HomeMy WebLinkAbout14. PFFPOTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SPA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
May 16, 2019
Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan PFFP
Approved by:
Chula Vista City Council
Date: April 1, 2003 Resolution 2003-132
Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan Amendment
Supplemental PFFP
Approved by:
Chula Vista City Council
Date: September 14, 2004 Resolution 2004-300
Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan Amendment
Supplemental PFFP
Approved by:
Chula Vista City Council
Date: September 13, 2016, Resolution 2016-187
Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan Amendment
Supplemental PFFP
Approved by:
Chula Vista City Council
Date: ________, 2019, Resolution ______
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................4
A. Public Facility Cost and Fee Summary (Freeway Commercial North SPA) ........... 4
B. General Conditions for Supplemental PFFP ............................................................ 7
II. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................8
II.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 8
II.2. Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 9
II.3. Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 13
II.4. Threshold Standards ............................................................................................... 14
II.5. PFFP Boundaries ................................................................................................... 17
II.6. Development Summary.......................................................................................... 17
II.7. Project Phasing ....................................................................................................... 19
II.8. Development Impact Fees ...................................................................................... 24
III. FACILITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................................27
IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES THRESHOLD STANDARDS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................28
IV.1. Traffic .................................................................................................................... 28
IV.1.1 GMOC Threshold Standard ................................................................................... 28
IV.1.2 Service Analysis .................................................................................................... 28
IV.1.3 Trip Generation and Phasing ................................................................................. 29
IV.1.4 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................. 30
IV.1.5 Transit .................................................................................................................... 33
IV.1.6 Cost & Financing Traffic Improvements ............................................................... 38
IV.1.7 Threshold Compliance ........................................................................................... 39
IV.2. Police...................................................................................................................... 40
IV.2.1. Threshold Standard ............................................................................................... 40
IV.2.2. Service Analysis ................................................................................................... 40
IV.2.3. Project Processing Requirements ......................................................................... 40
IV.2.4. Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 40
IV.2.4. Adequacy Analysis ............................................................................................... 40
IV.2.6. Financing Police Facilities .................................................................................... 43
IV.2.7. Threshold Compliance .......................................................................................... 43
IV.3. Fire Suppression System ........................................................................................ 44
IV.3.1. Threshold Standard ............................................................................................... 44
IV.3.2. Service Analysis ................................................................................................... 44
IV.3.3. Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 44
IV.3.4. Adequacy Analysis ............................................................................................... 45
IV.3.5. Fire Suppression Facility Analysis ....................................................................... 46
IV.3.6. Financing Fire Suppression Facilities .................................................................. 46
IV.3.7 Threshold Compliance ........................................................................................... 47
IV.4. Schools ................................................................................................................... 48
IV.4.1. Threshold Standard ............................................................................................... 48
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
ii
IV.4.2. Service Analysis ................................................................................................... 48
IV.4.3 Project Processing Requirements .......................................................................... 49
IV.4.4. Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 49
IV.4.5 School Sizing and Location ................................................................................... 52
IV.4.6 Financing School Facilities .................................................................................... 53
IV.4.7 Threshold Compliance ........................................................................................... 55
IV.5. Libraries ................................................................................................................. 56
IV.5.1 Threshold Standard ...................................................................................................... 56
IV.5.2 Service Analysis .................................................................................................... 56
IV.5.3 Project Processing Requirements .......................................................................... 56
IV.5.4 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 56
IV.5.5 Adequacy Analysis ................................................................................................ 57
IV.5.6 Financing Library Facilities ................................................................................... 58
IV.5.7. Threshold Compliance .......................................................................................... 59
IV.6. Parks, Trails and Open Space ................................................................................ 60
IV.6.1 Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard.................................................................... 60
IV.6.2 Service Analysis .................................................................................................... 60
IV.6.3 Project Processing Requirements .......................................................................... 60
IV.6.4 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 60
IV.6.5 Project Park Requirements .................................................................................... 61
IV.6.6 Park Adequacy Analysis ........................................................................................ 62
IV.6.7 Open Space, Trails and Recreation ........................................................................ 62
IV.6.8 Financing Park Facilities ....................................................................................... 65
IV.6.9 Financing Recreation Facilities ............................................................................. 66
IV.6.10 Threshold Compliance ......................................................................................... 67
IV.7. Water ...................................................................................................................... 69
IV.7.1 Threshold Standard ................................................................................................ 69
IV.7.2 Service Analysis .................................................................................................... 69
IV.7.3 Project Processing Requirements .......................................................................... 70
IV.7.4 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 70
IV.7.5 Water Adequacy Analysis ..................................................................................... 74
IV.7.6 Existing Potable Water Facilities ........................................................................... 77
IV.7.7 Existing Recycled Water Facilities ........................................................................ 77
IV.7.8 Proposed Facilities ................................................................................................. 78
IV.7.9 Financing Water Facilities ..................................................................................... 78
IV.7.10 Threshold Compliance ......................................................................................... 79
IV.8. Sewer...................................................................................................................... 82
IV.8.1 Threshold Standard ................................................................................................. 82
IV.8.2 Service Analysis ...................................................................................................... 82
IV.8.3 Project Processing Requirements ............................................................................ 82
IV.8.4 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 82
IV.8.5 Proposed Land Use Change .................................................................................... 83
IV.8.6 Adequacy Analysis .................................................................................................. 84
IV.8.7 Recommended Sewerage Facilities ......................................................................... 91
IV.8.8 Freeway Commercial North Improvements ............................................................ 91
IV.8.9 Financing Sewerage Facilities ................................................................................. 91
II.8.10 Threshold Compliance ............................................................................................ 92
IV.9. Drainage ................................................................................................................. 93
IV.9.1 Threshold Standard ................................................................................................. 93
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
iii
IV.9.2 Service Analysis ...................................................................................................... 93
IV.9.3 Project Processing Requirements ............................................................................ 94
IV.9.4 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 94
IV.9.5 Proposed Facilities .................................................................................................. 95
IV.9.6 Financing Drainage Facilities .................................................................................. 99
IV.9.7 Threshold Compliance ............................................................................................ 99
IV.10. Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 102
IV.10.1 Threshold Standard ............................................................................................. 102
IV.10.2 Service Analysis .................................................................................................. 102
IV.10.3 Adequacy Analysis .............................................................................................. 103
IV.10.4 Threshold Compliance ........................................................................................ 104
IV.11. Civic Center/Corporation Yard/Other Public Facilities ....................................... 105
IV.12 Fiscal Analysis ..................................................................................................... 107
IV.12.1 Threshold Standard ............................................................................................. 107
IV.12.2 Facility Master Plan ............................................................................................ 107
IV.12.3 Project Processing Requirements ........................................................................ 107
