5. All to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
Table 4.1.3 summarizes all Project direct requirements for major roadways for each of the TIA
analysis years. The Table describes the improvement required and the threshold which is
approval of the final map that contains the indicated cumulative equivalent dwelling unit for
the Project.
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-20
TABLE 4.1.3A-PROJECT ACCESS AND DIRECT TRAFFIC MITIGATION THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS
TIA
Analysis
Year Improvement Description
Cumulative
Project
EDU
Threshold1 Why Required
2015
La Media Road
Secure and agree to construct La
Media Road from existing
terminus south of Santa Luna to
Planning Areas N, I & J South of
Main Street as a two-lane, two-
way street to provide access to
Village 8 West.
1 Project access/frontage
requirement
Main Street
Secure and agree to construct
Main Street from La Media Road
to Magdalena Avenue as a two-
lane, two-way street to provide
access to Village 8 West
1 Project access/frontage
requirement
Main Street/La
Media Road
(intersection #19):
Secure and agree to install traffic
signal 1 Project access/frontage
requirement
Main
Street/Magdalena
Avenue
(intersection #20):
Secure and agree to construct
west leg of intersection and
modify existing striping and
install stop sign on southbound
approach
1 Project access/frontage
requirement
2020
Otay Valley Road
Secure and agree to construct
Otay Valley Rd. from south of
Main Street to Village 8 West
Street “A” as a 4-lane major
302 Project access/frontage
requirement
Olympic Parkway
at Brandywine
Avenue
intersection (study
intersection #3)
Secure and agree to 1) construct
the traffic signal/intersection
improvements to provide a
northbound right-turn overlap
phase 2) secure or construct the
extension of the westbound left
turn pocket, if not already
completed by 2015.
1,388 Mitigation for Project
direct impacts
Santa Victoria
Road
Secure and agree to construct
Santa Victoria Rd. from Heritage
Road to La Media Road;
including the intersection at La
Media Road.
1,388 Mitigation for Project
direct impacts
Heritage Road
Secure and agree to construct
Heritage Rd. from Olympic
Parkway to Santa Victoria Road;
including the intersection of
Santa Victoria and Heritage
1,388 Mitigation for Project
direct impacts
1 The threshold is approval of the final map that contains the indicated cumulative equivalent dwelling unit
for the Project
Note: Development patterns are subject to changes in market conditions. The Project’s phasing may
therefore change in response to the market. The developer may submit a technical study to, for review by,
the City Engineer that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that alternative street
improvements will meet the threshold requirements.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-21
Table 4.1.3A-Traffic Threshold Requirements – Continued
TIA
Analysis
Year Improvement Description
Cumulative
Project EDU
Threshold1 Why Needed
2025
Main Street
Secure and agree to complete
construction of the remaining two
lanes through the couplet (La
Media Rd. to Magdalena Ave.),
and install traffic signals at the
new couplet intersections. Restripe
Main Street as one-way for each
leg of the couplet
1,388
Project
access/frontage
requirement
La Media Road
Secure and agree to complete
construction the remaining two
lanes through the couplet, and
install traffic signals at the new
couplet intersections. Restripe La
Media as one-way for each leg of
the couplet
1,388
Project
access/frontage
requirement
Otay Valley Road
Secure and agree to construct as a
four lane major road from Village
8 West Street “A” to the
southeastern Project boundary.
Install stop control on side streets
until traffic signal is warranted.
1,388
Project
access/frontage
requirement
Main
St./Magdalena Rd.
Intersection
Restripe the Main St./Magdalena
intersection to include dual
eastbound left-turn lanes and one
eastbound through lane; install
traffic signal
1,388
Project
access/frontage
requirement
Main Street
Secure and agree to construct
Main Street from Village 8 West
eastern boundary to Eastlake
Parkway, including SR-125
overcrossing.
2,234
Mitigation for
Project direct
impacts
1 The threshold is approval of the final map that contains the indicated cumulative equivalent dwelling unit for the
Project
Note: Development patterns are subject to changes in market conditions. The Project’s phasing may therefore
change in response to the market. The developer may submit a technical study to, for review by, the City Engineer
that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that alternative street improvements will meet the threshold
requirements.
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-22
Table 4.1.3A-Traffic Threshold Requirements – Continued
TIA
Analysis
Year Improvement Description
Cumulative
Project EDU
Threshold1 Why Needed
2030
Village 8 West Street
"A"
Secure and agree to construct
Street “A” as a local street from
Main Street to Otay Valley
Road. Provide signalized access
at Otay Valley Road and at
Main Street when signal
warrants are met.
2,234
Project
access/frontage
requirement
Otay Valley Road
Secure and agree to construct
Otay Valley Rd. from Village 8
West eastern boundary to
Village 9 Street "A" including
the SR-125 overcrossing
2,610
Mitigation for
Project direct
impacts
Main Street
Secure and agree to construct
SR-125 northbound and
southbound interchanges ramps
at Main Street
2,610
Mitigation for
Project direct
impacts
Santa Victoria Road
Secure and agree to construct
Santa Victoria Rd. between La
Media Rd. and Heritage Rd. (if
not constructed by 2025)
2,610
Mitigation for
Project direct
impacts
1 The threshold is approval of the final map that contains the indicated cumulative equivalent dwelling unit for the Project
Note: Development patterns are subject to changes in market conditions. The Project’s phasing may therefore
change in response to the market. The developer may submit a technical study to, for review by, the City
Engineer that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that alternative street improvements met the
threshold requirements.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-23
TABLE 4.1.3B-ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ASSUMED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS
TIA Analysis Year Improvement Description1
Cumulative
Project EDU
Threshold1 Why Required1
2025
Heritage Road
Construction of Heritage
Road from Olympic
Parkway to Main Street
1,388
Assumed in the
TIA to be
Constructed by
2025
Heritage Road
Construction of the
widening of Heritage
Road from Class II
Collector (2-lanes) to a
6-Lane Prime between
Main Street and Avenida
de las Vistas by 2025
1,388
Assumed in the
TIA to be
Constructed by
2025
2030 Main Street
Construction of Main
Street from Heritage
Road to La Media Road
as 6-lane prime
2,234
Assumed in the
TIA to be
Constructed by
2030
1 The TIA provides alternatives if the assumed improvement is not constructed prior to approval of the final map for
the project containing the cumulative project threshold EDU: 1) Development in Village 8 West shall stop until the
assumed roadway is constructed by others; or, 2) City shall determine whether there is a n eed for the incomplete
roadway segments; or 3) Developer shall construct the missing roadway links and receive TDIF credit for those
improvements as applicable; or,4) An alternative measure is selected by the City in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance.
B. OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST INTERNAL CIRCULATION THRESHOLDS
Table 4.1.4 summarizes the internal facilities that need to be constructed for each planning area
within the Project. For each planning area, the internal streets i dentified on Table 4.1.4 are
required for access and frontage of the planning areas within that phase (these internal
roadways and their planning area thresholds are listed in TIA Table 32). The internal streets are
subject to further review by the City based on the specific evolution of the development
patterns within the Project. The identified improvements for Main Street, La Media Road, Otay
Valley Road and Street “A” on Table 4.1.4 are triggered either by the 1 st EDU in the planning
areas, or the cumulative project EDU trigger for these improvements identified in Table 4.1.3
above, whichever comes first. Exhibit 4.1.2 displays the Village 8 West internal street system.
Note that level of service requirements do not apply to the residential streets on Table 4.1.4.
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-24
TABLE 4.1.4-INTERNAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS1
1 Unit triggers for Street "A" and Otay Valley Road on this table supersede the threshold requirements given on Table 4.1.3
2 The EDU trigger refers to the final map within that phase or planning area which contains the indicated EDU. Development
patterns are subject to changes in market conditions. The Project’s phasing may therefore change in response to the market
conditions. The developer may submit a technical study to, for review by, the City Engineer that demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that alternative street improvements met the threshold requirements.
3 Project access requirements also apply to the maximum number of units (120 EDUs) that may take access from a single point of
connection to a circulation element street in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Sec. 3 -403.2.
Additional points of connection may be required if more than 120 EDU’s take access from a single local street which does not
have a through connection.
PHASE/PLANNING
AREAS INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION
UNIT TRIGGERS
WITHIN EACH
PHASE2
1 ORANGE NORTH/
B, G, H-A, H-2
La Media (Bi-directional)–north Project boundary to ”C” St. 1st EDU
Main Street (Bi-directional)–La Media to Easterly Project Boundary 1st EDU
Appropriate Internal Streets and Street “A” north of Main Street Access/Frontage3
ORANGE SOUTH/
I, J, N
I, J, N
La Media Road (Bi-directional) from northerly Project boundary to Street “C”. 1st EDU
Appropriate internal streets C, F, & G and Street “D” from St. “C” to St. “H” Access/Frontage
BLUE/P, Q La Media (Bi-directional)–north Project boundary to Street “A”. 1st EDU
Provide secondary access by constructing either;
- Street “D” (including section of Street C between Street “D” and Otay Valley
Rd.)
- Otay Valley Road to Easterly project access point
- Street “A” between Street “D” and Magdalena Ave.
120th EDU3
Appropriate internal streets Access/Frontage
YELLOW WEST/
A, E, F
La Media (Bi-directional)–north Project boundary to eastbound Main Street 1st EDU
Main Street couplet (as a pair of one way streets) west of La Media. 1st EDU
Appropriate internal streets Access/Frontage
YELLOW NORTH
EAST/ C, D
La Media (Bi-directional)–north Project boundary to eastbound Main Street 1st EDU
Main Street (Bi-directional)–La Media to Easterly Project Boundary 1st EDU
YELLOW SOUTH/
L
La Media (Bi-directional)–north Project boundary to eastbound Main Street 1st EDU
Main Street (Bi-directional)–La Media to Easterly Project Boundary 1st EDU
Street “A”–Main St. to Planning Area L southern boundary 1st EDU
Appropriate Internal Streets Access/Frontage
GREEN/
M, O, R, S
La Media (Bi-directional )–north Project boundary to eastbound Main Street 1st EDU
Main Street (Bi-directional)–La Media to Easterly Project Boundary 1st EDU
Street “A” - Main Street to Otay Valley Road, south of school 1st EDU
Otay Valley Road - St. “A” to easterly project boundary Access/Frontage
Street “B”–St. “A” to easterly project boundary 1st EDU
Appropriate Internal Streets Access/Frontage
PURPLE -La Media (Bi-directional) /Otay Valley Road-north Project boundary to easterly
project boundary
-Otay Valley Road-eastbound Main Street to easterly Project boundary
-Street “A” south of Otay Valley Road
1st EDU
Appropriate Internal Streets Access/Frontage
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-25
Potential Transit Stop
Signalized Intersection
EXHIBIT 4.1.2 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST STREET MAP
(Source: Village 8 West Traffic Impact Analysis, Exhibit 25)
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-26
As is typical with development projects, Otay Ranch Village 8 West project will develop in
response to market conditions, with certain areas or certain land uses developing faster than
others. Therefore, the interim year construction of boundary intersections and internal roads is
not fully certain at this time. The City recommends that boundary intersections be constructed to
their full proposed build-out geometry (curb-to-curb) when the connecting internal links are
constructed. Future assessment may be required to determine when these connections need to
be made, and the boundary intersections constructed, based on the Project's development
pattern or as directed by the City Engineer. Due to the uncertainties with the timing and loca tion
of the development in each respective phase, the City Engineer will determine if and when
additional studies may be needed to update the assumptions and validate the PFFP triggers. In
addition, the City Engineer may amend the PFFP triggers at his/her discretion unless stated
otherwise in a development agreement.
The developer shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure, in
accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, the required street improvements,
including traffic signals, prior to approval of the applicable final map that contains the
cumulative EDU trigger.
C. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS
1. Threshold compliance will continue to be monitored through the annual Transportation
Monitoring Program of the GMOC.
2. The project shall be conditioned to pay Transportation Impact Fees and Traffic Signal
Fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued.
3. The project shall be conditioned to complete or secure the completion of the
transportation facilities (street segments and signalized intersections) according to the
thresholds as described in Table 4.1.3 and the internal streets as described in Table 4.1.4
and shown on Exhibit 4.1.2, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Notwithstanding any threshold requirement stated above, the following general Project
requirements shall apply:
1. The Developer shall dedicate the Rapid Bus Right-of-Way, if any.
2. Developer shall acquire and dedicate SR-125 Right-of-Way for interchanges, if any.
3. Developer to build all roads surrounding school sites and park sites.
4. Developer to build all roads around the City of San Diego reservoir.
5. Developer shall secure and agree to construct all roadways to their full-width cross
section as described in the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless as previously
noted.
6. Construction of Otay Valley Road shall include the relocation of the City of San Diego
water transmission pipelines that traverse the Project, including construction of new
pipelines within the Otay Valley Road right-of-way, to the satisfaction of the City of San
Diego and the Director of Public Works.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-27
4.1.6. FREEWAY SEGMENTS
Basic Freeway Segment Analysis
Segments of northbound and southbound I 805 between Telegraph Canyon Road and Main
Street shown on Table 4.1.5 were analyzed under 2030 Without and With Project conditions using
the 2000 HCS Basic Freeway Segment analysis methodology. Mainline segment volumes are
based on SANDAG forecast 2030 ADT. A 4 percent heavy truck factor was applied and a
measured free-flow speed of 65 mph was used in the HCS calculations for multi-lane segments.
TABLE 4.1.5-FREEWAY SEGMENTS
Interstate 805
Main Street to Olympic Pkwy
Olympic Pkwy to Telegraph Canyon Rd.
The results of this analysis are reported on TIA Table 27. The analysis indicates that both I-805
Northbound segments between Main Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, forecast to operate
at LOS E during the PM Peak Hour under both with and without project c onditions. The
southbound I-805 segments operate at LOS D in both peak periods.
According to City of Chula Vista Traffic Study Guidelines, a significant project impact is identified
if a project adds 1 mph speed delay or greater to a segment operating at LOS D, E or F. The
results of the 2030 With Project mainline segment analysis demonstrate a change in delay of less
than 1 mph for each study segment. Therefore, no direct impacts are identified.
The TIA did not analyze freeway segments under the 2015, 2020, or 2025 Conditions. Freeway mainline
segment analysis was conducted for northbound and southbound I-805 between Telegraph Canyon
Road and Main Street under 2030 Conditions. The Project would not have a direct impact on these
segments under 2030 Conditions. Therefore the TIA did not recommend mitigation measures.
Caltrans Intersection Lane Volume (ILV) Analysis
The TIA conducted an ILV analysis for both 2030 Conditions with and without the Project. Table
4.1.6 summarizes the results of the analysis. There are no significance thresholds associated with
Project impacts on the freeway intersections, therefore recommended mitigations were not
provided.
TABLE 4.1.6-FREEWAY RAMP CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT
Intersection 2030 Without Project 2030 With Project
Olympic Pkwy / I-805 SB Ramps AM Stable Stable
PM Unstable Unstable
Olympic Pkwy / I-805 NB Ramps AM Unstable Unstable
PM Unstable Unstable
Main St / I-805 SB Ramps AM Stable Unstable
PM Capacity Capacity
Main St / I-805 NB Ramps AM Capacity Capacity
PM Capacity Capacity
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-28
4.1.7 COST & FINANCING PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
A. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Table 4.1.7 summarizes the various improvements and cost of improvements to the intersections
and roadway segments either assumed to constructed by others, recommended as direct
Project mitigation measures, or are TDIF-eligible roadways required for Project access or frontage
requirements. Except for Santa Victoria Road, t hese facilities are included in Chula Vista’s
Eastern Territory Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) program.
TABLE 4.1.7-ESTIMATED COST OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Facility Improvement Description Estimated Cost1
Olympic Parkway Capacity
Enhancements
To be determined To be
determined
Olympic Pkwy & Brandywine
Avenue (Study Intersection #3)
Construct the traffic signal/intersection improvements
to provide a northbound right-turn overlap phase
$400,000
Santa Victoria Road3 Construct Santa Victoria Rd. from Heritage Rd. to La
Media Rd.
$4,200,000
Heritage Road Construct Heritage Rd. from Olympic Parkway to
Main Street as a 6 lane prime
$20,700,000
Heritage Road Construct Heritage Rd. from Main Street to Avenida
de las Vistas as 6-lane prime, including replacement
of Otay River bridge
$14,700,000
Main Street Construct Main St. from Magdalena Avenue to SR-
125 as 6-lane Prime
$6,100,000
Main Street Construct Main St. from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway,
including overcrossing, as 6 lane Gateway
$12,000,000
Main Street Construct Main St. from Heritage Road to Village 8
West western boundary as a 6 lane Prime
$26,000,000
Main Street Construct northbound and southbound interchange
ramps at SR 125
$6,000,000
La Media Road Couplet4 Construct La Media Rd. from existing terminus south
of Santa Luna Street to Otay Valley Rd.
$3,500,000
Main Street Couplet5 Construct Main St. from Village 8 West western
boundary to Magdalena St.
$5,600,000
Otay Valley Road6 Construct Otay Valley Rd. from La Media Rd. to
easterly Village 8 West boundary
$3,700,000
Otay Valley Road Construct Otay Valley Rd. from easterly Village 8
West boundary to Village 9 Street “A” including SR-
125 overcrossing
$16,800,000
Total $119,700,000
1 The amounts shown are merely estimates for illustrative purposes only and do not have any effect on the requirement to build the
improvements, If necessary, for the continued issuance of building permits for the Project, the developer may be required to build the
improvements irrespective of the actual costs being higher or lower than the estimated cost given. All costs, except for Olympic
Pkwy/Brandywine modifications and Santa Victoria are derived from the 2005 Eastern Territory TDIF report.
2 The section of Heritage Road from the Chula Vista city limit to Avenida de las Vistas is not within the TDIF program.
3 Estimated cost from Village 2 PFFP, Santa Victoria is not a TDIF-eligible street.
4 Estimated by prorating (between the limits of the Project’s obligation) the estimated cost of La Media Rd. from Birch Rd. to Rock Mtn.
Rd in TDIF program (Facility 52)
5 Based on prorated (between the limits of the Project’s obligation) the estimated cost of Rock Mountain Rd. in TDIF (Facilities 60A &
60B)
6 Based on estimated cost of Otay Valley Rd (TDIF Facility 56c), realigned from couplets to easterly Project boundary
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-29
B. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (TDIF)
The Project is within the boundaries of the TDIF program and, as such, the Project is subject to the
payment of the fees at the rates in effect at the time building permits are issued. However, the
improvements identified on Table 4.1.7 are required to be constructed or bonded pursuant to
the identified thresholds. A requirement to construct the facilities cannot be satisfied by paying
the TDIF. The developer’s total fee obligation is based on the TDIF rates in effect at the time of
issuance of building permits. Eligible construction costs in excess of the TDIF obligation may be
credited against the developer’s future TDIF obligations pursuant to an audit. Table 4.1.8 below
presents the current TDIF fee schedule. The fee schedule may change from time-to-time as the
City updates the TDIF program, or approves cost escalation fact ors as provided in the program.
The City’s practice has been to update the TDIF every five years . The last comprehensive TDIF
update was in 2005.
TABLE 4.1.8-TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
Land Use Classification Description TDIF Rate
Residential (Low) (per DU) 0-6 dwelling units per gross acre $12,480 per DU
Residential (Med.) (0.8 EDU/DU) 6.1-18 dwelling units per gross acre $9,984 per DU
Residential (High) (0.6 EDU/DU) >18.1 dwelling units per gross acre $7,488 per DU
Senior housing (0.4 EDU/DU) >18 dwelling units per gross acre $4,992 per DU
Residential mixed use (0.4 EDU/DU) >18 dwelling units per gross acre $4,992 per DU
Commercial mixed use (per 20 ksf) 16 EDU/20 ksf $199,680 per 20 ksf
General commercial (per gross acre) < 5 stories in height (16 EDU/acre) $199,680 per acre
Regional commercial (per gross acre) > 60 acres or 800 ksf (11 EDU/acre) $137,280 per acre
High rise commercial (per gross acre) > 5 stories in height (28 EDU/acre) $349,440 per acre
Office (per acre) < 5 stories in height (9 EDU/acre) $112,320 per acre
Industrial (per gross acre) 8 EDU/acre $99,848 per acre
18-hole golf course (per acre) 70.0 EDU/course $873,600 per course
Medical center (per gross acre) 65 EDU/acre $811,200 per acre
Source: Engineering Department Development Checklist Revised Oct. 1, 2012
Table 4.1.9 summarizes the estimated TDIF revenues based on the Project’s proposed
development phasing assumed in the TIA. The table is provided to give a rough estimate of the
revenues that may be expected from the Project for the TDIF program. The fee revenues may
change depending upon the actual number dwelling units, the actual acreage for commercial
and office land uses and the TDIF rates in effect at issuance of building permits, which is subject
to change on an annual basis to reflect construction cost indices and from program revisions
resulting from the five-year updates. Final fee calculations will be known at the time building
permits are applied for. In addition, Table 4.1.9 presents the total number of estimated dwelling
units, and the estimated acreages of commercial and office development in Otay Ranch
Village 8 West.
4.1 TRAFFIC OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.1-30
TABLE 4.1.9 ESTIMATED TDIF FEE REVENUES
C. TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE
Future development within the project will be required to pay Traffic Signal Fees in accordance
with Chula Vista Council Policy No. 475-01. The estimated total traffic signal fee is shown in Table
4.1.10 and is calculated based on the current fee of $33.45(per the Development Checklist dated
October 1, 2012) per vehicle trip generated per day for various land use categories. The fee rate in
effect at the time that building permits are issued will be the rate that is charged. The total fee
may change depending upon the actual number dwelling units, commercial land uses, and the
fee rate in effect, which is subject to change due to program updates based on the changes in
planned signal improvements and cost data for actual signal improvements. Final calculations will
be known at time building permits are applied for.
TABLE 4.1.10-ESTIMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE REVENUE
Village 8
West Gross
Trips1
Traffic Signal Fee
@ $33.45/trip
TOTAL 43,084 $1,441,160
1Not reduced by internal capture or transit trips
Estimated Fees are based on Development Checklist
(Form 5509) revised 10/01/2012 and subject to
adjustment from time-to-time.
All internal intersections will be constructed with signal conduits so that traffic signals can be
constructed at a later date if warranted.
Development Type and Density of Residential
TDIF
Rate Unit
Number of
Units or Sq.
Ft.Fee
Town Center Residential 18-45 du/ac $7,488 per DU 899 $6,731,712
Medium High Density Residential 11-18 du/ac $9,984 per DU 530 $5,291,520
Medium Density Residential Attached/Detached 6-11 du/ac $9,984 per DU 290 $2,895,360
Low Medium Density Residential Village 3-6 du/ac $12,480 per DU 331 $4,130,880
Commercial Mixed Use (less than 5 stories, 16 EDU per acre)$199,680 per 20,000 Sq. Ft.15.0 $2,995,200
$22,044,672
Estimated TDIF is based on Development Checklist (Form 5509) revised 9/24/12 and subject to adjustment.
TOTAL
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.1 TRAFFIC
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.1-31
D. NON-TDIF STREETS AND SIGNALS
Signals located at the intersection of any two non-TDIF public streets (such as Street “A” and
Street “B” in the Project) are not eligible for development impact fee credit and, pursuant to City
policy, will be funded by the development. Installation of traffic signals located at the
intersection of a non-TDIF street and a TDIF street are eligible for a partial Sig nal Fee credit of up
to 50 % of the cost of the signal system. The partial fee credit would apply to traffic signals at the
following Project intersections:
Otay Valley Road and Street “A”
Otay Valley Road and Street “A”
Westbound Main Street and Street “A”
Eastbound Main Street and Street “A”
Main Street and Magdalena Avenue
E. CREDIT FOR TDIF STREETS
Construction of La Media Road, Otay Valley Road and Main Street are eligible to receive a TDIF
credit in accordance with City policy.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.2 POLICE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.2-1
4.2 POLICE
4.2.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
1) Emergency Response: properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to
81% of “Priority One” Emergency calls throughout the city within 7 minutes and shall
maintain an average response time to all “Priority One” emergency calls of 5.5
minutes or less (measured annually).
Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of “Priority
Two” Urgent calls throughout the city within 7 minutes and maintain an average response time to
all “Priority Two” calls of 7.5 minutes or less (measured annually).
Proposed Revised Threshold Standard
As part of the Growth Management Oversight Committee’s “Top -to-Bottom” review the above
adopted threshold standards for emergency and urgent response are being reconsidered.
Modified thresholds standards have been presented to the GMOC and will be brought to the
City Council for approval later this year. Further discussion on the modified thresholds is included
below in Section 4.2.5.
4.2.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
The City of Chula Vista Police Department provides polic e services. The purpose of the Threshold
Standard is to maintain or improve the current level of police services throughout the City by
ensuring that adequate levels of staff and equipment are provided. Police threshold
performance was analyzed in the “Report on Police Threshold Performance 1990-1999”,
completed April 13, 2000. In response to Police Department and GMOC concerns the City
Council amended the threshold standards for Police Emergency Response on May 28, 2002, with
adoption of Ordinance 2860. Police Facilities are also addressed in A Master Plan for the Chula
Vista Civic Center Solving City Space Needs Through Year 2010, dated May 8, 1989.
4.2.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the f ollowing issues for
Police Services.
Services reviewed must be consistent with the proposed phasing of the project.
Able to demonstrate conformance with A Master Plan for the Chula Vista Civic Center
dated May 8, 1989, as amended unless stated otherwise in a development agreement.
4.2.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) provides law enforcement services to the area
encompassing the project. The CVPD is located in a new headquarters building at the corner 4 th
Avenue and F Street in Chula Vista. This new facility is expected to be adequate through the
build-out of Chula Vista. The Project is within Police Patrol Beat 32 that is served by at least one
Beat Officer per shift.
4.2 POLICE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.2-2
POLICE FACILITY INVENTORY
Police Headquarters at 4th Avenue and F Street.
4.2.5 ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
According to the GMOC 2013 Annual Report the response thresholds for “Priority One” Calls for
Service (CFS) were not met during the threshold review period 7/1/11 to 6/30/12 (see Table
4.2.1). The department is not in compliance with “Priority One” calls for service with 78.4% of the
calls responded to within 7:00 minutes. The thresholds for “Priority Two” calls for service during
the same period were not met. The Priority Two thresholds have not been met for 15
consecutive years (see Table 4 .2.2). The GMOC has determined that “Priority Two” or the
Urgent Emergency Response time threshold was not met.
According to the GMOC report, police response time is just one measure of how these services
are keeping pace with growth. The city has implemented measures to improve police response
times. These measures range from better education and communication within the Police
Department regarding the GMOC threshold standards, as well as utilization of technological
advances. Two measures that do relate to the ability of the Police Department to maintain the
quality of life and are growth related are maintaining adequate staffing and reducing false
alarms.
As the table below indicates, the Police Department has made progress in r educing Priority One
response times from a low of 80% in FY 2004-05. The Police Department is engaged in several
current or proposed initiatives to continue the reduction in response times.
TABLE 4.2.1
HISTORIC RESPONSE TIMES
PRIORITY ONE -- EMERGENCY RESPONSE, CALLS FOR SERVICE
Call Volume % of Call Response
within 7 Minutes
Average Response
Time
Threshold 81.0% 5:30
FY 2011-12 726 of 64,386 78.4% 5:01
FY 2010-11 657 of 64,695 85.7% 4:40
FY 2009-10 673 of 68,145 85.1% 4:28
FY2008-09 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26
FY2007-08 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19
FY2006-07 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59
FY2005-06 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51
FY2004-05 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11
FY2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52
FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55
FY 2001-02 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07
FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13
FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21
CY 1999 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50
Source: GMOC 2013 Annual Report for threshold review period 7/1/11 to 6/30/12
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.2 POLICE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.2-3
For the 15th consecutive year, the threshold standard for Priority Two – Urgent Response has not
been met. The average response time increased by nearly 2 minutes over the previous year,
and the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes fell to 41.9%. The Police Department
attributes the decline in performance during this review period to the fact that the patrol division
experienced higher than normal on-duty injuries to sworn personnel, resulting in lower staffing
levels.
The Police Department asserts that adequate staffing levels are crucial to meeting the existing
Priority Two threshold standard. While additional staff is needed, the department does not
anticipate having the necessary resources available for more staff in the near future due to the
City’s ongoing budget challenges. Although this is a potential area of concern for the
associated Village 8 West Fiscal Impact Analysis (See Sec 5), this PFFP addresses facility threshold
issues not Police Department operations. As such, the cumulative mitiga tion measure for the
Project’s impacts on police facilities is payment of the Public Facility Development Impact Fee
(PFDIF see Sec. 4.2.6). Pursuant to State law the proceeds of the PFDIF may not be used for
staffing or operations. The fee revenues may, however, be applied to capital improvements
that serve to enhance operations and enable efficiencies that might mitigate staffing shortfalls
to some extent.
TABLE 4.2.2
HISTORIC RESPONSE TIMES
PRIORITY TWO – EMERGENCY RESPONSE, CALLS FOR SERVICE
Call Volume % of Call Response
within 7 Minutes
Average
Response Time
Threshold 57.0% 7:30
FY 2011-12 22,121 of 64,695 41.9% 11:54
FY 2010-11 21,500 of 64,695 49.8% 10:06
FY 2009-10 22,240 of 68,145 49.8% 9:55
FY2008-09 22,686 of 70,051 53.5% 9:16
FY2007-08 23,955 of 74,192 53.1% 9:18
FY 2006-07 24,407 of 74,277 43.3% 11:18
FY 2005-06 24,876 of 73,075 40.0% 12:33
FY 2004-05 24,923 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40
FY 2003-04 24,741 of 71,000 48.4% 9:50
FY 2002-03 22,871 of 71,268 50.2% 9:24
FY 2001-02 22,199 of 71,859 45.6% 10:04
FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38
FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37
CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35
FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13
FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50
FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38
Source: GMOC 2013 Annual Report
4.2 POLICE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.2-4
The GMOC’s 2013 Annual Report acknowledged that the adopted current calls for service (CFS)
threshold standards need to be reevaluated and discusses modifications to the standards
proposed by the Police Department. The proposed modifications involve the following changes
in calculating and reporting response times:
• Calculating response time from the time the call was received in the Communications
Center to the time that the first unit arrived on scene, or the “received-to-arrive” time;
• Elimination of the normalization adjustments of response times for CFS from the Eastern
Territory, which was used to account for geographic and land-use conditions that tend
to extend response times relative to times in the older areas of the City;
• Include false burglary alarms calls for service in Priority Two calculation;
• The average response time threshold for Priority One calls for service would be
increased to 6:00minutes;
• The average response time threshold for Priority Two call for service would be increased
to 12:00 minutes.
The response time tables below, from GMOC 2012 Report Appendix B, summarize the CFS data
based on the proposed criteria outlined above. The above criteria correspond to those
commonly used by other police agencies in San Diego County.
TABLE 4.2.3
MODIFIED THRESHOLD FOR
PRIORITY ONE -- EMERGENCY RESPONSE, CALLS FOR SERVICE
“RECEIVED TO ARRIVED”
Call Volume % of Call Response
within 7 Minutes
Average Response
Time
Threshold N/A 6:00
FY 2010-11 657 of 64,695 N/A 5:35
TABLE 4.2.4
MODIFIED THRESHOLD FOR
PRIORITY TWO – EMERGENCY RESPONSE, CALLS FOR SERVICE
“RECEIVED TO ARRIVED”
Call Volume % of Call Response
within 7 Minutes
Average
Response Time
Threshold N/A 12:00
FY 2010-11 21,500 of 64,695 N/A 12:31
The CFS data for FY 2010-11 show that the proposed threshold standards would continue to be
achieved for Priority One calls, but that the response to Priority One calls would still be deficient.
The proposed threshold standards will be taken to the City Council later this yea r.
To further address CFS response time and other police level of service issues the Department
retained the Matrix Consulting Group in February, 2012 to undertake a comprehensive analysis
of the Department’s staffing, workload and best practices. A Phase One report that focuses on
operational and staffing issues of the Community Patrol division was completed in April, 2012; the
Department is implementing the recommendations contained in the Phase One report. A first
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.2 POLICE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.2-5
draft report of Phase Two of the study was submitted in October, 2012, it covers the
Department’s other divisions. One of the study’s general findings is that the Department should
avoid an over-emphasis on CFS response times. CFS response is strictly a measure of the
Department’s ability to react whereas the Department should instead focus on increasing
“proactive” patrol time in the community through appropriate changes in staffing and
operational practices.
The Police Department indicated in the 2012 GMOC Report that its current facilities, eq uipment
and staff are not able to accommodate citywide forecasted growth and meet the threshold
standards for the next 12 to 18 months. The Department cited the elimination of the vehicle
replacement fund as a factor that would impact the Department’s abil ity to fund other police
programs. One-time funding was used to replace aging patrol vehicles and will be unavailable
in the future. The Department also indicated a lack of funding for needed upgrades to its
computer-aided dispatch system and an inability to fund in-car video cameras and
replacements for its mobile data computing system. Currently, the Department finds that it must
divert funds from policing services in order to maintain its equipment. While operational and
staffing costs are not eligible uses of development impact fee revenue, capital investments in
equipment, vehicles and technology are. The cost of these mission -critical elements should be
fully evaluated in a future update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF).
Finally, the 2012 GMOC Report also recommends the reevaluation of a permanent Eastern
Satellite Station (a police storefront was recently opened in the Otay Town Centre shopping
center; however funding for the storefront is assured for only a few years). A perma nent police
facility in the Eastern Territory was first evaluated in 2005. There is currently no available funding
source for such a facility and would require a major update to the PFDIF in order to include the
facility in the impact fee program.
4.2.6 FINANCING POLICE FACILITIES
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City
Council on October 1, 2012. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) is adjusted
approximately every October 1st pursuant to Ordinance 3050. The Police Public Facilities DIF Fee
is shown in Table 4.2.3, below. This amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to
time. The project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time
building permits are issued. At the current fee rate, the project Police Fee obligation at build -
out is $3,698,344. The final PFDIF obligation will be subject to the rates in effect at the time
building permits are issued.
4.2 POLICE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.2-6
TABLE 4.2.6
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES FOR P OLICE 1
Phase SFDU MFDU Commercial
Acres
Police Component Fee Total
Fee SFDU @
$1,656/DU
MFDU
$1,789/DU
Commercial
$7,826/Acre
Orange 117 351 8.6 $193,752 $627,939 $67,304 $888,995
Blue 284 0 $470,304 $0 $470,304
Yellow 0 765 5.9
$0 $1,368,585 $46,173 $1,414,7583
Purple 220 0 $364,320 $0 $364,320
Green 0 313 $0 $559,957 $559,957
TOTAL 621 1,429 14.5 $1,028,376 $2,556,481 $113,477 $3,698,334
4.2.7 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND REQUIREMENTS
Police response times for “Priority One” Calls for Service (CFS) were met during the 20 10 - 2011
GMOC threshold review period. The department is in compliance with “Priority One” thresholds
for this period. The thresholds for “Priority Two” during the same period were not met. However,
response times to “Priority Two” alone are not the only indicator of the capacity of the Police
Department to provide adequate services. Notwithstanding the Department’s effort to reduce
response times and increase proactive patrol time, the Project applicants and the Department
shall comply with the following requirements:
1) Prior to the approval of each building permit unless stated otherwise in a
development agreement, the Applicant(s) shall pay Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees (PFDIF) for police facilities at the rate in effect the time building permits
are issued.
2) The City will continue to monitor police responses to calls for service in both the
Emergency (priority one) and Urgent (priority two) categories and report the results to
the GMOC on an annual basis.
3) Prior to approval of each design review permit, site plans shall be reviewed by the
CVPD (or their designee) to ensure the incorporation of Crime Pprevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED) features and other recommendations of the CVPD,
including, but not limited to, controlled access points to parking lots and buildings;
maximizing the visibility along building fronts, sidewalks, paseos and public parks; and
providing adequate street, parking lot, and parking structure ligh ting.
1 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 10/1/2012. Actual fee may be different and will be determined by the City
of Chula Vista at the time of building permit.
The PDIF Fee is subject to change as it is amended from time-to-time. Changes in the number of dwelling
units or Commercial Acreage may affect the estimated fee.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.3 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.3-1
4.3 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
4.3.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
The Chula Vista Growth Management Program Quality of Life Threshold Standards for Fire and
Emergency Medical Services are found in CVMC Sec 19.09.040B: “Emergency response: Properly
equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within
seven (7) minutes in 80 percent of the cases”.