IV.12.4 Fiscal Analysis of Project .................................................................................... 107
IV.12.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 107
IV.12.4.2 Fiscal Impact Methodology ............................................................................ 107
IV.12.4.3 Fiscal Impact Analysis Results ....................................................................... 107
IV.12.4.4 Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions ....................................................................... 108
IV.13. Public Facilities Finance ...................................................................................... 109
V.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 109
V.1.2 Subdivision Exactions ............................................................................................ 109
V.1.3 Development Impact Fee Programs........................................................................ 109
V.1.4 Debt Finance Programs .......................................................................................... 110
V.1.5 Other Methods Used to Finance Facilities .............................................................. 111
V.1.6 Public Facility Finance Policies ............................................................................. 112
V.1.7 Lifecycle Cost ......................................................................................................... 113
APPENDIX - FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................115
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Vicinity Map ......................................................................................... 10
Exhibit 2 Location/SPA Boundaries .................................................................................... 11
Exhibit 3 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................ 12
Exhibit 4 Phasing ................................................................................................................. 21
Exhibit 5 Site Utilization Plan ............................................................................................. 23
Exhibit 5A Conceptual Site Plan FC-2 ................................................................................... 24
Exhibit 6 Circulation ........................................................................................................... 32
Exhibit 7 Transit .................................................................................................................. 34
Exhibit 8 SB BRT Plan for Otay Ranch Town Center ........................................................ 35
Exhibit 9 SB BRT Plan between Otay Ranch Town Center and Magdalena Road ............. 36
Exhibit 10 Pedestrian Circulation .......................................................................................... 37
Exhibit 11 Landscape Concept .............................................................................................. 64
Exhibit 12 Potable Water ....................................................................................................... 80
Exhibit 13 Recycled Water .................................................................................................... 81
Exhibit 14 Poggi Interceptor Map ......................................................................................... 89
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
iv
Exhibit 15 Sewer Plan ........................................................................................................... 90
Exhibit 16 Drainage Plan ..................................................................................................... 101
LIST OF TABLES
Table A.1 Summary of Facilities ............................................................................................ 6
Table A.2 Chula Vista Threshold Standards ........................................................................ 15
Table A.3 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 18
Table A.4 Phasing Plan Summary ........................................................................................ 19
Table A.5 Chula Vista Five Year Growth Forecast .............................................................. 22
Table A.6 ETDIF Schedule East of I-805 ............................................................................ 25
Table A.7 Estimated DIF Components ................................................................................. 26
Table B.1 Level of Analysis ................................................................................................. 27
Table C.1 FC-2 Trip Generation ........................................................................................... 29
Table C.2 Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results ................................................................... 31
Table C.3 FC-2 Estimated ETDIF ...................................................................................... 38
Table C.4 FC-2 Estimated Traffic Signal Fees ..................................................................... 39
Table D.1 Historic Response Times Priority I ...................................................................... 41
Table D.2 Historic Response Times Priority II .................................................................... 42
Table D.3 Police Fees ........................................................................................................... 43
Table E.1 Current Fire Station Facilities .............................................................................. 44
Table E.2 Fire/EMS Response Times .................................................................................. 46
Table E.3 Fire/EMS Fee ....................................................................................................... 47
Table F.1 Chula Vista Elementary School District Enrollment vs. Capacity ...................... 50
Table F.2 Sweetwater Union High School District Enrollment vs. Capacity ...................... 51
Table F.3 Student Generation Rates ..................................................................................... 52
Table F.4 Estimated Project Student Generation ................................................................. 53
Table G.1 Existing Library Facilities ................................................................................... 56
Table G.2 Library Space Demand vs. Supply....................................................................... 58
Table G.3 FC-2 Estimated Library Fee ................................................................................ 57
Table H.1 Quimby Act Parkland Requirements ................................................................... 61
Table H.2 Parkland Dedication Ordinance Standards .......................................................... 61
Table H.3 Preliminary Parkland Dedication Requirements .................................................. 62
Table H.4 Estimated Park Acreage Demand Compared to Supply East of I-805 ................ 62
Table H.5 Public Facilities Fees for Recreation ................................................................... 66
Table H.6 Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees Development Component .............. 67
Table I.1 Average/Normal Water Year ............................................................................... 72
Table I.2 Single Dry Water Year ........................................................................................ 72
Table I.3 FC-2 SPA Amendment ........................................................................................ 75
Table I.4 FC-2 SPA Amendment Water Demand Summary .............................................. 75
Table I.5 FC-2 SPA Amendment Projected Recycled Water Demands ............................. 77
Table J.1 FC-2 SPA Amendment ........................................................................................ 83
Table J.2 Sewer Flow Summary .......................................................................................... 84
Table J.3 Sewage Flow & Treatment Capacity ................................................................... 85
Table J.4 FC-2 SPA Amendment Poggi Basin EDU Summary .......................................... 86
Table J.5 Poggi Canyon Interceptor Sewer ......................................................................... 88
Table J.6 Estimated Poggi Canyon Basin Impact Fees ....................................................... 91
Table J.7 Estimated Sewer Capacity Charge ....................................................................... 91
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
v
Table K.1 Site Runoff Flows – Interim Condition ............................................................... 95
Table K.2 Site Runoff Flows – Ultimate Condition ............................................................. 95
Table L.1 Civic Fees .......................................................................................................... 105
Table L.2 Corporation Yard Fees ....................................................................................... 105
Table L.3 Public Facilities Fees ......................................................................................... 106
Table M.1 FC-2 Amendment Fiscal Impact ........................................................................ 108
Table M.2 Approved FC SPA Fiscal Impact ....................................................................... 108
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
4
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) studies the proposed density increase
on the Freeway Commercial North site and identifies all the backbone infrastructure
improvements, public facilities, and administrative costs needed to serve the amended project.
The purpose of the PFFP is to ensure that facilities necessary to serve the project site are
appropriately funded and would be in place in time to meet project demands. The PFFP
includes improvements to roadways, sewer, water, drainage, schools, parks, fire, police,
emergency medical services and libraries. It also describes the costs and financing mechanisms
that will be used to create these improvements in a timely manner.
The Freeway Commercial North, or FC-2, site is currently entitled as a transit-supportive
mixed-use project with up to 600 Multi-Family Residential Units, 15,000 square feet of
Commercial Retail, a 2-acre urban park and two hotels with a minimum of 300 rooms. Baldwin
& Sons, the current developer of the FC-2 site, has proposed to add 300 multi-family units to
the east portion of FC-2. This density increase would allow the developer to maximize land use
potential within walking range of the Otay Ranch BRT stop, ensure transit-supportive densities
near the BRT line, establish a compact walkable community by replacing surface parking with
5-level structured parking, and provide a more diverse mix of housing types in a fiscally
sustainable manner.
The Supplemental PFFP has been prepared under the requirements of the City of Chula Vista’s
Growth Management Program and Chapter 9, Growth Management of the Otay Ranch GDP.
The preparation of the Supplemental PFFP is required in conjunction with the preparation of
the SPA Plan Amendment to ensure that the phased development of the project is consistent
with the overall goals and policies of the City’s General Plan (GP), Growth Management
Program, and the Otay Ranch GDP, which was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on
October 28, 1993, to ensure that the development of the project will not adversely impact the
City’s Quality of Life Standards. This Supplemental PFFP meets the policy objectives of the
Otay Ranch GDP.
This Supplemental PFFP is based upon the phasing and project information that has been
presented in the FC-2 SPA Plan Amendment draft dated January 2019, and the supporting
technical studies that have been submitted by the developer. These technical studies are
referenced in subsequent sections of this Supplemental PFFP. This document begins by
analyzing the existing demand for facilities based upon the demand from existing development
and those projects with various entitlements through the year 2022, when the developer expects
full build-out.
When specific thresholds are projected to be reached or exceeded based upon the analysis of
the phased development of the FC-2 project, the Supplemental PFFP provides recommended
mitigation necessary for the continued compliance with the Growth Management Program and
Quality of Life threshold standards. The Supplemental PFFP may indicate that the
development phasing 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 threshold standards.