4.3.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) provides Fire and Emergency Medical Services
(EMS). EMS is provided on a contract basis by American Medical Response (AMR). The City also
has countywide mutual and automatic aid agreements with surrounding agencies, should the
need arise for their assistance. The purpose of the Threshold Standard and the mo nitoring of
response times are to maintain and improve the current level of fire protection and EMS in the
City. Fire/EMS facilities are provided for in the 1997 Fire Station Master Plan, as amended unless
stated otherwise in a development agreement. The Fire Station Master Plan indicates that the
number and location of fire stations primarily determine response time. The 1997 Fire Station
Master Plan evaluates the planning area's fire coverage needs, and recommends a nine (9)
station network at build-out to maintain compliance with the threshold standard.
The CVFD has prepared a draft updated Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan
(FFMP) dated January 2011 but it has yet to be officially adopted. The adopted 1997 Fire Station
Master Plan has been used to complete this analysis; however, if and/or when the new FFMP is
approved the Project will be required to comply with its requirements.
4.3.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with the approved Fire Station Master Plan, the City, at its sole discretion unless
stated otherwise in a development agreement, shall determine when a new fire station is
required in order to achieve threshold service levels, meet specific project guidelines or maintain
general operational needs of the Fire Department. Developments shall be in accordance with
the project guidelines outlined in the Fire Station Master Plan as may be amended from time to
time unless stated otherwise in a development agreement.
The requirement to pay for fire station construction and related equipment shall be the sole
responsibility of the developer or developers and the City may require said developer or
developers to provide a guarantee mechanism to assure the availability of such funding.
The City of Chula Vista requires all SPA Plans to address Fire/EMS and the facilities needed to
provide these services. Some issues that must be addressed relative to Fire/EMS facility needs
are:
1) Specific siting of the needed facilities takes place in conformance with the Fire
Station Master Plan, August 14, 1997, as amended unless stated otherwise in a
development agreement;
2) Equipment needs;
3) Methods of financing equipment and facilities;
4.3 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.3-2
4) Timing of construction consistent with the threshold service levels. (May require a
“trigger analysis” to be performed by a third-party expert to dictate and justify the
timing for the requisite fire facilities.)
5) Specific project guidelines and/or general operational needs of the Fire Department.
4.3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are currently nine (9) fire stations serving the City of Chula Vista. The existing station
network is listed below in Table 4.3.1 (Current & Planned Fire Station Facilities):
TABLE 4.3.1
CURRENT & PLANNED FIRE STATION FACILITIES1
Station Location Equipment Staffing
Current Fire Station Facilities
Station 1 447 F Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Engine 51/Truck 51
Battalion 51
Assigned: 24
On Duty: 8
Station 2 80 East J Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Engine 52/Reserve 52 Assigned: 9
On Duty: 3
Station 3 1410 Brandywine Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Urban Search and Rescue (US
AR) 53/ USAR tender and trailer
Assigned: 12
On Duty: 4
Station 4 850 Paseo Ranchero
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Engine 54 Assigned: 9
On Duty: 3
Station 5 391 Oxford Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911 Engine 55/Reserve 3 Assigned: 9
On Duty: 3
Station 6 605 Mt. Miguel Rd.
Chula Vista, CA 91914 Engine 56/Brush Engine 52 Assigned: 9
On Duty: 3
Station 7 1640 Santa Venetia Rd.
Chula Vista, CA 91913
Engine 57/Ladder Truck 57
Battalion 52
Assigned: 24
On Duty: 8
Station 8 1180 Woods Drive
Chula Vista, CA, 91914 Engine 58 Assigned: 9
On Duty: 3
Station 9 291 E. Oneida Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911 Engine 59 Assigned: 9
On Duty: 3
Planned Fire Station Facilities
Station 10 Eastern Urban Center EUC Engine/EUC Truck Assigned: 21
On Duty: 7
Station 112 Chula Vista Bayfront: Bay
Blvd. & J Street Bayfront Engine; Bayfront Truck Assigned: 21
On Duty: 7
Source: CVFD Website accessed on 11/7/2012
4.3.5 ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) currently serves areas within the City's
boundaries. The closest CVFD stations to the project site are:
Fire Station #6, located at 605 Mt. Miguel Rd in San Miguel Ranch.
1 These planned facilities only represent those new facilities as listed within the 1997 Fire Department Master
Plan.
2 Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment Revised Draft EIR SCH#2005081077
(Station 11).
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.3 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.3-3
Fire Station #7, located at 1640 Santa Venetia Rd. in Village 2
Fire Station #8, located at 1180 Woods Drive in EastLake III
A new Fire Station is planned for the Eastern Urban Center.
The Fire/EMS response time threshold was not met for the latest GMOC report dated April 25,
2013 for the threshold review period July 2011 to June 2012. The percentage of calls responded
to within seven minutes has fallen to its lowest level in 8 years and is currently at 78.1% is below
the 80% threshold standard.
The Fire Department reports that its aging reserve engine fleet is beginning to hinder its
performance capabilities. The older fleet has smaller engines, older suspension and smaller
brakes, all of which may reduce their ability to respond adequately.
American Medical Response (AMR) currently provides emergency medical services to the
project site on a contract basis for the City of Chula Vista.
TABLE 4.3.2
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
FIRE/EMS - EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES SINCE 1999
Review Period Call Volume
% of All Call Response
Within 7:00 Minutes
GMOC Threshold: 80%
FY 2012 11,132 78.4%
FY 2011 9,916 78.1%
FY 2010 10,296 85.0%
FY 2009 9,363 84.0%
FY 2008 9,883 86.9%
FY 2007 10,020 88.1%
CY 2006 10,390 85.2%
CY 2005 9,907 81.6%
FY 2003-04 8,420 72.9%
FY 2002-03 8,088 75.5%
FY 2001-02 7,626 69.7%
FY 2000-01 7,128 80.8%
FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7%
Source: GMOC 2013 Annual Report for the 7/1/2011 to 6/30/2012 reporting period
As it did in 2012 CVFD failed to meet the GMOC threshold of responding to 80 percent of calls
within seven minutes. The CVFD expects the Project’s demand for services to increase the
operating costs for equipment and staffing. Fire/EMS operating costs are addressed in the Fiscal
Impacts Section 5 of this PFFP.
4.3.6 FINANCING FIRE SERVICE FACILITIES
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Ch ula Vista City
Council on October 1, 2012. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) is adjusted
approximately every October 1st pursuant to Ordinance 3050. The project will be subject to the
4.3 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.3-4
payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. At the current
fee rate, the project Fire Fee obligation at build-out is $2,308,717.
TABLE 4.3.3
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES FOR FIRE/EMS FACILITIES
Phase SFDU MFDU Commercial
Acres
Fire/EMS
Total Fee SFDU
$1,369/DU
MFDU
$984/DU
Commercial
$3,616/Acre
Orange 117 351 8.6 $160,173 $345,384 $31,098 $536,655
Blue 284 0 $388,796 $0 $388,796
Yellow 0 765 5.9 $0 $752,760 $21,334 $774,094
Purple 220 0 $301,180 $0 $301,180
Green 0 313 $0 $307,992 $307,992
Total 621 1,429 14.5 $850,149 $1,406,136 $52,432 $2,308,717
Estimates based on Form 5509 dated 9/24/12. Fees are subject to change depending on rate, dwelling units & commercial
acres.
Table 4.3.3 is an estimate. Actual fees may be different. PFDIF Fees are subject to change
depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions that change residential
densities, industrial acreage or commercial acreages. The final obligation for the PFDIF will be
subject to the rates in effect at the time building permits are issued.
4.3.7 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1) The City will continue to monitor fire department responses to emergency fire and
medical calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis.
2) The Project developer shall pay public facilities fees at the rate in effect at the time
building permits are issued.
3) Fire Code Compliance: Prior to the approval of each building permit and to the
satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista Fire Marshal, the Project shall meet the
provisions of the current city-adopted California fire code and GMOC ordinance. In
meeting said provisions, the project shall meet the minimum fire flow requirements
based upon construction type and square footage.
4) The Fire Marshal shall have the sole discretion to grant exceptions to the Fire Code
based upon adequate alternative means and materials. Such alternatives may
require third party technical review at the project permit phase.
5) City should review the PFDIF for Fire/EMS to assure that new development is funding
its fair share of these facilities.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.4 SCHOOLS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.4-1
4.4 SCHOOLS
4.4.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
The City annually provides the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month development
forecast and requests an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and
continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following:
1) Amount of current capacity now used or committed.
2) Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities.
3) Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities.
4) Other relevant information the District(s) desire(s) to communicate to the City and
GMOC.
4.4.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
School facilities and services in Chula Vista are provided by two school districts. The Chula Vista
Elementary School District (CVESD) administers education for kindergarten through sixth grades.
The Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) administers education for the Junior/Middle
and Senior High Schools of a large district, which includes the City of Chula Vi sta. The purpose of
the threshold standard is to ensure that the districts have the necessary school sites and funds to
meet the needs of students in newly developing areas in a timely manner, and to prevent the
negative impacts of overcrowding on the existing schools. Through the provision of
development forecasts, school district personnel can plan and implement school facility
construction and program allocation in line with development.
On November 3, 1998, California voters approved Proposition 1A, the Class Size Reduction
Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998. Prior to the passage of
Proposition 1A, school districts relied on statutory school fees established by Assembly Bill 2926
("School Fee Legislation") which was adop ted in 1986, as well as judicial authority (i.e., Mira -Hart-
Murrieta court decisions) to mitigate the impacts of new residential development. In a post
Proposition 1A environment, the statutory fees provided for in the School Fee Legislation remains
in effect and any mitigation requirements or conditions of approval not memorialized in a
mitigation agreement, after July 23, 2000, have been replaced by Alternative Fees (sometimes
referred to as Level II and Level III Fees). The statutory fee for residential development is referred
to in these circumstances as the Level I Fee (i.e., currently at $3.20 per square foot for new
residential construction and $0..51 per square foot for new commercial and industrial
construction)1. These fees were last adopted by the State Allocation Board at its January 27,
2010 meeting and may be increased every two years thereafter according to an inflation
adjustment. This fee is shared between CVESD and SUHSD through a fee sharing agreement.
CVESD utilizes their most recent School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA) dated June 2011, to
quantify, for the next five -year period, the impacts of new residential development on the
districts school facilities, and to calculate the permissible Alternative Fees to be collected from
such new residential development. To ensure the timely construction of school facilities to house
1 E-mail correspondence from Paul; Wood dated 6/27/2012
4.4 SCHOOLS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.4-2
students from the residential development in Village 8 West, alternative fees or implementation
of a Mello Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) will be necessary.
In compliance with Government Code Section 65995 (c) et. Seq. the SFNA provides the
determination of eligibility for and the calculation of a Level II Fee. The formula for calculating
the Alternative Level II fee can be generally described as the number of unhoused students
identified in the SFNA, multiplied by the per pupil grant amount, plus 50%of the sum of site
acquisition and development costs, less surplus property or proceeds thereon if any, less local
funds dedicated for facilities construction, divided by the projected total square footage of
residential units anticipated to be constructed during the next five years. A corresponding Level
III Fee can generally be described as being equal to twice the Alternative Level II Fee plus the
full amount of local funds dedicated by the District to provide school facilities to accommodate
students generated from new growth, including any commercial and industrial fees collected.
Sweetwater Union High School District utilizes their current “Sweetwater Union High School District
Long Range Comprehensive Master Plan” dated July 20, 2004. Implementation of the SUHSD
Plan is ongoing and has resulted in the upgrading of older schools and accommodating
continuing growth. The district has leveraged $187 million from Proposition BB into a $327 million
effort utilizing state funding to modernize and upgrade eight campuses. Additional
modernization work began in 2008 at 11 campuses west of the 805 utilizing the first $180 million of
the $644 million Proposition O Bond funds approved by the voters in 2006. Additional Proposition
O modernization will be delayed until the economy recovers enough to allow additional bond
sales. Neither Proposition BB or Proposition O includes funding for new schools to serve Village 8
West.
In recognition of the impact on school facilities from new development, the SUHSD and the
development community have entered into various mitigation agreements in order to ensure
the timely construction of school facilities to house students from such new d evelopment. The
primary financing mechanism authorized in these mitigation agreements is the formation of
community facilities districts (CFDs). For this reason, such mitigated developments have been
excluded from the projections contained in the SFNA dated March 11, 2011.
4.4.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues for
School Services:
1) Identify student generation by phase of development.
2) Specific siting of proposed school facilities will take place in conformance with the
Sweetwater Union High School District Long Range Comprehensive Master Plan, July
2004 and Chula Vista Elementary School District’s Standards and Criteria.
3) Reserve school sites, if necessary, or coordinate with the district for additional school
classrooms.
4) Provide cost estimates for facilities.
5) Identify facilities consistent with proposed phasing.
6) Demonstrate the ability to provide adequate facilities to access public schools in
conjunction with the construction of water and sewer facilities.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.4 SCHOOLS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.4-3
7) Secure financing.
4.4.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
SCHOOL FACILITIES INVENTORY, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Currently, the CVESD's inventory consists of 45 elementary schools including 6 Charter schools.
Exhibit A-2 of the CVESD SFNA lists current available capacity in May 2011 as 28,268. Capacity
using existing facilities is approximately 29,212. Projected enrollment for October 2010 was
27,484. Generally, there is sufficient capacity throughout the district at this tim e to
accommodate additional students.
The proposed Village 8 West project is located adjacent to mitigated development (CFD areas)
where enrollment is near capacity when using state -loading standards. The District has a school
mitigation agreement with the Village 8 West developer.
SCHOOL FACILITIES INVENTORY, SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
The SUHSD currently administers one junior high, ten middle schools, twelve comprehensive high
schools, one continuation high school, seven alternative education academies, and four adult
education centers.
The district wide student enrollment is stable. According to the district, the Village 8 West project
is within the EastLake Middle School and the Olympian High School attendance areas. The
Sweetwater Union High School District and the Village 8 West Developer have a School
Mitigation Agreement to form a CFD or pay mitigation obligations.
4.4.5 SCHOOL SIZING AND LOCATION
The project is proposed to consist of 2,050 dwelling units at build out. At completion, the
proposed project could generate approximately 1,022 students using the following Student
Generation Factors:2
Elementary (K-6)3 = .20914 students/DU of Multi-Family and Medium High Density
.4114 students/DU of Detached and Low Medium Density Village
Middle School (7-8)5 =
.0810 students/DU of Multi-Family
.0936 students/DU of detached and attached single family
2 Includes Apartment & Condominium units.
3 CVES School Facilities Needs Assessment dated March 19, 2011
4 Includes Apartment & Condominium units.
5 Correspondence from SUHSD dated February 4, 2013
4.4 SCHOOLS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.4-4
High School (9-12) =
.1171 students/DU of Multi-Family
.1939 students/DU of detached and attached single family
By phase and school category, the high density plan is expected to generate the following
students:
TABLE 4.4.1 STUDENT GENERATION BY PHASE*
Phase Elementary
School (K-6)
Middle School
(7-8)
High School
(9-12)
Total
Students
Orange 122 41 64 227
Blue 117 28 55 200
Yellow 160 62 90 312
Purple 91 21 43 155
Green 66 25 37 128
Subtotal 556 175 291 1,022
*Totals may not match due to rounding errors
SCHOOL SIZE STANDARDS
Elementary 750-1000 students
Middle 1,200 students
Senior High 2,400 students
Chula Vista Elementary School District
The Site Utilization Plan identifies an 11-acre elementary school site as Parcel S. If selected by the
CVESD, the school site will be large enough to accommodate up to 750 students.
The CVESD relies heavily on local funding to finance the construction of school facilities and in
the last several years the District has been deemed ineligible to receive any monies from the
State to construct new schools. Based on the projected development set forth in the GMOC
forecast and current eligibility determinations by the Office of Public School Construction, the
District does not anticipate additional state funding will be forthcoming for at least the next three-
five years. With state funding in doubt plus increased costs of school construction and land
acquisition the future of new school construction projects will be difficult. The District and the
Village 8 West developer have a School Mitigation Agreement of either creating a new CFD or
annexing into an existing one. Further, the developer will provide mitigation payments to fund
Elementary School facilities. An estimated 556 elementary school students are expected from
Village 8 West.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.4 SCHOOLS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.4-5
Sweetwater Union High School District
The maximum capacity of a middle school is approximately 1,200 students. It is anticipated that
the approximately 175 middle school students generated by the Village 8 West project will
attend a new 21-acre middle school that will be large enough to accommodate up to 1,000
students. Until such time that the school is completed, students residing in Village 8 West will
attend schools in neighboring villages as determined by the school district.
High school students from Village 8 West may attend Olympian High School, located in Village 7
immediately adjacent to the proposed middle school or a future high school located in Village 9
in the likely event that Olympian High School has reached capacity before Village 8 West is built.
The maximum capacity of a high school is approximately 2,400 students. It is anticipated that
approximately 291 high school students will be generated from the Village 8 West project.
4.4.6 FINANCING SCHOOL FACILITIES
California Government Code section 65995 et. seq. and Education Code Section 17620 et. seq.
authorizes school districts to impose facility mitigation exactions on new development as a way to
address increasing enrollment caused by that development.
Although the collection of school fees is one method available to defray the cost of new
development, it is not an acceptable solution since the maximum amount that could be
collected by law represents less than one-fourth the cost to construct schools. The SUHSD is
unable to meet the needs of this project with current school facilities and it is unable to construct
new facilities to meet the impacts of this project through the provision of school fees. In
recognition of this funding deficiency, it is the policy of each district to fully mitigate the facility
impacts caused by a master planned community via the creation of a Mello Roos Community
Facilities District prior to recordation of a final map However it should be noted that State Law
does not allow Cities to condition final maps approvals on the creation of a Mello-Roos district.
The following Mello-Roos Districts have been created by each district:
4.4 SCHOOLS OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.4-6
TABLE 4.4.2 COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT BY DEVELOPMENT
SUHSD
CFD Number Location
1 EastLake
2 Bonita Long Canyon
3 Rancho del Rey
4 Sunbow
5 Annexable
6 Otay Ranch
8 Coral Gate (Otay Mesa)
9 Ocean View Hills
10 Remington Hills/Annexable
11 Lomas Verdes
12 Otay Ranch (Village 1 West)
13 San Miguel Ranch
14 Otay Ranch Village 11
15 Otay Ranch Village 6
16 Otay Ranch Lomas Verde SPA 3
17 Otay Ranch V2 & portion of V7
CVESD
CFD Number Location
1 EastLake
2 Bonita Long Canyon
3 Rancho del Rey
4 Sunbow
5 Annexable
6 Otay Ranch
10 Robinhood Ridge Annexable
11 Otay Ranch (Lomas Verde)
12 Otay Ranch (Village 1, West)
13 San Miguel Ranch
14 Otay Ranch Village 11 (Brookf./Shea)
15 Otay Ranch Village 6 (ORC)
16 No CFD
17 Otay Ranch V2 & portion of V7
Based on data available from each district in their respective SFNAs, an estimate of costs for the
construction of school facilities on a per student basis is provided below. Both districts follow
state standards for determining the costs and size for school construction.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COST
(800 students) ($27,300/student excluding land cost) $21,800,000
(800 students) ($36,500/student including land cost) $29,150,000
MIDDLE SCHOOL COST
(1,200 students) ($30,000/student excluding land cost) $36,000,000
(1,200 students) ($41,900/student including land cost) $50,280,000
HIGH SCHOOL COST
(2,400 students) ($33,333/student excluding land cost) $80,000,000
(2,400 students) ($47,100/student including land cost) $113,040,000
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.4 SCHOOLS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.4-7
Land costs are assumed at $655,000 per acre including escrow costs, 2011 dollars.
4.4.7 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Applicant(s) shall provide the City
with evidence of certification by the CVESD and SUHSD that any fee, charge,
dedication, or other requirement levied by the school district s has been complied
with or that the districts have determined the fee, charge, dedication or other
requirement does not apply to the construction.
2) Prior to approval of a applicable final map for private development on Parcel S and
Parcel D of the Village 8 West Tentative Map (and including minimum lot size,
grading, and any other required improvements), the applicant shall provide City-
acceptable evidence from the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the
Sweetwater Union High School District that the site has not been determined by the
districts to be needed for use as a school sites.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.5 LIBRARIES
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.5-1
4.5 LIBRARIES
4.5.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
In the area east of I-805, the city shall construct, by build-out (approximately year 2030) 60,000
gross square feet (GSF) of library space beyond the city-wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The
construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the city will not fall below the GMOC
threshold standard ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population1. Library facilities are to be adequately
equipped and staffed.
4.5.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
The City of Chula Vista Library Department provides library facilities.
4.5.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program (GMP) to address the following issues
for Library services:
1) Identify phased demands in conjunction with the construction of streets, water and
sewer facilities.
2) Specifically identify facility sites in conformance with the Chula Vista Library Master
Plan.
4.5.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City provides library services through the Chula Vista Public Library at Fourth and “F” Street
(Civic Center), the South Chula Vista Library in the Montgomery/Otay planning area, and the
recently opened (April 14, 2012) Otay Ranch Town Center site. The Castle Park, Woodlawn and
the public library operation at Eastlake High School have been closed. The current libraries are
listed on Table 4.5.1.
1 The GMOC threshold of 500 GSF per 1,000 population is stated in the Chula Vis ta Municipal Code (Sec.
19.09.04 D). Construction of library space shall be phased such that the city shall not fall below this
threshold. However the Chula Vista Public Facilities Development Impact Fee program uses a “service
standard” of 600 GSF/1,000, which is the target or desired standard to be achieved at build -out of the city.
The proposed Library Facilities Strategic Plan recommends a range of 500 to 700 GSF.
4.5 LIBRARIES OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.5-2
TABLE 4.5.1
CURRENT LIBRARY FACILITIES
Current Libraries Square Footage
Civic Center Branch 55,000
South Chula Vista Branch 37,000
Otay Ranch Town Center (opened April 14, 2012) 3,412
Total Existing Square Feet 95,412
4.5.5 ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
The 1998 Chula Vista Library Master Plan Update addressed such topics as library siting and
phasing, the impacts of new technologies on library usa ge, and floor space needs. The plan
called for the construction of a full service regional library of approximately 30,000 square feet in
the Rancho del Rey area and the construction of a second full service regional library of similar
size in the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center (EUC). The City submitted applications for grant
funding for the Rancho del Rey library in all three rounds of the highly competitive State Library
Bond Act of 2000 administered by the California State Library (aka Proposition 14), but
unfortunately the City did not receive an award. The Rancho del Rey branch library was
subsequently put on hold.
The City has prepared a draft Library Strategic Facilities Plan dated April 2011. The plan has not
yet been adopted by City Council. According to the Plan, developing a single new destination
library for east Chula Vista would be the most cost effective way to meet the threshold standard
for library space in Chula Vista, from the standpoint of both capital and operating costs. The
Plan indicates that a new destination library sh ould be located convenient to SR-125, preferably
on the east side in order to best serve residents of this underserved area. In addition to sufficient
capacity for the library building and parking, characteristi cs of a successful library site include a
high profile location along a well-traveled route, close to other community amenities and
accessible by public transit. A single new d estination library could also be developed in phases.
This would provide the a bility to begin project implementation sooner, rather than waiting until
funding accrues for the full project. The draft plan is being held pending completion of a
Strategic Plan Element.
Table 4.5.2 highlights existing plus forecasted project demands for library space as compared to
the existing and scheduled library space as well as the impact of the Village 8 West Project on
library facilities. The project can be accommodated in the projected Regional Library space.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.5 LIBRARIES
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.5-3
TABLE 4.5.2
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
FORECASTED LIBRARY SPACE DEMAND VS. SUPPLY
Population1
Demand
Square
Footage2
Supply
Square
Footage
Above/(Below)
Standard
Estimated Existing
City-wide 5/1/2012 246,496 123,248 95,412 (27,836)
Future Branch Library (Phase 1) 30,000 30,000
Future Branch Library (Phase 2) 10,000 10,000
Forecasted Projects to 2016 16,568 8,284 (8,284)
Total 263,064
131,532 135,412 3,880
1CA DOF estimate Jan. 1, 2010
2 Based on 500 GSF per 1,000 population
The 2013 annual GMOC report points out that, for the nineth consecutive year, the City has not
complied with the threshold standard of providing 500 gross square feet of libr ary facilities per
1,000 residents. With the closure of the Eastlake Branch in June, 2011 the FY 2010 -11 gross library
floor area service ratio is only 387 square feet per 1,000 residents. The ratio is projected to fall to
378 sq. ft./1,000 in FY 2012-13.
The Library Threshold Standard Implementation Measure requires that the City Council “formally
adopt and fund tactics” to bring the library system into conformance, and that construction, or
another actual solution, shall be scheduled to commence within three years of the threshold not
being satisfied (June 2007)”. The deficiency of total library space is only one indicator of more
pressing constraints that have been identified in GMOC report s, and draft Library Strategic
Facility Plan including but not limited to the following:
Lack of conveniently located facilities to serve the east side of Chula Vista (the most
significant influencing factor on library use is proximity of the facility to the user),
Reduction in library hours as the result of budget cutbacks;
Adequate computer facilities, both equipment and infrastructure quality at the Civic
Branch, and the number of stations, as well as speed of connection at all library facilities.
While the library system may not be experiencing significant issues due to a lack of square footage
available (i.e., a failure to meet the threshold), the city’s libraries are experiencing significant
customer service issues directly related to location of branches, hours and equipment availability
and quality.
Based on a population projection of 5,737, the Village 8 West project will generate a demand
for approximately 2,869 square feet of additional library space, which can be accommodated
in the projected planned total square footage of the proposed branch libraries.
4.5.6 FINANCING LIBRARY FACILITIES
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City
Council on October 1, 2012. The PFDIF is adjusted approximately every October 1st pursuant to
4.5 LIBRARIES OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.5-4
Ordinance 3050. The Library Public Facilities DIF Fee for both Single Family and Multi -Family
Development is $1,555/unit2. This amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to
time. The project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building
permits are issued. At the current fee rate, the estimated Library Fee obligation at buil d-out is
$3,187,750.
TABLE 4.5.3
LIBRARY FEE FOR VILLAGE 8 WEST
Phase Number of DUs Library Fee
$1,555/DU
Orange 468 $727,740
Blue 284 $441,620
Yellow 765 $1,189,575
Purple 220 $342,100
Green 313 $486,715
Total 2,050 $3,187,750
The projected fee per dwelling unit illustrated in Table 4.5.3 is the current rate, and may be
subject to change by action of the City Council by the time building permits are pulled. The
total fee revenue is dependent on project phasing, final residential densities and d ensity
transfers.
4.5.7 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As it did in 2012, in its 2013 Annual Report, the GMOC stressed the need to update the 1998
Library Facilities Master Plan to reflect increased library needs generated by projected build -out
population from the 2005 General Plan Update. The Master Plan will subsequently be updated
with the Library Strategic Facilities Plan dated April 2011, when it is approved. The GMOC also
recommended that the update consider changing trends to define the adequacy of library
facilities and equipment, and what constitutes adequate staffing and hours of operation.
Based upon the analysis contained within this section, the city’s c urrent library facilities
(approximately 95,412 square feet) are approximately 27,836 square feet below the threshold
standard (see Table 4.5.2).
Prior to the issuance of each building permit for residential dwelling units unless stated otherwise
in a development agreement, the Village 8 West Developer shall pay the Public Facilities DIF for
library facilities at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
2 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 9/24/2012. Actual fee at the time of building permit issuance may be
different. The applicant should verify the fee prior to obtaining building permits.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.6-1
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
4.6.1 PARK THRESHOLD STANDARD
Three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be
provided per 1,000 residents east of I-805 (this standard is also specified in Section 17.10.040 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code ).
4.6.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
The City of Chula Vista provides public park and recreational facilities and programs through the
Development Services, Public Works, and Recreation Departments which are responsible for the
acquisition and development of parkland. All park development plans are reviewed by City staff
and presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review. A recommendation is made
by this Commission to the City Council.
The Otay Ranch Parks and Recreation Facility Implementation Plan was adopted by the City
Council on October 28, 1993. This plan identifies the parks facility improvement standards for
the Otay Ranch.
The City Council approved the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan in November 2002.
The Plan provides guidance for planning, siting and implementation of neighborhood and
community parks.
4.6.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
Identify phased demands in conformance with the number of dwelling unit’s
constructed, street improvements and in coordination with the construction of water and
sewer facilities.
Specific siting of the facility will take place in conformance with the Village 8 West Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan as Chapter 7 of the SPA.
Provide irrevocable offer of dedication for park purposes for sites within the project.
Compliance with the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan
4.6.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing and future parks as depicted in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the
General Plan and as updat ed by the inclusion of more recent information are contained in the
C ity’s Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan dated December, 2010.
4.6.5 PROJECT PARK REQUIREMENTS
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC PARK STANDARDS
The Village 8 West project (Project) generates an estimated population of 5,7371. To meet the
City threshold requirements the amount of parkland dedicated is based on a standard of 3
1)This population is based on the persons per household factors used by the Department of
Development Services: 3.30 per single family residence and 2.58 per multi-family.
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.6-2
acres per 1,000 population (see Table 4.6.1). The standard is based on State of California
Government Code 66477, also known as the Quimby Act that allows a city to require by
ordinance, the dedication of land or payment of fees for park or recreational purposes or a
combination of both.
TABLE 4.6.1
QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS
V-8-W SPA Population Standard Parkland Acres Required
5,737 3 acres per 1,000
population
17.2
All new development in the City of Chula Vista is subject to the requirements contained in the
City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance CVMC Chapter 17.10. The ordinance establishes fees for
parkland acquisition and development (PAD fees), sets standards for dedication and establishes
criteria for acceptance of parks and open space by the City of Chula Vista. Fees vary
depending upon the type of dwelling unit that is proposed. There are four types of housing;
Single Family dwelling units (defined as all types of single family detached housing and
condominiums), Multi-Family dwelling units (defined as all types of attached housing including
townhouses, attached condominiums, duplexes, triplexes and apartments), Mobile Homes and
Hotel/Motel Rooms. Multi-Family Housing is defined as any free-standing structure that contains
two or more residential units. Parkland dedication requiremen ts are shown below on Table 4.6.2.
TABLE 4.6.2
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE STANDARDS
Dwelling Unit Type Land Dedication per Unit Dwelling Units per Park Acre
Single Family 460 sf/du 95 du/ac.
Multi-Family 341 sf/du 128 du/ac.
TABLE 4.6.3
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA PLAN
PRELIMINARY PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
CITY ORDINANCE APPLIED TO PLANNING PREDICTION OF UNIT NUMBERS AND TYPES2
Dwelling Unit Type* Number of D.U. Parkland Required/DU Required Acres
Single Family 621 460 sf/du 6.6
Multi-Family 1,429 341 sf/du 11.2
TOTALS 2,050 17.8
The City’s Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance (CVMC 17.10) is based on the Quimby Act.
In accordance with the City’s Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance, the Project’s parkland
requirement is approximately 17.8 acres (see Table 4.6.3).
2 This table is based on 1,429 multi-family dwelling units x 2.61 population factor and 621 single
family dwelling units x 3.52 population factor (CVMC Sec. 17.10.040)
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.6-3
The Project phasing (Table 3.2) and Site Utilization Plan (Exhibit 3.1) identifies the park
designations and acreage that are also shown in Table 4.6.4 and Exhibit 4.6.1. Table 4.6.4 also
identifies the phase of development in which the parks will be constructed. The Neighborhood
and Community Park sites will be offered for dedication at the first final map for the Project. The
Town Square Park site will remain private, but will be subject to a threshold condition which
requires its completion prior to issuance of a permit for the 383 rd residential unit. The 16.6 net
eligible acres of community parkland represents only a portion of the future Otay Ranch
Community park site. Since the construction of the future Community Park is contingent upon
the timely aggregation of various parcels of land, there may be a need to construct the
Neighborhood Park prior to the Community Park in order to deliver developed parkland and
maintain compliance with threshold standards. For this reason and since public parks are
constructed under the City’s design-build procedures, applying a unit threshold to either the
Community or the Neighborhood Park is not practical since the development of both parks is
not under the control of the developer. In this regard, the Director of Development Services shall
have the discretion to modify the sequence of park delivery. The City’s Parkland Dedication
Ordinance requirements for the Project are outlined in Table 4.6.4.
TABLE 4.6.4
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA PLAN
PARK ACRES AND ELIGIBLE CREDITS
Park Identification Gross Acres Phase Proposed Credit % Eligible Credit Acres
Community Parks 17.4 Yellow 100% 16.6
Neighborhood Parks 7.5 Purple 100% 7.5
Town Square 3.0 Orange 100% 3.0
Total Provided 27.9 27.1
Village 8 West SPA PAD Requirements 17.8
Acres Provided in excess of Requirement 9.3
4.6.6 PARK ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
Table 4.6.5 is a comparison of park acreage demands and supply east of Interstate 805 for
existing, approved projects, as well as the phased addition of the Village 8 West project. A
review of the existing and approved park demands for Chula Vista east of I -805 including the
Project indicates a projected 2016 demand of approximately 400.8 acres of Neighborhood and
Community Park. The 2016 projected supply of park acreage east of I -805, 437.24 acres, is 36.44
acres more than the projected demand.
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.6-4
TABLE 4.6.5
ESTIMATED PARK ACREAGE DEMAND COMPARED TO SUPPLY EAST OF INTERSTATE 805
Population
East of I-8051
Park
Demand2
Existing and
Future
Park Acres3
Eligible
Credit Acres
Net Acres
+/-Standard
Existing 118,000 354 390.44 390.44 +36.44
Forecasted Projects
2011 to 2016
15,613 46.8 46.85 46.8 +0
Total 133,613 400.8 437.24 473.24 +36.44
1 Projected population figures are from the 2011 GMOC Annual Report; existing population is an estimate
2 Based on City Threshold requirement of 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents east of I-805.
3 Existing park acreage in "Eastern Territories” from 2010 Draft Park and Recreation Master Plan
4 From Table 3.1
5 Park acreage in future projects, including Village 8, West shall be delivered prior to or concurrent with demand
TABLE 4.6.6
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA PARK DEMAND BY PHASE
Phase SFDU MFDU
Demand
Park
Acres
Supply
Park Acres
Net Acres
+/-
Standard
Project
Cumulative
Orange 117 351 4.0 3.0 -1.0 -1.0
Blue 284 0 3.0 0 -3.0 -4.0
Yellow 0 765 6.0 16.6 10.6 6.6
Purple 220 0 2.3 7.5 5.2 11.8
Green 0 313 2.5 0 -2.5 9.3
Total 621 1,429 17.8 27.1 9.3 9.3
The proposed development of the Project requires approximately 17.8 acres of usable park
space per the City of Chula Vista Parkland Dedication Ordinance for public parkland (see Table
4.6.6). The Village 8 West SPA plan identifies 27.1acres of eligible public parkland. The 17.8 acres
will be met by the Developer dedicating parkland, paying in lieu parkland development fees for
the Community and neighborhood parks, and constructing the Town Square.
The total park acres provided exceeds the park obligation for Village 8 West. The Project
developer is proposing to apply this excess supply toward meeting the park requirements of the
future Village 9 SPA development provided the developer has provided the 28 acres to the City.
4.6.7 PARKLAND, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
The Otay Ranch GDP established a four-tiered system of parks to be provided throughout the
community to meet its goals and thresholds. The four tiers are: 1) park amenities in town square
parks; 2) active play facilities in neighborhood parks; 3) community-level playing fields in
community parks; and, 4) region-wide active and passive recreational areas in designated
regional parks. Open space, community and regional parks are designated at the GDP level
and only the pedestrian open space/trail corridor connecting from Wolf Canyon in Village
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.6-5
Seven through the Eastern Urban Center to Salt Creek via Village Eleven is identified in the
Village 8 West SPA at this level.
The GDP Park and Open Space Policies for Village 8 West state that parks will be established at
the SPA Plan level. The amount of parkland required by the local park code, Chapter 17.10
CVMC, and the amount provided are indicated in Tables 4.6.3 and 4.6.4.
A. REQUIRED PARKLAND & IMPROVEMENTS
New development is required to provide public parkland, improved to City standards, and
dedicated to the City and/or provide in lieu fees, based on the City’s Parkland Dedication
Ordinance. The dedication requirements implement the Quimby Act 3 acre/1000 population
standard. In addition to improved parkland, additional or specialized recreational facilities or
payment of in lieu fees can be provided and cr edited against the parkland requirement on an
acre basis. The projected dedication and/or fee requirement for the Project, based on the
proposed target number of units and the assumed product types is 17.8 acres as detailed in
Table 4.6.6. Compliance with the park dedication requirements will be monitored at each
applicable final map and building permit within the Project.