A. Public Facility Cost and Fee Summary (Freeway Commercial North SPA)
The following discussion and table (Table A.1) identify and summarize the various facility
costs associated with increasing residential density of the FC-2 mixed-use project by 300
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
5
dwelling units. The facilities and their cost are identified in detail in subsequent sections of this
document. 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 public infrastructure improvements.
The project does not require any off-site public street improvements. Otay Ranch PA12 Trip
Generation Review – Revised by Chen Ryan Associates, dated May 8, 2019, concluded that the
proposed density increase at the FC-2 mixed-use project would generate less daily and PM
peak hour trips than those already approved under the 2002 EIR, however would generate 58
more trips in the AM peak hour. A focused traffic analysis was conducted and concluded that
there will not be any significant traffic impacts associated with the 58 additional AM peak hour
trips. Analysis was not conducted for the daily or PM peak as the proposed project would
generate less than those in the 2002 EIR. Therefore, no offsite public street improvement
projects are anticipated.
The estimated ETDIF for the entire FC-2 planned development (608 apartment units, 292
multifamily for sale units and two hotels with a total of 300 rooms), are $8,467,016. Funding
alternatives for street improvements may be accomplished by one or more of the following:
• Payment of ETDIF.
• Construction of improvements by developer with DIF credits towards building permits.
• Financing through assessment districts or Community Facility Districts.
• Expenditure of available DIF account funds.
• Construction of improvements by other developers.
• Outside funding sources.
Some off-site sewer, drainage and water facilities may be the responsibility of the developer if
the facility is needed to support the proposed development. The estimated fees for the Poggi
Canyon Basin Fee and the Sewerage Participation Fee is $3,462,952.
The FC-2 Amendment project will trigger new fees for parks. The project will pay a Park
Benefit Fees of up to $4,580,100 (equivalent to the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD)
Fees for 300 multi-family units) to cover the impacts from the proposed new units. The
Freeway Commercial project has been annexed into CFD 97-2, which is the open space
preserve district. In addition, CFD 19M was formed to assess a special tax on both residential
and non-residential properties to provide a funding mechanism for city open space maintenance
obligations. CFD 07M is funding maintenance of the landscape along the northern boundary
of the Freeway Commercial project adjacent to Olympic Parkway and a portion of Eastlake
Parkway.
Capital Facilities for police, fire suppression system, civic center expansion, corporation yard,
and other city public facilities, including libraries, will be funded, in part, from revenues generated
from the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) at building permit
issuance. These fee revenues total approximately $9,521,336 for the FC-2 Amendment.
Altogether, the City’s estimated development impact fees by phase and facility for the FC-2
project total $35,534,700 as shown on the following Table A.1.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
6
Table A.1
Freeway Commercial Summary of Facilities
Fee Program and Funding Source Total Fee Estimate Timing PFFP Section
Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (ETDIF)
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $8,467,016
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.1.6 – Table C.3
Traffic Signal Fee
Fee Exaction $318,162
Pay at Building Permit Issuance
IV.1.6 – Table C.4
Otay Water District (OWD) Potable Water Capacity Fee
Meter & Capacity Fees
Determined by OWD Provide City Engineer OWD water availability
letter and required improvements prior to
approval of the Final Map.
IV.7 Otay Water District (OWD) Recycled Water Fee
(if required)
Meter & Capacity Fees
Determined by OWD
Poggi Canyon Sewer & Drainage Basin Fee
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $212,169
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.8.9 – Table J.6
Sewer Capacity Charge
Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
$3,250,783
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.8.9 – Table J.7
School Fees
Community Facilities District (CFD)
Property Tax Levy
Provide documentation showing paid school
fees prior to issuance of Building Permit
IV.4
Park Acquisition & Development Fees $9,160,200
Commence construction prior to the issuance of
the 300th residential building permit
IV.6.8 – Table H.5
Park Benefit Fee $4,580,100 Pay prior to Final Inspection IV.6.8 – Table H.5
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF):
PFDIF - Recreation Facilities
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $1,230,300
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.6.9 – Table H.6
PFDIF - Library
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $1,620,900
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.5.6 – Table G.3
PFDIF - Fire Suppression System
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $1,052,160
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.3.6 – Table E.3
PFDIF - Police Facility
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $1,876,983
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.2.5 – Table D.3
PFDIF – Civic Center Expansion
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $2,735,824
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.II – Table L.1
PFDIF – Corp Yard Relocation
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $417,983
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.II – Table L.2
PFDIF – Program Administration
Development Impact Fee (DIF) $587,186
Pay prior to Final Inspection
IV.II – Table L.3
Total Estimated Fees $35,534,700
Note – Fees presented in this table are estimates only. In addition to the fees presented above, there are other building permits fees that are required, including a $45 sewer administration fee for each
building permit issued as well as a $26.09 reserve fund fee assessed on each residential unit. Total reserve fund fees for this project are $23,481.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
7
B. General Conditions for Supplemental PFFP
1. All development within the boundaries of the Supplemental PFFP for the Freeway
Commercial North SPA Amendment shall conform to the provisions of Section 19.09 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management Ordinance) as may be amended
from time to time and to the provisions and conditions of this Supplemental PFFP.
2. All new development within the boundaries of the Freeway Commercial North SPA shall
be required to pay development impact fees and other applicable fees, unless the
developer has entered into a separate agreement with the City pursuant to the most
recently adopted program by the City Council, and as amended from time to time.
3. Approval of this Supplemental PFFP does not constitute prior environmental review for
projects within the boundaries of this Plan. All future projects within the boundaries of
this Supplemental PFFP shall undergo environmental review as determined appropriate
by the City of Chula Vista.
4. Approval of this Supplemental PFFP does not constitute prior discretionary review or
approval for projects within the boundaries of the Plan. All future projects within the
boundaries of the Freeway Commercial North SPA Amendment shall undergo review in
accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code. This Supplemental PFFP analyzes the
maximum allowable development potential for planning purposes only. The approval of
this plan does not guarantee specific development densities.
5. The facilities and phasing requirements identified in this Supplemental PFFP are based
on the Freeway Commercial North SPA Plan Amendment, which assumes a mixed-use
development on the northern district referred to as FC-2, approximately 38 acres. This
site currently includes a 148-room hotel and is under development for multi-family
residential. At buildout, the project will have up to 900 multi-family units, 15,000 square
feet of ground-floor commercial in mixed-use format, and 300 hotel rooms.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
8
II. INTRODUCTION:
This Supplemental PFFP identifies each improvement needed to service the Freeway Commercial
North project, with the appropriate funding sources.
The implementing actions covered by the PFFP are:
• Use of Public Financing Mechanisms where applicable.
• Construction of major streets, sewer, water and drainage facilities.
• Internal subdivision improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act.
• Provision of other public facilities.
• Maintenance of certain facilities such as open space areas and street medians.
II.1. Background:
The Otay Ranch lies within the approximately 37,585-acre Eastern Territories Planning Area of
the City of Chula Vista. Interstate 805 bounds this area on the west, San Miguel Mountain and
State Route 54 on the north, the Otay Reservoirs and the Jamul foothills on the east, and the Otay
River Valley on the south.
On April 1, 2003, the Chula Vista City Council adopted Resolution 2003-132, which approved
the Otay Ranch Area 12 Freeway Commercial (FC) Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
including the Public Facilities Financing Plan. The Otay Ranch FC SPA project is located in the
eastern portion of the Otay Ranch GDP within the northern one-third of Planning Area 12 (see
Exhibit 1).