B. PARK & OPEN SPACE IMPLEMENTATION
All of the open space and public parks will be controlled through open space easements
and/or dedication to the City, district or homeowners' association. Maintenance of the
Community and neighborhood parks will be provided by the City general fund. Maintenance of
the Town Square Park will be funded through the establishment of a property based business
improvement district or other mechanism acceptable to the Director of Development Services.
Community Facility, Open Space and/or Landscape Maintenance Districts may be established
to ensure proper management and operation of public right -of-way improvements. Private
open space areas and slopes within “common interest” residential projects will be designated
common areas and maintained by homeowners' associations. Similar property owners’
associations may be established for non-residential projects which include common areas
requiring on-going maintenance.
The phasing of park sites will include offering parkland for dedication at the first final map and
construction of park improvements. Parks are to be available for use when the corresponding
number of occupied new dwelling units requiring said park acreage is sufficient enough to
equal the size of one or more of the Project’s planned parks. The Community and neighborhood
parks are to be constructed by the City with Developer-paid in-lieu park development fees
being the source of funding for construction. Park fees are to be paid prior to issuance of
residential building permits. The Town Square is to be constructed by the Developer as a “turn
key” facility prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 383rd dwelling in the “Orange”
phase. Upon successful completion of Town Square construction, as determined by the Director
of Development Services, City will allow parkland development PAD fee credits. The amount of
said credits is subject to the Director of Development Services approval.
C. OTAY RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP)
In accordance with the Otay Ranch RMP, the development of each Otay Ranch village requires
an open space (OS) contribution of 1.188 acres of habitat to the Otay Ranch Preserve for each
acre of development within the village,. The Village 8 West contribution is based on a
development land area of approximately 320.1 acres less land area to be used for CPF, parks,
schools, San Diego reservoir, arterial roads and right-of-way totaling approximately 141.3 acres.
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.6-6
At 1.188 acres of conveyance per developed acre, the total conveyance obligation would be
approximately 212.4 acres. The Project’s Preserve conveyance acreage is calculated in Table
4.6.7. The acreages are estimates only; actual acreages may be different when calculated at
the time of final map.
TABLE 4.6.7
VILLAGE 8 WEST PRESERVE CONVEYANCE OBLIGATION
Development Acreage
Total Developable Land Uses 320.1
Common Uses Not Calculated as Part of Conveyance Obligation:
Community Purpose Facility (CPF) -5.8
Parks -28.0
Open Space -26.0
San Diego Reservoir -19.6
Right-of-Way -29.5
Schools -32.4
Subtotal Acreage of Common Uses -141.3
Total Developable Acreage (minus acreage for Common Uses) 178.8
Per Acre Conveyance 1.188
Estimated Total Conveyance Acreage 212.41*
* Final conveyance acreage will be determined at the time of final map.
Approximately 15.6 acres of Preserve area is provided within the SPA and will be conveyed into
the Otay Ranch Preserve. The remaining open space obligation will be fulfilled in accordance
with the conveyance formula of 1.188 acres per acre of development. The 23.5 acres of open
space on the perimeter slopes is not applicable to the Project’s conveyance obligation.
E. TRAILS
The Project’s SPA Plan provides for greenbelt and neighborhood trails and pedestrian linkages
within and beyond Village 8 West (see Exhibit 4.6.1). Within the Project, parks are accessed by
the network of sidewalks and other amenities as follows:
1) Greenbelt Trail. The Greenbelt Trail occurs in open space areas. This road/trail begins
at the terminus of Street A and extends to the edge of the SPA boundary, allowing for
future connection to the Salt Creek Trail in the Otay Valley Regional P ark. Unlike
other roadways in the SPA, the Greenbelt Trail will be open only to maintenance
vehicles, and also serving as the maintenance access road for the sewer main
connection to the Salt Creek Interceptor. The Greenbelt Trail will also double as a
multi-use trail for bicycles, pedestrians, and other non -motorized modes of
transportation.
2) Neighborhood Trail. Neighborhood trails occur along interior slopes, connecting
adjacent planning areas where steep slopes prevent direct roadway connections.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.6-7
The intent of these trails is to promote walkability by creating shorter travel distances
between neighborhoods. They may not be appropriate for all users.
4.6.8 RECREATION
The Project’s SPA Plan addresses the park, open space and trails facilities within the SPA area.
The Otay Ranch Parks and Recreation Facility Implementation Plan (adopted by the City
Council on October 28, 1993) identifies the park facility improvement standards for Otay Ranch.
The City of Chula Vista Park and Recreation Department conducted subsequent facilities needs
assessments and proposed modifications to the Otay Ranch area parks. The proposed
modifications for Otay Ranch area parks are included in the City of Chula Vista Draft Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, dated December, 2010. The proposed types, quantities and location of
the facilities provided at each park site are included in the Project’s SPA Plan.
4.6.9 FINANCING PARK FACILITIES
Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as amended unless stated otherwise in a
parks or development agreement, governs the financing of parkland and improvements.
Included as part of the regulations are Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees established
for the purpose of providing neighborhood and community parks. The Ordinance provides that
fees are paid to the City prior to approval of a final subdivision map, or in the case of a
residential development that is not required to submit a final map, at the time of the final
building permit application.
CVMC 17.10.070 allows the City to deem that a combination of dedication of parkland and the
payment of in-lieu fees would better serve the public and the park and recreation needs of
future residents of the project if, in the judgment of the City, suitable land does not exist.
Furthermore CVMC states that the amount and location of the land or in -lieu fees, or
combination thereof, shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and
recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.
TABLE 4.6.8
PARK DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT (PAD) FEES
DEVELOPMENT IN-LIEU COMPONENT ONLY
Development
Phase SFDU MFDU
Development Component
of PAD Fee’s/DU Fees by Phase
and Total
SFDU @ $4,984 MFDU @ $3,698
Orange 117 351 $583,128 $1,297,998 $1,881,126
Blue 284 0 $1,415,456 $0 $1,415,456
Yellow 0 765 $0 $2,828,970 $2,828,970
Purple 220 0 $1,096,480 $0 $1,096,480
Green 0 313 $0 $1,157,474 $1,157,474
Total 621 1,429 $3,095,064 $5,284,442 $8,379,506
Note: Actual fee obligation calculation to be based on the fees in effect at the time of payment and the implementing
ordinance definition of dwelling unit type irrespective of underlying zoning district containing said dwelling unit unless stated
otherwise in a separate development agreement. Definitions of dwelling unit type used for calculating park obligations are
based upon from the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance CVMC chapter 17.10. These definitions differ from the way unit
types are defined from a planning, land-use and zoning perspective that uses unit density per acre to categorize the type of
unit. CVMC chapter 17.10 uses product type to categorize the type of unit distinguishing between attached and detached
units. Consequently, the figures in this chart are illustrative estimates, and shall be recalculated at the time when the
obligations are due as determined by chapter 17.10 of the CVMC unless stated otherwise in a separate parks or development
agreement.
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.6-8
PAD fees and acreage obligations are subject to periodic annual increases. The current PAD
fees are from the City of Chula Vista’s Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,
Form 5509, and revised October 1, 2012. In the event that the Developer offers for dedication
parkland acceptable to the City for use as parkland, the Developer is eligible to receive
parkland acquisition fee credits at the discretion of the Director of Development Services . Table
4.6.8 identifies the fees calculated for the development compone nt of the PAD fees while Table
4.6.9 identifies the fees calculated for the parkland acquisition component of the PAD fees.
These fees are estimates only, actual fees will be based on PAD fee rates in effect at time of
payment and are dependent upon the actual numbers of units filed on the final maps. Fees are
also subject to change by the City Council. Multi-Family dwelling units are defined as all types of
attached housing including townhouses, attached condominiums, duplexes, triplexes and
apartments.
TABLE 4.6.9
PARK ACQUISITION COMPONENT (PAD) FEES
(ACQUISITION IN-LIEU COMPONENT ONLY)
Development
Phase SFDU MFDU
Acquisition Component
of PAD Fee’s/DU Fees by Phase
and Total
SFDU @ $12,676 MFDU @ $9,408
Orange 117 351 $1,483,092 $3,302,208 $4,785,300
Blue 284 0 $3,599,984 $0 $3,599,984
Yellow 0 765 $0 $7,300,608 $7,197,120
Purple 220 0 $2,788,720 $0 $2,788,720
Green 0 313 $0 $2,944,704 $2,944,704
Total 621 1,429 $7,871,796 $13,444,032 $21,315,828
4.6.10 FINANCING RECREATION FACILITIES
Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC, which requires the collection of fees from residential developments
to pay for parkland acquisition and various park facilities within the City of Chula Vista, is subject
to changes by the City Council from time to time. On October 25, 2005, the City Council
approved Ordinance 3026 relating to the periodic annual review and adjustment of park
acquisition and development fees. Approval of Ordinance 3026 resulted in an increase fee for
parkland acquisition. In July 23, of 2004 the Chula Vista City Council approved Ordinance 2945.
This Ordinance amended Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC, which requires t he collection of In-Lieu
Park Acquisition and Development Fees from residential developments that are not required to
submit a subdivision map or parcel map.
Some of the previous council actions that contributed to an increase in the in -lieu fees for park
development and land acquisition are Ordinances No. 2886 and 2887 (both approved on
November 19, 2002). Ordinance 2886 amended Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC to update the Parks
Acquisition and Development Fees. Ordinance 2887 amended Chapter 3.50 of the Municipal
Code, as detailed in the "Public Facilities DIF, November 2002 Amendment', adding a new
recreation component to the Public Facilities DIF, updating the im pact fee structure and
increasing the overall fee.
Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, first adopted in 1971, details requirements for
parkland dedication, park improvements and the collection of in -lieu fees (i.e., PAD fees) from
developers of residential housing in subdivisions or in divisions created by parcel maps, both east
and west of I-805. It is the responsibility of the developer to dedicate land for parks and develop
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.6-9
all or a portion of the land as a neighborhood or community park. Al l parks must be designed
and constructed to the City of Chula Vista regulations and to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services and Director of Public Works. Improvements that may be required by the
City include:
Drainage Systems
Lighted Parking Lots
Concrete Circulation Systems
Security Lighting
Park Fixtures (drinking fountains, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, etc.)
Landscaping (including disabled accessible surfacing)
Irrigation Systems
Restrooms and Maintenance Storage
Play Areas (tot lots, etc.)
Picnic Shelters, Tables, Benches
Utilities
Outdoor Sports Venues (tennis courts, baseball/softball fields. basketball courts, multi-
purpose sports fields, skateboard and roller blade venues)
In addition to parks-related items, a 1987 revision called for the dedication, within community
parks, of major recreation facilities to serve newly developing communities, including:
Community Centers
Gymnasiums
Swimming pools
Historically, PAD fees have not been sufficient to construct these additional lar ge capital items.
However, major recreation facilities are now funded through a separate component of the
Public Facilities DIF. The major capital items to be included in the new component are:
community centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior/teen centers. In addition to
existing citywide recreational facilities, an additional 139,834 square feet of major recreation
facilities will be required to meet new development growth through build -out. Since the demand
for major public recreation facilities is created by residential development, facilities costs are not
spread to commercial/industrial development. Table 4.6.10 provides an estimate of the
Recreational PFDIF Fees for the project. These fees are estimates only, actual fees will be based
on fee rates in effect at time of payment and are dependent upon the actual numbers of units
filed on the Project’s final maps.
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.6-10
TABLE 4.6.10
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES FOR RECREATION3
Development
Phase
Dwelling
Units
Recreation Fee
$1,180/DU
Orange 468 $ 552,240
Blue 284 $ 335,120
Yellow 765 $ 902,700
Purple 220 $ 259,600
Green 313 $ 369,340
Total 2,050 $ 2,419,000
4.6.11 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Based upon the analysis contained in this section of the PFFP, the parks standard for both
neighborhood and community parks measured on an area -wide basis east of Interstate
805 is projected to be met at the completion of the project. Notwithstanding, the City of
Chula Vista shall continue to monitor parks and recreation services east of Interstate 805
and report the results to the Growth Management Oversight Commission on an annual
basis.
B. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project the Applicant(s) shall offer for
dedication all public parkland identified in the Project’s approved SPA Plan, or as
approved by the Directors of Recreation and Development Services. Park facilities such
as the Neighborhood Park and Town Square identified as being required to meet the
overall park obligation shall be identified on the first final map.
C. Prior to the approval of each final map for the project , or, for any residential
development project within Village 8 West that does not require a final map, prior to
building permit approval, the Applicant(s) shall pay Park Acquisition and Development
in-lieu fees for the area covered by the final map(s). The payment of in -lieu fees shall be
in accordance with the phasing indicated in the Project’s approved SPA Plan, and a
park agreement subject to approval of the Directors of Recreation and Development
Services. In-lieu fees shall be based on the Park Acquisition and Development fees in
effect at the time of issuance of building permits, unless stated otherwise in a parks or
development agreement.
D. Prior to issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the
Applicant(s) shall pay recreation facility development impact fees (part of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee) in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of
3 The PFDIF Fee for Recreation Facilities is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. The
Recreation Fee is based upon the City of Chula Vista’s Development Checklist for Municipal Code
Requirements, Form 5509, and Revised October 1, 2012. The total number of dwelling units filed on the final
map or for which building permits are required shall determine the actual fee amount. Unless stated
otherwise in a separate parks or development agreement the applicant shall pay the PFDIF in effect at the
time building permits are issued.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.6-11
building permit issuance and phasing approved in the PFFP for the Project’s SPA Plan,
subject to approval of the Directors of Recreation and Development Services.
E. Prior to approval of any final map of the Project containing trails, easements or right-of-
way for the trails will be offered for dedication.
F. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project a Maintenance Landscape
Master Plan and Responsibility Map will submitted to for approval by the Director of
Development Services. The Maintenance Landscape Master Plan will contain a matrix of
which landscaping improvements will be maintained with general funds and which will
require a separate, identified funding mechanism.
G. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project a Community Facilities District, or
other funding mechanism to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, shall be
established for landscaping and streetscape maintenance within the public right of way
and maintenance of public open space.
H. Prior to the approval of the first map for the Project the Project shall annex into the Otay
Ranch Preserve Maintenance CFD.
I. Prior to recordation of each final “B” map, the developer shall convey or shall have
conveyed at least 1.118 acres of habitat for each acre of development area within the
map area as defined in the Resource Management Plan (RMP), (a total of
approximately 212.4 acres) to the Otay Ranch Preserve pursuant to the Otay Ranch.
RMP. Conveyance of the habitat meets the City’s threshold standard for conveyance
obligation of Preserve open space. The actual number of acres to be conveyed with
each final map will be determined during final map review.
J. The Town Square Park shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services prior to the issuance of the 383rd residential building permit in the
Orange Phase.
K. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City that provides for the following: dedication of public park sites,
payment of PAD fees, schedule for completion of improvements, including utilities, to
streets adjacent to the park sites, all to the satisfaction of the Directors of Recreation,
Public Works and Development Services. Under the current method for delivery of new
parks the City will award a design-build contract for the Project’s Neighborhood and
Community Parks. The agreement will include provisions that in the event the City
chooses not go forward with a design-build contract, the developer will be obligated to
fully comply with the Parkland Ordinance and park threshold standards by constructing
the parks in accordance with all City standards and under a time schedule as specified
in the agreement.
4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.6-12
EXHIBIT 4.6.1 DESIGNATED PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Source: Village 8 West SPA Plan, May, 2012
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.7-1
4.7 WATER
4.7.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water
District for each project, as defined by the City.
2. The City annually provides the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater
Authority, and the Otay Water District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and
requests an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing
growth. The Districts' replies should address the following:
A. Water availability to the City and planning area, considering both short and long
term perspectives;
B. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed ;
C. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth;
D. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities;
E. Other relevant information the District(s) desire(s) to communicate to the City and GMOC.
The growth forecast and water district response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for
inclusion in its review.
4.7.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
The Otay Water District (OWD) will provide potable and recycled water service for the Village 8
West SPA Plan (Project) area. The district has existing and planned facilities in the vicinity of the
Project site. Expanding the existing system can provide future water service.
The Final Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Village 8 West, dated November 2010, by
Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. (Wilson Water Study) and the Otay Water District Water Supply
Assessment and Verification Report, (WSA&V) dated November 2010, by Robert Kennedy, P.E.,
Associate Civil Engineer for OWD provide the basis for this section of th is PFFP. The Wilson report
provides recommendations for improvements that are needed to provide potable and recycled
water service to the proposed development. The WSA&V includes an identification of existing
water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the
identified water supply needs for the Project. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the
Project the developer shall also prepare a potable and reclaimed water Subarea Water Master
Plan (SAMP) and gain approval of the SAMP from OWD. The SAMP will be reviewed by the City
of Chula Vista, the City’s Fire Marshal and OWD prior to approval of the first final map for the
Project. The SAMP will provide more detailed information on the Project such as project phasing;
recycled water system improvements, processing requirements and computer modeling to
justify recommended pipe sizes. OWD will not approve final engineering improvement plans until
a SAMP has been approved for the Project. The SAMP will identify all water and reclaimed water
facilities needed to serve the Project (including on-site and off-site of the Project) and the party
responsible for the funding and construction of the identified improvements. In addition, no Final
Map for the Project will be approved until the needed on -site and off-site facilities have been
identified, secured and/or constructed, as approved by OWD and the City. The Project will be
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.7-2
required to provide all facilities needed to serve the Project when constructed without relying on
the phased construction of adjacent projects, which are planned to provide improvements.
The design criteria implemented to evaluate the potable and recycled water systems for the
Project are in accordance with the Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan, October
2008 (revised Nov. 2010)(WRMP) or as referenced in the Wilson Water Study. The design criteria
are utilized for analysis of the existing water system as well as for design and sizing of proposed
improvements and expansions to the existing system to accommodate demands in the study
area.
OWD prepared the WSA&V Report at the request of the City of Chula Vista (City). The WSA&V
Report identifies that the water demand projections for the Project are included in the water
demand and supply forecasts within the Urban Water Management Plans and other water
resources planning documents of OWD, the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority),
and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Water supplies necessary to serve
the demands of the Project, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the
actions necessary to develop these supplies, have been identified in the water supply planning
documents of OWD, the Water Authority, and MWD. Further, the WSA&V Report demonstrates and
verifies that sufficient water supplies are to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, and in
single- and multiple-dry years to meet the projected demand of the Project and the existing and
other planned development projects within the OWD service area.
Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643- Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642. Statutes of
2001) amended state law effective July 23, 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on
water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and
SB 221 are companion measures, which seek to promote more collaborative planning between
local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information
regarding water availability to be provided to the city and count y decision-makers prior to
approval of specified large development projects. Both statutes also require this detailed
information be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an
approval action by the city or county on such projects. Both measures recognize local control
and decision-making regarding the availability of water for projects and the approval of
projects. The OWD Board of Directors’ approved (on January, 6 2011) WSA&V Report for Otay
Ranch Village 8 West finding the report meets the requirements of Senate Bills 221 and 610.
4.7.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The SPA Plan and this PFFP are required by the Growth Management Program to address the
following issues for water services.
1. Identify phased demands in conformance with street improvements and in coordination
with the construction of water and recycled water facilities.
2. Identify location of facilities for on-site and offsite improvements in conformance with the
master plan of the water district serving the Project.
3. Provide cost estimates and proposed financing responsibilities.
4. Identify financing methods.
5. A Water Conservation Plan shall be required for all major development projects (50
dwelling units or greater, or commercial and industrial projects wit h 50 EDUs of water
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.7-3
demand or greater.) The applicant shall submit a water conservation plan along with the
SPA Plan Application.
4.7.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Most of the water used in the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) area is imported from
the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). MWD receives its water supply through the State Water
Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct. The SDCWA conveys water from the MWD to local
purveyors within San Diego County.
The Project is within the OWD Central Service Area (see Exhibit 4.7.1). Potable water is delivered
to the Central Service Area via the Second San Diego Aqueduct. The Project will be served by
the 624 pressure zone (PZ) and 711 PZ; the Project will need to expand the existing distribution
system piping within both pressure zones to receive potable water service. The improvements
needed shall be consistent with OWD’s established criteria for determining pressure zones. The
criteria address minimum and maximum allowable pressures and maximum velocity thresholds
within the distribution system piping under specific system operating conditions.
Pipelines in the vicinity of Project include a 12-inch line in La Media Road and a 12-inch line in
Main Street that will be extended to serve the Project.
The southern and northwest portions of the Project will be served by the 624 PZ. The OWD Master
Plan identifies a 624 PZ distribution main that will be extended from Heritage Road to the west and
a line from Otay Valley Road to the east that will ultimately supply this area1. If these OWD
improvements are not constructed, or if they are affected by circulation element changes, the
Overview of Water Service (Wilson) recommends that a temporary 711/624 PZ pressure reducing
station be installed to supply water to the 624 PZ portions of the Project until these ultimate
pipelines or their functional equivalents are constructed. The off-site improvements through the
Project, connecting to the 624 PZ system are needed for the Project’s southern portion to develop
unless the Project constructs temporary onsite improvements to meet OWD redundancy
requirements subject to City and OWD approval. If the OWD 624 PZ projects have not been
constructed and connected to the Project’s 624 PZ system prior to issuance of the final map
containing the 70th equivalent dwelling units in the 624 PZ area of the Project, the 711 PZ system
to the north would be expanded and additional temporary 711/624 PZ pressure reducing
stations would be installed as needed to serve the Project.
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA development will connect to an existing 711 PZ 12 -inch water line
in Magdalena Avenue (see Exhibit 4.7.2 for location of existing potable water lines). Based on
the projected demands and system looping, on-site potable water facilities will likely range from
8 to 12 inches in diameter, pending final land use and fire flow requirements.
The Project will be required to provide all potable water improvements needed to serve the
Project when constructed without relying on the phased construction of adjacent projects,
which are planned to provide improvements.
The expected demand for the Project is approximately 0.79 mgd according to the Wilson Water
Study and such demand is included in the OWD Water Resources Master Plan update
1 The OWD Water Resources Master Plan (Nov. 2010) indicates proposed 12” 624 lines along both
the Main St. and Otay Valley Rd. alignments between Heritage Rd. and Village 8 West.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.7-4
(November 2010). The WSA&V demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are
planned and are intended to be available over a 20 -year planning horizon, under normal
conditions and in single- and multiple-dry years to meet the projected demand of the Project,
and the existing and other planned development projects within OWD, including Otay Ranch
Villages 8 East and 9.
Additional review of water demand and availability will occur with preparation of the Subarea
Master Plan (SAMP) for Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA and approved by the OWD, to assure
that sufficient supplies are planned to be available as demand is generate d by the Project.
Current OWD policies regarding new development require the use of recycled water where
available. Consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP, it is anticipated that recycled water will be used
to irrigate street parkway landscaping, the Town Square, the Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
site, public parks, manufactured slopes along the westerly open space areas, and landscaped
areas of mixed-use and multi-family sites. Recycled water is currently available to the Otay
Ranch area from the 1.3 mgd capacity Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility located
near the intersection of Singer Lane and Highway 94. Recycled water will be delivered to the
Project by extending the 680 Zone recycled water system from the 12-inch line in La Media Road
that currently terminates north of the Project.2
The Project will be required to provide all recycled water improvements needed to serve the
Project when constructed without relying on the phased construction of adjacent projects,
which are planned to provide improvements.
4.7.5 ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
A. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
A Water Conservation Plan is required for all major development projects (50 dwelling units or
greater, or commercial and industrial projects with 50 EDUs of water demand or greater). This
plan is required at the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan level or equivalent for projects which
are not processed through a Planned Community Zone. The city has adopted guidelines for the
preparation and implementation of the Water Conservation Plan.
Appendix G of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA, dated January 2012, contains the Final Otay
Ranch Village 8 West Water Conservation Plan (November 2010) by Dexter Wilson Engineering,
Inc. providing an analysis of water usage requirements of the Project, as well as a detailed plan
of proposed measures for water conservation, use of recycled water, and other means of
reducing per capita water consumption from the Project, as well as defining a program to
monitor compliance. The Water Conservation Plan is presented in the Sustainability Element
within the SPA Plan document and therefore is not included in th is PFFP.
B. OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA WATER DEMAND
Table 4.7.1 shows the potable water demands within the Project. Ultimate average potable water
demand for the Project, based on current land-use planning, is approximately 0.79 million gallons
per day or about 881 acre-feet per year. The demand rate for each land use is shown as well.
2 The OWD WRMP also shows proposed 680 zone recycled water pipelines along Main St. and
Otay Valley Rd. between Heritage Rd. and Village 8 West.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.7-5
TABLE 4.7.1 POTABLE WATER DEMANDS
Land Use Quantity Unit Demand
Required
Fire Flow
(gpm)
Required
Fire Flow
Duration
Hours
Total Demand
(gpd)
Single Family (units) 621 500 gpd/unit1 1,500 2 310,500
Multi-Family (units) 1429 255 gpd/unit 2,500 2 364,395
Schools (ac) 31.6 1,428 gpd/acre 5,000 4 45,125
Commercial (ksf) 300 0.14 gpd/sf 3,500 3 42,000
CPF (ac) 5.8 714 gpd/acre 3,500 3 4,141
Parks (ac) 28.0 ---2 19,270
TOTAL 785,431
1500 gallon per day demand for single family homes applies to homes that are less than 3,600 sq. ft.
2 Planning Areas A, G and T will be irrigated with recycled water. Nominal potable water use in parks anticipated
drinking fountains and comfort stations; potable water demand is based on a fixture unit study
Source: Wilson study.
The water demands are consistent with the approved SB610/221 Water Supply Assessment and
Verification report presented and approved by the OWD Board in January 2011. The Technica l
Water Study was approved by OWD in January 2011.
Based on assumed project phasing identified in the Wilson Water Study, Table 4.7.2 summarizes
the expected potable water demands for each phase of the Project.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.7-6
TABLE 4.7.2 POTABLE WATER DEMANDS BY PHASE
Source: PMC and Wilson Water Study Table 2-2. Total is off by 1,144 gdp from the Water Study Table 2.2
due to the school site in the Yellow Phase that is 0.80 acres smaller in the final SPA Plan than the site
acreage assumed in the Wilson Water Study. Units and acreages may shift between phases as provided in
the density and intensity transfer provisions of the SPA, but the total water demand shall remain the same.
Land Use Quantity Total Demand (gpd)
Single Family (units)117 500 gpd/unit 58,500
Multi-Family (units)351 255 gpd/unit 89,505
Schools (ac)1428 gpd/acre 0
Commercial (sf)174,000 0.14 gpd/sf 24,360
CPF (ac)714 gpd/acre 0
Parks (ac)3.0 0 ---1,230
Subtotal 173,595
Land Use Quantity Total Demand (gpd)
Single Family (units)284 500 0 142,000
Multi-Family (units)0 255 0 0
Schools (ac)1428 0 0
Commercial (sf)0 0.14 0 0
CPF (ac)714 0 0
Parks (ac)0 ---
Subtotal 142,000
Land Use Quantity Total Demand (gpd)
Single Family (units)0 500 0 0
Multi-Family (units)765 255 0 195,075
Schools (ac)20.2 1428 0 28,846
Commercial (sf)126,000 0.14 0 17,640
CPF (ac)714 0 0
Parks (ac)17.4 0 ---15,370
Subtotal 256,931
Land Use Quantity Total Demand (gpd)
Single Family (units)220 500 0 110,000
Multi-Family (units)0 255 0 0
Schools (ac)1428 0 0
Commercial (sf)0 0.14 0 0
CPF (ac)714 0 0
Parks (ac)7.5 0 ---2,670
Subtotal 112,670
Land Use Quantity Total Demand (gpd)
Single Family (units)0 500 0 0
Multi-Family (units)313 255 0 79,815
Schools (ac)11.4 1428 0 16,280
Commercial (sf)0 0.14 0 0
CPF (ac)5.8 714 0 4,140
Parks (ac)0 ---
Subtotal 100,235
TOTAL 785,431
Unit Demand
Purple
Unit Demand
Green
Unit Demand
Unit Demand
Orange
Blue
Unit Demand
Yellow
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.7-7
RECYCLED WATER
Current land use planning for the Project results in an average day demand of 137,270 gpd for
the Project, which is less than OWD's planned usage for the Project. The most prevalent recycled
water use within the Project will be for landscape irrigation, such as watering medians, parks,
open space, and common areas. The recycled water demands are presented in Table 4.7.3.
TABLE 4.7.3 AVERAGE RECYCLED WATER DEMAND BY LAND USE
4.7.6 EXISTING WATER FACILITIES
POTABLE WATER
Otay Water District will supply the potable water to Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA. The district
currently relies solely on the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for water supply. The
OWD has several connections to SDCWA Pipeline No. 4 which delivers filtered water from the
Metropolitan Water District's filtration plant at Lake Skinner in Riverside County. The OWD also has
a connection to the La Mesa - Sweetwater Extension Pipeline, which delivers, filtered water from
the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant in the Helix Water District. Currently, this connection supplies
water to the north portion of the OWD only. The OWD has a connection to the City of San
Diego's water system in Telegraph Canyon Road and has an agreement that allows them to
receive water from the Lower Otay Filtration Plant.
Fire flow within the Project was evaluated as part of the Wilson Water Study. The fire flow
requirements for each building within the Project will be a function of building design including
height and structure type. As part of the building permit process, the City of Chula Vista Fire
Department will evaluate fire flow requirements. The Applicant is required to prepare a final
Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) prior to approval of the first final map. The SAMP will be approved
by OWD as well as the City of Chula Vista. Among other topics, the SAMP will identify existing on -
and off-site pipeline locations, sizes and capacities, the corresponding party responsible for the
funding and construction of these facilities, and the City of Chula Vista’s fire flow requirements
(flow rate, duration, hydrant spacing, etc). The Project’s on-site system would meet a fire flow of
between 1,500 and 5,000 gpm depending on land use per Table 4.7.1.
Land Use
Area
(acres)
Percent to be
Irrigated
Irrigated
Acreage
Recycled Water
Irrigation Factor
(gpd/ac)
Average Recycled
Water Demand
(gpd)
Open Space Slopes 1 20.0 100%20.0 2155 43,100
Parks 2 28.0 100%28.0 2155 60,340
Schools 32.4 20%6.5 2,155 14,010
CPF 5.8 10%0.6 2155 1,290
Mixed Use 42.2 10%4.2 2155 9,050
Multi-Family Residential3 29.5 15%4.4 2155 9,480
TOTAL 137,270
Source: Wilson Study
1 Preliminary Estimate.
2 Planning Areas A, G and T will be irrigated with recycled water. See Wilson study.
3 Common area landscaping only
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.7-8
RECYCLED WATER
Existing recycled water distribution mains may be extended to serve the Project, including an
existing 12-inch main (680 PZ) to the north in La Media Road. While there is an existing 927 PZ 12-
inch recycled water main in Magdalena Ave., 927 PZ water will not be used in Village 8 West. On-
site recycled water pipelines would most likely be sized at 8-inch diameter, unless otherwise
directed by OWD. The proposed recycled water system layout is shown on Exhibit 4.7.4.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO WATER
Several City of San Diego water transmission lines traverse the Project including 44-inch, 54-inch,
and 2 33-inch pipelines. These pipelines are generally located along a northwest to southeast
alignment within the Project area; the Project will not obtain water from these pipelines.
4.7.7 PROPOSED FACILITIES
A. POTABLE WATER:
Wilson determined that the projected water demands of the Project, the system looping, and
on-site potable water facilities will likely range from 8 to 16-inches in diameter pending final land
use and fire flow requirements. A network of looped distribution mains is planned to serve the
Project. The potable water on-site distribution network is shown on Exhibit 4.7.3. The water
distribution system improvements required for each phase and the planning units within each
phase are listed in Table 4.7.4 and shown on Exhibit 4.7.4. The developer will be required to
provide all potable water improvements needed to serve the Project when constructed without
relying on the phased construction of adjacent projects, which are planned to provide
improvements.
B. RECYCLED WATER
Exhibit 4.7.5 illustrates the recommended the on-site distribution network for recycled water and
potential recycled water use areas within the Project .
C. CITY OF SAN DIEGO WATER
Prior to the approval of the first final map or issuance of the first grading permit for the Project,
whichever comes first, the developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the City of
San Diego to relocate the City of San Diego’s water lines to within the public streets. The
agreement will contain provisions for phased relocation of the water lines, shall identify Village 8
West EDU triggers for commencement and completion of relocation milestones, and identify
future rights and responsibilities of the City of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista and the
developer, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. If the City of San Diego
water lines are not relocated, or an agreement for the relocation has not been executed prior
to the approval of the 1st final map of the Project, or issuance of a grading permit for the Project
the developer will be required to revise/update the SPA Plan to reflect conditions with the
current alignment of the water lines.
4.7.8 FINANCING WATER FACILITIES
The financing and construction of potable water facilities is provided by three methods:
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.7-9
CAPACITY FEES:
In conjunction with its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) the Otay Water District
facilitates design and construction of facilities and collects an appropriate share of the
cost from developers through collection of capacity fees charged to water meter
purchases. Capital Improvement Projects typically include supply sources, pumping
facilities, operational storage, terminal storage, and transmission mains.
WATER SUPPLY FEES
The OWD Board of Directors adopted a new Water Supply Fee effective June, 2010 to
offset the cost of bringing new water supplies to the District’s service areas. The fee is
charged by water meter size; the fee for a typical 1” meter for a single -family home is
$2,230. The current fee schedule may be found on-line in “OWD Code of Ordinances”
(Code No 28.01 B2)
EXACTION:
The developer is required to finance, construct, and dedicate to the OWD potable water
and recycled water facilities that serve only their development. The developer shall be
required to finance, construct, and dedicate the relocated City of San Diego Water
facilities to the City of San Diego.
TABLE 4.7.4 WATER FACILITIES BY PHASE
Phase Planning Area Water Improvements
Orange B, G, H-1, H-2, I,
J, and N
12” extension @ La Media Road
12” W106
12” W107
12” line in Main Street (SE)
8” lines @ Streets “C”, “D”, “F” and “G”
PRS 711/624 Zone
Blue P and Q 12” water extension @ La Media Road
12” W106
PRS 711/624 Zone
12” W402
12” W404
12” line in Street “A”
8” lines in Streets “D”, “H”, “I”, “J” and “K”
Purple T, U, and V 12” water extension @ La Media Road
12” W106
PRS 711/624 Zone
12” W402
8” lines in Streets “E” and “L”
8” line in P.A. U
12” line in Street “A”
Yellow A, C, D, E, F, and
L
12” W107
12” line in Street “A”
12” line in Main Street (SE)
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.7-10
Phase Planning Area Water Improvements
Green M, O, R, and S 12” water extension @ La Media Road
12” W106
PRS 711/624 Zone
8” line in Street “A”
12” line in Street “A”
12” line in Street “B”
12” W402
Source: Wilson Study, Table 5-1
POTABLE WATER IMPROVEMENT COSTS
The total capital cost for potable water facilities will be determined at the time the system is
designed and the SAMP is approved. In accordance with District Policy No. 26, the District may
provide reimbursement for construction and design costs associated with development of these
improvements.
RECYCLED WATER IMPROVEMENT COSTS
The total capital cost for recycled water facilities will be determined at the time the system is
designed and the SAMP is approved. The District may provide reimbursement for construction
and design costs associated with development of these improvements.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO WATER IMPROVEMENT COSTS
The total capital cost for relocation of City of San Diego’s facilities will be determined at the time
the system is designed and improvements plans approved by the Cit ies of San Diego and Chula
Vista.
4.7.9 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Pursuant to SB 221the developer shall request and deliver to the City written verification
of water supply from the appropriate water district prior to the approval of the first final map for
the Project. This PFFP was prepared prior to the completion of the recycled and potable SAMP.
Facility requirements may change based on the SAMP findings including, reservoir requirements,
pipe sizes and distribution alignments;
2. Prior to approval of each Final Map for the Project, the developer shall obtain the
approval of the SAMP from the Otay Water District and the City of Chula Vista. Potable and
recycled water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on -site and off-site in
accordance with the fees and phasing in the SAMP approved by the OWD. The Subarea Master
Plan shall include, but shall not be limited to:
A. Existing pipeline locations, size, and capacity;
B. The proposed points of connection and system;
C. The estimated potable and recycled water demand calculations;
D. Governing fire department’s flow requirements (flow rate, duration, hydrant spacing,
etc);
E. Water Agency Master Plan;
F. Water Agency’s planning criteria (see Sections 4.1 through 4.3 of the Water Agencies
Standards);
G. Water quality maintenance; and
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.7-11
H. Size of the system and number of lots to be served.
3. Developer shall construct all facilities needed for the Project as determined by the
approved SAMP including any upsizing of or additional potable or rec ycled facilities above and
beyond what the potable and recycled water technical reports have determined;
4. The developer shall be responsible for construction and funding the Project
improvements required by OWD if the improvements are not covered by a funded OWD capital
improvement program (CIP);
5. The developer shall be responsible for funding the City of San Diego improvements
pursuant to that City’s requirements. The developer shall coordinate with the City of Chula Vista
and the City of San Diego for a joint use agreement regarding the placement of City of San
Diego facilities within City of Chula Vista’s streets or other public ways. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit within any area owned or encumbered by City of San Diego easements , the
developer shall obtain a letter of permission from the City of San Diego;
6. The developer shall extend recycled water mains to all parks and large open space
areas as shown on SPA Exhibit 8.2
7. Prior to design review approval in accordance with the Intensity Transfer provision in the
Village 8 West SPA, the applicant shall provide a water supply technical report with each
proposed project requesting an intensity transfer. The technical study shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that adequate onsit e water infrastructure will be available to
support the transfer. The transfer of residential density shall be limited by the ability of the on-site
water supply infrastructure to accommodate flows.
8. The Project developers shall comply with the Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation
Ordinance, shall prepare and submit for approval by the Director of Development Services a
Water Conservation Plan and submit landscaping plans that indicate the utilization of recycled
water where appropriate to reduce water demand.
9. Prior to issuance of the final map containing the 70th equivalent dwelling units in the 624
PZ area of the Project, if the OWD 624 PZ system has not been extended to Village 8 West, the
711 PZ system to the north would be expanded and additional temporary 711/624 PZ pressure
reducing stations would be installed as needed to serve the southerly and northwesterly areas of
the Project.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.7-12
711 Pressure Zone (proposed)
980 Pressure Zone (proposed)
624 Pressure Zone (proposed)
EXHIBIT 4.7.1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT-CENTRAL AREA CIP (EXCERPT)
Source: 2010 OWD WRMP Exhibit iV
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.7-13
EXHIBIT 4.7.2 OFF-SITE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES
Source: Wilson Study, Figure 3-1
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.7-14
EXHIBIT 4.7.3 ON-SITE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES
Source: Wilson Study, Figure 4-1
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.7-15
EXHIBIT 4.7.4 WATER FACILITIES PHASING PLAN
Source: Wilson Study, Figure 5-2
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.7 WATER
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.7-16
EXHIBIT 4.7.5 ON-SITE RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES
Source: Wilson Study, Figure 4-2
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.8 SEWER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.8-1
4.8 SEWER
4.8.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
1. Sewage flows and volumes in pipes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards as set
forth in the subdivision manual adopted by City Council Resolution No. 11175, as may be
amended from time to time.
2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority (METRO) with
a 12-18 month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is
within the City’s purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to
accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the City of Chula Vista Public
Works Department staff will gather the necessary data.
The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following:
a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed;
b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth ;
c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities;
d. Other relevant information.
4.8.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
The City of Chula Vista currently purchases capacity for wastewater treatment through the City
of San Diego METRO system. Chula Vista oversees the construction, maintenance and the
operation of the sewer collection facilities. The City Engineer is responsible for reviewing
proposed developments and ensuring that the necessary sewer facilities are provided with each
development project.
The Sewer Threshold Standard was developed to maintain healthful, sanitary sew er collection
and disposal systems for the City of Chula Vista. Individual projects are required to provide
necessary improvements consistent with the City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan dated
May 2005 and shall comply with all city engineering standards.
The source of information regarding the existing and recommended sewer facilities is from the
Final Overview of Sewer Service for Otay Ranch Village 8 West, dated November 2010, by Dexter
Wilson Engineering, Inc. This study is referred to as the Wilson Sewer Report throughout this PFFP.
Otay Land Company’s approximately 320-acre project consists of commercial and low, medium
and high-density residential land uses, as well as several parks, an elementary school site and a
middle school site. The existing City of San Diego reservoir (approximately 20-acre site) is
located in the center of the Project. Table 4.8.1 summarizes the various land uses for the Project.
A more detailed breakdown of these land uses is provided in the Wilson Sewer Report in Table 1-
1. In addition, the land uses and densities assumed for the study are consistent with those
evaluated in the adopted General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan
amendments. However, final land uses, acreages, and location of certain land uses may vary.
4.8 SEWER OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.8-2
TABLE 4.8.1 LAND USE SUMMARY AND SEWAGE GENERATION
4.8.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The SPA Plan and the PFFP are required by the Growth Management Program to address the
following issues for Sewer Services:
1. Identify phased demands for all sewer trunk lines in conformance with the street
improvements and in coordination with the construction of water facilities.
2. Identify location of sewer facilities for on-site and offsite improvements, in conformance
with the Wilson Sewer Report.
3. Provide cost estimates for all facilities and proposed financing responsibilities.
4. Identify financing methods.
Land Use
Gross
Acres
Maximum
Units
Total Flow
(gpd)
Single-Family Residential 93 621 265 gpd/unit 164,570
Multi-Family Residential 29.5 530 199 gpd/unit 105,470
Mixed-Use
Residential1 26.2 899 199 gpd/unit 178,900
Commercial1 14.5 2,500 gpd/acre 36,250
Community Purpose Facility Site 5.8 2,500 gpd/acre 14,500
Middle School (1200 students)20.2 20 gpd/student 24,000
Elementary School (800 students)11.4 15 gpd/student 12,000
Parks 27.9 500 gpd/acre 14,000
Open Space & MSCP Preserve 39.1 0 0
Right of Way (arterials)2 30.1 0 0
Storm Water Retention Basin 2.4 0 0
City of San Diego Reservoir 20 0 0
Total Gross Acres/Total Units 320.1 2,050 Average Sewage Flow 549,700
With Peak Factor 1,070,000
Unit Flow
2 The ROW for other street classifications are included in the gross acres for the adjacent land uses. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed the City of San Diego's waterline easements will be abandoned
when the waterlines are moved to within the arterial road ROW.
Sources: Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Site Utilization Summary, January, 2012; Dexter Wilson
Engineering, November, 2010
1 The acreage split between residential and commercial in the mixed-use area is assumed based on
typical floor area ratios in order to assign an acreage for commercial land uses. The actual acreage
composition for the mixed-use site will be determined when specific site plans are submitted as part of
the design review process.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.8 SEWER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.8-3
4.8.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sanitary sewer service for the Project will be provided by the City of Chula Vista (City). Th e City
operates and maintains its own sanitary collection system that connects to the METRO
wastewater treatment system. All wastewater generated within the Project will be conveyed to
the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor that discharges into the METRO system. The wastewater is
ultimately treated by the City of San Diego at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Facility.
SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN:
There are no existing sewer facilities within the Project area. There are existing sewer facilities
within Villages 2 and 7 located north of the Project. The Salt Creek Interceptor is located
approximately 1,500 feet south of the Project. A 36-inch line exists at the point where the
Interceptor passes the Project area. A connection will be made to the Salt Creek Interceptor to
serve the southern portion of the Project. The Salt Creek Interceptor conveys flows westerly to a
point of connection with the METRO System.
4.8.5 ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
Sewer flows generated by the Project were estimated by the Wilson Sewer Report . The estimates
were based on current City planning criteria for the permanent and interim on-site sewer system
conditions. These estimated flows are the basis for design of new sewer facilities and the
evaluation of existing facilities that will serve the Project.
A. WASTEWATER TREATMENT:
The METRO system provides sewer treatment services for the City of Chula Vista and 14 other
participating agencies in accordance with the terms of a multi -agency agreement (METRO
Agreement). The METRO system currently has ade quate sewage treatment capacity to serve
the region until approximately 2025. The Developer shall pay capacity fees prior to building
permit issuance. Development shall not occur without adequate sewer capacity as determined
by the City Engineer. Building permits will not be issued if the City Engineer has determined that
adequate sewer capacity does not exist. All development must comply with the Municipal
Code, specifically, Municipal Code sections 19.09.010(A) 6 and 13.14.030.
The City of Chula Vista wastewater treatment capacity rights in the METRO System are 20.864 mgd.
The City currently generates an average flow of approximately 16.2 mgd; therefore, the City has
reserve capacity of approximately 4.645 mgd. However, as a result of densification in the 2005
General Plan Update, the projected year 2030 average flow for the preferred alternative was
increased to 26.2 mgd. The City would need to acquire capacity rights for an additional 5.4 mgd to
accommodate year 2030 flows.
PBS&J (now Atkins) prepared a study as a supporting document to the Village 8 West and Village 9
Program EIR1, analyzing treatment plant capacity relative to land uses in the adopted 2005
General Plan Update including the increased densities of Village 8 West and Village 9. The stud y
also served to assess the need to acquire additional treatment plant capacity. The PBS&J Study
includes the potential increased flows from development of the Bayfront Redevelopment
1 Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study for the South Otay Ranch (Village 8 West and Village 9),
October, 2010
4.8 SEWER OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.8-4
project and indicates that the total future treatment capacity in the cu mulative condition may
be as high as 32.5 mgd, leaving the City 11.7 mgd above its total 2030 allocation. However,
there is regional sewer treatment capacity available. The City does not wish to buy more
capacity than is actually needed. The City will either purchase capacity as needed, or suspend
the issuance building permits until the needed capacity is acquired. The estimated balance of
the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve fund (fund 413) is $39,122,2002. Based on the estimated current
METRO capacity purchase price of $21/gallon/day3 this translates into 1.9 mgd of additional
capacity that could be purchased 4. The City is evaluating the benefits of paying the City of San
Diego for treatment or providing for treatment in alternative ways.
B. WASTEWATER GENERATION:
In accordance with the City of Chula Vista’s 2002 Subdivision Manual, the Wilson Sewer Report
used the City sewage generation rates to estimate the total annual average wastewater flows
produced from the Project. These estimated flows form the basis for design of the new sewer
facilities and evaluation of existing facilities that will serve the Project. Table 4.8.2 below
summarizes the criteria based on the City's Subdivision Manual.
TABLE 4.8.2 CHULA VISTA SUBDIVISION MANUAL DESIGN CRITERIA
Item
Subdivision Manual
Criteria
265 gpd/EDU
SF: 1DU = 1 EDU
MF: 1DU = 0.75 EDU
Commercial Sewage Generation 2,500 gpd/nac
Park Sewage Generation 500 gpd/nac
PVC Roughness Coefficient, n 0.012
0.5 for pipes <=12"
0.75 for pipes >12"
Residential Sewage Generation
d/D for proposed sewer pipe
Average wastewater generation rates at ultimate build-out, including the Project’s interim flows
from the Main Street trunk sewer (formerly Rock Mountain Trunk Sewer), are presented in Table
4.8.1 above. (The figures in the table do not reflect the upstream, off -site flows generated from
Otay Ranch Village 4, Village 7, and the EUC, the upstream flows are listed in Table 4.8.4)
On-site and offsite collection, trunk, and interceptor facilities were evaluated based on this
sewage flow. In addition, the City’s design criteria are used for analysis of the existing sewer
2 Estimated balance on 6/30/2013.
3 Based on estimated price of METRO capacity of $18 per gpd given in City of Chula Vista Wastewater
Master Plan Financial Analysis 2005 and annual inflation at 2%.
4 Note Fund 413 is used: 1) to repair, replace or enlarge trunk sewer facilities ;2) to enhance efficiency of
utilization and/or adequacy of capacity; or (2) to plan and/or evaluate any future proposals for area-wide
sewage treatment and/or water reclamations systems and facilitie s. 72% of the fund may be expected to
be used to fund the purchase of treatment capacity.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.8 SEWER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.8-5
system as well as for design and sizing of proposed improvements and expansions to the system
to accommodate the flows anticipated to be generated by the Project.
Table 4.8.3 summarizes the expected sewage generation for each phase of the Project. The Orange
and Yellow phases are dependent upon either 1) sewer facilities to be constructed within the Main
Street alignment through Village 4 (the Main Street trunk sewer), or 2) construction of an interim gravity,
deep sewer that connects to the proposed sewer in Otay Valley Road serving the southerly portion of
the Project and continuing southerly to the Salt Creek Interceptor. The facilities anticipated to serve
the Project are shown on Exhibit 4.8.2 (from Wilson Sewer Report Figure 4-1) and listed by phase on
Table 4.8.8 (from Wilson Table 5-1), based upon the on-site sewage generation projected as shown in
Table 4.8.3.
TABLE 4.8.3 ON-SITE SEWAGE GENERATION
Land Use
Generation
Rate
Average Annual Day Peak Flowa
ac/sf/students (gpd) (gpd)
Orange
Non-residential (sf) 174,000 2,500 21,030
Residential - SF 117 265 31,010
Residential - MF 351 199 69,850
Parks (ac) 3 500 1,500
Total Phase 1 123,390
Blue
Residential - SF 284 265 75,260
Total Phase 2 75,260
Yellow
Non-residential (sf) 126,000 2,500 15,230
Residential - SF 0 265 0
Residential - MF 765 199 152,240
Parks (ac) 17.4 500 8,700
Schools 1200 20 24,000
Total Phase 3 200,170
Purple
Non-residential (sf) 0 2,500
Residential - SF 220 265 58,300
Residential - MF 0 199 0
Parks (ac) 7.5 500 3,750
Total Phase 4 62,050
Green
Non-residential (sf) 0 2,500
Residential - SF 0 265 0
Residential - MF 313 199 62,290
Parks (ac) 0 500 0
Schools 800 15 12,000
CPF 5.8 2,500 14,500
Total Phase 4 88,790
All Phases Total 549,700 1,070,000
(a) Peaking factors per CVDS-18
Units and acreages may shift between phases subject to density and intensity
transfer provisions but the total sewer flow will remain the same
Source: PMC and Wilson Sewer study Table 2 -3
4.8 SEWER OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.8-6
C. ON-SITE SEWER COLLECTION
The Wilson Sewer Report analyzed the on-site sewer system using the maximum allowable
densities to determine the desired pipe sizes and slopes to meet the City's design criteria.
Detailed calculations for the on-site sewer system are provided in Wilson Sewer Study.
The on-site sewer collection system is expected to range from 8-inches to 15-inches in diameter,
depending on the projected flows, available grade, and anticipated land use. The on-site sewer
system was sized to accommodate density transfers as outlined in the Land Offer Agreement
(Document No. 28-0218696 recorded in the County of San Diego on April 24, 2008) between
Otay Land Company and the City allowing up to 15 percent of the units within a village to be
transferred to another planning area within the village, provided that the total of 2,050 units
allocated to the Project is not exceeded.
D. UPSTREAM OFF-SITE FLOWS:
Exhibit 4.8.1 shows major sewer facilities located in the vicinity of the Project. The on-site sewer
system in the northern portion of the Project will be required to be sized to accommodate flows
from the Village 4 Community Park, a portion of Village 7 and a portion of the Eastern Urban
Center (EUC). Table 4.8.4 summarizes the offsite flows based on the studies identified.
TABLE 4.8.4 UPSTREAM OFF-SITE SEWAGE FLOWS (AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS)
Development Sewage Flows
Village 4 Community Park 22,100 gpd
Village 7 (Wolf Canyon Basin-permanent condition) 217,494 gpd
Eastern Urban Center 660,297 gpd
Village 4 - Overview of Sewer Service for Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, a
portion of 4 and PA 18b (January 2006)
Village 7 - Conceptual Sewer Study by PBS&J (April 2004) not including
the Middle School Site and Planning Area R -4 that are now in Village 8
West
EUC - EUC Technical Study by PBS&J (January 2008)
The Wilson Sewer Report sized the on-site sewer collection to accommodate the estimated
upstream flows.
E. OFF-SITE PIPELINE CAPACITY:
As with other properties in the area, the intensity of the proposed development of the Project has
increased from that proposed in the original Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The previously
referenced study by PBS&J specifically analyzed the impact that the increased residential densities
in Village 8 West and Village 9 and other projects would have on the Salt Creek Interceptor.5 The
5 The City analyzed the Salt Creek Interceptor in its 2005 Wastewater Master Plan, which was completed before
adoption of the 2005 General Plan Update. The PBS&J study therefore includes all land use changes that have
occurred since completion the 2005 Master Plan, including the 2005 General Plan and Village 8 West and
Village 9.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.8 SEWER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.8-7
PBS&J study determined that there were no capacity problems downstream of Village 8 West and
Village 9.
4.8.6 RECOMMENDED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
The sewer facility improvements required to serve the Project include on-site and off-site gravity
sewer lines to accept upstream sewage flows, and off-site sewer line to convey the flows from the
Project to the Salt Creek Interceptor. Ultimately, flows in the northern portion of the Project as well as
the upstream off-site flows will flow westerly along the Main Street alignment within the Main Street
Trunk Sewer before connecting to the Salt Creek Interceptor.
INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS
In the interim condition, before completion of the Main Street Trunk Sewer, the Project developer will
construct the portion of the Main Street Trunk within Village 8 West and will terminate the Main Street
Trunk Sewer at the westerly boundary with Village 4. The Wilson Sewer Report describes the
temporary sewage facilities needed to serve the northerly areas of Village 8 West and the off-site
flows from the north (listed in Table 4.8.4: portions of Village 7, the EUC and the Community Park in
Village 4) until completion of the Main Street Trunk Sewer and its connection to the Salt Creek
Interceptor. The facilities include the deep sewer line within Main Street and Otay Valley Road as
shown on Exhibit 4.8.2 and a temporary flow diversion structure that will be installed on the Main
Street Trunk to direct flows into the deep sewer line. The off-site Main Street Trunk Sewer within Village
4 will be constructed by others. The Main Street Trunk line and the deep sewer have been sized to
accommodate both the off-site flows and the flows from northerly Village 8 West areas. When the
Main Street Trunk Sewer improvements are completed, including the western connection to the Salt
Creek Interceptor, the developer shall connect the Village 8 West portion of the Main Street Trunk to
the Village 4 portion, remove the diversion structure, and abandon the deep sewer line, all to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended on-site sewer lines internal to the Project will range from 8-inch to 15-inch
gravity sewers. Exhibit 4.8.2 illustrates the recommended on-site sewer main sizing for the Project
and shows the location of the proposed interim deep sewer. The phasing of internal sewer mains
is shown in Exhibit 4.8.3 and listed in Table 4.8.8 . The sizing of sewer lines in the Wilson Sewer Report
are considered preliminary and shall be verified during the improvement plan preparation process
when slopes and alignments for sewer lines have been better established.
SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN
The Project lies within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin. The southern portion of the Project, and in the
interim the northern portion of the Project, will sewer southerly through the Project to a 15-inch
sewer pipe to be constructed off-site and connecting to the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor.
CONNECTOR SEWER LINES
The Project’s SPA identifies five (5) phases of development which may occur non-sequentially.
The sewerage infrastructure needs by phase are identified Table 5-1 of the Wilson Sewer Report.
4.8 SEWER OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.8-8
4.8.7 FINANCING SEWERAGE FACILITIES
To fund the necessary improvements to the Salt Creek Interceptor including the Main Street trunk
sewer, the Salt Creek Sewer Impact Fee program was established by the City of Chula Vista. A
discussion of the required fees is provided in the following subsection A and B. Table 4.8.5 below
provides an estimate by phase of the sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units.
TABLE 4.8.5 SUMMARY OF EDUS BY PHASE
Phase: Orange Blue Yellow Purple Green
All
Phases
Land Use EDU Factor EDUs EDUs EDUs EDUs EDUs EDUs
Single
Family 1.00 EDU/unit 117 284 0 220 0
621
Multi-Family 0.75 EDU/unit 263.25
573.75
235
1072
Commercial
/Industrial 9.43 EDU/ac 79
57
137
CPF 9.43 EDU/ac
55
55
Elem School 0.0566 EDU/student
45
45.3
JH School 0.0755 EDU/student
90.6
90.6
Parks 1.89 EDU/ac 6
33 14
53
Total 465 284 755 234 335 2073
EDUs based on Salt Creek Sewer DIF.
EDU’s may shift between phases subject to density and intensity transfer provisions but the total sewer flow
will remain the same
A. SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN IMPACT FEES
The November 1994 Salt Creek Basin Study prepared by Wilson Engineering established a fee to
fund future improvements to the Salt Creek Interceptor System. In August 2004, the City of Chula
Vista updated the Salt Creek Sewer Basin Plan with the primary goal of ensuring that fees are more
fairly and equitably distributed amongst the remaining properties within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin,
and that sufficient funding will be available to complete the required improvements within the Salt
Creek Interceptor System. This fee is required to be paid by all future developments within the Salt
Creek Drainage Basin to fund improvements required to serve ultimate development within the
basin. Since the 2004 update, changes in land use density and distribution have altered the
basin’s sewer system requirements. Therefore, the developer shall participate in an update of the
Salt Creek Sewer Basin Plan and the Impact Fee program by funding a fair-share portion of a study
to determine the effects that the Village 8 West SPA and other projects will have on the Salt Creek
Sewer Basin Impact Fee’s area of benefit and the equitable distribution of its costs among all
contributors to the system.
City of Chula Vista Ordinance Number 2974 updated the fee to be paid for future development
within the Salt Creek Basin that connects to the existing system. Table 4.8.6 summarizes the fees to
be paid by each land use type. The fees are collected upon issuance of building permits at the
fee rates in effect at that time unless stated otherwise in a development agreement. The
projected estimate of the total Salt Creek Sewer Basin Fee revenue is $2.76 million based on the
maximum number of allowable EDUs and the current fee rate of $1,330 per EDU. The actual fee
revenue depends upon the final number of EDU’s, changes in acreages and/or fee revisions by
the City Council.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.8 SEWER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.8-9
TABLE 4.8.6 SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN IMPACT FEES
B. SEWERAGE PARTICIPATION (TREATMENT CAPACITY) FEE
In addition, the City of Chula Vista collects a Sewerage Participation Fee to aid in the cost of
processing sewage generated within the city. The fee is collected at the time of connection to
the public sewer for new development. Existing buildings are subject to the fee when plumbing
fixtures are added. For residential development the current fee $3,478 per EDU. Non -residential
projects are prorated based on the number of Equival ent Fixture Units (EFU). Table 4.8 .7 below
summarizes the estimated City Sewerage Participation Fee for the residential component of the
Project. The commercial component of the Project will be calculated for each specific
development proposal. The Sewerage Participation Fees for all project s will be calculated prior
to the issuance of building permits. The fee rate shown is as currently adopted and is subject to
change by the City Council.
TABLE 4.8.7 RESIDENTIAL SEWERAGE PARTICIPATION FEE
Phase:
Land Use EDU Factor EDUs Fee EDUs Fee EDUs Fee EDUs Fee EDUs Fee
Single Family 1.00 EDU/unit 117 155,600$ 284 377,700$ 0 -$ 220 292,600$ 0 -$
Multi-Family 0.75 EDU/unit 263 350,100$ -$ 574 763,100$ -$ 235 312,200$
Commercial 9.43 EDU/ac 79 105,500$ -$ 57 76,400$ -$ -$
CPF 9.43 EDU/ac -$ -$ -$ -$ 55 72,700$
Elem School 0.06 EDU/student -$ -$ -$ -$ 45 60,200$
JH School 0.08 EDU/student -$ -$ 90.6 120,500$ -$ -$
Parks 1.89 EDU/ac 6 7,500$ -$ 33 43,700$ 14 18,900$ -$
Total 465 618,700$ 284 377,700$ 755 1,003,700$ 234 311,500$ 335 445,100$
Grand Total 2,073 EDUs x =
EDU's may shift between phases subject to density and intensity transfer provisions of the SPA but the total will remain the same
Fees are based on $1,330/EDU, which is subject to change by the City Council. Fee amounts rounded to nearest $100.
Green
$1,330 /EDU $2,756,800
Orange Blue Yellow Purple
Phase SF EDUs SF Fee MF EDUs MF Fee
117 406,926$ 263.25 915,584$
284 987,752$ 0 -$
0 -$ 573.75 1,995,503$
220 765,160$ 0 -$
0 -$ 235 816,461$
Total 2,159,838$ 3,727,547$
Grand Total 5,887,385$
EDU's may shift between phases subject to density and intensity transfer provisions of
the SPA but the total will remain the same
Fees are based on $3,478/EDU, which is subject to change by the City Council. Fee
amounts are rounded to the nearest $100
Green
Orange
Blue
Yellow
Purple
4.8 SEWER OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.8-10
4.8.8 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Facilities to accommodate sewer flows have been identified in the Wilson Sewer Report.
The construction of new sewer lines must be completed before the construction of
streets.
B. All gravity sewers will be designed to convey peak wet weather flow. For pipes w ith
diameter of 12 inches and smaller, the sewers will be designed to convey this flow when
flowing half full. For pipes of diameter larger than 12 inches, the sewers will be designed
to convey peak wet weather flow when flowing at three -fourths of the pipe depth. All
new sewers will be designed to maintain a minimum velocity of two feet per second (fps)
at design capacity to prevent the deposition of solids.
C. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project, as related to any uses within the
Project, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the developer shall:
1. Obtain the approval for the improvement plan s and any necessary environmental
permits for the construction of the off-site sewer through the MSCP area to the Salt
Creek Interceptor and prior to the first final map for the Project, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer;
2. Commence and complete construction of the off-site sewer connection to the Salt
Creek Interceptor prior to issuance of the first building permit;
3. Enter into an agreement whereby the City will not issue building permits for units
located within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin if any portion of the Salt Creek Sewer
Interceptor, downstream of Otay Ranch Village 8 West, achieves a d/D of 0.85 ;
4. Enter into an agreement whereby the City will not issue building permits for the
Project if the City Engineer has determined, at his sole discret ion, that there is not
enough San Diego METRO treatment capacity for the Project;
5. The developer shall participate in an update of the Salt Creek Sewer Basin Plan and
the Impact Fee program by funding a fair-share portion of a study to determine the
effects the Village 8 West SPA and other projects will have on the Salt Creek Sewer
Basin Impact Fee’s area of benefit and determine an equitable distribution of the
system’s costs among all its contributors; and
6. Unless alternatives acceptable to the City Enginee r are implemented that allow
development areas to the west of the Project to connect to a sewer system, u pon
the completion of the Main Street Trunk Sewer in Village 4 (formerly Rock Mountain
Trunk Sewer), developer shall: 1) construct the connection to the Main Street Trunk
sewer in Village 4 and remove the sewer diverting structure; and (2) abandon the
approximately 2,800 feet long temporary deep gravity sewer along future Main
Street couplet and future Otay Valley Road. These sewer improvements shall be
constructed prior to issuance of the 1st building permit within Planning Areas “A”, “B”,
“C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “H-1”, “H-2”, “I”, and “J”
D. The developer of the Project shall:
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.8 SEWER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.8-11
1. At the request of the City Engineer contribute a fair-share portion of the cost of all
studies, reports and updates to current plans required to analyze the impacts of
increased sewer flows to existing sewer lines.
2. Assume the capital cost of all sewer lines, connections and other improvements as
may be required by the City Engineer, as identified within the Wilson Sewer Study
and in any updates thereto.
3. Pay all current sewer fees required by the City of Chula Vista.
4. Comply with Section 3-303 of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual.
5. Construct off-site connections as required by the City Engineer.
6. Prior to the approval of any density transfer resulting in an increase of either
residential dwelling units or commercial floor area in a planning area in excess of the
units or floor areas assumed in the Wilson Sewer Report for the Project, a revised
study of the proposed internal sewer collection system serving that planning area
shall be submitted for review and approval by Development Services Department to
verify that planned capacity of local sewer mains are available to ac commodate
the increased demand for those services.
4.8 SEWER OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.8-12
TABLE 4.8.8 SEWER FACILITY PHASING
Source: Wilson Sewer Report Table 5-1
Phase
Planning
Area Sewer Improvements
Orange B, G, H-1, H-2, I, J,
and N 8” sewer connection @ La Media Road
8” sewer @ La Media Road
8” sewer @ Main Street (North)
12” sewer connections @ Main Street (West &
East)
12” sewer @ Main Street (South)
15” sewer @ Main Street (South)
2-15” sewer mains @ La Media Road
8” sewer @ Streets “C”, “D”, “F”, “G”, and “H”
15” sewer @ Street “A”
15” sewer @ Street “L”
~2,000’ of 15” sewer
15” sewer connection to Salt Creek Interceptor
Blue P and Q 8” sewer @ Streets “D”, “E”, “K”, “J”, and “I”
15” sewer @ Street “L”
~2,000’ of 15” sewer
15” sewer connection to Salt Creek Interceptor
Purple T, U, and V 8” sewer @ Streets “E”, “M”, “L”, and southerly
of Planning Areas T and U
15” sewer @ Street “L”
~2,000’ of 15” sewer
15” sewer connection to Salt Creek Interceptor
Yellow A, C, D, E, F, and L 8” sewer connection @ La Media Road
8” sewer @ La Media Road
8” sewer @ Main Street (North)
12” sewer connections @ Main Street (West &
East)
12” sewer @ Main Street (South)
15” sewer @ Main Street (South)
15” sewer main @ La Media Road
15” sewer @ Street “A”
15” sewer @ Street “L”
~2,000’ of 15” sewer
15” sewer connection to Salt Creek Interceptor
Green M, O, R, and S 8” sewer @ Streets “A” and “B”
15” sewer @ Street “A”
15” sewer @ Street “L”
~2,000’ of 15” sewer
15” sewer connection to Salt Creek Interceptor
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.8 SEWER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.8-13
EXHIBIT 4.8.1 OFF-SITE SEWER FACILITIES
Source: Wilson Sewer Report Figure 3-1
4.8 SEWER OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.8-14
EXHIBIT 4.8.2 ON-SITE SEWER FACILITIES
Source: Wilson Sewer Report Figure 4-1
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.8 SEWER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.8-15
EXHIBIT 4.8.3 ON-SITE SEWER FACILITIES PHASING
Source: Wilson Sewer Report Figure 5-2
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.9 DRAINAGE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.9-1
4.9 DRAINAGE
4.9.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards as set forth in
the Subdivision Manual adopted by City Council Resolution No. 11175 on February 23,
1983, as may be amended from time to time.
2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City’s storm drain system to
determine its ability to meet the City’s goals and objectives above.
4.9.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
The City of Chula Vista Public Works Department is responsible for ensuring that safe and
efficient storm water drainage systems are provided concurrent with development in order to
protect the residents and property within the City. City staff is required to review individual
projects to ensure that improvements are provided which are consistent with the drainage
master plan(s) and that the project complies with all City engineering drainage standards.
The 2004 Drainage Master Plan prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula Vista consists of a city -
wide hydrologic analysis and an updated version of the City’s storm water conveyance system
GIS database.
The Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan drainage improvements are identified in the Preliminary
Drainage Study for Otay Ranch Village 8 West, revised December 8, 2012, prepared by Hale
Engineering (Hale Study). The Hale Study was prepared to assess the existing and developed
drainage conditions for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA project (Project). The Project site
drains to two basins: Wolf Canyon (northern portion of the site) and Otay Riv er (southern
portion). Wolf Canyon also ultimately discharges into the Otay River southwest of the Project.
The Hale Study was prepared in support of the drainage system shown on the preliminary Tentative
Map entitled “Otay Ranch Village 8 West” dated August 11, 2010. Consistent with the criteria set
forth in the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual (2003 edition), the Hale Study provides the
calculations required for the design of the proposed backbone storm drain system including:
Hydrologic models to quantify existing and developed site runoff to Wolf Canyon; and
Hydrologic models to quantify existing and developed site runoff to Otay River;
Mitigation of post-development peak flow increases has been addressed in a separate
hydromodification study1;. No calculations for hydromodification or storage routing have been
performed for discharge into Otay River, as Otay River Valley is an exempt facility from
hydromodification requirements. However a hydromodification analysis was done for flows
discharging into the Wolf Canyon drainage basin.
Wolf Canyon and Otay River watersheds have been studied previously in association with the
construction of major roadways and village developments in Otay Ranch.
The Hale Study relied upon the following documents and studies:
1 Hydromodification Study for Otay Ranch Village 8 West, Hale Engineering Rev. Aug. 26, 2011
4.9 DRAINAGE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.9-2
1. City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual revised 2011;
2. City of Chula Vista Storm Water Manual for Development and Redevelopment, January
2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Development Storm Water Manual)
3. Drainage Study for McMillin Village 7 Vista Verde, dated November 29, 2004, by Rick
Engineering Company ; and
4. Drainage study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates for Otay Ranch Village 7.
The Project is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB). The Project is subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements both during and after construction. NPDES requirements stem from the
Federal Clean Water Act and are enforced either by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) or the SDRWQCB. Storm Water runoff pollution prevention and control measures for the
Project are identified in the Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for Otay Ranch Village 8
West, dated .Nov. 3, 2011 by Hale Engineering. The Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report is
herein referred to as the WQTR.
4.9.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The SPA Plan and the PFFP are required to address the following drainage issues:
Identify phased demands;
Identify locations of facilities for on-site and off-site improvements;
Provide cost estimates; and
Identify financing methods.
4.9.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project area currently drains to canyons that flow to southwest along Wolf Canyon and to
the south towards the Otay River. There are three distinct non-jurisdictional drainages for runoff
leaving the Project site in the pre-project condition. The northern portion of the Project area
drains westerly and then southerly through Wolf Canyon which ultimately confluences with the
Otay River. The southern portion of the Project site drains southerly to the Otay River via two
distinct un-named drainages that outfall into the Otay River. Approximately 184 acres
contribute to flows into Wolf Canyon and approximately 194 acres contribute to flow s to Otay
River through and including the Project
A. SOUTHWESTERLY DRAINAGE (NORTHERN PORTION OF SPA)
The northern portion of the Project area will be served by on-site storm drain systems in the Main
Street couplet (see Exhibit 4.9.1). The system will include flows from a pipe in La Media Road and
flows that currently discharge at the northerly Project boundary. Runoff continues westerly,
through a tributary to Wolf Canyon. Drainage to Wolf Canyon is subject to hydromodification
plan requirements since Wolf Canyon is not exempt from these requirements.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.9 DRAINAGE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.9-3
B. SOUTHERLY DRAINAGE (SOUTHERN PORTION OF SPA)
The runoff from the southern portion of the Project area will be served by the proposed on-site
storm drain system in Otay Valley Road and Street “A”. The system will include flows from a pipe
discharging near the easterly Project boundary. That pipe picks up flows in Otay Ranch Village 7
from a storm drain system in Magdalena Avenue and Main Street.
4.9.5 PROPOSED FACILITIES
A. STORM DRAINAGE
The development of the Project includes the construction of new mixed use development along
the Main Street and La Media Road couplets, community-serving sites, parks, schools, and local
streets. The City of San Diego owns the existing reservoir located in the cent er of the Project
which is to remain in place.
Compliance with the Development Storm Water Manual requires that the Project design must
incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) and Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) to
address storm water quality management and flow control, including Hydromodification
Management Plan (HMP) requirements, in addition to storm water treatment for runoff before
leaving the site.
The northern portion of the Project will incorporate on-site measures to manage discharge rates
and durations for runoff discharging westerly for protection from downstream erosion. In
addition, on-site detention for flood control purposes will be implemented. The on-site measures
are proposed to consist of a 24-foot deep detention facility located at the westerly boundary of
the Project in Planning Area F. Flows would then discharge from the detention basin through a
72-inch outlet pipe which would discharge to an existing discharge point tributary to Wolf
Canyon within the Project’s Planning Area A (the proposed community park site). The detention
facility is a required by the Project’s hydromodification requirements. The facility will detain flows
pursuant to the Subdivision Manual.
The southern portion of the Project will discharge post-development flows directly to Otay River
via a proposed 54-inch storm drain. This southerly system will be extended beyond the Project
boundaries to the Otay River bottom to avoid potential finger canyon erosion. The storm drain
discharge outlet will be provided with an energy dissipater -impact basin and a section of rip-rap
designed to reduce the velocity of the discharge. The potential for scour erosion of the outlet
structure by the river’s flow was addressed.2 The discharge point to the Otay River is downstream
of the Otay Reservoir. The first Otay dam failed in an event which degraded the downstream
Otay River and an outcome of that event resulted in the lower Otay River Valley being listed as
a river reach that is exempt from hydromodification analysis (see Hydromodification Study for
Otay Ranch Village 8 West).