The FC SPA project area consists of approximately 120 acres within two districts, southern and
northern. The southern, approximately 86-acre district is the FC-1 site that has been developed
as the Otay Ranch Town Center Shopping Center, consisting of 867,000 square feet of
Freeway Commercial uses.
The northern, approximately 38-acre district is the FC-2 site that is the subject of this
supplemental PFFP. The FC-2 site was initially approved for 347,000 square feet of
regional c ommercial uses but in 2015 it was rezoned by Resolution 2015-114 to a Mixed-
Use district consisting of 300 hotel rooms, 600 multi-family units, a minimum of 15,000
square feet of commercial use in m ixed-use format, and a 2-acre public park. The FC-2
site has an operating hotel on the northeast corner, current construction of multi-family on the
west side and graded undeveloped land on the east side. The approved project also includes a
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) guideway running between FC-1 and FC-2 districts, and a BRT park-
and-ride facility located in FC-1. Under the proposed SPA Plan Amendment which would
allow an additional 300 multi-family units in FC-2, no changes to the FC-1 area are
included. All proposed modifications would occur within the FC-2 portion of the site.
The environmental impacts of the FC SPA Plan were previously addressed in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area
12, 2003, City of Chula Vista (EIR). In May 2015, the City Council approved the First Addendum
to FEIR 02-04, the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments to reflect land use changes
from Freeway Commercial to Mixed-Use for the FC-2 site. In September 2016, the City Council
approved the Second Addendum to the EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
9
Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12. It provided more specific project detail for the FC-2 SPA
Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, and Freeway Commercial North Master Precise Plan.
The proposed residential density increase requires an amendment to the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan, Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Freeway Commercial North Master
Precise Plan.
II.2. Purpose
The purpose of this document is to study the impact of the 300 additional multi-family units and
identify resources to ensure that adequate public facilities will be available to meet the projected
needs of the development. This document supplements the original 2003 Otay Ranch Freeway
Commercial SPA PFFP, as amended on September 13, 2016, and applies only to the Otay Ranch
Freeway Commercial SPA Plan. Where this Supplemental PFFP conflicts with or requires more
stringent standards than the approved Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA PFFP, the
requirements of this Supplemental PFFP shall apply. The purpose of all PFFPs in the City of
Chula Vista is to implement the City's Growth Management Program and to meet the General
Plan goals and objectives, specifically those of the Growth Management Element. The Growth
Management Program ensures that development occurs only when the necessary public facilities
and services exist or are provided concurrent with the demands of new development. The Growth
Management Program requires a PFFP be prepared for every new development project which
requires either SPA Plan or tentative map approval. Similarly, amendments to a SPA Plan require
an amendment or a supplement to the PFFP.
In the City of Chula Vista, the PFFP is intended to ensure adequate levels of service are achieved
for all public services and facilities impacted by a project. It is understood that assumed growth
projections and related public facility needs are subject to a number of external factors, such as
the local 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 for revisions to cost estimates and
funding programs be handled as administrative revisions, whereas revisions to the facilities-
driven growth phases are to be accomplished through an update process via an amendment to or
a supplement to the PFFP.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
10
Exhibit 1
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
11
Exhibit 2
Project
Location
SOUTH
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
12
Aerial Photograph
Freeway Commercial SPA FC-1 and FC-2
Otay Ranch Exhibit 3
FC 2
FC 1
Source: Google Maps
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
13
II.3. Assumptions
A. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to quantify how the FC-2 project will be analyzed in
relationship to all other projects, which are at some stage in the City’s development process.
The Growth Management Program addressed 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 forecasts
where and when residential development will take place. This forecast is updated annually
and is referred to as the Annual Residential Growth Forecast. The 2018 forecast is
summarized on Table A.5.
The specific factors that affect the development-phasing forecast include the status of
development approvals, binding development agreements and specific road and intersection
improvements. These components were reviewed as part of this supplemental PFFP in
conjunction with the requirement to provide facilities and services, concurrent with the
demand created by FC-2 to maintain compliance with the threshold standards.
The management of future growth includes increased coordination of activities between the
various City departments as well as with both School Districts and the Water Districts that
serve the City of Chula Vista. The Annual Residential Growth Forecast is a component of
the City of Chula Vista’s Growth Management Program. The Development Services
Department provides annual residential growth forecasts for 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 Growth Management
Oversight Commission (GMOC).
For the purposes of projecting facility demands for the Otay Ranch FC-2 project a population
coefficient of 2.61 persons per multi-family dwelling unit is used. This factor may be used
in this PFFP for converting Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) for the project. The
coefficient has been confirmed for use in the PFFP by the Development Services Department.
The FC-2 facility demands are based on the criteria of Title Three of the Municipal Code and
the technical studies that are referenced by this document.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
14
B. Key Assumptions
There are a number of key assumptions implicit to this supplemental PFFP Amendment. The
assumptions play a major part in determining public facility needs, the timing of those needs
and the staging of growth corresponding to the various facilities. Key land use and phasing
assumptions can be summarized as follows:
1. The proposed project consists of adding 300 multi-family units to the approved plan.
This action if approved by the City Council would permit a total of 900 mixed-use
residential units in the FC-2 site.
2. The proposed density increase requires: an Otay Ranch General Development Plan
amendment, Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SPA Amendment, and Freeway
Commercial North Master Precise Plan amendment.
3. The SPA Plan Amendment and Planned Community District Regulations will regulate
land use allocation and intensity of development for the proposed FC-2 project.
4. Infrastructure improvements may be completed over several phases. Build-out of all
building sites may occur over a several-year period.
II.4. Threshold Standards:
Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code provides the requirements for the Chula Vista Growth
Management Plan. Subsection 19.09.040 provides for eight city facilities and services threshold
standard topics: police, fire and emergency medical services, libraries, parks and recreation, traffic,
drainage, sewer, and fiscal. Subsection 19.09.050 provides for three external facilities and services
threshold standard topics: air quality and climate protection, schools, and water. Each of the 11 threshold
standards topics is stated in terms of a goal, objectives, one or more standards, and implementation
measures. Table A.2 provides a summary for the eleven threshold standards for the eleven topics.
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 climate
protection, and fiscal impacts.
Schools are provided by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater
Union High School District; water service is provided by Otay Water District; and sewer
service is provided by the City of Chula Vista and has an agreement with the City of San
Diego to treat the waste water. Finally, the air quality and climate protection 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.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
15
Table A.2
Chula Vista's Threshold Standards
Air Quality
and
Climate
Protection
The city shall pursue a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target
consistent with appropriate city climate change and energy efficiency
regulations in effect at the time of project application for SPA plan.
Fiscal 1. Fiscal Impact Analyses and Public Facilities Financing Plans, at the
time they are adopted, shall ensure that new development generates
sufficient revenue to offset the cost of providing municipal services and
facilities to that development.
2. The City shall establish and maintain, at sufficient levels to ensure the
timely delivery of infrastructure and services needed to support growth,
consistent with the threshold standards, a Development Impact Fee,
capital improvement funding, and other necessary funding programs or
mechanisms.
Police 1. Priority 1 – Emergency Calls¹. Properly equipped and staffed police
units shall respond to at least 81% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes 30
seconds and shall maintain an average response time of 6 minutes or less
for all Priority 1 calls (measured annually).
2. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls². Respond to all Priority 2 calls within 12 minutes
or less.
Fire and
Emergency
Medical
Services
Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical
units shall respond to calls throughout the city in at least 7 minutes in at
least 80% of the cases (measured annually).
Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch,
turnout and travel time to the building or site address.
Schools The city shall annually provide the Chula Vista Elementary School
District and the Sweetwater Union High School District with the city’s
annual 5-year residential growth forecast and request an evaluation of
their ability to accommodate forecasted growth, both citywide and by
subarea.
Library The city shall not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet
(GSF) of library space, adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000
population.
Parks &
Recreation
Population ration: Three (3) acres of neighborhood and community
parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents
east of Interstate 805.
Water 1. Adequate water supply must be available to serve new development. Therefore,
developers shall provide the city with a service availability letter from the appropriate
water district for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego
Water County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Water District
with the City’s annual 5-year residential growth forecast and request that they provide
an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth.
Sewer 1. Existing and projected facility sewage flows and volumes shall not
exceed city engineering standards for the current system and for
budgeted improvements, as set forth in the Subdivision Manual.
2.The city shall annually ensure adequate contracted capacity in the San
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
16
Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority or other means sufficient to meet the
projected needs of development.
Drainage 1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering
standards and shall comply with current local, state and federal
regulations, as may be amended from time to time.
2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the city's storm
drain system, with respect to the impacts of new development to determine
its ability to meet the goal and objective for drainage.
Traffic 1. Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) for Nonurban Streets. Those traffic
monitoring (TMP) roadway segments classified as other than urban
streets in the Land Use and Transportation Element of the City's General
Plan shall maintain LOS “C” or better as measured by observed average
travel speed on those segments, except that during peak hours LOS “D”
can occur for no more than two hours of the day.
2.Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS). Those TMP roadway segments
classified as urban streets in the Land Use and Transportation Element of
the City's General Plan shall maintain LOS “D” or better, as measured by
observed or predicted average travel speed, except that during peak hours,
LOS “E” can occur for no more than two hours per day.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
17
B. The Threshold Standards are applied in three ways:
1. Many of the standards were used in the development and evaluation of the City's General
Plan to ensure that quality-of-life objectives are met at the time of General Plan build-out
during a 20- to-25-year period;
2. Certain standards are used in the evaluation of individual development projects to determine
the possible impacts of the project and to apply appropriate conditions and requirements in
order to mitigate those impacts; and
3. All of the standards are monitored by the Growth Management Oversight Commission
(GMOC) on an annual basis to ensure that the cumulative impacts of new growth do not
result in a deterioration of quality of life, as measured by these standards.
Threshold standards are used to identify when new or upgraded public facilities are needed to
mitigate the impacts of new development. Building permits will not be issued unless compliance
with these standards can be met. These threshold standards have been prepared to guarantee that
public facilities or infrastructure improvements will keep pace with the demands of growth.
II.5. PFFP Boundaries:
The Growth Management ordinance requires that the City shall establish the boundaries of the
PFFP at the time a SPA Plan or Tentative Map is submitted by the applicant. The boundaries
shall be based upon the impact created by the Project on existing and future need for facilities.
The project boundaries will correlate the proposed development project with existing and future
development proposed for the area of impact to provide for the economically efficient and timely
installation of both onsite and offsite facilities and improvements required by the development.
In establishing the boundaries for the PFFP, the City shall be guided by the following
considerations:
A. Service areas, drainage, sewer basins, and pressure zones that serve the Project;
B. Extent to which facilities or improvements are in place or available;
C. Ownership of property;
D. Project impact on public facilities relationships, especially the impact on the City's planned
major circulation network;
E. Special district service territories;
F. Approved fire, drainage, sewer, or other facilities or improvement master plans.
The boundary of the Freeway Commercial Mixed-Use Project was established with the
previously approved 2016 SPA Plan amendment using the above criteria. The Supplemental
PFFP Amendment boundaries are congruent with the adopted GDP Area (see Exhibit 2) and the
Freeway Commercial SPA Plan Area (See Site Utilization Plan, Exhibit 5). The currently
proposed density increase does not affect the project boundary.
II.6. Development Summary
The Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial (FC) SPA project area is located in the eastern central
portion of the Otay Ranch GDP. The area of the proposed SPA Amendment is consistent with
the FC designated Planning Area 12 as identified in the Otay Ranch GDP (as amended). The FC
SPA project area includes approximately 120-acres of gently rolling terrain and is bounded by
the existing SR-125 freeway on the west, Olympic Parkway on the north, Eastlake Parkway on
the east and Birch Road on the south (see Exhibit 2).
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
18
The FC SPA area consists of two separate parcels with a combined area of approximately 121.0
acres. The FC-1 district consists of approximately 86.2 acres of FC uses and the FC-2 district
consists of approximately 38.31 acres of Mixed Use. Table A.3 below summarizes the land use
and acreage for each district. The Site Utilization Plan (Exhibit 5) illustrates the location of each
district.
Table A.3
Land Use
Parcel Land Use Gross Acreage1
FC-1 Freeway Commercial 86.2
FC-2 Mixed-Use 38.31
Subtotal: 124.51
Access to the site will be provided via Town Center Drive, a north-south road, which bisects the
FC-2 site. Town Center Drive intersects with Olympic Parkway, which borders the FC SPA area
on the north. Town Center Drive terminates at the FC-1 site. The existing SR-125 borders the
FC SPA area on the west. Freeway interchanges exist at SR-125 at both Birch Road and Olympic
Parkway. Birch Road borders the FC SPA area on the south. Eastlake Parkway borders the FC
SPA area on the east.
The Freeway Commercial SPA Amendment dated January 2019 proposes to modify the FC-2
district only. If approved, this modification will allow up to 900 units of high-density residential
in the mixed-use land use designation category with a density range of 20 to 34 units per acre.
1 Final Map No. 16291
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
19
II.7. Project Phasing:
A. FC-2 Phasing
Several phases of development are envisioned to complete the required infrastructure
improvements. A summary of the infrastructure phasing is provided in the following table.
Table A.4
Otay Ranch FC-2 Phasing Plan Summary
Facility Fee Program and Funding Source Triggers
Traffic
Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee
(ETDIF)
Development Impact Fee (DIF)
ETDIF streets will be constructed by
Developer (receiving ETDIF credits). Non-
ETDIF streets are developer exaction. Pay
ETDIF prior to Final Inspection.
Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Fee
Fee Exaction Pay at Building Permit Issuance.
Potable and
Recycled
Water
Otay Water District (OWD) Potable Water
Capacity Fee
Meter & Capacity Fees
Provide City Engineer OWD water
availability letter and required improvements
prior to approval of the Final Map.
Improvements constructed per OWD and
SAMP.
Otay Water District (OWD) Recycled Water Fee
(if required)
Meter & Capacity Fees
Storm Drain
Poggi Canyon Sewer & Drainage Basin Fee
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Pay prior to Final Inspection.
Storm Drain Improvements
Fee Exaction
Concurrent with grading permit.
Connect to existing drainage system.
Sewer
Sewer Improvements
Fee Exaction
Concurrent with phasing. Connect to
existing sewer system. Pay sewer capacity
fees prior to final inspection.
Schools No specific facility tied to school fees
Community Facilities District (CFD)
Residential fees paid through CFD. Non-
residential statutory fees paid prior to
issuance of Building Permit.
Parks Park Acquisition & Development Fees
In-Lieu Fees
Park dedication & construction. Prior to
530th residential building permit.
Pay park acquisition and development fees
prior to Final Inspection.