The overall drainage distribution between Wolf Canyon and Otay River will be similar to existing
conditions, with approximately 17 acres being diverted from Otay River i nto Wolf Canyon. Runoff
within the developed Project site will be directed toward the existing discharge points via
2 A scour analysis was done by the Project’s geotechnical consultant determined that the
velocity of the river channel during a 100-year storm would not adversely effect the proposed
outfall system. Geotechnical Opinion Letter Regarding Scour and Stability of Storm Drain Outfall
from Village 8 West into Otay River, Chula Vista, California, July 7, 2011, AGS, Inc
4.9 DRAINAGE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.9-4
internal storm drain systems. Pre and post project development areas and storm event flows for
each watershed are summarized in Table4.9.1:
TABLE 4.9.1
PRE & POST DEVELOPMENT STORM WATER FLOWS
Pre-Project Post Project
Wolf
Canyon
Otay
River
Otay
River Total
Wolf
Canyon
Flow into
Detention
Basin
Wolf
Canyon
Flow out
of
Detention
Basin
Wolf
Canyon
“Lot A”
(Basin P)
Total
Post-
Project
Flow
into
Wolf
Canyon
Otay
River Total
Tributary
Basins
C A B A,B,C
Area (acres) 183.6 83.9 127.1 394.6 202.6 202.6 16.3 218.9 179.3 398.2
Storm Event
2-Year Q (cfs) 155.6 47.8 70.8 274.2 243.8 42.6 18.4 61.0 155.5 216.5
10-Year Q (cfs) 246 78.7. 112.5 437.2 380.1 136.4 28.7 165.1 243.9 409.0
25-Year Q (cfs) 261.2 84 119.5 464.7 402.8 157.2 30.5 187.7 258.7 446.4
50-Year Q (cfs) 322.3 105.7 147.7 575.7 493.8 241.2 37.4 278.6 317.9 596.5
100-Year Q (cfs) 386.3 122.3 169.1 677.7 559.3 313.4 42.4 355.8 362.5 718.3
Sources: "Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for Otay Ranch Village 8 West", by Hale Engineering, revision dated
December 8, 2012 and "Hydromodification Study for Otay Ranch Village 8 West", Hale Engineering, revision dated August 26, 2011.
B. STORM WATER QUALITY
1. Regulations: The Project is subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements. NPDES requirements are contained in Section 402(p) of the Federal Clean Water
Act, which established a framework for regulating storm water discharges from municipal ,
industrial, and construction activities. These requirements are implemented through permits
issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or the local Regional Water Quality
Control Board in which the Project is located. In San Diego County t he local board is the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region, herein (SDRWQCB). Further,
the requirements are implemented through the City of Chula Vista, which is the governing
municipality for the Project.
The WQTR summarizes post-construction storm water quality protection requirements for the
Project.
The Project will include mixed-use residential and commercial development. The Project is
proposed to include a range of residential land uses, parks, schools, and community purp ose
facilities. The Project includes at least five priority project categories based on the Development
Storm Water Manual: (1) Home subdivisions of over 10 units, (2) Commercial Developments
greater than one acre, (3) Restaurants, (4) Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more with 15 or more
parking spaces, and potentially exposed to urban runoff, and (5) Streets, roads, highways, and
freeways.
For the purposes of post-construction storm water quality management, the Project will follow the
guidelines and requirements set forth in the Development Storm Water Manual which contains the
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.9 DRAINAGE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.9-5
City of Chula Vista’s Standard Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements and SDRWQCB Order
No. R9-2007-0001. Order No. R9-2007-0001 is a renewal of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0108758, "Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges of Urban Runoff from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining
the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the
San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority" (Order No.
R9-2007-0001, or "Municipal Storm Water Permit"), adopted by the SDRWQCB on January 24,
2007.
The Development Storm Water Manual provides guidance for new development and
redevelopment projects to achieve compliance with the City of Chula Vista's SUSMP. The City of
Chula Vista's current SUSMP and Development Storm Water Manual requirements are based on
the new Municipal Storm Water Permit adopted by the SDRWQCB, Order No. R9-2007-0001.
Order No. R9-2007-0001 includes several changes to requirements for post -construction storm
water management and has resulted in the modification of the SUSMP and changes to the
standards for post-construction storm water management practices. Specific changes that
directly affect the design of the Project include:
Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMP) Requirements: Project
applicants with Priority Development Projects will be required to implement LID BMP’s
which will collectively minimize directly connected impervious areas and promote
infiltration (Section D.1.d.(4) of Order No. R9-2007-0001).
Hydromodification — Limitations on Increases of Runoff Discharge Rates and Durations:
Under Section D.1.g of Order No. R9-2007-0001, the Co-permittees will be required to
prepare a Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) and incorporate its requirements
into their SUSMP’s. Hydromodification refers to changes in a wat ershed's runoff
characteristics resulting from development, together with associated morphological
changes to channels receiving the runoff, such as changes in sediment transport
characteristics and the hydraulic geometry (width, depth and slope) of channe ls. These
changes result in stream bank erosion and sedimentation, leading to habitat
degradation due to loss of overhead cover and loss of in-stream habitat structures.
The Project will incorporate requirements for LID and hydromodification design elements
in effect at the time development plans for the Project are prepared. All development
within the Project will be subject to the City of Chula Vista's SUSMP at the time of grading
permit issuance.
2. Surrounding Villages in Otay Ranch: The Project is part of the larger Otay Ranch development.
Therefore drainage from land outside the Project boundaries will be conducted through the
Project’s drainage system. Only drainage from a relatively small area of Village 7 to the north
and from Village 8 East will enter the storm drainage systems in La Media Rd. and Main Street,
respectively. Flows from the north will be conducted in closed conduits within the La Media
Road/Main Street right-of-way, outletting to an on-site detention basin before discharging to
Wolf Canyon. The flows from Village 8 East will travel within the Main Street/Street “A” right-of-
way before entering the Otay River outfall at the southerly boundary of the Project.
3. Stormwater Pollution: Based on the Development Storm Water Manual, the Project as a whole
can be expected to generate the following pollutants:
sediment
4.9 DRAINAGE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.9-6
nutrients
heavy metals
organic compounds
trash and debris
oxygen demanding substances
oil and grease
bacteria and viruses
and pesticides
The Project includes the following priority project categories listed in Table 4.9.2: “Attached
Residential Development”, “Commercial Development >100,000 ft.” (this is subject to be updated to
“greater than one acre” based on Order No. R9-2007-0001), “Restaurants,” “Parking Lots”, and
“Streets, Highways & Freeways”.
The Project is located in the following hydrologic basin planning area: the Otay Valley
Hydrologic Area within the Otay Hydrologic Unit. The corresponding number designation is
910.20 (Region ‘9’, Hydrologic Unit ‘10’, and Hydrologic Area ‘2’).
Based on the definition of primary pollutants of concern from the Development Storm Water
Manual and on the discussion in Section 4 of the WQTR, the primary pollutant of concern for the
Project, organic compounds, are associated with development of backbone infrastructure
(streets). The WQTR for the Project recommends specific site design , treatment and source
control BMPs for backbone improvements. For projects where no primary pollutants of concern
exist, those pollutants ident ified through the use of Table 4.9 .2 shall be considered secondary
pollutants of concern. For the Project as a whole, this will include every pollutant that is shown on
Table 4.9.2.
The Project WQTR provides schematic LID BMP details for backbone improvements and
detached residential lots which will be further refined with street improvement plans and design
review plans for single family residential. All other land uses will trigger separate, or
supplemental, WQTRs proposing appropriate on-site LID BMPs. Lot-specific structural BMPs for
the Town Center, attached residential, parks, CPF sites and s chools shall be implemented as
these lots are developed and shall meet the numeric sizing standards set forth in t he
Development Storm Water Manual. In addition, areas of the Project that drain to Wolf Canyon
are subject to hydromodification requirements (see Hydromodification Study for Otay Ranch
Village 8 West).
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.9 DRAINAGE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.9-7
TABLE 4.9.2
ANTICIPATED AND POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY LAND USE TYPE
General Pollutant Categories
Priority Project
Categories Sediment Nutrients Heavy
Metals
Organic
Compounds
Trash
&
Debris
Oxygen
Demanding
Substances
Oil &
Grease
Bacteria
&
Viruses
Pesticides
Detached Res.
Dev. X X X X X X X
Attached Res.
Dev. X X X X X X X
Dev. of 10 Hsg
units or more X X X P(1) P(2) p X
Com’l Dev. >1
acre P(1) P(1) P(2) X P(5) X P(3) P(5)
Auto Repair
Shops X X(4) (5) X X
Restaurants X X X X
Hillside Dev.
>5K s.f. (2) X X X X X X
Parking Lots P(1) P(1) X X P (1) X P(1)
Streets,
Highways &
Freeways
X P(1) X X(4) X P(5) X
X = anticipated P = potential
(1) A potential pollutant if landscaping exists on-site
(2) A potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas.
(3) A potential pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products
(4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons.
(5) Including solvents
Source: City of Chula Vista "Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Standards Requirements Manual, January, 2011,
Table 3.1.
* Note that "Attached Residential Development" is subject to be updated to "a development of 10 housing units or more" based on, Order
No. R9-2007-0001.
** Note that "Commercial Development >100,000 ft2" is subject to be updated to "greater than one acre" based on Order No. R92007-0001.
4. Site Design BMP’s for Backbone Infrastructure: In conformance with the Development Storm
Water Manual, the Project WQTR focuses on LID principles and site design BMPs for post-
construction storm water management for the Project’s backbone infrastructure described in
Section 5.3 of the Project’s WQTR. In addition to the LID design principles, improvement and
grading plans may include additional conventional measures. For example, conventional
measures described in the Development Storm Water Manual, such as hydrodynamic separators
or catch basin filters, may be proposed to remove trash and debris. Source control and
treatment control BMPs for backbone infrastructure will also be implemented as described in the
Project’s WQTR Sections 5.4 and 5.5, respectively.
The recommended treatment control BMP’s include bio-retention tree wells and swales which
will also be incorporated into all detached residential areas. Detention and slow filtration
through biologically active soil in the tree wells and swales will provide treatment as well as
4.9 DRAINAGE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.9-8
managing discharge rates and durations. As development plans for individual parcels are
prepared, the same procedures described in the WQTR shall be followed to design LID BMP’s
within the parcel. The LID BMP’s within each parcel may include, but are not limited to, any of
the standard designs provided in Appendices B and C of the WQTR. All development within the
Project will be subject to the City of Chula Vista's SUSMP at the time of grading permit issuance.
5. Operation and Maintenance Plans (O&M Plans): In general, O & M Plans will be prepared to
describe the designated responsible parties to manage the LID BMP’s, and the hydromodification
basin for the Wolf Canyon drainage area. These plans will also describe training requirements,
operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine service schedule, specific maintenance
activities, copies of resource agency permits (if applicable), record keeping requirements, and any
other necessary activities required by the SUSMP. There may be one or more O&M Plans for the
Project as needed, depending on the delegation of maintenance responsibilities (i.e., an overall site
O&M Plan may be prepared for hydrodynamic separators or drainage inserts within the public
streets and another for the hydromodification basin, while individual parcels may require additional
O&M Plans for site-specific BMP’s located within the parcel). WQTR Section 6 outlines maintenance
responsibilities and mechanisms including the proposed establishment of Community Facilities
Districts (CFD’s) that will be responsible for funding and maintenance for public storm water BMP’s.
Section 6 also provides estimates of maintenance costs for the tree wells, bio-retention swales, the
hydromodification basin and the single-family bio-retention areas.
4.9.6 FINANCING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
A. ON-SITE FACILITIES
City policy requires that all master planned developments provide for the conveyance of storm
waters throughout the Project to City engineering standards. The Project will be required to
construct all on-site facilities that have not yet been identified through the processing of a
subdivision map.
In newly developing areas east of I -805, it is the City’s policy that development projects assume
the burden of funding all maintenance activities associated with water quality facilities. As such,
the City will enter into an agreement with the Project applicant whereby maintenance of water
quality facilities will be assured by one of the following funding methods:
1. A property owner’s association that would raise funds through fees paid by each
property owner; or
2. A Community Facilities District (CFD) established over the entire Project to raise funds
through the creation of a special tax for maintenance of public drainage facilities.
B. OFF-SITE FACILITIES
Other than extending a storm drain pipe from the southerly Project site to an approved outfall at
the Otay River bottom, terminating in an appropriate energy dissipater, it is not anticipated that
any off-site drainage facilities will be required of the Project.
4.9.7 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE
A. The development of the Project, if conducted in accordance with proposed mitigation
measures, will not adversely impact the existing natural drainage condition. The
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.9 DRAINAGE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.9-9
increased runoff due to the development will be mitigated by use of a detention basin
as recommended in the Hydromodification Study for Otay Ranch Village 8 West, revised
Aug. 26, 2011, by Hale Engineering. The increased (post-project) runoff at the Wolf
Canyon Drainage Basin will be mitigated by the construction of a permanent detention
basin that will reduce the post -project flows, per the conclusions of said
Hydromodification Study. In addition, the flows that outlet at the Otay River are exempt
from HMP requirements per the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
B. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the Project, or any land development permit,
including clearing and grading, the Project Applicant(s) shall submit a Notice of Intent
(NOI) and obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). The permit requires development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Monitoring Plan that shall be submitted to the City Engineer and the
Director of Public Works. The SWPPP shall be incorporated into the grading and drainage
plans and shall provide for implementation of construction and post -construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs) on site to reduce the amount of sediments and pollutants
in construction and post-construction surface runoff before it is discharged into off-site
storm water facilities. The grading plans shall note the conditions requiring a SWPPP and
Monitoring Plans.
C. Prior to issuance of each grading permit, a detailed drainage system design study shall
be prepared in accordance with the City of Chula Vista’s standards and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
D. Permanent treatment controls BMP’s shall be included as part of the Project in
accordance with Section 3c of the City of Chula Vista SUSMP, the City of Chula Vista
Development Storm Water Manual, 2011, as may be amended from time to time and the
Project’s final WQTR to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
E. Except for individual single family lots, plans for development of individual parcels such as
attached residential, retail, commercial and/or CPF, schools and parks shall include a
supplemental WQTR submitted to for approval by the City Engineer. The supplemental
WQTR shall: include on-site storm water management measures to be implemented with
the development of each parcel, verify numeric sizing of structural control BMP’s to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and reference the Project’s final WQTR for information
relevant to the overall Project’s design concepts (e.g., downstream conditions of
concern and LID BMP principles) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Currently a
separate WQTR is not required for individual single family lots, however each lot is
required to have individual storm water BMP’s. The Project’s WQTR provides sample
calculations for single family residential BMP’s (individual bio-retention BMP); specific bio-
retention designs and calculations for actual single family lots shall be provided with the
appropriate precise grading or design review plans for approval by the City Engineer.
Notwithstanding the above all planning areas, including those comprised entirely of
single family lots shall meet the Storm Water Manual’s requirements at the time of
issuance of a grading permit.
F. Prior to the approval of the first Grading permit for the Project, Drainage Management
Areas (DMA) shall be delineated for all land uses and/or planning areas of the Project .
The DMAs will include not only streets within the parcel, but also buildings, parking lots or
structures, and other areas. As each DMA would either drain to a designated LID BMP(s)
features, or be designed to treat and/or retain storm water within the DMA , the specific
4.9 DRAINAGE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.9-10
design of these IMPs, including their proximity to structures and how runoff would be
collected, retained and/or discharged from them shall be subject to approval by the
geotechnical engineer for the Project. The evaluation shall be conducted on a lot-by-lot
basis after rough grading is completed and prior to constructing any improvements or
structures. All development within the project shall be subject to the City of Chula Vista’s
SUSMP (Section 3 of the Development Storm Water Manual) at the time of grading permit
issuance unless otherwise addressed in a development agreement.
G. Any Applicant for a development permit within the Project shall monitor and mitigate
any erosion in downstream locations that may occur as a result of on -site development.
H. Any Applicant for a development permit within the Project shall comply with the City of
Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual Limitation of Grading requirements, which
limit the area that can be cleared or graded and left exposed at one time to amount of
acreage that the owner/contractor can adequately protect prior to a predicted
rainstorm, but in no event greater than 100 acres, unless expansion of a disturbed area is
specifically approved by the Director of Public Works. Soil stabilization and sediment
control materials shall be maintained on-site sufficient to protect the disturbed soil areas.
Under this requirement, grading shall be phased at larger sites. For example, it may be
necessary to deploy and maintain soil stabilization, erosion and sediment control BMPs in
areas that are not completed, but are not actively being worked, before the additional
grading is done or the next phase of grading is begun.
I. As a result of the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2007-0001, and phasing of the
Project development, the Applicant(s) shall comply with the City’s Hydromodification
Criteria or Hydrograph Modification Management Plan, as applicable, addressed
regionally at the Project’s SPA Plan level concurrent with Grading and Improvement
Plans for major streets.
J. Prior to the issuance of any building permit resulting in an increase in permanent
impermeable area, each Applicant proposing to develop within the Project is required
to develop and implement a post-construction SUSMP and BMP’s in accordance with
the most recent regulations at the time of Grading or Building Permit issuance, unless
otherwise addressed in a development agreement. In particular, Applicants are required
to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9 -2007-0001,
and the City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual dated January 2011, or
any re-issuances thereof. Specifically, Applicant(s) shall incorporate into the proposed
project design, structural on-site design features to address Site Design and Treatment
Control (BMP’s) as well as LID and HMP requirements. Any of said requirements may be
waived if the Applicant(s) demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that
regional facilities exist to address such requirements.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.9 DRAINAGE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.9-11
EXHIBIT 4.9.1 DRAINAGE BASINS AND MAJOR STORM DRAINS
(Source: Village 8 West SPA Plan, May, 2013)
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.10 AIR QUALITY
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.10-1
4.10 AIR QUALITY
4.10.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
The Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) shall be provided with an annual
report which:
1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the
prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air
quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement
strategies;
2. Identifies whether the City’s development regulations, policies and procedures relate to,
and/or are consistent with, current applicable federal, state and regional air quality
regulations and programs;
3. Identifies non-development-specific activities being undertaken by the City toward
compliance with relevant federal, state and local regulations regarding air quality, and
whether the city has achieved compliance.
The City shall provide a copy of said report to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air
quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under
the regional air quality strategy and related federal and state programs, and the effect of those
efforts/programs on the city of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities.
The City also provides the APCD with an annual 12-18 month development forecast and
requests an evaluation of its impact on current and future air quality management programs,
along with recent air quality data. The growth forecast and APCD response letters shall be
provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its annual review.
4.10.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The City of Chula Vista has a Growth Management Element (GME) in its General Plan. One of
the stated objectives of the GME is to be proactive in its planning to meet federal and state air
quality standards. This objective is incorporated into the GME's action program. Although
adopted in 1989, the GME has remained current by not only requiring air polluti on reduction
measures identified in 1989 but also "measures developed in the future."
To implement the GME, the Chula Vista City Council has adopted the Growth Management
Program that requires Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIP) for major development proj ects (50
residential units or commercial/industrial projects with equivalent air quality impacts). Title 19
(Sec. 19.09.050B) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that a SPA submittal contain an
AQIP. The AQIP shall include an assessment of how the project has been designed to reduce
emissions as well as identify mitigation measures.
The Chula Vista City Council adopted the Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan on November
14, 2000. The plan included implementing measures regarding transportation and en ergy
efficient land use planning and building construction measures for new development. In this
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.10 AIR QUALITY
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.10-2
Plan, it was recognized that the City’s efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new
development are directly related to energy conservation and air quality efforts. As a result, the
City initiated a pilot study to identify and evaluate the relative effectiveness and costs of
applying various design and energy conservation features in new development projects.
Based on the pilot study and other data, the City has developed guidelines for AQIPs. These
guidelines require that a project be evaluated using the Chula Vista CO2 INDEX Model, or an
approved alternative modeling software. The City’s revised AQIP Guidelines lists 16 key indicators
and threshold values for each indicator that are evaluated by the CO2 INDEX Model. The INDEX
model results for the Village 8 West SPA Plan (the “Project”) are included in the Project’s AQIP in
Appendix B; Table 4.10.1 is a summary of the model results for the Project.
The Project’s performance in comparison with the INDEX model thresholds rests on the following
aspects of the SPA Plan’s design:
Land Use
Compact Development – minimize sprawl.
Density – intensity of land use.
Diversity – mix and variety of land uses.
Orientation toward pedestrian and bicycles.
Orientation toward transit.
Buildings & Landscaping
Energy efficient building construction – Reduce energy use by exceeding Title 24 building
standards.
Solar Use – Solar thermal applications and power generation.
Vegetation – Uptakes air pollutants and greenhouse gases and provides shading to
reduce temperatures.
Transportation
Important components of Transportation Action Measures include dense street networks,
completeness of sidewalks and direct routes to activity nodes.
Pedestrian Facilities – Circulation design and improvements for pedestrian use.
Bicycle Facilities – System design and improvements to encourage bicycle use.
Transit Facilities – Transit system design and improvements to circulation system.
Infrastructure
Water use – Land planning that reduces water consumption (see Water Conservation Plan
as Appendix G of SPA for details).
Upon completion of the INDEX modeling, the consultant providing the INDEX modeling services
shall provide written confirmation to the City's Director of Development Services that the project
as proposed represents improvements at or beyond the City's performance threshold scores
established for each of the 16 required key indicators. In the event that a project is una ble to
comply with all key indicator thresholds due to unique circumstances involving project design
and/or pre-existing environmental/land-use conditions, the developer may request, in writing to
the City's Development Services Director, a waiver to exclude those key indicators that, in the
developer's opinion, are not applicable to their project. The discretion to exclude certain key
indicators from project evaluation rests exclusively with the City's Development Servi ces Director.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.10 AIR QUALITY
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.10-3
TABLE 4.10.1 CO2 INDEX MODEL INDICATORS
Element Indicator Unit of Measure
Threshold
Score
Village 8 West
Score
Land Use
Land Use Mix 0 to1 index .10 or higher .42
Land Use Balance 0 to 1 index .60 or higher .87
Neighborhood Completeness % of key uses 60 or higher 60
Housing
School Proximity to Housing Average walk distance to closest
school
3,200 ft or
less 1,432
Transit Proximity to Housing Average walk distance to closest
stop
2,900 ft or
less 1,954
Employment Transit Proximity to Employment Average walk distance to closest
stop
2,600 ft or
less 863
Recreation Park Proximity to Housing Average walk distance to closest
park
1,700 ft or
less 1,470
Travel
Internal Street Connectivity
Ratio of street intersections to
cul-de-sacs or dead –ending
streets (0 to 1 index)
.70 or higher .73
Intersection Density Intersections/sq. mi. 210 18
Pedestrian Network Coverage Percent of streets with
sidewalkso 81 or higher 100
Residential Multi-Modal Access Percent of dwelling untts with 3 or
more modes within 1/8th mile 40 or higher 90
Daily Auto Driving Vehicle-miles/day/capita 20 or less 24.86
Climate Change
Residential Energy Use MMBtu/yr/capita 29 or lower 24.6
Non-residential Energy Use MMBtu/yr/employee 19 or lower 21.9
Residential Building CO2 Emissions lbs/capita/yr 4,800 or
lower 4,043
Non-Residential Building CO2
Emissions lbs/capita/yr 3,100 or
lower 3,585
Source: Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines, Attachment A, City of Chula Vista Revised August, 2011
Because the land-use mix and project design features which meet the AQIP requirements are
intrinsic to the Project, air quality improvements which are associated with the design features
such as lower energy use and vehicle emissions due to land-use proximity will require that the
Project be developed in substantial conformance with the Project’s approved SPA Plan . The City
of Chula Vista shall continually review development plans at each stage of design and
construction approval. These reviews will assure that the project is developed in a manner
consistent with the SPA Plan and which meets the AQIP requirements.
4.10.3 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City continues to provide a development forecast to the APCD in conformance with the
threshold standard. The SPA Plan Air Quality Section and the AQIP include measures to enhance
air quality including but not limited to:
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.10 AIR QUALITY
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.10-4
1. Energy Efficiency Standards: including but not limited to compliance with the City and
States’ required Green Building Programs, and compliance w ith the State of California
AB-32 legislation that will contribute to improvements to air quality and reductio n in
greenhouse gas impacts. The Village 8 West SPA plan requires that new commercial
buildings be constructed to meet Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Standards
Code; California Green Building Code Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen); the City of Chula
Vista’s Green Building Standards (CVMC Chapter 15.12); and the City’s energy efficiency
requirements (CVMC 15.26.030).
2. New Construction Recycling Plan, including providing information and adequate space
for recycling activities;
3. Reduction of particulate emissions through construction practices that control fugitive
dust, minimize simultaneous operation of construction vehicles and equipment, a nd use
low-polluting equipment to meet the AQMB (Air Quality Management Board) standards .
4. Application of Tier 2+ Blue Sky engines in equipment used in grading and heavy
construction operations;
5. Use of High-Volume, Low-Pressure (HVSP) painting systems and Low VOC paints and
other construction-level best management practices to reduce emissions
Quarry Dust Pollution
The Otay Rock Quarry (aka Rock Mountain) operates within 3,000 feet of the Project’s proposed
residential land uses. Although neither the Project’s SPA Plan nor the AQIP discuss potential noise
or air quality impacts from the quarry, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the
General Plan Update both address mining impacts. The GP Update Environmental Element
states that construction aggregate is the most valuable mineral resource in Chula Vista. If an
area containing such resources is developed prior to accessing these resources, the end result
may be the permanent loss of minerals that are of local and regional significance. The GP
further states that Rock Mountain is a valuable asset for the City and the region; the continued
mining of this resource is anticipated for the near future.
Therefore the following condition is recommended:
Prior to the first final map for the Project the developer shall offer for dedication an easement
running with the land over the Orange and Blue phases of the Project for airborne rock dust
particles and noise generated by the Otay Rock Quarry. Easement language shall also
include language that holds the City harmless from noise and dust impacts of the quarry and
provides for termination of the easement under specified conditions.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.11 CIVIC CENTER
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.11-1
4.11 CIVIC CENTER
4.11.1 CITY THRESHOLD STANDARDS
There are no adopted threshold standards for Civic Center facilities; therefore no Service
Analysis is required. The purpose of this section is to provide information on facility funding
through the collection of the Public Facility DIF fees.
4.11.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Major renovations to the Civic Center Complex in accordance with a Master Plan were completed in
2008, consisting of a new City Council Chambers and City Hall, and Public Service Buildings North and
South. The current Civic Center Complex was primarily funded by development fees
(approximately 89%).
4.11.3 ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
The need for the Civic Center cannot be easily related to population figures or acres of
commercial and industrial land, which will be developed in the future. The original Civic Center
buildings were inadequate due to an overall lack of space and poor space utilization. This
condition worsened as employee numbers and their workloads increased in response to
demands for services generated in part by new development. Phases I and II of the Civic Center
Complex expansion are complete. City Hall facilities have been renovated and now inclu de a
new state of the art Council Chambers . Other work included conversion of the former Police
Station as additional office space and the complete remodeling of the Public Services Building.
The Master Plan calls for further expansions in Phases III and IV, which are expected to keep
pace with demand for additional work space as the City continues to grow.
4.11.4 FINANCING CIVIC CENTER FACILITIES
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City
Council on November 19, 2002 by adoption of Ordinance 2887. The PFDIF is adjusted
approximately every October 1st pursuant to Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City
Council on November 7, 2006. The PFDIF amount is subject to change as it is amended from time
to time.
The Village 8 West SPA project is within the boundaries of the PFDIF Program and, therefore, the
project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits
are issued. At the current fee rate, the Village 8 West Civic Center Fee obligation at build -out is
$5,470,875. (see Table 4.11.1).
4.11 CIVIC CENTER OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.11-2
TABLE 4.11.133
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES FOR CIVIC CENTER
Phase SFDU MFDU Commercial
Acres
Civic Center
Total Fee SFDU
$2,708/DU
MFDU
$2,564/DU
Commercial
$8,638/Acre
Orange 117 351 8.6 $316,836 $899,964 $74,287 $1,291,087
Blue 284 0 $769,072 $0 $769,072
Yellow 0 765 5.9 $0 $1,961,460 $50,964 $2,012,424
Purple 220 0 $595,760 $0 $595,760
Green 0 313 $0 $802,532 $802,532
Total 621 1,429 14.5 $1,681,668 $3,663,956 $125,251 $5,470,875
33 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 10/1/2012. The PDIF Fee is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. Actual fees may be
different, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at the time of building permit.
The above table is only an estimate. Actual fees may be different. PDIF Fees are subject to
change depending upon City Council actions and or Dev eloper actions that change residential
densities, industrial acreage or commercial acreages.
4.11.5 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Civic Center facilities will be funded through the payment of the public facilities fees in effect at
the time building permits are issued; the fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits unless stated otherwise in a development agreement .
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.12 CORPORATION YARD
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.12-1
4.12 CORPORATION YARD
4.12.1 THRESHOLD STANDARDS
There is no adopted threshold standard for Corporation Yard facilities; therefore no Service
Analysis is required. The purpose of this section is to provide information on facility funding
through the collection of the Public Facility Development Impact Fee (PFDIF).
4.12.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The current Corporation Yard was previously an SDG&E equipment and repair facility. The City
has renovated and added new improvements for the maintenance and repair of city-owned
equipment. This facility consists of a renovated building that serves as the administration building
for the Corporation Yard. Existing shop buildings have been renovated and new shops have
been added as well as a new maintenance building. The Corporation Yard includes parking for
employees, city vehicles and equipment. In addition, a Bus Wash/Fuel Island/CNG and
associated equipment have been added.
4.12.3 ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
The need for expansion of the Corporation Yard is indirectly related to the growth in population,
and the expansion of developed areas in Chula Vista . The increase in street miles, sewer mains,
storm drainage systems, additional police cars and fire apparatus, new parks and public
buildings all require more equipment and maintenance space as well as more space for storage
and the administration of increased numbers of employees. The need for the larger Corporation
Yard was specifically related to projected new development. While there are no immediate
plans for further expansion of the Corporation Yard, the City has ongoing debt service
obligations due to the previous expansion. A portion of the PFDIF revenues are used for the
Corporation Yard debt service.
4.12.4 FINANCING CORPORATION YARD FACILITIES
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City
Council on November 19, 2002 by adoption of Ordinance 2887. PFDIF is adjusted approximately
every October 1st and was most recently adjusted on October 1, 2012.
The project is within the boundaries of the PFDIF Program and, therefore, the project will be subject
to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. At the
current fee rate, the project Corporate Yard Fee obligation at build-out is $896,826. (see Table
4.12.1).
4.12 CORPORATION YARD OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.12-2
TABLE 4.12.1
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES FOR CORPORATION YARD
Phase SFDU MFDU Commercial
Acres
Corporation Yard Component Fee
Total Fee SFDU @
$446/DU
MFDU
$357/DU
Commercial
$7,566/Acre
Orange 117 351 8.6 $52,182 $125,307 $105,924 $242,557
Blue 284 0 $126,664 $0 $0 $126,664
Yellow 0 765 5.9 $0 $273,105 $0 $317,744
Purple 220 0 $98,120 $0 $0 $98,120
Green 0 313 $0 $111,741 $0 $111,741
TOTAL 621 1,429 14.5 $276,966 $510,153 $109,707 $896,826
34 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 10/1/2012. The PDIF Fee is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. Actual fees may be
different or stated otherwise in a parks or development agreement, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at the time of building permit.
The projected fee illustrated in the above table is an estimate only; the actual fees may be
different. PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or
Developer actions that change residential densities, industrial acreage or commercial acreages.
4.12.5 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE
Corporation Yard facilities and associated debt service continue to be funded through the
payment of the PDFIF; the fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits unless
stated otherwise in a development agreement, at the rate in effect at of building permit
issuance.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.13 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.13-1
4.13 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
4.13.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
Other public facilities which are currently part of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
Program (PFDIF) include GIS, Computer Systems, Telecommunications, Records Management
System and PFDIF program administration. There is no adopted threshold st andard for these
facilities. Currently the PFDIF is charged only for PFDIF program administration , there is no fee
charged for GIS, Computer Systems, Telecommunications, or Records Management System. The
information regarding these capital items is being p rovided in this section of the PFFP to aid the
City and the Developer in calculating the PFDIF fees to be paid by the Village 8 West Project.
4.13.2 SERVICE ANALYSIS
The public facilities identified above are described in the Public Facilities Development Impact
Fee, March 2006 Update report.
4.13.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City continues to collect funds from building permit issuance through the PFDIF program for
deposit to an account associated with PFDIF program administration costs. The administration
costs are associated with the PFDIF program itself and the costs associated with the Growth
Management Oversight Committee process. A separate PFDIF is not currently collected for
records management, telecommunications, computer systems and GIS . However, future
capital improvements in these areas to serve growth are still anticipated. The funding sources for
future improvements in these areas have been and will be incorporated into the PFDIF fee
components of the various services that would use the specific improvements, such as Civic
Center, Police and Fire Suppression.
4.13.4 FINANCING ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES
The PFDIF was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 19, 2005 by adoption of
Ordinance 2887. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) is adjusted approximately
every October 1st and was most recently updated on September 24, 2012. The PFDIF amount is
subject to change as it is amended from time to time.
4.13 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.13-2
TABLE 4.13.1
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Phase SFDU MFDU Commercial
Acres
Other Component Fees
Total Fee SFDU @
$596/DU
MFDU
$563/DU
Commercial
$1,900/Acre
Orange 117 351 14 $69,732 $197,613 $16,340 $283,685
Blue 284 0 $169,264 $0 $0 $169,264
Yellow 0 765 $0 $430,695 $11,210 $441,905
Purple 220 0 $131,120 $0 $0 $131,120
Green 0 313 $0 $176,219 $0 $176,219
TOTAL 621 1,429 14 $370,116 $804,527 $27,550 $1,202,193
35 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 9/24/2012. The PDIF Fee is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. Actual fees may be
different, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at the time of building permit.
The Village 8 West SPA project is within the boundaries of the PFDIF Pro gram and, therefore, the
project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits
are issued. At the current fee rate, the Administration Fee obligation at build -out is
approximately $1,202,193. Table 4.13.1, is only an estimate. Actual fees may be different.
Changes in the number of multi-family dwelling units or commercial acreage may affect the
estimated fee. Public Facilities DIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council
actions and or Developer actions that change the number of residential units, residential
densities, industrial acreage or commercial acreages.
4.13.5 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PFDIF program administration costs and GMOC costs will be funded through the payment of
public facility fees; the fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits unless stated
otherwise in a development agreement, at the rate in effect at the time of building permit.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.14-1
4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE
4.14.1 OVERVIEW
The City will ensure the appropriate public facilities financing mechanisms are utilized to fund the
acquisition, construction and maintenance of public facilities required to support the planned
development of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA project (Project) in compliance with the
City's Growth Management Program.
Public facilities are generally provided or financed in one of the following three ways:
1. Subdivision Exaction: Developer constructed and financed as a condition of project
approval.
2. Development Impact Fee: Funded through the collection of an impact fee. Facilities are
constructed by the public agency or developer constructed with a reimbursement or
credit against specific fees.
3. Debt Financing: Funded using one of several debt finance mechanisms. Facilities are
constructed by the public agency or developer.
It is anticipated that all three methods will be utilized for the Project to construct and finance
public facilities.
4.14.2 SUBDIVISION EXACTIONS
Neighborhood level public improvements will be developed simultaneously with related
residential and non-residential subdivisions. Through the Subdivision Map Act, it is the
responsibility of the developer to provide for all local street, utility, park and recreation
improvements. The use of subdivision conditions and exactions, where appropriate, will ensure
that the construction of neighborhood facilities is timed with actual development.
The imposition of subdivision conditions and exactions does not preclude the use of other public
facilities financing mechanisms to finance the public improvement, when appropriate.
4.14.3 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAMS
Development Impact Fees are imposed by various governmental agencies, consistent with State
law, to contribute to the financing of ca pital facilities improvements within the City of Chula
Vista. The distinguishing factor between a fee and a subdivision exaction is that exactions are
requested of a specific developer for a specific project whereas fees are levied on all
development projects throughout the City or benefit area pursuant to an established formula
and in compliance with State law.
The Project, through policy decisions of the City of Chula Vista and other governing agencies, is
subject to fees established to help defray the cost of facilities that benefit the project and areas
beyond this specific project. These fees may include but not be limited to:
1. Eastern Chula Vista TDIF — established to provide financing for circulation element road
projects of regional significance in the area east of I-805.
2. Traffic Signal Fee — to pay for traffic signals associated with circulation element streets.
4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.14-2
3. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee — Public Facilities DIF established to collect
funds for Civic Center Facilities, Police Facilities, Corporation Yard, Libraries, and Fire
Suppression System..
4. Park Acquisition and Development Fee — PAD Fee established to pay for the acquisition
and development of park facilities.
5. Salt Creek Basin Development Impact Fee — to pay for constructing sewer
improvements within the Salt Creek basin.
6. Otay Water District Fees — It should be noted that the Water District may require the
formation of or annexation to an existing improvement district or creation of some other
finance mechanism which may result in specific fees being waived.