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees
(PFDIF):
Recreation PFDIF - Recreation Facilities
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Pay prior to Final Inspection.
Library PFDIF - Library
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Pay prior to Final Inspection.
Fire
Suppression
System
PFDIF - Fire Suppression System
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Pay prior to Final Inspection.
Police PFDIF - Police Facility
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Pay prior to Final Inspection.
Civic Center
Expansion
PFDIF – Civic Center Expansion
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Pay prior to Final Inspection.
Corp Yard
Relocation
PFDIF – Corp Yard Relocation
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Pay prior to Final Inspection.
Program
Administration
PFDIF – Program Administration
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Pay prior to Final Inspection.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
20
The development of the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial North SPA will be completed in four
non-sequential phases. Construction of one of the hotels occurred before development of the
residential and mixed-use parcels began. The Conceptual Phasing Plan (Exhibit 4) reflects
anticipated market demand for commercial and residential development within the Planning
Area. Exhibit 5A illustrates the project Conceptual Development Plan.
Sequential phasing is frequently inaccurate because of unforeseen market changes or regulatory
constraints. Therefore, the Freeway Commercial North SPA PFFP permits non-sequential
phasing by imposing specific facilities requirements for each phase to ensure that new
development is adequately served, and City threshold standards are met. Construction of the on-
site Village Entry street from Olympic Parkway, which serves both ownerships/parcels, shall be
phased according to the provisions of the PFFP.
B. Eastern Chula Vista Growth Forecast
A summary of the Eastern Chula Vista development-phasing forecast is shown in Table A.5. The
table presents an estimate of the amount of development activity anticipated annually from 2017
to 2022. The number of dwelling units forecasted annually is approximately 1,287 dwelling
units. It should be noted that these projections 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.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
21
Exhibit 4
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
22
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
h
u
l
a
V
i
s
t
a
2
0
1
7
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
Ta
b
l
e
A
.
5
Ci
t
y
of
C
h
u
l
a
V
i
s
t
a
Fi
v
e
Y
e
a
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
20
1
7
Th
r
o
u
g
h
20
2
2
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
23
Exhibit 5
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
24
Exhibit 5A
9/1/2018
With 4.69 acres of equivalence
enhancements
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
25
II.8. Development Impact Fees
A. Transportation
The current Transportation Development Impact Fees Ordinance sets forth the calculation of
development impact fees. The ETDIF is assessed at a rate of $1,455 per daily trip, and this rate
is indexed annually on October 1. Table A.6 presents example ETDIF for a range of typical land
uses based on traffic generation and the rate of $1,455 per trip. ETDIF for development proposals
are assessed by the City of Chula Vista staff based on specific information on land use type and
intensity.
Table A.6
ETDIF Rates for Typical Land Uses2
Land Use Classification Development Intensity ETDIF Rate
Residential (Low) 0-6 DUs/Acre $14,550 per DU
Residential (Med.) 6.1-20 DUs/Acre $11,640 per DU
Residential (High) >20 DUs/Acre $8,730 per DU
Senior housing .8 DUs/Acre $5,820 per DU
Residential mixed use 0.4 DUs/Acre (>18 DU/Acre) $5,820 per DU
Commercial mixed use 16 EDUs/20 KSF $232,800 per 20,000 sq.
ft.
General Commercial 16 EDUs/Acre (<5 stories) $232,800 per Acre
Regional Commercial 11 EDUs/Acre (>800 KSF) $160,050 per Acre
Industrial 9 EDUs/ Acre $130,950 per Acre
2 TDIF Fees based on Form 5509 dated 10/1/18. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula
Vista at the time of building permit.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
26
B. Public Facilities
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was annually indexed by the City on
October 1, 2018. Park fee increases were effective October 7, 2018. Current applicable fees for
multi-family residential is $10,337/unit and general commercial (including office) development
is $33,729/acre. The PFDIF amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to time.
Both residential and non-residential development impact fees apply to the project. The
calculations of the PFDIF due for each facility are addressed in the following sections of this
report. Table A.7 provides a break-down of what facilities the fee funds.
Table A.73
Public Facilities Estimated DIF Fee Components
Component Single Family
/DU
Multi-Family
/DU
Commercial
/Acre
Industrial
/Acre
Civic Center Expansion $3,133 $2,968 $9,997 $3,159
Police Facility $1,873 $2,022 $8,846 $1,907
Corp Yard Relocation $502 $403 $8,552 $4,028
Libraries $1,801 $1,801 $0 $0
Fire Suppression System $1,583 $1,139 $4,186 $833
Program Administration $673 $637 $2,148 $679
Recreation Facilities
(residential only)
$1,367 $1,367 $0 $0
Total per Residential Unit $10,932 $10,337
Total per Com’l/Ind. Acre $33,729 $10,606
The calculations of the PFDIF due for each facility are addressed in the following sections of this
report.
3 DIF Fees based on Form 5509 dated 10/1/18. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula
Vista at the time of building permit.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
27
III. FACILITY ANALYSIS
This portion of the PFFP contains 13 separate subsections for each facility addressed by this report.
Of the 13 facilities, 11 have adopted threshold standards; the Civic Center and Corporation Yard do
not. Table B.1 highlights the level of analysis for each facility.
Table B.1
Level of Analysis
Facility Citywide East of I-805 Service Area
Special District
Traffic
Police
Fire Suppression
Schools
Libraries
Parks & Recreation
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Air Quality
Civic Center
Corp. Yard
Fiscal
Each subsection analyzes the impact of the Freeway Commercial Project based upon the adopted
Quality of Life Standards. The analysis is based upon the specific goal, objective, threshold standard
and implementation measures. The proposed SPA plan is used to determine facility adequacy and is
referenced within the facility section.
Each analysis is based upon the specific project processing requirements for that facility, as adopted
in the Growth Management Program. These indicate the requirements for evaluating the project
consistency with the threshold ordinance at various stages (General Development Plan, SPA Plan,
Public Facilities Finance Plan, Tentative Map, Final Map and Building Permit) in the development
review process.
A service analysis section is included which identifies the service provided by each facility. The
existing plus forecasted demands for the specific facility are identified in the subsection based upon
the adopted threshold standard.
Each facility subsection contains an adequacy analysis followed by a detailed discussion indicating
how the facility is to be financed. The adequacy analysis provides a determination of whether or not
the threshold standard is being met and the finance section provides a determination if funds are
available to guarantee the improvement. If the threshold standard is not being met, mitigation is
recommended in the Threshold Compliance and Recommendations subsection which proposes the
appropriate conditions or mitigation to bring the facility into conformance with the threshold
standard.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
28
IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES THRESHOLDS STANDARDS AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
IV.1. TRAFFIC
IV.1.1 GMOC Threshold Standard
A. Arterial Level of Service (LOS) for Non-Urban Streets. Those Traffic Monitoring Program
(TMP) roadway segments classified as other than Urban Streets in the Land Use and
Transportation Element of the City's General Plan shall maintain LOS “C” or better as
measured by observed average travel speed on those segments, except that during peak hours
LOS “D” can occur for no more than two hours of the day.
B. Urban Street Level of Service. Those TMP roadway segments classified as Urban Streets in
the Land Use and Transportation Element of the City's General Plan shall maintain LOS “D”
or better, as measured by observed or predicted average travel speed, except that during peak
hours LOS “E” can occur for no more than two hours per day.
Notes to Standards:
1. Arterial Segment: LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and
special circumstance variations.
2. The LOS measurement of arterial segments at freeway ramps shall be a growth management consideration
in situations where proposed developments have a significant impact at interchanges.
3. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to the anticipated deterioration of LOS below
established standards.
4. The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the
procedures detailed in the most recent Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed by the
City’s traffic engineer.
5. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the HCM.
IV.1.2 Service Analysis
The City of Chula Vista is responsible for ensuring that traffic improvements are provided to maintain
a safe and efficient street system within the City. Through project review, City staff ensures the timely
provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in response to planned development while
maintaining acceptable LOS. To accomplish their review the City has adopted guidelines for Traffic
Impact Studies (January 2001). These guidelines ensure uniformity in the preparation of traffic
studies. Further, the guidelines assist in maintaining acceptable standards for planned new roadway
segments and signalized intersections at the build out of the Chula Vista General Plan’s Land Use
and Transportation Element. The Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan serves
as the overall facility master plan.
When the land use changed from Commercial to Mixed-Use in the FC-2 portion of the project, an
analysis was prepared entitled “Otay Ranch PA 12 Trip Generation Review – Revised” by Chen Ryan
Associates, dated 2015. This report was the basis of the First Addendum to the EIR (FEIR). The
FEIR concluded that the hotel and mixed-use land uses would generate less daily and peak hour trips
than the entitled freeway commercial uses, there would be no significant traffic impacts associated
with the land use change and thus no additional traffic analysis would be required. The updated Traffic
Memorandum by Chen Ryan dated May 8, 2019 concluded that with the addition of 300 units, the
project will still generate fewer trips than the original freeway commercial uses would generate.
According to the May 8, 2019 memoran dum (Chen Ryan 2019), the FC-2 site would generate
approximately 7,681 daily trips, which is lower than the originally approved commercial land use trip
generation of approximately 12,145 daily trips for the FC-2 site. As analyzed in the traffic
memorandum, there is a reduction in PM peak hour trips (by 524 trips) and an increase in AM peak
hour trips (by 58 trips). This project would not result in any new significant traffic impacts during the
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
29
Existing Plus Project or Horizon (Year 2030) conditions (Chen Ryan 2019).
IV.1.3 Trip Generation and Phasing
The following is a description of the proposed project trip generation calculations and proposed
phasing.
A. Proposed Project
The 2019 Chen Ryan Analysis includes project trip generation for the project with the
additional 300 DUs. See Table C.1 below. With a 15% transit and mixed‐use reduction, the
FC-2 project would generate approximately 7,681 daily trips including 544 and 691 trips
during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Table C.1
FC-2 Project Trip Generation
Land Use Quantity Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
PROPOSED PROJECT
Apartment
(density >20 du/acre) 608 units
6 / unit
AM: 8% (2:8)
PM: 9% (7:3)
3,648
292
(58-in / 234-out)
328
(230-in / 98-out)
Townhomes
(density >20 du/acre) 292 units
6 / unit
AM: 8% (2:8)
PM: 9% (7:3)
1,752
140
(28-in / 112-out)
158
(110-in / 47-out)
Mixed-Use
Commercial Center 15 KSF
110 / 1ksf
AM: 3% (6:4)
PM: 9% (5:5)
1,650
50
(30-in /20-out)
149
(75-in / 74-out)
Neighborhood Park 2 acres
5 / Acre
AM: 4% (5:5)
PM: 4% (5:5)
10
0
(0-in / 0-out)
1
(1-in / 0-out)
15% Transit and Mixed-Use Reduction* -1,059 -72
(-17-in / -55-out)
-96
(-63-in / -33-out)
Sub-Total Mixed Use: 6,001 410
(99-in / 311-out)
540
(354-in / 186-out)
Business Hotel 300 rooms
7 / room
AM: 8% (4:6)
PM: 9% (6:4)
2,100
168
(67-in / 101-out)
189
(113-in / 76-out)
10% Transit Reduction**
-210
-17
(-17-in / -10-out)
-19
(-11-in / -8-out)
10% Walk/Bike Mode-Share Reduction** -210 -17
(-17-in / -10-out)
-19
(-11-in / -8-out)
Sub-Total Business Hotel: 1,680 134
(53-in / 81-out)
151
(91-in / 60-out)
Total: 7,681 544
(152-in / 392-out)
691
(445-in / 246-out)
ORIGINAL FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ENTITLEMENT/ FEIR 02-04
Regional
Commercial 347 KSF 35/1ksf 12,145 486
(340-in/146-out)
1,215
(607-in/608-out)
Proposed Project vs. Approved EIR Trip Generation: -4,464 +58
(-188-in / 246 out)
-524
(-162 / -362)
Notes:
*Per SANDAG’s Guide to Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region.
**10% Transit Reduction and 10% Walk/Bike Mode-Share Reduction for Business Hotel Trips were obtained from the Ayres
Hotel Trip Generation Memo by LLG (March 20, 2017), which was approved by City of Chula Vista.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
30
Exhibit 6 indicates the project has three access points along Olympic Parkway, two on the
north (Town Center Drive and Promenade St.) and one on the south (Town Center Drive).
These accesses and driveways are as follows:
1. Town Center Dr. / Olympic Parkway – a signalized full access intersection.
2. Town Center Dr./ Ring Road - a signalized T-Intersection.
3. Centerpark Rd. / Town Center Dr. - One-Way Stop Control.
4. Promenade St. / Town Center Dr. – a signalized 4-way intersection.
5. Promenade St. / Olympic Parkway - Right-in/Right out
The Chen Ryan Analysis includes a projection of the project trip distribution patterns
associated with the FC-2 project. See the Chen Ryan Analysis for the details of the trip
distribution analysis.
B. Project Phasing
Section 19.09.130 Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) Amendment of the Growth
Management ordinance requires that if the Development Services Director determines that
facilities or improvements within a PFFP are inadequate to accommodate any further
development within that area the development shall cease or be metered until a remedy is
implemented. If the Development Services Director determines that such events or changed
circumstances adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the City of Chula Vista, the
City may require amendment, modification, suspension or termination of an approved PFFP.
IV.1.4 Traffic Operations
Table C.2 below indicates that both intersections of Town Center Drive / Olympic Parkway and
Town Center Drive / Ring Road would continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
D or better with addition of the project traffic. All three proposed project driveways would
operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Existing Plus Project conditions. The addition of
project traffic would not result in any significant traffic impact within the project study area.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
31
Table C.2
Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results - Existing Plus Project
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak
Hour PM Peak Hour Delay w/o
Project
(sec)
LOS
w/o
Project
AM/PM
Project
% of
Entering
Volume
(>5%)
Significant
Impact Avg.
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1. Town Center Dr.
/ Olympic Parkway Signal 40.8 D 54.8 D 31.8 / 53.6 C/D 11.9% /
10.8% No
2. Town Center Dr./
Ring Road Signal 10.9 B 17.2 B 12.4 / 28.1 B/C 23.6% /
7.8% No
3. Centerpark Rd. /
Town Center Dr.
One-Way
Stop
Control*
12.7 B 27.6 D NA NA 69.4% /
33.7% No
4. Promenade St. /
Town Center Dr. Signal 8.9 A 10.8 B NA NA 65.7% /
29.3% No
5. Promenade St. /
Olympic Prkwy
Right-
in/Right
out*
13.9 B 20.8 C NA NA 8.4% /
11.3% No
Notes:
*Indicates one or two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay shown is the worst delay experienced by any of the
approaches.