7. Sweetwater Unified High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School — The
State of California legislates school fees and authorizes school districts to impose facility
mitigation exactions on new development as a way to address increasing enrollment
caused by that development.
4.14.4 DEBT FINANCE PROGRAMS
The city preferred land-based debt finance program is the Community Facilities District or CFD’s.
Both school districts have implemented Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts to finance
school facilities.
MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 authorizes formation of community facilities
districts, which impose special taxes to provide the fina ncing of certain public facilities or
services. Facilities that can be provided under the Mello-Roos Act include the purchase,
construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of the following:
1. Local park, recreation, or parkway facilities;
2. Elementary and secondary school sites and structures;
3. Libraries;
4. Any other governmental facilities that legislative bodies are authorized to construct, own
or operate including certain improvements to private property.
4.14.5 OTHER METHODS USED TO FINANCE FACILITIES
GENERAL FUND
The City of Chula Vista's general fund pays for many public services throughout the City. Those
facilities and services identified as being funded by general fund sources represent those that
will benefit not only the residents of the proposed project, but also Chula Vista residents
throughout the City. In most cases, other financing mechanisms are available to initially
construct or provide the facility or service, and then general fund monies would only be
expected to fund the maintenance costs once the facility is accepted by the City.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.14-3
STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING
Although rarely available to fund an entire project, Federal and State financial and technical
assistance programs have been available to public agencies, in particular the public school districts.
DEDICATIONS
Dedication of sites by developers for public capital facilities is a common financing tool used by
many cities. In the case of the project, the following public sites are proposed to be dedicated:
1. Roads (if public)
2. Public Parks
3. Open space and public trail systems
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS
One or more Community Homeowner Associations may be established by the developer to
manage, operate and maintain private facilities and common areas within the project.
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS
Certain facilities that are off-site of project and/or provide regional benefits may be constructed
in conjunction with the development of the project. In such instances, developer reimbursement
agreements will be executed to provide for a future payback to th e developer for the
additional cost of these facilities. Future developments are required to pay back their fair share
of the costs for the shared facility when development occurs.
SPECIAL AGREEMENTS/DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This category includes special development programs for financing construction of special
public facilities. It also includes any other special arrangements between the City and the
developer such as credits against fees, waiver of fees, timing for payment of fees, or charges for
the construction of specific facilities.
A development agreement can play an essential role in the implementation of the Public
Facilities Financing Plan. The Public Facilities Financing Plan clearly details all public facility
responsibilities and assures that the construction of all necessary public improvements will be
appropriately phased with actual development, while the development agreement identifies
the obligations and requirements of both parties.
4.14.6 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE POLICIES
The following finance policies were included and approved with the Growth Management
Program to maintain a financial management system that will be implemented consistently when
considering future development applications. These policies will enable the City to effectively
manage its fiscal resources in response to the demands placed on the City by future growth.
1. Prior to receiving final approval, developers shall demonstrate and guarantee that
compliance is maintained with the City’s adopted threshold standards.
4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.14-4
2. The Capital Improvement Program Budget will be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Growth Management Program. The Capital Improvement Program
Budget establishes the timing for funding of all fee related public improvements.
3. The priority and timing of public facility improvements identified in the various City fee
programs shall be made at the sole discretion of the City Council.
4. Priority for funding from the City’s various fee programs shall be given to those projects
which facilitate the logical extension or provision of public facilities as defined in the
Growth Management Program.
5. Fee credits, reimbursement agreements, developer agreements or public financing
mechanisms shall be considered only when it is in the public interest to use them or these
financing methods are needed to rectify an existing facility threshold deficiency. Such
action shall not induce growth by prematurely extending or upgrading public facilities.
6. All fee credit arrangements or reimbursement agreements will be made based upon t he
City’s plans for the timing and funding of public facilities contained in the Capital
Improvement Program Budget.
7. Public facility improvements made ahead of the City’s plans to construct the facilities will
result in the need for additional operating and maintenance funds. Therefore all such costs
associated with the facility construction shall become the responsibility of the developer until
such time as the City had previously planned the facility improvement to be made.
4.14.7 CUMULATIVE DEBT
The City of Chula Vista has an established policy limiting the maximum debt (that may be
financed by a special tax or assessment) to be placed on a residential dwelling unit to an
additional one percent above the property tax. This policy was restated in the adopt ed Growth
Management Program.
Like many other cities, Chula Vista has long understood that it is not the only agency that can
utilize public finance mechanisms and, therefore, cannot always guarantee that the total debt
will remain at or below a maximum of 2 percent of the valuation of for-sale residential property.
As a result, the City makes an effort to coordinate its debt finance programs with the other
special districts (school and water), which provide service to the residents of Chula Vista, to
ensure that the cumulative debt does not become excessive. Coordination is also necessary to
guarantee all public facilities needed to support a development can be financed and
constructed as needed.
Debt Capacity Analysis
To get an order of magnitude approximation of the land-secured debt capacity for Village 8 West
an analysis was developed that yields the maximum debt from the issuance of Mello-Roos bonds
that the project may acquire while staying below the City tax rate cap. The analysis is shown in Table
4.14.1, it is found by: 1) totaling the assessed value of residential, commercial and office property; 2)
estimating land value based on the assumption that the land value at the time of appraisal prior to
formation of the district is approximately 20% of the build-out valuation; 3) then applying a 4:1 value-
to-loan ratio, which is also City policy for land-secured financing. The net bond proceeds for Village
8 West may be as high as $33 million. Table 4.14.1 also calculates the maximum annual debt service
for-sale residential due to the 2% cap by subtracting from 2% the effective property tax rate as
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.14-5
determined by the County Tax Collector for the tax rate area (1.08133%). The maximum annual
debt service that the for-sale residential property may take on is approximately $5.6 million. This
analysis assumes that 75% of the multi-family is for-sale (this same assumption was made in the Fiscal
Impact Analysis, Section 5 of the PFFP). Assuming that 79% of the bonded debt total is applicable to
for-sale residential (based on the proportion of total assessed valuation) the annual debt service that
would apply to for-sale residential, under various interest rate and bond term scenarios, is presented
in Table 4.14.2. Since the annual debt service under the least favorable scenario is well below the
maximum allowable debt service under the 2% cap rule, the limiting factor to the total bond
capacity is the land value itself (note that school facilities financing using via a Mello-Roos district
must also be considered). The actual bond amount is therefore highly dependent on the land value
prior to formation of the district and issuance of bonds. However, the 20% assumption above is
conservative given that the land component is typically 30% or more of the value of real estate with
improvements and appraisals for land-based financing usually assume super-pads with roads and
utilities in and sold as ready for fine-grading.
Table 4.14.3 identifies approximately $53 million as the estimated cost of facilities that may
qualify for debt financing. The net bond proceeds shown on Table 4.14.2 is substantially less than
this amount.. Therefore, there is insufficient revenue capacity available to finance all of the
improvements listed in Table 4.14.3, and the City will likely need to prioritize which projects may
be financed by community facilities districts.
The Development Services Department generally requires the preparation of a financing district
feasibility plan for the build-out of a master planned community prior to initiation of the first
district in order to determine the debt capacity limits and benefit zones related to using public
financing to fund infrastructure improvements.
TABLE 4.14.1 ESTIMATED REVENUE AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE ON LAND SECURED FINANCINGS
Units or Acres
Assessed
Value/Unit or
square foot1
Total Assessed
Value2
621 Single Family Units $488,000
$303,048,000
1,429 Multi-Family Units $284,000 $405,836,000
250,000 Square Feet (SF)
Retail
$224 $56,000,000
50,000 Square Feet (SF)
Office
$144
$7,200,000
Total Assessed Value $772,084,000
20% Land Value at Appraisal (assumed) $154,416,800
Maximum Loan Amount (LTV ratio: 1:4) $38,604,200
2.0% Tax Rate Cap on for sale residential units by City Policy3 $12,148,500
1.08133% Tax Rate Utilized $6,568,269
Annual revenue available from residential to pay debt service (2.00%-1.08%) $5,580,231
1 Valuation assumptions are based on market research data from Village 8 West Fiscal Impact Analysis,
Section 5 of the PFFP.
2 Assessed value does not account for appreciation or economic inflation at build out.
3 The 2% tax rate cap for financing districts applies only to the sale price of individual units of
residential. For this analysis 75% of the multi-family units are assumed to be for sale.
Source: PMC
4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.14-6
TABLE 4.14.2-NET BOND PROCEEDS ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
Maximum Loan Amount $38,604,200
Net Bond Proceeds @ 85% $32,813,570
Interest
Rate Term (yrs.)
Annual Debt
Service on
Maximum Loan
79% of Annual
Debt Service
applied to for
sale residential
5.0% 30 $2,511,259 $1,975,693
5.5% 30 $2,656,177 $2,089,706
6.5% 25 $3,164,829 $2,489,880
6.5% 20 $3,503,578 $2,756,385
7.5% 25 $3,463,209 $2,724,625
7.5% 20 $3,786,771 $2,979,182
TABLE 4.14.3 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF FACILITY COST POTENTIALLY FUNDED FROM DEBT SERVICE
Transportation
On-site Transportation Impact Fee Improvements
$12,800,000
Santa Victoria Street
$4,200,000
Street "A"
$2,000,000
Park Acquisition and Development Fee (Community Park
Obligation) $9,500,000
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
$18,887,026
Project level Storm Drainage Improvements (Detention Basin) $2,000,000
Backbone Water Improvements1
$1,500,000
Backbone Sewer Improvements
$2,000,000
Total $52,887,000
1The Otay Water District may establish a separate CFD to fund for on-site water improvements
4.14.8 MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
According to the City’s Growth Management Policy the limit on annual special tax and
assessment debt service of 2% of the assessed valuation of the property (described in the first
paragraph of 4.14.7 above) applies only to residential property and does not count special
taxes or assessments used for the purpose of maintain ing public facilities, or providing public
services. Therefore, in accordance with the City’s policy, the bond proceeds analysis above
does not account for special taxes or assessments for maintenance,. In reality, the levying of
taxes or assessments for maintenance of public facilities is an encumbrance against property
that is superior to bonded debt and therefore must be disclosed in any issuance of bonds for
financing of facilities such as those listed in Table 4.14.3 above. The resulting effect of such an
encumbrance, which places an added burden on the homeowners’ ability to meet their debt
obligations may lead to an increase in the cost of bonded debt through higher interest rates,
which in turn will reduce the net bond proceeds. The Village 8 West Project may be conditioned
to form, or be annexed into one or more maintenance districts for parks, open space, and storm
water management or other purposes. In which case, the bond debt proceeds as described
above may need to be re-evaluated.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
4.14-7
4.14.9 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
Section 19.09.060 Analysis subsection F (2) of the Growth Management Ordinance requires the
following:
"...The inventory shall include Life Cycle Cost ("LCC") projections for each element in
19.09.060(E)...as they pertain to City fiscal responsibility. The LCC projections shall be for
estimated life cycle for each element analyzed. The model used shall be able to identify and
estimate initial and recurring life cycle costs for the elements..."
BACKGROUND
The following material presents information on the general aspects of life cycle cost analysis as
well as its specific application to the City of Chula Vista operations. The discussion regarding the
general benefits and process of LCC is meant to provide a common base of understanding
upon which further analysis can take place.
Life cycle costing (LCC) is a method of calculating the total cost of asset ownership over the life
span of the asset. Initial costs and all subsequent expected costs of significance are included in
the life cycle cost analysis as well as disposal value and any other quantifiable benefits to be
derived as a result of owning the asset. Operating and maintenance costs over the life of an
asset often times far exceed initial costs and must be factored into the (decision) process.
Life cycle cost analysis should not be used in each and every purchase of an asset. The process
itself carries a cost and therefore can add to the cost of the asset. Life Cycle Cost analysis can
be justified only in those cases in which the cost of the analysis can be more than offset by the
savings derived through the purchase of the asset.
Four major factors which may influence the economic feasibility of applying LCC analysis are:
1. Energy Intensiveness — LCC should be considered when the anticipated energy costs of
the purchase is expected to be large throughout its life.
2. Life Expectancy — for assets with long lives (i.e., greater than five years), costs other than
purchase price take on added importance. For assets with short lives, the i nitial costs
become a more important factor.
3. Efficiency — The efficiency of operation and maintenance can have significant impact
on overall costs. LCC is beneficial when savings can be achieved through reduction of
maintenance costs.
4. Investment Cost — as a general rule, the larger the investment the more important LCC
analysis becomes.
The four major factors listed above are not, however, necessary ingredients for life cycle cost
analysis. A quick test to determine whether life cycle costing would apply to a purchase is to ask
whether there are any post-purchase costs associated with it. Life cycle costs are a combination
of initial and post-purchase costs.
4.14 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan City of Chula Vista
Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan June, 2013
4.14-8
APPLICATIONS FOR LCC ANALYSIS
The City of Chula Vista utilizes the concepts of life cycle cost analysis in determining the most
cost effective purchase of capital equipment as well as in the determination of replacement
costs for a variety of rolling stock. City staff uses LCC techniques in the preparation of the City's
Five Year Capital Improvement Budget (CIP) as well as in the Capital Outlay sections of the
annual Operating Budget.
In addition to these existing processes, the City should require the use of LCC analysis prior to or
concurrent with the design of public facilities required by new developme nt. Such a
requirement will assist in the determination of the most cost effective selection of public facilities.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-1
5.1 THRESHOLD STANDARD
1) The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report, which provides an
evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City, both in terms of operations and capital
improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month
period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18 month period, and 3-5 year period.
2) The GMOC shall be provided with an annual “economic monitoring report” which
provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the
previous 12-month period.
5.2 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION
The City of Chula Vista does not currently have a “Master Plan” that addresses fiscal issues.
However, the City has adopted a standard approach to modeling fiscal impacts due to
proposed land use changes to the General Plan. The Special Planning Area (SPA) Fiscal Impact
Analysis Framework report (FIA Framework), completed by Economic Research Associates (now
AECOM) in February 2008, presents the basic methodology and a consistent approach to the
evaluation of SPA proposals in the City of Chula Vista. The FIA Framework is a tool intended to
provide a consistent evaluation of fiscal impacts. This consistency i s achieved by a procedural
combination of the following factors, which are common to every fiscal impact analysis (FIA):
Land use variables– use, density, population, employment
Market variables– real estate values and market competitiveness
The City’s current cost and revenue patterns–net city costs and discretionary revenues
The inputs to a FIA for a specific project will require adjustments of these variables to adapt the
framework model to that specific project and to incorporate current data. This FIA analysis for the
Village 8 West SPA is based on the FIA Framework model updated and adapted by PMC for Village
8 West. This FIA identifies the estimated fiscal impact that the Village 8 West project will have on the
operation and maintenance budgets of the City of Chula Vista (General Fund). The data and inputs
used in this FIA fiscal analysis section of this PFFP are derived from the following sources:
Village 8 West Site Utilization Summary of land-uses (draft dated May, 2013)
City-wide land use data current as of February, 2011
Departmental cost allocation factors by land-use developed by the City using budget
data of fiscal years between 2005 and 2009.
Cost allocation factors have not been adjusted for inflation since the 2008-09 fiscal year.
Additional supporting fiscal data is presented in the FIA tables in Appendix A.
5.3 PROJECT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The City of Chula Vista Growth Management Program requires the SPA Plan and the PFFP to
prepare a phased fiscal/economic report comparing expe cted annual revenues derived from
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-2
the project to expected annual costs of providing public services to the SPA, including
maintenance and operations of associated public facilities.
5.4 FISCAL ANALYSIS OF PROJECT
Village 8 West is proposed as a mixed-use development with a range of residential densities from
3 units per acre to 45 units per acre and up to 2,050 total dwelling units (621 single family and
1,429 multi-family). The SPA will also include up to 300,000 square feet of commercial space, an
elementary school and middle school, a 5.8 acre parcel for community purpose facilities and 28
acres of parklands (including a town square park, a neighborhood park and portion of a
planned community park). Table 5 .2 describes the development program and the projected
absorption schedule. This table provides absorption of the project in terms of:
Land use types (as per Table 5.1)
Residential units by type
Incremental population growth
Incremental employment growth
The absorption schedule is expected to extend for a 20-year period and is based on the Village
8 West Traffic Impact Analysis.
5.5 METHODOLOGY
Village 8 West SPA FIA generally follows the methodology found in the FIA Framework in order to
provide a consistent method for evaluating of the fiscal impacts of SPA proposals in Chula Vista.
The FIA Framework and the Village 8 West SPA FIA rely on the City of Chula Vista’s budget to
identify and allocate variable revenues and costs that grow proportionally with i ncremental
development. Revenues such as property taxes, Vehicle License Fees (VLF), and sales tax
receipts grow with development. The costs associated with development, which include but
are not limited to public safety, facility maintenance, administra tion, library and park operations,
also increase along with development growth. The project report for the FIA Framework outlines
the methods to calculate and apply the revenue, cost and inflationary factors used in fiscal
analysis of SPA plans.
The original FIA Framework was built using the City of Chula Vista’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2007 -08
Budget. For this Village 8 West SPA FIA analysis, the FY 2010-11 budget trends provide the basis,
as well as other fiscal related data provided by the City Finance Dep artment. All other factors
used in the FIA Framework have been inflated to reflect 2013 values. The results of the analysis
are presented in 2013 dollars.
MODELING STEPS
The fiscal impact modeling steps outlined in the FIA Framework are as follows:
Step 1 – Create a project absorption matrix by land use type (acres and square foot),
dwelling units, population and employment;
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-3
Step 2 – Derive annual fiscal costs using the incremental per unit cost factors developed
initially for the SPA FIA Framework and updated by inflation factors and budget
trends;
Step 3 – Derive public safety costs with density coefficient adjustments;
Step 4 – Derive annual fiscal costs as a summation of Step 2 and Step 3;
Step 5 – Create an updated assessed valuation absorption ma trix for the project using
the existing AV calculation methodology in the FIA Framework or project
specific assumptions;
Step 6 – Use special revenue models to calculate:
1. Property Taxes;
2. Property Transfer Taxes;
3. Vehicle license fees (VLF) and Motor vehicle in lieu fees (MVLF);
4. Sales taxes.
Step 7 – Derive other revenues by using the revenue matrix.
Step 8 – Derive annual fiscal revenues as a summation of Step 6 and Step 7 .
Step 9 – Derive net fiscal impacts as a difference between Step 8 and Step 4 results.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-4
TABLE 5.1
VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA, SITE UTILIZATION SUMMARY
Planning Area Multi-family Single Family
B 1.4 35 0
C 6.9 156 36
F 3.0 54 25
H1 7.8 33 144
H2 1.3 0 12
J 5.4 161 18
L 14.2 460 65
X 0.7 0 0
Subtotal 40.7 899 300
E 5.3 95 0
I 6.8 122 0
M 8.5 153 0
O 8.9 160 0
Subtotal 29.5 530 0
Q 14.7 160 0
U 11.5 130 0
Subtotal 26.2 290 0
N 19.6 117 0
P 26.9 124 0
V 20.5 90 0
Subtotal 67.0 331 0
Total 163.4 1,429 621 300
2,050
R 5.8 CPF
D 20.2 Middle School
S 11.4 Elementary School
A 17.4 Community Park
G 3.0 Town Square
T 7.5 Neighborhood Park
Y 15.6 Preserve (MSCP)
OS-1 23.5 Open Space
W 2.4 Retension Basin
ROW 30.1 Arterials
Total 136.9
Source: Otay Land Co. May, 2012
Medium Density Residential Attached/Detached 6-11 du/ac
Low Medium Density Residential Village 3-6 du/ac
Total Dwelling Units:
Schools, Parks, CPF, Open Space, and Right-of-way
Land Use
Medium High Density Residential 11-18 du/ac
Gross
Acres
Target Residential Units
Commercial
(ksf)
Town Center 18-45 du/ac
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-5
TABLE 5.2
PROJECT ABSORPTION –VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
1 Non-Residential Square footage and land use distribution from Otay Ranch Village 8 West PFFP, Table 4.1.2 2 Employment is a function of floor area based on employment density calculations that take in account building efficiency and occupancy rate. Retail
employment density is assumed at 1 employee per 450 sq. ft.; Office at 1 employee per 250 sq. ft.
Source: Otay Ranch Village 8 West PFFP, Draft May, 2012
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Non Residential Uses
Retail (ksf)0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 30 30 30 30 30 12 12 12 12 12 250
Cumulative (ksf)0 0 0 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 70 100 130 160 190 202 214 226 238 250
Cumulative (acres)0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 6 8 10 13 15 16 17 18 19 20
Office (ksf)0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
Cumulative (ksf)0 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Cumulative (acres)0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parks (acres)0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 28
Cumulative 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 11 13 16 19 20 22 24 26 28
Residential Uses
Units
Single Family 21 21 21 21 21 71 71 71 71 71 32 32 32 32 32 0 0 0 0 0 621
Cumulative 21 42 63 84 105 176 247 317 388 459 491 524 556 589 621 621 621 621 621 621
Multi Family 49 49 49 49 49 165 165 165 165 165 72 72 72 72 72 0 0 0 0 0 1,429
Cumulative 49 98 148 197 246 411 576 740 905 1,070 1,142 1,214 1,285 1,357 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429
Total Units 70 140 211 281 351 587 822 1,058 1,293 1,529 1,633 1,737 1,842 1,946 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050
Community Purpose Facility
CPF (acres)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Cumulative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 6
Population
Single Family @ 3.33 pph 70 70 70 70 70 236 236 236 236 236 108 108 108 108 108 0 0 0 0 0 2,068
Cumulative 70 140 210 280 350 585 821 1,057 1,293 1,528 1,636 1,744 1,852 1,960 2,068 2,068 2,068 2,068 2,068 2,068
Multi Family @ 2.58 pph 127 127 127 127 127 425 425 425 425 425 185 185 185 185 185 0 0 0 0 0 3,687
Cumulative 127 254 381 508 635 1,060 1,485 1,910 2,335 2,761 2,946 3,131 3,316 3,502 3,687 3,687 3,687 3,687 3,687 3,687
Cumulative Population 197 394 591 787 984 1,645 2,306 2,967 3,628 4,289 4,582 4,875 5,168 5,462 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755
Employment 2
Retail 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 13 13 47 47 47 47 47 19 19 19 19 19 391
Cumulative 0 0 0 0 0 13 25 38 50 63 110 156 203 250 297 316 335 354 372 391
Office 0 0 0 0 0 28 28 28 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141
Cumulative 0 0 0 0 0 28 56 84 113 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141
Cumulative Employment 0 0 0 0 0 41 81 122 163 203 250 297 344 391 438 457 476 494 513 532 532
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-6
5.6 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK MODIFICATIONS FOR VILLAGE 8 WEST
As described in the City of Chula Vista’s SPA FIA Framework, specific fiscal analyses may call for
additional adjustments and customization to best reflect the differ ences of each unique SPA or
project. For Village 8 West SPA, the FIA Framework was modified to better account for (1)
development program units (2) public safety costs, (3) property tax, and (4) sales tax.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM UNITS
The SPA Fiscal Impact Framework analysis for non -residential land uses is based on the estimated
acres in each land use. The Village 8 West SPA Site Utilization Plan is currently presented with a
range of total dwelling units, acreage and commercial floor area (see the Site Utilization Plan in
Table 5.1). The FIA focuses on the high end of the range (2,050 residential units , 50,000 sq. ft. of
office retail and 250,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial) to analyze the fiscal impacts from full build-
out. The square footage of commercial is converted to acreage using the floor area ratio (FAR)
standards in the FIA Framework for calculating non -residential costs as well as other revenues
contained in the revenue matrix.
PUBLIC SAFETY COSTS – POLICE SERVICES
Public safety costs in the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework are calculated proportionally based on
land use acreage for commercial and industrial uses, while residential uses are calculated
proportionally based on dwelling units and people-density (persons per acre). Similar to the FIAs
of other SPAs, an adjustment was made for police and fire costs for dwelling units.
Police service costs are calculated on an acreage basis for commercial development and on a
per dwelling unit basis for residential planning areas with no adjustment for density (the analysis
uses the city-wide cost per dwelling unit factor in 2011 dollars throughout the build -out period).
The FIA Framework applies a person per acre density factor to adjust the public safety costs per
dwelling unit. The density adjustment was not made for the Village 8 West SPA Plan. There is also
no adjustment made for mixed-use planning areas: the police service costs of the commercial
and residential components of the mixed-use parcels are effectively added together.
PUBLIC SAFETY COSTS – FIRE SERVICES
In the FIA Framework, fire costs are also adjusted to directly increase with residential persons per
acre density. However, as for Police Services, the dwelling unit cost per unit factor for Fire was not
adjusted in the Village 8 West analysis.
PROPERTY TAX
Property tax revenues, as shown in the City’s recent financial reports, have continued to
decrease over the past few years even after the end of the 2007-09 recession. But total assessed
valuation is beginning to stabilize and should resume positive growth in the coming year . The
negative effects of the severe downturn in the housing market during the recession continue to
adversely influence property tax revenues, especially from residential property. These include
mortgage loan foreclosures, lower property values, and lower property transfers. Lease rates,
which also declined for retail and office space have been slow to recover according to data
obtained from commercial real estate firms. Finally, although the economic recovery has been
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-7
underway 4 years now, household incomes have not grown significantly, a factor which affects
home sales and the prices families may pay for homes.
While the Village 8 West FIA generally follows the original FIA frame work for property tax
calculations, the real estate market factors used in the FIA reflect recent values for both
residential and non-residential properties in the Otay Ranch area. There is a lag, however,
between construction of new homes and non-residential space and when the new property
values are reflected in assessed valuations and property tax revenue. A one-year lag between
completion of construction and collection of property taxes has been built into the FIA model;
this has the effect of reducing revenues during the development absorption period.
ESTIMATES OF ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES
The FIA makes certain assumptions for the initial sales pri ce of for-sale units (single family homes
and condominiums) and the market value of rental and lease propert ies (apartments and
commercial space). These prices and market values are the assessed values (AV) used in the
FIA to estimate property tax revenues. The assessed values are presented in Table 7 in the
Appendix. Commercial property valuation is stated as assessed value per acre, while residential
property is in AV per dwelling unit.
The estimate of the initial sales price and market value is critical since these numbers are inflated
each successive year to estimate total assessed value. The projected average sales price for
new single family homes in the Project is given in Appendix Table 7 as $488,600 per unit. For sale
condominiums are given a sales price of $284,700. Renter occupied units are assigned an initial
market value of $214,000.
Price and valuation data for residential property in the Southeast Chula Vista market from
different sources were researched to derive these initial values. For example, Zillow.com
indicated the value index for the average single family home in the entire Otay Ranch area to
be $431,600 in March, 2013, an increase of 14% from March, 2012. The average price in Otay
Ranch Village 5, an original phase of the Otay Ranch, was somewhat lower at $406,900. The
average single family home value index for all of Chula Vista was $378,600. For comparison, the
DataQuick/Union Tribune Zip Code website reported the median new home price (single family
and condominium combined) in the Eastlake/Otay Ranch area to be $388,000 in March, 2013.
The single family and condominium resale medians in March, 2013 were $432,950 and $205,000,
respectively. The Zillow home value index for condominium units in Otay Ranch was $234,900 in
March, 2013.
Derivation of New Home Prices
To arrive at the assessed values for new single family and for-sale attached units used in the FIA
model, an analysis was conducted on the current listings data for these units in the Otay Ranch
area. The data was obtained from the Yahoo Homes website and consists of 135 single family
and 44 attached listings. The single family listings included 3, 4, 5 and 6 bedroom homes ranging
in size from 1,400 to 4,300 sq. ft. with prices ranging from $225,000 to $750,000. The attached
listings for 2, 3 and 4 units ranged from 1,000 to 2,075 sq. ft. with prices from $155,000 to $330,000.
As would be expected, the analysis of the listings data shows a strong correlation between
home size and price, particularly in the single family market. Least squares formulas were derived
for both types of units that give the expected sales prices for units given their square footage
(see Figures 1 and 2). To estimate the projected sales price of new units , a new home premium
of $63,000 was added to the sales price predicted by the least squares formula. The new home
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-8
premium of $63,000 comes from national sales data representing the difference in median prices
between existing and new homes1 Table 5.3 summarizes the calculations that result in the
average beginning assessed valuations of $488,600 and $284,700 for single family and attached
units, respectively. The calculations below assume the Project will offer a certain mix of units in
each bedroom number and average square footage category. The unit number assumptions
are based on the Otay Ranch listing data. The actual product mix of bedro om number and size
of unit will likely vary in response to market demand, but the Otay Ranch listings should be
representative of the local market going forward.
Table 5.3 For-Sale Units Valuation Calculation Summaries
Single Family Units
Bedrooms 3 4 5 6
Average square feet1 1900 2500 2900 3500
Resale home prices
predicted by least squares
formula (see Figure 1) $344,132 $423,241 $475,980 $555,089
New home premium $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000
Formula plus premium $407,132 $486,241 $538,980 $618,089
Projected units1 156.4 271.4 147.2 46 621
Total & Weighted Average $63,675,434 $131,965,743 $79,337,853 $28,432,085 $488,584
Condominium Units
Bedrooms 2 3 4
Average square feet1 1200 1400 2000
Resale home prices
predicted by least squares
formula (see Figure 2) $206,939 $230,927 $302,891
New home premium $63,000 $63,000 $63,000
Formula plus premium $269,939 $293,927 $365,891
Projected units1 560 463 49 1072
Total & Weighted Average $151,264,011 $136,061,488 $17,828,871 $284,659
1 “Average square feet” and “Projected units” in the tables are based on the Yahoo Home
listing data for Otay Ranch. The average square feet per bedroom category is the same as
the average in the data. The projected units in each bedroom category are proportional to
the bedroom per unit count in the listings data.
1 The Commerce Department reported the median new home sales price to be $247,000 in March , 2013,
the National Association of Realtors reported the median resale price to be $184,300.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-9
Figure 1 – Single Family List Price Data and Regression Statistics
Figure 2 – Multi-Family List Price Data and Regression Statistics
y = 131.8x + 93621
R² = 0.6777
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Li
s
t
P
r
i
c
e
x
$
1
,
0
0
0
Square Feet
Single Family
Price vs. Sq. Ft.
y = 119.9x + 63011
R² = 0.4875
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Li
s
t
P
r
i
c
e
x
$
1
,
0
0
0
Square Feet
Multi-Family
Price vs. Sq. Ft.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-10
Rental and Non-Residential valuations
The beginning assessed value of renter–occupied units is estimated at $214,000 per unit and is
determined by a market valuation based on applying a capitalization rate of 5 .25%2 to a rental
rate of $1.903 per sq. ft. assuming an average unit size of 800 sq. ft. and a 95% occupancy rate.
Commercial market values were derived by applying capitalization rates of 6.5% and 7.25% to
retail and office, respectively, to the net annual income per acre of $188,500 and $320,900 for
retail and office, respectively.4
SALES TAX
The type of retail planned for Village 8 West is neighborhood or community level shopping which
will primarily serve the project area and the adjacent villages and is not “regional -serving” in
nature and therefore not likely to draw on a larger market area. For purpo ses of this FIA, on-site
retail revenues were evaluated on the basis of the amount of total sales expected by retail floor
area.
While it is anticipated that retail development in Village 8 West will help recapture leakage of
dollars outside of Chula Vista, an adjustment of was made to account for sales transfers between
retail space already existing in Chula Vista and Village 8 West retail. An adjustment of 10 percent
was made for on-site neighborhood centers, and 25 percent for community centers to account
for the transfer of retail sales from existing retailers in Chula Vista to the Village 8 West retailers. Off-
site retail sales capture by new residents are also modeled given that sales tax impacts include all
retail sales that can be attributed to the project within the city, and not just retail sales that occur
within the project boundaries.
5.7 NET FISCAL IMPACT
Table 5.4 presents the net fiscal impacts of the Village 8 West SPA on the City of Chula Vista
under the assumption that revenues rise with expenditures so that there is no net real inflation in
service costs.
Table 5.4 shows a net fiscal deficit in year 1 of $29,200 which grows to a maximum annual net
fiscal deficit of $87,200 by year 6 (2018). The deficit diminishes until a net surplus of approximately
$18,300 is attained in year 10 (2022). Residential units are primarily constructed during the early
years of the Project’s development (residential units are fully absorbed by 2027) with some non-
residential development underway between years 5 and 10. The declining deficit is associated
2 Capitalization rate based on stabilized Class "B" multi-family housing for San Diego, CBRE
Multihousing Group CapRate Survey 2nd half of 2012.
3 Average data from Rentbit.com March, 2013
4 Retail rent ($2.10/sq. ft./mon.) and cap. rate are based on the second half 2012 data for South
San Diego County from Cassidy Turley BRE Commercial Retail Market Report. Office rent
($1.80/sq. ft./mon.) is based on the first quarter, 2010 data for Chula Vista from VOIT Real Estate
Services. Office Cap. rate from second quarter 2010 data from CBRE. Annual income per acre is
net of occupancy, building efficiency and operating cost factors. Floor area ratios of 0.29 and
0.57 for retail and office, respectively, are used to convert floor area to acres.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-11
with increased development of non-residential land use, which generates additional sales tax
and property tax, and full build-out of residential units, which stabilizes the annual increases in
service costs. Under the cost assumptions of this model (no net real inflation in servic e costs),
Table 5.4 and Figure 5 below show that the net surplus continues to increase after build -out. The
accumulated deficit through year 9 is estimated at $273,900.
At Build-out, property taxes are the greatest source of revenue generated by Village 8 West .
Property tax and property transfer taxes make up approximately 47 percent of revenues,
followed by vehicle license fees (VLF) (approximately 25 percent of revenues) and sales and use
tax receipts (approximately 19 percent of revenues). Other revenues including franchise fees
and utility users’ tax comprise the remaining revenues.
Figure 3 shows the proportion of revenue sources at build-out of Village 8 West.
FIGURE 3 REVENUE ALLOCATION
It should be noted that revenues do not follow a completely straight linear growth path because
property transfer taxes are one-time revenues. Thus, revenue generated in Village 8 West jumps
in the year after development comes on-line. In subsequent years the increased revenue comes
only from property transfer taxes and the reassessments from the sale of property, and the
annual 2% reassessments allowed by Proposition 13.
Public safety service requirements—police and fire—are expected to be the most significant
public service costs generated by Village 8 West.
47%
25%
19%
9%
Property Tax (including transfer tax)
VLF Revenues
Sales and Use Taxes
Other*
* other includes unitary and unsecured property taxes, franchise
fees and business license tax
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-12
FIGURE 4 COST ALLOCATION
Both police and fire costs are allocated to Village 8 West proportionally based on developed
residential units and commercial acreage.
Figure 4 shows that at build-out of the Project, police service costs make up approximately 43
percent of total public service costs. Fire service costs are anticipated to comprise
approximately 22 percent of total costs.
5.8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
In addition to the base case, a sensitivity analysis of fiscal costs was performed to evaluate two
scenarios in which public service costs increase at a higher rate than revenues. The fiscal
impact of Village 8 West SPA was calculated with real expenditure inflation rates of 1 percent
and 2 percent. The revenues vs. costs for the three scenarios are shown graphically in Figure 5
below.
ONE PERCENT EXPENDITURE REAL INFLATION
Table 5.5 presents the net fiscal impacts generated by Village 8 West with an expenditure
inflation factor of 1 percent. In this case, the first year net fiscal deficit is the same as the zero
inflation scenario of $29,200. The annual net fiscal deficit increases to a maximum of $112,600 by
year 6 (Year 2019). The deficit declines in the following year 7 then increases again in years 8
through 10 before declining for the next three years. The Project shows a net positive impact
beginning in year 14, which continues to grow almost continuously for the remainder of the 20-
year period. At build-out, the net fiscal surplus is approximately $135,700 and growing.
TWO PERCENT EXPENDITURE REAL INFLATION
Table 5.6 presents the net fiscal impacts generated by Village 8 West with an expenditure
inflation factor of 2 percent. As in the first two scenarios, the first year net fiscal deficit is $29,200
and grows more or less consistently through-out the build-out period with temporary reductions
in year 7 and 11. At build-out, the net fiscal deficit is approximately$269,500 and growing.
43%
22%
35%
Police
Fire
All others
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-13
FIGURE 5 VILLAGE 8 WEST REVENUES VS. COSTS
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
No Cost Inflation
Revenues
Costs
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
1% Annual Cost Inflation
Revenues
Costs
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
2% Annual Cost Inflation
Revenues
Costs
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-14
5.9 POTENTIAL RISKS
The absorption of development units are based on the Village 8 West SPA traffic analysis and
actual absorption may vary, depending on several factors included the continued pace of
recovery from the recession.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research's business cycle dating committee, the
recent recession ended in June 2009, 18 months after it began in December 2007. Despite this
announcement, the length and breadth of the recovery has been slow particularly in the
construction sector. Growth in this sector has begun to pick-up recently and will continue to grow
at a moderate pace for at least the remainder of 2013. Retail and office development is driven in
part by employment growth, and business and customer demand, which are all dependent on
overall economic growth. Actual absorption of the Project’s non-residential space could be
pushed back relative to the projected absorption in this analysis. The pace of new residential
construction is affected by several factors including the supply of homes for sale, interest rates,
household income growth, and availability of skilled labor in the construction trades. The recent
trend of reductions in home mortgage foreclosures in the region, the diminishing supply of housing
product, as well as historically low mortgage interest rates are factors that support an increase in
construction activity. Shifts by households from ownership to rental units, or vice versa, or to smaller
homes could also impact the phasing and the type of residential development. General
population growth and expected increases in household incomes as the economy continues to
improve in California will help to reinitiate strong residential development.
In the case that commercial developments get pushed back further than residential
developments, the city may face higher public services costs associated with residential service
demands while additional commercial revenues sources, such as sales tax and additional
property tax, will be delayed until the commercial is developed.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-15
TABLE 5.4
VILLAGE 8 WEST NET FISCAL IMPACT (IN $000’S)
(EXPENDITURE REAL INFLATION RATE OF 0%)
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Revenues
Property Taxes $0.0 $25.3 $51.6 $78.9 $107.2 $136.7 $240.8 $348.9 $460.9 $577.1
Property Transfer Taxes $0.0 $12.8 $14.3 $15.9 $17.4 $19.1 $58.1 $63.9 $69.9 $76.1
VLF Revenues $17.7 $35.3 $52.8 $70.3 $87.8 $151.0 $213.5 $275.4 $336.6 $397.2
Sales and Use Taxes $5.2 $10.5 $15.7 $20.9 $26.2 $57.7 $89.2 $120.8 $152.3 $183.8
Other Revenue $6.4 $12.8 $19.2 $25.6 $32.1 $56.1 $80.1 $104.2 $128.2 $152.2
Subtotal Revenues $29.3 $96.7 $153.6 $211.6 $270.7 $420.6 $681.8 $913.1 $1,148.0 $1,386.4
Expenditures
Police Costs $24.0 $48.0 $72.0 $96.0 $120.0 $210.0 $300.1 $390.1 $480.2 $570.2
Fire costs $13.8 $27.6 $41.4 $55.1 $68.9 $118.4 $167.8 $217.3 $266.8 $316.2
Other Expenditures $20.7 $41.5 $62.2 $83.0 $103.7 $179.3 $254.9 $330.5 $406.1 $481.6
Subtotal Expenditures $58.5 $117.0 $175.6 $234.1 $292.6 $507.7 $722.8 $937.9 $1,153.0 $1,368.1
Net Fiscal Impact ($29.2)($20.4)($21.9)($22.5)($21.9)($87.2)($41.0)($24.8)($5.0)$18.3
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2031
Revenues
Property Taxes $697.4 $773.5 $852.0 $933.2 $1,017.1 $1,103.7 $1,133.0 $1,163.0 $1,193.7 $1,225.2
Property Transfer Taxes $82.4 $64.3 $68.0 $71.4 $75.7 $79.6 $53.2 $54.3 $55.3 $56.3
VLF Revenues $430.9 $464.5 $497.8 $530.9 $563.8 $567.4 $570.9 $574.4 $578.0 $581.5
Sales and Use Taxes $243.0 $302.2 $361.5 $420.7 $479.9 $500.4 $521.0 $541.6 $562.1 $582.7
Other Revenue $165.7 $179.3 $192.8 $206.3 $219.9 $221.5 $223.1 $224.7 $226.3 $227.9
Subtotal Revenues $1,619.5 $1,783.7 $1,972.1 $2,162.6 $2,356.3 $2,472.6 $2,501.2 $2,557.9 $2,615.3 $2,673.5
Expenditures $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Police Costs $627.9 $685.5 $743.1 $800.8 $858.4 $869.1 $879.7 $890.3 $901.0 $911.6
Fire costs $344.0 $371.8 $399.7 $427.5 $455.3 $458.3 $461.4 $464.5 $467.6 $470.6
Other Expenditures $528.8 $576.0 $623.1 $670.3 $717.4 $724.0 $730.6 $737.2 $743.8 $750.4
Subtotal Expenditures $1,500.7 $1,633.3 $1,765.9 $1,898.5 $2,031.1 $2,051.4 $2,071.7 $2,092.0 $2,112.3 $2,132.6
Net Fiscal Impact $118.8 $150.4 $206.1 $264.1 $325.2 $421.2 $429.5 $465.9 $503.0 $540.9
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-16
TABLE 5.5
VILLAGE 8 WEST NET FISCAL IMPACT (IN $000’S)
(EXPENDITURE REAL INFLATION RATE OF 1%)
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Revenues
Property Taxes $0.0 $25.3 $51.6 $78.9 $107.2 $136.7 $240.8 $348.9 $460.9 $577.1
Property Transfer Taxes $0.0 $12.8 $14.3 $15.9 $17.4 $19.1 $58.1 $63.9 $69.9 $76.1
VLF Revenues $17.7 $35.3 $52.8 $70.3 $87.8 $151.0 $213.5 $275.4 $336.6 $397.2
Sales and Use Taxes $5.2 $10.5 $15.7 $20.9 $26.2 $57.7 $89.2 $120.8 $152.3 $183.8
Other Revenue $6.4 $12.8 $19.2 $25.6 $32.1 $56.1 $80.1 $104.2 $128.2 $152.2
Subtotal Revenues $29.3 $96.7 $153.6 $211.6 $270.7 $420.6 $681.8 $913.1 $1,148.0 $1,386.4
Expenditures
Police Costs $24.0 $48.5 $73.4 $98.9 $124.8 $220.5 $318.1 $417.4 $518.6 $621.6
Fire costs $13.8 $27.8 $42.2 $56.8 $71.7 $124.3 $177.9 $232.5 $288.1 $344.7
Other Expenditures $20.7 $41.9 $63.5 $85.5 $107.9 $188.3 $270.2 $353.6 $438.5 $525.0
Subtotal Expenditures $58.5 $118.2 $179.1 $241.1 $304.3 $533.1 $766.2 $1,003.6 $1,245.3 $1,491.2
Net Fiscal Impact ($29.2)($21.6)($25.4)($29.5)($33.6)($112.6)($84.4)($90.4)($97.3)($104.8)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2031
Revenues
Property Taxes $697.4 $773.5 $852.0 $933.2 $1,017.1 $1,103.7 $1,133.0 $1,163.0 $1,193.7 $1,225.2
Property Transfer Taxes $82.4 $64.3 $68.0 $71.4 $75.7 $79.6 $53.2 $54.3 $55.3 $56.3
VLF Revenues $430.9 $464.5 $497.8 $530.9 $563.8 $567.4 $570.9 $574.4 $578.0 $581.5
Sales and Use Taxes $243.0 $302.2 $361.5 $420.7 $479.9 $500.4 $521.0 $541.6 $562.1 $582.7
Other Revenue $165.7 $179.3 $192.8 $206.3 $219.9 $221.5 $223.1 $224.7 $226.3 $227.9
Subtotal Revenues $1,619.5 $1,783.7 $1,972.1 $2,162.6 $2,356.3 $2,472.6 $2,501.2 $2,557.9 $2,615.3 $2,673.5
Expenditures
Police Costs $690.7 $760.9 $832.3 $904.9 $978.6 $999.4 $1,020.4 $1,041.7 $1,063.1 $1,084.8
Fire costs $378.4 $412.7 $447.6 $483.0 $519.0 $527.1 $535.2 $543.5 $551.7 $560.1
Other Expenditures $581.7 $639.3 $697.9 $757.4 $817.9 $832.6 $847.5 $862.5 $877.7 $893.0
Subtotal Expenditures $1,650.8 $1,813.0 $1,977.8 $2,145.3 $2,315.5 $2,359.1 $2,403.2 $2,447.7 $2,492.6 $2,537.8
Net Fiscal Impact ($31.3)($29.3)($5.8)$17.3 $40.9 $113.4 $98.0 $110.2 $122.8 $135.7
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-17
Table 5.6
Village 8 West Net Fiscal Impact (in $000’s)
(Expenditure Real Inflation Rate of 2%)
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Revenues
Property Taxes $0.0 $25.3 $51.6 $78.9 $107.2 $136.7 $240.8 $348.9 $460.9 $577.1
Property Transfer Taxes $0.0 $12.8 $14.3 $15.9 $17.4 $19.1 $58.1 $63.9 $69.9 $76.1
VLF Revenues $17.7 $35.3 $52.8 $70.3 $87.8 $151.0 $213.5 $275.4 $336.6 $397.2
Sales and Use Taxes $5.2 $10.5 $15.7 $20.9 $26.2 $57.7 $89.2 $120.8 $152.3 $183.8
Other Revenue $6.4 $12.8 $19.2 $25.6 $32.1 $56.1 $80.1 $104.2 $128.2 $152.2
Subtotal Revenues $29.3 $96.7 $153.6 $211.6 $270.7 $420.6 $681.8 $913.1 $1,148.0 $1,386.4
Expenditures
Police Costs $24.0 $49.0 $74.9 $101.8 $129.6 $231.0 $336.1 $444.8 $557.0 $672.9
Fire costs $13.8 $28.1 $43.0 $58.4 $74.4 $130.2 $188.0 $247.7 $309.4 $373.1
Other Expenditures $20.7 $42.3 $64.7 $87.9 $112.0 $197.2 $285.5 $376.7 $471.0 $568.3
Subtotal Expenditures $58.5 $119.4 $182.6 $248.1 $316.0 $558.5 $809.6 $1,069.2 $1,337.5 $1,614.4
Net Fiscal Impact ($29.2)($22.7)($29.0)($36.5)($45.3)($137.9)($127.7)($156.1)($189.5)($228.0)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Revenues 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2031
Property Taxes $697.4 $773.5 $852.0 $933.2 $1,017.1 $1,103.7 $1,133.0 $1,163.0 $1,193.7 $1,225.2
Property Transfer Taxes $82.4 $64.3 $68.0 $71.4 $75.7 $79.6 $53.2 $54.3 $55.3 $56.3
VLF Revenues $430.9 $464.5 $497.8 $530.9 $563.8 $567.4 $570.9 $574.4 $578.0 $581.5
Sales and Use Taxes $243.0 $302.2 $361.5 $420.7 $479.9 $500.4 $521.0 $541.6 $562.1 $582.7
Other Revenue $165.7 $179.3 $192.8 $206.3 $219.9 $221.5 $223.1 $224.7 $226.3 $227.9
Subtotal Revenues $1,619.5 $1,783.7 $1,972.1 $2,162.6 $2,356.3 $2,472.6 $2,501.2 $2,557.9 $2,615.3 $2,673.5
Expenditures
Police Costs $753.4 $836.3 $921.5 $1,009.0 $1,098.8 $1,129.8 $1,161.2 $1,193.0 $1,225.3 $1,258.0
Fire costs $412.8 $453.7 $495.6 $538.6 $582.8 $595.9 $609.1 $622.4 $635.9 $649.5
Other Expenditures $634.6 $702.7 $772.7 $844.5 $918.3 $941.2 $964.4 $987.9 $1,011.6 $1,035.6
Subtotal Expenditures $1,800.9 $1,992.6 $2,189.7 $2,392.1 $2,599.8 $2,666.9 $2,734.7 $2,803.3 $2,872.8 $2,943.0
Net Fiscal Impact ($181.3)($209.0)($217.7)($229.6)($243.5)($194.3)($233.5)($245.4)($257.4)($269.5)
Source: PMC
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
5-18
APPENDIX A
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLES
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
5-19
APPENDIX TABLE 1
EXISTING DEVELOPED LAND USE DISTRIBUTION (2010)
LAND USE Total Acres
Non Residential Uses
Retail (acres)1 1,001.6
Office (acres)259.3
Hotel (acres)2 29.0
General Industrial (acres)54.4
Research/Limited Industrial (acres)3 787.4
Parks (acres)4 510.0
Public/Quasi Public (acres)1,262.1
Open Space/ROWs/Other (acres)5 5,399.3
Special Land Uses
Conference Center -
Waterpark and Amphitheatre 66.0
Golf Courses 6 692.6
University -
Power Plant 75.2
Residential Uses
Acreage
Single Family 7,505.5
Multi Family 1,746.3
Mobile Homes 313.0
Total Acres 19,701.7
Units
Single Family 42,027
Multi Family 33,026
Mobile Homes 3,562
Total Units 78,615
Note: All areas in Net Acres
(1) Includes retail land under visitor commercial and
resort related uses
(4) Includes public parks
(6) Includes both public and private golf courses
Source: City of Chula Vista and PMC
(3) Includes research/limited industrial, warehousing, public storage, and
extractive industry
(2) Includes hotels and motels only (including hotel/motel components of
resort facilities)
(5) Includes open space & agriculture designated areas, rights of way,
easements and other misc., undevelopable areas
* Estimates Land Use figures based on the assumption of the current land
development are subject to change and refinement
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
5-20
APPENDIX TABLE 2
EXISTING POPULATION ESTIMATES (2010)
Total
Dwelling Units (DU s)1
Single Family Units 42,027
Multi-Family Units 33,026
Mobile Homes 3,562
Total Dwelling Units 78,615
Occupied DU s2 (Households)
Single Family Units 40,762
Multi-Family Units 32,032
Mobile Homes 3,455
Total Occupied Units 76,249
Estimated Persons per Household (Occupied DU)3
Single Family Units 3.33
Multi-Family Units 2.58
Mobile Homes 1.99
Estimated Existing HH Population
Single Family Units 135,737
Multi-Family Units 82,642
Mobile Homes 6,875
Total Estimated HH Population 225,255
Estimated Non HH Population4 1,409
Total Estimated Existing Population 226,664
1 Exisitng dwelling unit inventory from Table 1
2 Applying average vacancy rate of 3.01% as reported by the California
Department of Finance
3 Based on Census 2000 Housing Occupancy data for Chula Vista (does
not include Boat, RV, Van occupants)
It is assumed that 'Single Family' includes both attached and
detached units
4 Applying Year 2000 California State Department of Finance Estimates
and deriving pro-rated share based on 2010 HH population
Source: City of Chula Vista, US Census 2000, California Dept. of Finance,
and PMC
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-21
APPENDIX TABLE 3
EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITY FACTORS
Land Uses
FAR1
Estimate Sq. Ft
Employment
Factor
(s.f./Empl.)
Bldg.
Efficiency Occupancy
Occupied
Sq. Ft.Employees Empl/Acre Acres
Retail 0.29 250,000 450 80%88%176,000 391 19.1 20
Office 0.57 50,000 250 80%88%35,200 141 68.7 2
1FAR is the Citywide Floor Area Ratio defined as the ratio of land area to net usable building floor area
(this is a measure of building density)
Source: City of Chula Vista, Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan, PMC
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-22
APPENDIX TABLE 4
INCREMENTAL PER UNIT COST FACTORS
1 Except for Culture and Leisure, this column shows functional (indirect) departmental costs which are allocated to population.
Note: All cost factors are derived from a budget analysis conducted in the period FY 2004-05 to FY 2008-09
Source: City of Chula Vista
Citywide Cost Factors by Function/Department
Population (per
person)1
Retail (per
acre)
Office (per
acre)
Industrial
(per acre)
Public Park
(per acre)
Public Use
(per acre)
Open Space
(per acre)
Other (per
acre)
Residential
(per DU)
LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATION
City Council $2.00
Boards & Commissions
City Clerk $1.37
City Attorney $80.11 $86.52 $21.13 $12.11
Administration $0.29 $0.35
Management and Information Services $4.60
Human Resources
Finance
DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Economic Development Function $301.43 $325.55 $79.51
Planning and Building Services $203.44 $219.57 $55.00 $31.70 $30.69
Engineering $274.44 $145.29 $27.44 $15.53 $16.85 $3.07
Public Works $5,914.17 $3,131.00 $591.42 $69.58 $347.89 $347.89 $68.43
General Services
PUBLIC SAFETY (population and non-residential only, see Table A6)
Police $11.01 $6,836.27 $6,836.27 $1,006.09 $2,202.49 $2,202.49 $2,202.49
Fire $1.05 $2,917.22 $2,917.22 $396.88 $160.46 $160.46 $160.46 $160.46
CULTURE AND LEISURE
Parks and Recreation $18.90
Library $37.32
Total Unit Cost $76.54 $16,527.08 $13,661.42 $2,177.47 $2,448.06 $2,710.84 $160.46 $2,759.39 $114.65
Land Uses
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-23
APPENDIX TABLE 5
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY COEFFICIENTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COSTS
Notes:
1Project Residential Acreage is estimated by dividing the cumulative annual housing units by the residential gross acres (2,050 units divided by 179 acres)
Source: City of Chula Vista; Bureau of Labor Statistics; PMC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Residential Uses
Units
Single Family 21 21 21 21 21 71 71 71 71 71
Cumulative 21 42 63 84 105 176 247 317 388 459
Multi Family 49 49 49 49 49 165 165 165 165 165
Cumulative 49 98 148 197 246 411 576 740 905 1,070
Total Units 70 140 211 281 351 587 822 1,058 1,293 1,529
Population
Single Family Persons/DU@ 3.33 70 70 70 70 70 236 236 236 236 236
Cumulative 70 140 210 280 350 585 821 1,057 1,293 1,528
Multi Family Persons/DU@ 2.58 127 127 127 127 127 425 425 425 425 425
Cumulative 127 254 381 508 635 1,060 1,485 1,910 2,335 2,761
Cumulative Population 197 394 591 787 984 1,645 2,306 2,967 3,628 4,289
Acres 1 6 12 18 24 31 51 72 92 113 133
Current city-wide Police Service Costs $310.98 /DU
Current city-wide Fire Service Costs $193.41 /DU
Public Safety Costs per Dwelling Unit
Police $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98
Fire $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41
Annual Public Safety Costs (Allocated to DUs)
Police ($000s)$21.83 $43.66 $65.49 $87.32 $109.15 $182.42 $255.69 $328.95 $402.22 $475.48
Fire ($000s)$13.58 $27.16 $40.73 $54.31 $67.89 $113.46 $159.02 $204.59 $250.16 $295.73
Total ($000s)35.41 70.82 106.22 141.63 177.04 295.88 414.71 533.54 652.38 771.21
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Residential Uses
Units
Single Family 32 32 32 32 32 0 0 0 0 0
Cumulative 491 524 556 589 621 621 621 621 621 621
Multi Family 72 72 72 72 72 0 0 0 0 0
Cumulative 1,142 1,214 1,285 1,357 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429
Total Units 1,633 1,737 1,842 1,946 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050
Population
Single Family Persons/DU@ 3.33 108 108 108 108 108 0 0 0 0 0
Cumulative 1,636 1,744 1,852 1,960 2,068 2,068 2,068 2,068 2,068 2,068
Multi Family Persons/DU@ 2.58 185 185 185 185 185 0 0 0 0 0
Cumulative 2,946 3,131 3,316 3,502 3,687 3,687 3,687 3,687 3,687 3,687
Cumulative Population 4,582 4,875 5,168 5,462 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755
Acres 1 142 152 161 170 179 179 179 179 179 179
Public Safety Costs per Dwelling Unit
Police $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98 $310.98
Fire $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41 $193.41
Annual Public Safety Costs (Allocated to DUs)
Police ($000s)$507.89 $540.29 $572.70 $605.10 $637.50 $637.50 $637.50 $637.50 $637.50 $637.50
Fire ($000s)$315.88 $336.04 $356.19 $376.34 $396.50 $396.50 $396.50 $396.50 $396.50 $396.50
Total ($000s)$823.77 $876.33 $928.89 $981.44 $1,034.00 $1,034.00 $1,034.00 $1,034.00 $1,034.00 $1,034.00
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-24
APPENDIX TABLE 6
ANNUAL FISCAL COST SUMMARY
ZERO REAL GROWTH IN UNIT COSTS
1% REAL ANNUAL GROWTH IN UNIT COSTS
2% REAL ANNUAL GROWTH IN UNIT COSTS
1 Allocation factor for indirect departmental costs only, except for Culture and Leisure
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Expense Drivers 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
(Expenses in $000s)
Real Growth 0%1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Retail (acre)$16,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $21 $31 $42 $52 $92 $131 $170 $209 $249 $264 $280 $296 $311 $327 $2,486
Office (acre)$13,661 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $11 $17 $22 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 $358
Parks (acres)$2,448 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $5 $8 $11 $13 $20 $26 $33 $39 $46 $50 $55 $59 $64 $69 $501
Dwelling Units $115 $8 $16 $24 $32 $40 $67 $94 $121 $148 $175 $187 $199 $211 $223 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $2,958
Population (persons)1 $77 $15 $30 $45 $60 $75 $126 $177 $227 $278 $328 $351 $373 $396 $418 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $5,542
Public Safety Costs Allocated
to Dwelling Units $504 $35 $71 $106 $142 $177 $296 $415 $534 $652 $771 $824 $876 $929 $981 $1,034 $1,034 $1,034 $1,034 $1,034 $1,034 $13,013
$59 $117 $176 $234 $293 $508 $723 $938 $1,153 $1,368 $1,501 $1,633 $1,766 $1,899 $2,031 $2,051 $2,072 $2,092 $2,112 $2,133 $24,857
Unit
Cost
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Expense Drivers 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
(Expenses in $000s)
Real Growth 1%1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19
Retail (acre)$16,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $22 $34 $45 $57 $101 $145 $190 $237 $283 $304 $325 $346 $367 $389 $2,857
Office (acre)$13,661 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $12 $18 $24 $30 $30 $31 $31 $31 $31 $32 $32 $32 $32 $33 $404
Parks (acres)$2,448 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $6 $9 $12 $15 $22 $29 $37 $44 $52 $58 $63 $69 $75 $82 $575
Dwelling Units $115 $8 $16 $25 $33 $42 $71 $100 $130 $160 $191 $206 $221 $236 $252 $268 $270 $273 $275 $277 $280 $3,334
Population (persons)$77 $15 $30 $46 $62 $78 $132 $187 $243 $300 $358 $386 $414 $443 $472 $502 $507 $511 $515 $520 $524 $6,246
Public Safety Costs Allocated
to Dwelling Units $504 $35 $72 $108 $146 $184 $311 $440 $571 $705 $841 $906 $973 $1,040 $1,109 $1,179 $1,189 $1,199 $1,210 $1,220 $1,230 $14,668
$59 $118 $179 $241 $304 $533 $766 $1,004 $1,245 $1,491 $1,651 $1,813 $1,978 $2,145 $2,315 $2,359 $2,403 $2,448 $2,493 $2,538 $28,083
Unit
Cost
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Expense Drivers 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
(Expenses in $000s)
Real Growth 2%1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38
Retail (acre)$16,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12 $23 $36 $49 $62 $110 $160 $211 $264 $318 $344 $370 $396 $423 $451 $3,228
Office (acre)$13,661 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $12 $19 $26 $32 $33 $34 $34 $35 $35 $36 $36 $37 $37 $38 $450
Parks (acres)$2,448 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $6 $9 $12 $16 $24 $32 $41 $49 $58 $65 $72 $80 $87 $95 $649
Dwelling Units $115 $8 $16 $25 $34 $43 $74 $106 $138 $172 $207 $225 $243 $262 $281 $301 $306 $310 $315 $320 $324 $3,710
Population (persons)$77 $15 $31 $47 $64 $81 $139 $198 $259 $322 $387 $421 $455 $491 $527 $564 $573 $581 $590 $599 $608 $6,951
Public Safety Costs Allocated
to Dwelling Units $504 $35 $72 $110 $150 $191 $325 $464 $608 $757 $910 $989 $1,069 $1,152 $1,237 $1,324 $1,344 $1,365 $1,386 $1,406 $1,427 $16,322
$59 $119 $183 $248 $316 $558 $810 $1,069 $1,337 $1,614 $1,801 $1,993 $2,190 $2,392 $2,600 $2,667 $2,735 $2,803 $2,873 $2,943 $31,310
Unit
Cost
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-25
APPENDIX TABLE 7
ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION BY LAND USE TYPE
1 FAR is Floor Area Ratio defined as the ratio of land area to building floor area (this is a measure of building density) 2 Retail rent based on San Diego Retail Market Snapshot 2nd half 2012 South County from Cassidy Turley. Cap Rate based on CBRE Cap Rate
Survey for 2nd half 2012
3 Office rent is based on 1st Qtr., 2012 data for Chula Vista from VOIT Real Estate Services. C ap rate from CBRE Cap Rate Survey for 2nd half
2012.
4 Based on an analysis of current listings (May, 2013) in the Otay Ranch area from Yahoo.com.
5 Rents based on current market comparables for 2 -bedroom apartments reported by rentbits.com. Unit size based on SPA FIA Framework.
Cap. Rate based on Class "B" stabilized projects, San Diego suburban multihousing report from CBRE Cap Rate Survey 2nd half 2012.
7 Net Income per acre & per unit includes adjustments of 15% and 35%, respectively, for operating costs, based on assumptions i n the SPA FIA Framework.
Note: The above estimates are for future development and include land and improvement values.
Source: City of Chula Vista, Cassidy Turley BRE Commercial, VOIT Real Estate Services, CBRE, and PMC.
Land Uses
Non-Residential Uses Rent /s.f./mo.
Building
Efficiency Occupancy Rate Net Income/acre 7
Capitalization
Rate
Assessed Value
per Acre
Retail 2 0.29 FAR1 12,502 s.f.$2.10 80%88%$188,519 6.50%$2,900,296
Office 3 0.57 FAR1 24,829 s.f.$1.80 80%88%$320,924 7.25%$4,426,534
Residential Uses Rent /s.f./mo.Average Unit Size Occupancy Net Income/Unit Cap. Rate AV per DU
Single Family4 $488,600
Multi Family (owner occupied)4 $284,700
Multi Family (renter occupied)5 $1.90 800 95%$11,263 5.25%$214,542
Density Factor Units/Acre
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-26
APPENDIX TABLE 8
ASSESSED VALUE ABSORPTION
1 Percentage of new AV, based on assumption made for Otay Ranch EUC SPA FIA. 2 Multi Family assumes 25% of total units are rental units, and 75% are ownership units, based on SPA FIA Framework, Table 11.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Income Producing Products ($000's)
Retail (sq. ft.)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,856 $1,856 $1,856 $1,856 $1,856
Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,856 $3,712 $5,568 $7,424 $9,280
Office (sq. ft.)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,783 $1,783 $1,783 $1,783 $1,783
Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,783 $3,566 $5,348 $7,131 $8,914
Gross Non-Resi. Income Producing AV (Annual)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,639 $3,639 $3,639 $3,639 $3,639
Gross Non-Resi. Income Producing AV (Cumul.)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,639 $7,277 $10,916 $14,555 $18,194
Less Existing AV 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $546 $546 $546 $546 $546
Net New Non-Resi. Income Producing AV (Annual)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,093 $3,093 $3,093 $3,093 $3,093
Net New Non-Resi. Income Producing AV (Cumul.)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,093 $6,186 $9,279 $12,372 $15,465
Multi Family (rental) 2 $2,639 $2,639 $2,639 $2,639 $2,639 $8,839 $8,839 $8,839 $8,839 $8,839
Cumulative $2,639 $5,278 $7,917 $10,555 $13,194 $22,033 $30,873 $39,712 $48,551 $57,390
Gross Resi. Income Producing AV (Annual)$2,639 $2,639 $2,639 $2,639 $2,639 $12,478 $12,478 $12,478 $12,478 $12,478
Gross Resi. Income Producing AV (Cumul.)$2,639 $5,278 $7,917 $10,555 $13,194 $25,672 $38,150 $50,628 $63,106 $75,584
Less Existing AV 1 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47
Net New Resi. Income Producing AV (Annual)$2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $12,430 $12,430 $12,430 $12,430 $12,430
Net New Resi. Income Producing AV (Cumul.)$2,629 $5,258 $7,886 $10,515 $13,144 $25,575 $38,005 $50,435 $62,866 $75,296
For-Sale Products ($000's)
Single Family $10,261 $10,261 $10,261 $10,261 $10,261 $34,593 $34,593 $34,593 $34,593 $34,593
Cumulative $10,261 $20,521 $30,782 $41,042 $51,303 $85,896 $120,489 $155,082 $189,675 $224,267
Multi Family (Ownership) 2 $10,505 $10,505 $10,505 $10,505 $10,505 $35,189 $35,189 $35,189 $35,189 $35,189
Cumulative $10,505 $21,011 $31,516 $42,022 $52,527 $87,716 $122,905 $158,094 $193,283 $228,472
Gross For Sale AV (Annual)$20,766 $20,766 $20,766 $20,766 $20,766 $69,782 $69,782 $69,782 $69,782 $69,782
Gross For Sale AV (Cumul.)$20,766 $41,532 $62,298 $83,064 $103,830 $173,612 $243,394 $313,176 $382,957 $452,739
Less Existing AV 1 $79 $79 $79 $79 $79 $265 $265 $265 $265 $265
Net New For Sale AV (Annual)$20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516
Net New For Sale AV (Cumul.)$20,687 $41,374 $62,061 $82,748 $103,435 $172,952 $242,468 $311,985 $381,501 $451,018
Total Net New AV (Annual)$23,316 $23,316 $23,316 $23,316 $23,316 $85,040 $85,040 $85,040 $85,040 $85,040
Total Net New AV (Cumul.)$23,316 $46,632 $69,948 $93,264 $116,580 $201,619 $286,659 $371,699 $456,739 $541,778
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-27
APPENDIX TABLE 8--ASSESSED VALUE ABSORPTION, CONTINUED
1 Percentage of new AV, based on assumption made for Otay Ranch EUC SPA FIA. 2 Multi Family assumes 25% of total units are rental units, and 75% are ownership units, based on SPA FIA Framework, Table 11. Source: EUC SPA FIA, PMC
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Income Producing Products ($000's)
Retail (sq. ft.)$6,960 $6,960 $6,960 $6,960 $6,960 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $57,998
Cumulative $16,239 $23,199 $30,159 $37,119 $44,078 $46,862 $49,646 $52,430 $55,214 $57,998
Office (sq. ft.)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,914
Cumulative $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $8,914
Gross Non-Resi. Income Producing AV (Annual)$6,960 $6,960 $6,960 $6,960 $6,960 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $66,912
Gross Non-Resi. Income Producing AV (Cumul.)$25,153 $32,113 $39,073 $46,033 $52,992 $55,776 $58,560 $61,344 $64,128 $66,912
Less Existing AV 1 $1,044 $1,044 $1,044 $1,044 $1,044 $418 $418 $418 $418 $418 $10,037
Net New Non-Resi. Income Producing AV (Annual)$5,916 $5,916 $5,916 $5,916 $5,916 $2,366 $2,366 $2,366 $2,366 $2,366 $56,875
Net New Non-Resi. Income Producing AV (Cumul.)$21,380 $27,296 $33,212 $39,128 $45,044 $47,410 $49,776 $52,142 $54,509 $56,875
Multi Family (rental) 2 $3,851 $3,851 $3,851 $3,851 $3,851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,645
Cumulative $61,241 $65,092 $68,943 $72,794 $76,645 $76,645 $76,645 $76,645 $76,645 $76,645
Gross Resi. Income Producing AV (Annual)$10,811 $10,811 $10,811 $10,811 $10,811 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $2,784 $143,557
Gross Resi. Income Producing AV (Cumul.)$86,394 $97,205 $108,016 $118,827 $129,637 $132,421 $135,205 $137,989 $140,773 $143,557
Less Existing AV 1 $41 $41 $41 $41 $41 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $546
Net New Resi. Income Producing AV (Annual)$10,770 $10,770 $10,770 $10,770 $10,770 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $143,011
Net New Resi. Income Producing AV (Cumul.)$86,066 $96,835 $107,605 $118,375 $129,144 $131,918 $134,691 $137,464 $140,238 $143,011
For-Sale Products ($000's)
Single Family $15,831 $15,831 $15,831 $15,831 $15,831 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $303,421
Cumulative $240,098 $255,929 $271,759 $287,590 $303,421 $303,421 $303,421 $303,421 $303,421 $303,421
Multi Family (Ownership) 2 $15,331 $15,331 $15,331 $15,331 $15,331 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $305,127
Cumulative $243,803 $259,134 $274,465 $289,796 $305,127 $305,127 $305,127 $305,127 $305,127 $305,127
Gross For Sale AV (Annual)$31,162 $31,162 $31,162 $31,162 $31,162 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $608,548
Gross For Sale AV (Cumul.)$483,901 $515,063 $546,224 $577,386 $608,548 $608,548 $608,548 $608,548 $608,548 $608,548
Less Existing AV 1 $118 $118 $118 $118 $118 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,314
Net New For Sale AV (Annual)$31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $606,234
Net New For Sale AV (Cumul.)$482,061 $513,104 $544,147 $575,191 $606,234 $606,234 $606,234 $606,234 $606,234 $606,234
Total Net New AV (Annual)$47,729 $47,729 $47,729 $47,729 $47,729 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140 $806,120
Total Net New AV (Cumul.)$589,507 $637,236 $684,965 $732,693 $780,422 $785,562 $790,701 $795,841 $800,981 $806,120
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-28
APPENDIX TABLE 9
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Annual For Sale Products AV Increment ($000's)$20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516 $31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Annual Income Producing Products AV ($000's)$2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $15,523 $15,523 $15,523 $15,523 $15,523 $16,685 $16,685 $16,685 $16,685 $16,685 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140
APPRECIATION FACTOR:
Year After Property First Sold Annual Rate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20
Real Appreciation Rate @ 2%2.0%100%102%104%106%108%110%112%114%116%118%120%122%124%126%128%130%132%134%136%138%
Inflation Rate @ 0%0.0%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Proposition 13 AV Limitation less Inflation of 2%2.0%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%
Income Products Annual Turnover Rate 5.0%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
For-Sale Products Annual Turnover Rate 10.0%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20
For Sale Products
YEAR PROPERTY FIRST SOLD:
Year 1 $20,687 $21,101 $21,523 $21,953 $22,392 $22,840 $23,297 $23,763 $24,238 $24,723 $25,217 $25,722 $26,236 $26,761 $27,296 $27,842 $28,399 $28,967 $29,546 $30,137
Year 2 $21,101 $21,523 $21,953 $22,392 $22,840 $23,297 $23,763 $24,238 $24,723 $25,217 $25,722 $26,236 $26,761 $27,296 $27,842 $28,399 $28,967 $29,546 $30,137
Year 3 $21,515 $21,945 $22,384 $22,831 $23,288 $23,754 $24,229 $24,713 $25,208 $25,712 $26,226 $26,751 $27,286 $27,831 $28,388 $28,956 $29,535 $30,126
Year 4 $21,928 $22,367 $22,814 $23,270 $23,736 $24,211 $24,695 $25,189 $25,692 $26,206 $26,730 $27,265 $27,810 $28,367 $28,934 $29,513 $30,103
Year 5 $22,342 $22,789 $23,245 $23,710 $24,184 $24,667 $25,161 $25,664 $26,177 $26,701 $27,235 $27,780 $28,335 $28,902 $29,480 $30,069
Year 6 $76,468 $77,997 $79,557 $81,149 $82,772 $84,427 $86,116 $87,838 $89,595 $91,386 $93,214 $95,078 $96,980 $98,920 $100,898
Year 7 $77,858 $79,416 $81,004 $82,624 $84,276 $85,962 $87,681 $89,435 $91,224 $93,048 $94,909 $96,807 $98,743 $100,718
Year 8 $79,249 $80,834 $82,450 $84,099 $85,781 $87,497 $89,247 $91,032 $92,853 $94,710 $96,604 $98,536 $100,507
Year 9 $80,639 $82,252 $83,897 $85,575 $87,286 $89,032 $90,813 $92,629 $94,482 $96,371 $98,299 $100,265
Year 10 $82,029 $83,670 $85,343 $87,050 $88,791 $90,567 $92,378 $94,226 $96,111 $98,033 $99,993
Year 11 $37,252 $37,997 $38,757 $39,532 $40,323 $41,129 $41,952 $42,791 $43,647 $44,519
Year 12 $37,873 $38,630 $39,403 $40,191 $40,995 $41,815 $42,651 $43,504 $44,374
Year 13 $38,494 $39,264 $40,049 $40,850 $41,667 $42,500 $43,350 $44,217
Year 14 $39,114 $39,897 $40,695 $41,509 $42,339 $43,186 $44,049
Year 15 $39,735 $40,530 $41,341 $42,167 $43,011 $43,871
Year 16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Year 17 $0 $0 $0 $0
Year 18 - - -
Year 19 - -
Year 20 -
FOR SALE PRODUCTS ASSESSED VALUE
(in $000's)$20,687 $42,202 $64,560 $87,780 $111,877 $190,583 $272,253 $356,947 $444,725 $535,649 $583,614 $633,159 $684,316 $737,116 $791,594 $807,426 $823,575 $840,046 $856,847 $873,984
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-29
APPENDIX TABLE 9—PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES, CONTINUED
1 Reflects 1-year lag in Property Tax receipts
Source: PMC
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20
Income Products 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
YEAR PROPERTY FIRST SOLD:
Year 1 $2,629 $2,681 $2,735 $2,790 $2,846 $2,902 $2,960 $3,020 $3,080 $3,142 $3,205 $3,269 $3,334 $3,401 $3,469 $3,538 $3,609 $3,681 $3,755 $3,830
Year 2 $2,681 $2,735 $2,790 $2,846 $2,902 $2,960 $3,020 $3,080 $3,142 $3,205 $3,269 $3,334 $3,401 $3,469 $3,538 $3,609 $3,681 $3,755 $3,830
Year 3 $2,734 $2,789 $2,844 $2,901 $2,959 $3,019 $3,079 $3,140 $3,203 $3,267 $3,333 $3,399 $3,467 $3,537 $3,607 $3,680 $3,753 $3,828
Year 4 $2,787 $2,842 $2,899 $2,957 $3,016 $3,077 $3,138 $3,201 $3,265 $3,330 $3,397 $3,465 $3,534 $3,605 $3,677 $3,750 $3,825
Year 5 $2,839 $2,896 $2,954 $3,013 $3,073 $3,135 $3,197 $3,261 $3,326 $3,393 $3,461 $3,530 $3,601 $3,673 $3,746 $3,821
Year 6 $17,076 $17,417 $17,766 $18,121 $18,483 $18,853 $19,230 $19,615 $20,007 $20,407 $20,815 $21,231 $21,656 $22,089 $22,531
Year 7 $17,386 $17,734 $18,089 $18,450 $18,819 $19,196 $19,580 $19,971 $20,371 $20,778 $21,194 $21,617 $22,050 $22,491
Year 8 $17,697 $18,051 $18,412 $18,780 $19,155 $19,538 $19,929 $20,328 $20,734 $21,149 $21,572 $22,003 $22,444
Year 9 $18,007 $18,367 $18,735 $19,109 $19,491 $19,881 $20,279 $20,684 $21,098 $21,520 $21,950 $22,390
Year 10 $18,318 $18,684 $19,058 $19,439 $19,827 $20,224 $20,628 $21,041 $21,462 $21,891 $22,329
Year 11 $20,023 $20,423 $20,831 $21,248 $21,673 $22,107 $22,549 $23,000 $23,460 $23,929
Year 12 $20,356 $20,763 $21,179 $21,602 $22,034 $22,475 $22,924 $23,383 $23,851
Year 13 $20,690 $21,104 $21,526 $21,956 $22,395 $22,843 $23,300 $23,766
Year 14 $21,024 $21,444 $21,873 $22,310 $22,757 $23,212 $23,676
Year 15 $21,357 $21,785 $22,220 $22,665 $23,118 $23,580
Year 16 $6,682 $6,815 $6,951 $7,090 $7,232
Year 17 $6,784 $6,920 $7,058 $7,200
Year 18 $6,887 $7,025 $7,165
Year 19 $6,990 $7,130
Year 20 $7,093
INCOME PRODUCTS ASSESSED VALUE
(in $000's)$2,629 $5,363 $8,204 $11,155 $14,217 $31,577 $49,595 $68,283 $87,656 $107,726 $129,903 $152,858 $176,605 $201,161 $226,541 $237,754 $249,293 $261,166 $273,379 $285,939
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (in $000's)
Residential and Commercial $23,316 $47,564 $72,764 $98,934 $126,094 $222,160 $321,848 $425,230 $532,381 $643,375 $713,517 $786,017 $860,921 $938,277 $1,018,135 $1,045,180 $1,072,868 $1,101,212 $1,130,226 $1,159,923
TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES COLLECTED 1 ($000s) @ 1%1.00%$233 $476 $728 $989 $1,261 $2,222 $3,218 $4,252 $5,324 $6,434 $7,135 $7,860 $8,609 $9,383 $10,181 $10,452 $10,729 $11,012 $11,302
ANNUAL INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITY
Potential Share to Chula Vista Gen. Fund @ 10.84%10.84%$0 $25,274 $51,560 $78,876 $107,245 $136,686 $240,821 $348,883 $460,949 $577,101 $697,419 $773,453 $852,042 $933,238 $1,017,092 $1,103,659 $1,132,975 $1,162,988 $1,193,714 $1,225,165
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-30
APPENDIX TABLE 10
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
1 $0.55 for every $1,000 of real property sale value
2 One year time lag
Source: PMC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Annual For Sale Products AV Increment ($000's)$20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $20,687 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516 $69,516 $31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $31,043 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Annual Income Producing Products AV ($000's)$2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $2,629 $15,523 $15,523 $15,523 $15,523 $15,523 $16,685 $16,685 $16,685 $16,685 $16,685 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140 $5,140
APPRECIATION FACTOR:
Year After Property First Sold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Real Appreciation Rate @2%100%102%104%106%108%110%112%114%116%118%120%122%124%126%128%130%132%134%136%138%
Inflation Rate @ 0%
Income Producing Products Turnover 5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
For Sale Products Turnover 10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%
Transfer Tax Rate ($0.55 per $1,000 AV) 1
Real Property Transfer Tax1 (including annual turnovers) in $000s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
For Sale Products
YEAR PROPERTY FIRST SOLD:
Year 1 $11,378 $1,161 $1,183 $1,206 $1,229 $1,252 $1,274 $1,297 $1,320 $1,343 $1,365 $1,388 $1,411 $1,434 $1,456 $1,479 $1,502 $1,525 $1,547 $1,570
Year 2 $11,605 $1,183 $1,206 $1,229 $1,252 $1,274 $1,297 $1,320 $1,343 $1,365 $1,388 $1,411 $1,434 $1,456 $1,479 $1,502 $1,525 $1,547 $1,570
Year 3 $11,833 $1,206 $1,229 $1,252 $1,274 $1,297 $1,320 $1,343 $1,365 $1,388 $1,411 $1,434 $1,456 $1,479 $1,502 $1,525 $1,547 $1,570
Year 4 $12,061 $1,229 $1,252 $1,274 $1,297 $1,320 $1,343 $1,365 $1,388 $1,411 $1,434 $1,456 $1,479 $1,502 $1,525 $1,547 $1,570
Year 5 $12,288 $1,252 $1,274 $1,297 $1,320 $1,343 $1,365 $1,388 $1,411 $1,434 $1,456 $1,479 $1,502 $1,525 $1,547 $1,570
Year 6 $42,057 $4,282 $4,359 $4,435 $4,512 $4,588 $4,665 $4,741 $4,817 $4,894 $4,970 $5,047 $5,123 $5,200 $5,276
Year 7 $42,822 $4,359 $4,435 $4,512 $4,588 $4,665 $4,741 $4,817 $4,894 $4,970 $5,047 $5,123 $5,200 $5,276
Year 8 $43,587 $4,435 $4,512 $4,588 $4,665 $4,741 $4,817 $4,894 $4,970 $5,047 $5,123 $5,200 $5,276
Year 9 $44,352 $4,512 $4,588 $4,665 $4,741 $4,817 $4,894 $4,970 $5,047 $5,123 $5,200 $5,276
Year 10 $45,116 $4,588 $4,665 $4,741 $4,817 $4,894 $4,970 $5,047 $5,123 $5,200 $5,276
Year 11 $20,489 $2,083 $2,117 $2,151 $2,185 $2,220 $2,254 $2,288 $2,322 $2,356
Year 12 $20,830 $2,117 $2,151 $2,185 $2,220 $2,254 $2,288 $2,322 $2,356
Year 13 $20,830 $2,151 $2,185 $2,220 $2,254 $2,288 $2,322 $2,356
Year 14 $21,513 $2,185 $2,220 $2,254 $2,288 $2,322 $2,356
Year 15 $21,854 $2,220 $2,254 $2,288 $2,322 $2,356
Year 16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Year 17 $0 $0 $0 $0
Year 18 $0 $0 $0
Year 19 $0 $0
Year 20 $0
For Sale Products $11,378 $12,766 $14,200 $15,679 $17,203 $48,315 $53,476 $58,790 $64,256 $69,876 $50,256 $53,176 $55,824 $59,222 $62,348 $43,346 $44,013 $44,679 $45,346 $46,013
For Sale Products Property Transfer Tax (with lag period) 2 $11,378 $12,766 $14,200 $15,679 $17,203 $48,315 $53,476 $58,790 $64,256 $69,876 $50,256 $53,176 $55,824 $59,222 $62,348 $43,346 $44,013 $44,679 $45,346
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-31
APPENDIX TABLE 10—PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX, CONTINUED
1 $0.55 for every $1,000 of real property sale value
2 One year time lag
Source: PMC
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20
Income Products ($000s)2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
YEAR PROPERTY FIRST SOLD:
Year 1 $1,446 $74 $75 $77 $78 $80 $81 $82 $84 $85 $87 $88 $90 $91 $93 $94 $95 $97 $98 $100
Year 2 $1,475 $75 $77 $78 $80 $81 $82 $84 $85 $87 $88 $90 $91 $93 $94 $95 $97 $98 $100
Year 3 $1,504 $77 $78 $80 $81 $82 $84 $85 $87 $88 $90 $91 $93 $94 $95 $97 $98 $100
Year 4 $1,533 $78 $80 $81 $82 $84 $85 $87 $88 $90 $91 $93 $94 $95 $97 $98 $100
Year 5 $1,562 $80 $81 $82 $84 $85 $87 $88 $90 $91 $93 $94 $95 $97 $98 $100
Year 6 $9,392 $478 $487 $495 $504 $512 $521 $529 $538 $546 $555 $563 $572 $581 $589
Year 7 $9,562 $487 $495 $504 $512 $521 $529 $538 $546 $555 $563 $572 $581 $589
Year 8 $9,733 $495 $504 $512 $521 $529 $538 $546 $555 $563 $572 $581 $589
Year 9 $9,904 $504 $512 $521 $529 $538 $546 $555 $563 $572 $581 $589
Year 10 $10,075 $512 $521 $529 $538 $546 $555 $563 $572 $581 $589
Year 11 $11,012 $560 $569 $578 $587 $597 $606 $615 $624 $633
Year 12 $11,196 $569 $578 $587 $597 $606 $615 $624 $633
Year 13 $11,379 $578 $587 $597 $606 $615 $624 $633
Year 14 $11,563 $587 $597 $606 $615 $624 $633
Year 15 $11,747 $597 $606 $615 $624 $633
Year 16 $3,675 $187 $189 $192 $195
Year 17 $3,731 $189 $192 $195
Year 18 $3,788 $192 $195
Year 19 $3,844 $195
Year 20 $3,901
Income Products $1,446 $1,549 $1,654 $1,762 $1,874 $9,789 $10,445 $11,119 $11,809 $12,516 $14,008 $14,801 $15,612 $16,442 $17,291 $9,902 $10,241 $10,586 $10,936 $11,292
Income Products Property Transfer Tax (with Lag)2 $1,446 $1,549 $1,654 $1,762 $1,874 $9,789 $10,445 $11,119 $11,809 $12,516 $14,008 $14,801 $15,612 $16,442 $17,291 $9,902 $10,241 $10,586 $10,936
TOTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX $0 $12,824 $14,315 $15,854 $17,441 $19,077 $58,105 $63,921 $69,908 $76,065 $82,392 $64,263 $67,977 $71,436 $75,665 $79,639 $53,248 $54,254 $55,265 $56,282
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-32
APPENDIX TABLE 11
MOTOR VEHICLE FEE REVENUES
1 Estimates based on updated dwelling unit inventory provided by City and persons per household assumptions from SPA FIA Framework. 2 Per capita figure from latest available estimate for FY 2010-11 from californiacityfinance.com 3 Applying the Citywide assessed value growth rate (includes AV growth from the project) to MVLF.
Source: SPA FIA Framework, City of Chula Vista, California Local Government Finance Almanac, PMC
VLF Revenues
Current City Population1 226,664
Current Allocation of 0.65% VLF =$0
Per Capita VLF Allocation 2 =$0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
SPA Population Growth 197 394 591 787 984 1,645 2,306 2,967 3,628 4,289
VLF Revenues Attributed to SPA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Tax In-lieu of Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees (MVLF) Adjustment3
Base Year (2004) Assessed Valuation of the City ($000) =$15,596,196
Base Year (2004) Property Tax In Lieu of MVLF ($000) =$11,832
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cumulative Net AV of New Developments ($000s)$23,316 $46,632 $69,948 $93,264 $116,580 $201,619 $286,659 $371,699 $456,739 $541,778
Cumulative Citywide AV Growth ($000s)$15,619,512 $15,642,828 $15,666,144 $15,689,460 $15,712,776 $15,797,815 $15,882,855 $15,967,895 $16,052,935 $16,137,974
Percent Increase in AV 0.149%0.298%0.446%0.594%0.742%1.276%1.805%2.328%2.845%3.357%
Cumulative Citywide In-lieu 3 ($000s)$11,850 $11,867 $11,885 $11,902 $11,920 $11,983 $12,046 $12,107 $12,169 $12,229
Annual Property Tax in Lieu Adjustment Attributed To SPA $17,662 $35,272 $52,829 $70,334 $87,786 $151,006 $213,548 $275,424 $336,644 $397,220
TOTAL ANNUAL VLF REVENUES $17,662 $35,272 $52,829 $70,334 $87,786 $151,006 $213,548 $275,424 $336,644 $397,220
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-33
APPENDIX TABLE 11—MOTOR VEHICLE TAX, CONTINUED
1 Estimates based on updated dwelling unit inventory provided by City and persons per household assumptions from SPA FIA Framework. 2 Per capita figure from latest available estimate for FY 2010-11 from californiacityfinance.com 3 Applying the Citywide assessed value growth rate (includes AV growth from the project) to MVLF.
Source: SPA FIA Framework, City of Chula Vista, California Local Government Finance Almanac, PMC
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
SPA Population Growth 4,582 4,875 5,168 5,462 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755
VLF Revenues Attributed to SPA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Tax In-lieu of Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees (MVLF) Adjustment3
Base Year (2004) Assessed Valuation of the City ($000) =$15,596,196
Base Year (2004) Property Tax In Lieu of MVLF ($000) =$11,832
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Cumulative Net AV of New Developments ($000s)$589,507 $637,236 $684,965 $732,693 $780,422 $785,562 $790,701 $795,841 $800,981 $806,120
Cumulative Citywide AV Growth ($000s)$16,185,703 $16,233,432 $16,281,161 $16,328,889 $16,376,618 $16,381,758 $16,386,897 $16,392,037 $16,397,177 $16,402,316
Percent Increase in AV 3.642%3.925%4.207%4.487%4.765%4.795%4.825%4.855%4.885%4.915%
Cumulative Citywide In-lieu 3 ($000s)$12,263 $12,296 $12,330 $12,363 $12,396 $12,399 $12,403 $12,406 $12,410 $12,414
Annual Property Tax in Lieu Adjustment Attributed To SPA $430,939 $464,460 $497,784 $530,913 $563,850 $567,385 $570,918 $574,449 $577,978 $581,504
TOTAL ANNUAL VLF REVENUES $430,939 $464,460 $497,784 $530,913 $563,850 $567,385 $570,918 $574,449 $577,978 $581,504
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-34
APPENDIX TABLE 12
ESTIMATED ON-SITE RETAIL SALES TAXES
Source: PMC, SPA FIA Framework
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Retail SF (ksf)0 0 0 0 0 8 16 24 32 40
Retail by Type Percent of Type
Neighborhood Center 90%- - - - - 7 14 22 29 36
Community Center 10%- - - - - 1 2 2 3 4
Regional Center 0%- - - - - - - - - -
Super Regional Center 0%- - - - - - - - - -
Other Centers 0%- - - - - - - - - -
On-Site Sales ($000's)Sales per sq. ft.
Neighborhood Center $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,160 $4,320 $6,480 $8,640 $10,800
Community Center $250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000
Regional Center $250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Super Regional Center $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Centers $275 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
On-Site Sales Adjusted for Transfers ($000's)Transfer Adjustment
Neighborhood Center 90%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,944 $3,888 $5,832 $7,776 $9,720
Community Center 75%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150 $300 $450 $600 $750
Regional Center 70%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Super Regional Center 75%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Centers 75%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)
Percent of Sales Taxable
Neighborhood Center 64%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,244 $2,488 $3,732 $4,977 $6,221
Community Center 77%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116 $231 $347 $462 $578
Regional Center 97%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Super Regional Center 100%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Centers 97%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,360 $2,719 $4,079 $5,439 $6,798
Annual Sales Taxes to the City @ 1%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,597 $27,193 $40,790 $54,386 $67,983
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-35
APPENDIX TABLE 12-- ESTIMATED ON-SITE RETAIL SALES TAXES, CONTINUED
Source: PMC, SPA FIA Framework
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Retail SF (ksf)70 100 130 160 190 202 214 226 238 250
Retail by Type
Neighborhood Center 63 90 117 144 171 182 193 203 214 225
Community Center 7 10 13 16 19 20 21 23 24 25
Regional Center - - - - - - - - - -
Super Regional Center - - - - - - - - - -
Other Centers - - - - - - - - - -
On-Site Sales ($000's)
Neighborhood Center $18,900 $27,000 $35,100 $43,200 $51,300 $54,540 $57,780 $61,020 $64,260 $67,500
Community Center $1,750 $2,500 $3,250 $4,000 $4,750 $5,050 $5,350 $5,650 $5,950 $6,250
Regional Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Super Regional Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Centers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
On-Site Sales Adjusted for Transfers ($000's)
Neighborhood Center $17,010 $24,300 $31,590 $38,880 $46,170 $49,086 $52,002 $54,918 $57,834 $60,750
Community Center $1,313 $1,875 $2,438 $3,000 $3,563 $3,788 $4,013 $4,238 $4,463 $4,688
Regional Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Super Regional Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Centers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)
Neighborhood Center $10,886 $15,552 $20,218 $24,883 $29,549 $31,415 $33,281 $35,148 $37,014 $38,880
Community Center $1,011 $1,444 $1,877 $2,310 $2,743 $2,916 $3,090 $3,263 $3,436 $3,609
Regional Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Super Regional Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Centers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)$11,897 $16,996 $22,094 $27,193 $32,292 $34,331 $36,371 $38,410 $40,450 $42,489
Annual Sales Taxes to the City @ $118,970 $169,958 $220,945 $271,932 $322,919 $343,314 $363,709 $384,104 $404,499 $424,894
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-36
APPENDIX TABLE 13
ESTIMATED OFF-SITE RETAIL SALES TAXES
1 Household incomes derived from assumptions for minimum qualifying income for mortgage approval and minimum
income for rent payments per SPA Framework (see Appendix Table 17).
2 Assumes spending of $5.00 per employee per day for 235 work days, per the SPA FIA Framework.
Source: SPA FIA Framework, PMC
Average HH Incomes 1
Single Family $105,561
Multi Family
Ownership $65,624
Rental $47,880
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Households
Single Family 21 42 63 84 105 176 247 317 388 459
Multi Family 49 98 148 197 246 411 576 740 905 1,070
-- Ownership 75%37 74 111 148 185 308 432 555 679 803
-- Rental 25%12 25 37 49 62 103 144 185 226 268
Total Units 70 140 211 281 351 587 822 1,058 1,293 1,529
Total Employees 0 0 0 0 0 41 81 122 163 203
Aggregate Incomes ($000's)$5,227 $10,454 $15,682 $20,909 $26,136 $43,694 $61,251 $78,808 $96,366 $113,923
Countywide Income/HH $74,000
Countywide Retail Exp/HH $30,000
Retail Expenditure/HH Adj. Factor for SPA, Single Family 142.7%$42,000
Retail Expenditure/HH Adj. Factor for SPA, Multifam. Owner 88.7%$26,000
Retail Expenditure/HH Adj. Factor for SPA, Multifam. Rental 64.7%$19,000
Gross Retail Sales from SPA Residents ($000s)
Neighborhood Center 33%$685 $1,370 $2,054 $2,739 $3,424 $5,724 $8,024 $10,324 $12,624 $14,924
Community Center 20%$415 $830 $1,245 $1,660 $2,075 $3,469 $4,863 $6,257 $7,651 $9,045
Regional Center 4%$83 $166 $249 $332 $415 $694 $973 $1,251 $1,530 $1,809
Super Regional Center 7%$145 $291 $436 $581 $726 $1,214 $1,702 $2,190 $2,678 $3,166
Other Centers 36%$747 $1,494 $2,241 $2,988 $3,735 $6,244 $8,754 $11,263 $13,772 $16,281
Chula Vista (off-site)2 Capture ($000s)
Neighborhood Center 10%$68 $137 $205 $274 $342 $572 $802 $1,032 $1,262 $1,492
Community Center 20%$83 $166 $249 $332 $415 $694 $973 $1,251 $1,530 $1,809
Regional Center 30%$25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $208 $292 $375 $459 $543
Super Regional Center 70%$102 $203 $305 $407 $508 $850 $1,191 $1,533 $1,875 $2,216
Other Centers 40%$299 $598 $896 $1,195 $1,494 $2,498 $3,501 $4,505 $5,509 $6,512
Gross Retail Sales from SPA Employees ($000s)
Annual Expenditure/Employee 3 $1,175
Neighborhood Center 60%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29 $57 $86 $115 $143
Community Center 20%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $19 $29 $38 $48
Regional Center 0%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Super Regional Center 0%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Centers 20%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $19 $29 $38 $48
Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)
% Taxable
Neighborhood Center 64%$44 $88 $131 $175 $219 $385 $550 $716 $881 $1,047
Community Center 77%$64 $128 $192 $256 $320 $542 $764 $986 $1,208 $1,430
Regional Center 97%$24 $48 $72 $97 $121 $202 $283 $364 $445 $526
Super Regional Center 100%$102 $203 $305 $407 $508 $850 $1,191 $1,533 $1,875 $2,216
Other Centers 97%$290 $580 $870 $1,159 $1,449 $2,432 $3,415 $4,398 $5,381 $6,363
Total Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)$523 $1,047 $1,570 $2,094 $2,617 $4,410 $6,203 $7,996 $9,790 $11,583
Annual Sales Taxes to the City @ 1%$5,234 $10,468 $15,703 $20,937 $26,171 $44,102 $62,033 $79,964 $97,895 $115,826
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-37
APPENDIX TABLE 13-- ESTIMATED OFF-SITE RETAIL SALES TAXES, CONTINUED
1 Household incomes derived from assumptions for minimum qualifying income for mortgage approval and minimum
income for rent payments per SPA Framework (see Appendix Table 17).
2 Assumes spending of $5.00 per employee per day for 235 work days, per the SPA FIA Framework.
Source: SPA FIA Framework, PMC
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Households
Single Family 491 524 556 589 621 621 621 621 621 621
Multi Family 1,142 1,214 1,285 1,357 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429 1,429
-- Ownership 856 910 964 1,018 1,072 1,072 1,072 1,072 1,072 1,072
-- Rental 285 303 321 339 357 357 357 357 357 357
Total Units 1,633 1,737 1,842 1,946 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050
Total Employees 250 297 344 391 438 457 476 494 513 532
Aggregate Incomes ($000's)$121,737 $129,550 $137,364 $145,177 $152,991 $152,991 $152,991 $152,991 $152,991 $152,991
Countywide Income/HH
Countywide Retail Exp/HH
Retail Expenditure/HH Adj. Factor for SPA, Single Family
Retail Expenditure/HH Adj. Factor for SPA, Multifam. Owner
Retail Expenditure/HH Adj. Factor for SPA, Multifam. Rental
Gross Retail Sales from SPA Residents ($000s)
Neighborhood Center $15,948 $16,972 $17,995 $19,019 $20,043 $20,043 $20,043 $20,043 $20,043 $20,043
Community Center $9,665 $10,286 $10,906 $11,527 $12,147 $12,147 $12,147 $12,147 $12,147 $12,147
Regional Center $1,933 $2,057 $2,181 $2,305 $2,429 $2,429 $2,429 $2,429 $2,429 $2,429
Super Regional Center $3,383 $3,600 $3,817 $4,034 $4,251 $4,251 $4,251 $4,251 $4,251 $4,251
Other Centers $17,398 $18,515 $19,631 $20,748 $21,865 $21,865 $21,865 $21,865 $21,865 $21,865
Chula Vista (off-site)2 Capture ($000s)
Neighborhood Center $1,595 $1,697 $1,800 $1,902 $2,004 $2,004 $2,004 $2,004 $2,004 $2,004
Community Center $1,933 $2,057 $2,181 $2,305 $2,429 $2,429 $2,429 $2,429 $2,429 $2,429
Regional Center $580 $617 $654 $692 $729 $729 $729 $729 $729 $729
Super Regional Center $2,368 $2,520 $2,672 $2,824 $2,976 $2,976 $2,976 $2,976 $2,976 $2,976
Other Centers $6,959 $7,406 $7,853 $8,299 $8,746 $8,746 $8,746 $8,746 $8,746 $8,746
Gross Retail Sales from SPA Employees ($000s)
Annual Expenditure/Employee 3
Neighborhood Center $176 $210 $243 $276 $309 $322 $335 $349 $362 $375
Community Center $59 $70 $81 $92 $103 $107 $112 $116 $121 $125
Regional Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Super Regional Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Centers $59 $70 $81 $92 $103 $107 $112 $116 $121 $125
Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)
Neighborhood Center $1,134 $1,220 $1,307 $1,394 $1,480 $1,489 $1,497 $1,506 $1,514 $1,523
Community Center $1,534 $1,638 $1,742 $1,846 $1,950 $1,953 $1,957 $1,960 $1,963 $1,967
Regional Center $563 $599 $635 $671 $707 $707 $707 $707 $707 $707
Super Regional Center $2,368 $2,520 $2,672 $2,824 $2,976 $2,976 $2,976 $2,976 $2,976 $2,976
Other Centers $6,807 $7,251 $7,695 $8,139 $8,583 $8,588 $8,592 $8,596 $8,600 $8,605
Total Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)$12,405 $13,228 $14,051 $14,874 $15,697 $15,713 $15,729 $15,745 $15,761 $15,777
Annual Sales Taxes to the City @ $124,054 $132,282 $140,510 $148,738 $156,966 $157,128 $157,289 $157,451 $157,612 $157,774
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-38
APPENDIX TABLE 14
OTHER DISCRETIONARY REVENUE ALLOCATION FACTORS
1 Employees estimated based on proportion of developed acres and employment derived for SPA
FIA Framework.
2 Assessed Value shares from EUC SPA Plan.
Source: City of Chula Vista FY 2010-11 Adopted Budget, PMC
Current Citywide Conditions
Population 226,664
Dwelling Units 78,615
Employees 41,711
Land Uses Developed Acres Employees 1 AV Share 2
(estimated)
Retail 1,002 18,175 19%
Office 259 4,705 6%
Industrial 842 16,002 8%
Residential 9,565 67%
Subtotal Taxable 11,668 38,882
Other (Parks, Public/Quasi-Public, Open Space)8,005 2,829
Total 19,673 41,711
Incremental Revenue Factors by Development Unit
Revenue Category Current Revenues Allocation Method Share Allocation Units
Property Taxes
Current Taxes - Secured $21,809,722 Calculated Separately -
State Secured - Unitary $493,425 Retail AV 19%$91.28 Acre
Office AV 6%$123.16 Acre
Industrial AV 8%$46.89 Acre
Residential AV 67%$34.56 Acre
Current Taxes - Unsecured $930,000 Retail AV 19%$172.04 Acre
Office AV 6%$232.13 Acre
Industrial AV 8%$88.38 Acre
Residential AV 67%$65.14 Acre
Delinquent Taxes $840,000 Retail AV 19%$155.39 Acre
Office AV 6%$209.67 Acre
Industrial AV 8%$79.83 Acre
Residential AV 67%$58.84 Acre
Other Local Taxes
Sales and Use Taxes $23,633,851 Calculated Separately
Franchise Fees $7,652,012 Retail Land 5%$396.36 Acre
Office Land 2%$534.79 Acre
Industrial Land 3%$272.70 Acre
Residential Land 90%$720.01 Acre
Utility Taxes 3 $4,027,760 Retail Land 7%$268.24 Acre
Office Land 2%$361.92 Acre
Industrial Land 4%$191.38 Acre
Residential Land 87%$366.36 Acre
Business License Tax $1,190,000 Employees (Non-Public)$30.61 Employee
Real Property Transfer Tax $841,402 Calculated Separately -
Revenues from other Agencies
Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment $690,717 People $3.05 Person
State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $255,000 Dwelling Units $3.24 DU
State Motor Vehicle Licenses $16,933,500
TOTAL CITYWIDE BUDGETED DISCRETIONARY
REVENUES PERTINENT TO PROJECT AREA $79,297,389
Calculated Separately see Table A-11
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-39
APPENDIX TABLE 15
INCREMENTAL REVENUE SUMMARY IN 2013 DOLLARS
1 Retail and Office square footage is converted to acres using the FARs found in the Employment Density Factor Table A-3. 2 Residential units are converted to acres based on phasing of housing units as a proportion of total units, and then multiplyi ng by total acres.
Source: PMC
Revenue Drivers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Population (Persons)197 394 591 787 984 1,645 2,306 2,967 3,628 4,289
Private Employment (Employees)0 0 0 0 0 41 81 122 163 203
Dwelling Units 70 140 211 281 351 587 822 1,058 1,293 1,529
Retail Land (acres) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 3
Office Land (acres) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
Residential Land (acres) 2 4 9 13 18 22 37 53 68 83 98
Annual Revenues ($000's)
Population (Persons)$3.05 $0.6 $1.2 $1.8 $2.4 $3.0 $5.0 $7.0 $9.0 $11.1 $13.1
Private Employment (Employees)$30.61 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.2 $2.5 $3.7 $5.0 $6.2
Dwelling Units $3.24 $0.2 $0.5 $0.7 $0.9 $1.1 $1.9 $2.7 $3.4 $4.2 $5.0
Retail Land (Acres)$1,083 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.7 $1.4 $2.1 $2.7 $3.4
Office Land (Acres)$1,462 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.6 $1.2 $1.8 $2.4 $2.9
Residential Land (Acres)$1,245 $5.6 $11.2 $16.7 $22.3 $27.9 $46.6 $65.4 $84.1 $102.9 $121.6
Property Taxes $0.0 $25.3 $51.6 $78.9 $107.2 $136.7 $240.8 $348.9 $460.9 $577.1
Property Transfer Taxes $0.0 $12.8 $14.3 $15.9 $17.4 $19.1 $58.1 $63.9 $69.9 $76.1
VLF Revenues $17.7 $35.3 $52.8 $70.3 $87.8 $151.0 $213.5 $275.4 $336.6 $397.2
Sales and Use Taxes $5.2 $10.5 $15.7 $20.9 $26.2 $57.7 $89.2 $120.8 $152.3 $183.8
Total Revenues ($000s)$29.3 $96.7 $153.6 $211.6 $270.7 $420.6 $681.8 $913.1 $1,148.0 $1,386.4
Revenue
Factors
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-40
APPENDIX TABLE 15-- INCREMENTAL REVENUE SUMMARY IN 2013 DOLLARS, CONTINUED
1 Retail and Office square footage is converted to acres using the FARs found in the Employment Density Factor Table A-3.
2 Residential units are converted to acres based on phasing of housing units as a proportion of total units, and then multiplyi ng by total acres.
Source: PMC
Revenue Drivers 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Population (Persons)4,582 4,875 5,168 5,462 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755
Private Employment (Employees)250 297 344 391 438 457 476 494 513 532
Dwelling Units 1,633 1,737 1,842 1,946 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050
Retail Land (acres) 1 6 8 10 13 15 16 17 18 19 20
Office Land (acres) 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Residential Land (acres) 2 104 111 118 124 131 131 131 131 131 131
Annual Revenues ($000's)
Population (Persons)$14.0 $14.9 $15.7 $16.6 $17.5 $17.5 $17.5 $17.5 $17.5 $17.5
Private Employment (Employees)$7.7 $9.1 $10.5 $12.0 $13.4 $14.0 $14.6 $15.1 $15.7 $16.3
Dwelling Units $5.3 $5.6 $6.0 $6.3 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6
Retail Land (Acres)$6.0 $8.6 $11.1 $13.7 $16.3 $17.3 $18.4 $19.4 $20.4 $21.4
Office Land (Acres)$2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9
Residential Land (Acres)$129.9 $138.2 $146.5 $154.7 $163.0 $163.0 $163.0 $163.0 $163.0 $163.0
Property Taxes $697.4 $773.5 $852.0 $933.2 $1,017.1 $1,103.7 $1,133.0 $1,163.0 $1,193.7 $1,225.2
Property Transfer Taxes $82.4 $64.3 $68.0 $71.4 $75.7 $79.6 $53.2 $54.3 $55.3 $56.3
VLF Revenues $430.9 $464.5 $497.8 $530.9 $563.8 $567.4 $570.9 $574.4 $578.0 $581.5
Sales and Use Taxes $243.0 $302.2 $361.5 $420.7 $479.9 $500.4 $521.0 $541.6 $562.1 $582.7
Total Revenues ($000s)$1,619.5 $1,783.7 $1,972.1 $2,162.6 $2,356.3 $2,472.6 $2,501.2 $2,557.9 $2,615.3 $2,673.5
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-41
APPENDIX TABLE 16
NET FISCAL IMPACT IN 2013 DOLLARS (NO REAL INFLATION)
Source: PMC
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Expenditures ($000s)$58.52 $117.05 $175.57 $234.10 $292.62 $507.72 $722.82 $937.91 $1,153.01 $1,368.11
Total Revenues ($000s)$29.31 $96.66 $153.64 $211.64 $270.69 $420.55 $681.82 $913.13 $1,147.97 $1,386.42
Net Fiscal Impacts ($000s)($29.22)($20.39)($21.94)($22.46)($21.93)($87.17)($41.00)($24.78)($5.04)$18.31
Net Fiscal Impacts per Capita ($148.42)($51.79)($37.15)($28.52)($22.28)($52.98)($17.78)($8.35)($1.39)$4.27
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Total Expenditures ($000s)$1,501 $1,633 $1,766 $1,899 $2,031 $2,051 $2,072 $2,092 $2,112 $2,133
Total Revenues ($000s)$1,620 $1,784 $1,972 $2,163 $2,356 $2,473 $2,501 $2,558 $2,615 $2,673
Net Fiscal Impacts ($000s)$118.81 $150.38 $206.14 $264.06 $325.22 $421.16 $429.47 $465.88 $503.00 $540.86
Net Fiscal Impacts per Capita $25.93 $30.84 $39.88 $48.35 $56.51 $73.18 $74.63 $80.96 $87.41 $93.98
Net Fiscal Impacts in 5-Year Increments, 2011 Dollars
Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20
2012-2016 2017-2021 2022-2026 2027-2031
Total Expenditures ($000s)$877.87 $4,689.57 $8,829.59 $10,460.16
Total Revenues ($000s)$761.94 $4,549.89 $9,894.20 $12,820.52
Net Fiscal Impacts ($115.93)($139.68)$1,064.61 $2,360.36
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA 5 FISCAL ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan
June, 2013 Final Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
5-42
APPENDIX TABLE 17
MINIMUM INCOME ASSUMPTIONS
Qualifying Income for Home Purchase
Assumptions
Single
Family
Detached
Attached
Condominium
Sales Price $488,600 $284,700
Min. down payment 5% 5%
Max. Mortgage Payment to Effective Income ratio1 31% 31%
Mortgage Interest 4% 4%
No. of Payments 360 360
Mortgage Insurance Premium 1.30% 1.30%
Principal $464,170 $270,465
Monthly Payment $2,216.02 $1,291.24
PMI $28.81 $16.79
Property Tax (monthly) $407.17 $237.25
HOA Dues (monthly) $75.00 $150.00
Total per month $2,726.99 $1,695.28
Annual total of payments $32,723.92 $20,343.33
Minimum annual income required for loan $105,561.04 $65,623.64
1http://www.fha.com/fha_requirements_debt
Minimum Income for Rentals
Annual average rent $18,240
5% Utility Allowance $912.00
$19,152.00
Assumed Rent & Household Payments to Income ratio 40%
Minimum Income for rentals $47,880.00