NA = This scenario was not analyzed by Chen Ryan. Source: Chen Ryan
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
32
Exhibit 9
#4
w/Signal
1/20/2016 Exhibit 6
#1
Ring Road
#2 Full Movement Intersection
/Signal by others
#3
#5 Note: Intersection #3 is “One Way Stop
Controlled” with prohibited NB Left
Turns.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
33
The Chen Ryan Analysis indicates that the Year 2030 geometrics of the project are adequate to
accommodate the projected ADT. The projected 2030 daily traffic volumes, including the
amended FC-2 project, along Town Center Drive are as follows:
• Town Center Drive, north of the hotel driveway – 13,687 ADT;
• Town Center Drive, between the hotel driveway and apartment driveway – 11,766
ADT;
• Town Center Drive, south of the apartment driveway – 9,078 ADT.
Based on these forecast traffic volumes, Town Center Drive – a Class II Collector (2‐lanes with
a raised median and left‐turn pocket) – which has a capacity of 15,000 ADT would be sufficient
to accommodate the project traffic.
The Chen Ryan Analysis concludes that:
• Town Center Drive should be classified as a Class II Collector to accommodate the
future traffic on Town Center Drive.
• The main signalized project driveway should be located at a minimum 260 feet (60 feet
taper assumed) south of the Town Center Drive / Olympic Parkway intersection, and at
a minimum 160 feet (60 feet taper assumed) north of the Town Center Drive / Ring
Road intersection.
IV.1.5 Transit
The Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial site is served by the Metropolitan Transit System. Routes
703, 707 and 709 provide transit service along FC-2’s frontage on Olympic Parkway. The San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is administering the South Bay Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) project to implement high speed bus transit service between a proposed Intermodal
Transportation Center (ITC) at the Otay Mesa International Border Crossing Port of Entry (POE)
in the City of San Diego, the Otay Ranch communities in Eastern Chula Vista, and downtown
San Diego, a distance of approximately 21.6 miles. Construction of BRT guideway infrastructure
began in 2016 and regular service began in January 2019.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
34
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
35
BRT guideway: from the FC-2 site, the guideway crosses over SR-125 via a guideway and
pedestrian bridge.
Source: SANDAG Exhibit 8
Not to
Scale
FC-2
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
36
IV.1.6 Bicycle Routes & Pedestrian Trails
Off-street trail routes that connect to the community-wide system of Otay Ranch as well as
the City’s regional system are included as components of the perimeter arterials of the FC-
2 Project. The proposed Pedestrian Circulation system, based on the current site plan for
parcel FC-2, is illustrated in Exhibit 10. Bicycles will share the traffic lanes with motor
vehicles on the internal streets due to the low (25 mph) speed limit.
.
Source: SANDAG Exhibit 9
FC-2
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
37
1/19/2016 Exhibit 10
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
38
IV.1.6 Cost & Financing Traffic Improvements
A. Street Improvements
The FC-2 project will improve Town Center Drive and provide signalization
improvements, as required, during the first phase of development.
B. Transportation Development Impact Fee
The Freeway Commercial project is within the boundaries of the ETDIF program and,
as such, the project is subject to the payment of the fees at the rates in effect at the time
of payment.
The ETDIF that set the fee was adopted by City Council Ordinance 2802 on November
30, 1999. This fee is adjusted on October 1st of each year automatically without further
council action. The amount is also subject to change as the code is amended from time
to time. In the City’s Master Fee Schedule Medium Density Residential Developments
have a 6.1 to 20 DU/Acre density. Medium Density Residential are charged
$11,640/EDU. High Residential Developments have a 20.1 or higher DU/Acre
density. High Density Residential is charged $8,730/EDU. Mixed Use Residential is
charged $5,820/EDU. Commercial Mixed Use is charged at the rate of $232,800 per
20,000 square feet. Hotel ETDIF is based on 4.62 trips per room at a rate of $1,455
($14,550/10 trips). The total number of estimated ETDIF by phase for FC-2 project
is presented in Table C.3.
Table C.3
FC-2 SPA Amendment
Estimated ETDIF1
Product Type DU Fee/DU Ac.
Fee/
20K Sq.
Ft.
Trips per
Room
Trip Charge Fee Total Fees
MF >20 DU/ac 212 $8,730 $1,850,760
MF 6.1 – 20
DU/acres 80 $11,640 $931,200
MU >20 DU/ac 608 $5,820 $3,538,560
Commercial MU 0.34 $232,800 $174,600
General2
Commercial –
Hotel 1
4.62 Trips3
148 Rooms Rate used
$1,354.10/trip $950,137
General
Commercial –
Hotel 2
4.62 Trips3
152 Rooms $1,455/trip $1,021,759
Total 900 0.34
$8,467,016
1 Estimated ETDIF is based on the Revised October 1, 2018, City of Chula Vista Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements (Form
5509) and is subject to annual adjustments. Actual ETDIF may be different.
2 ETDIF for the hotel was deferred. The ETDIF totaled $925,879.42 but incurred a 2% interest per annum for a total due and paid 1/15/19 in the
amount of $950,137.46.
3 Per Ayres Hotel Trip Generation Memo by LLG (Marc 20, 2017), which was approved by the City of Chula Vista staff.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
39
C. Traffic Signal Fee
Future development within Freeway Commercial will be required to pay Traffic Signal
Fees in accordance with Chula Vista Council Policy No. 478-01. The estimated total
signal fee is calculated at $343,096 (see Table C.4).
Table C.4
FC-2 SPA Amendment Traffic Signal Fees4
Development Phase DU or Sq. Ft. Trips/DU or Sq. Ft. Trips
Traffic
Signal Fee
@
$39.92/Trip
MU Residential > 20
du/ac
608 DUs 6/DU (Mixed Use-High)
3,648
$145,628
MU Commercial 15,000 Sq. Ft. 40/1,000 St. Ft. 600 $23,952
MF 6.1 – 20 du/ac 292 DUs 8/DU (Medium) 2,336 $93,253
Residence Inn Hotel 148 rooms 4.62/room 684 $27,305
Courtyard Hotel 152 rooms 4.62/room 702 $28,024
Total 7,970 $318,162
D. Non-DIF Streets and Signals
The FC-2 project contains internal public streets and signals that by City policy are not
eligible for DIF credit. These streets and signals will be funded by the development.
IV.1.7 Threshold Compliance
A. Threshold compliance will continue to be monitored through the Chula Vista Traffic
Monitoring Program.
B. The FC-2 Project shall be conditioned to pay ETDIF at the rate in effect at the time of
payment and prior to final inspection.
C. The measures outlined in the Environmental Documentation are required to mitigate
cumulative and direct project impacts.
D. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the Chen Ryan Analysis.
E. Prior to the first final map for the project, Applicant shall dedicate to the City any right-
of-way as required by the City of Chula Vista for the BRT project.
F. Prior to the first building permit for the East Mixed-Use, a signal at Town Center Drive
and Promenade St. shall be constructed as shown as #4 in Table C.2.
4 Table is provided as an estimate only. Fees may change depending upon the actual number of square feet of buildings
and multi-family units. Final square foot calculations and the actual number of residential units will be known at time
building permits are applied for.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
40
IV.2 POLICE
IV.2.1. Threshold Standard
A. Priority 1- Emergency Calls 5 - Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond
to at least 81% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes 30 seconds and shall maintain an
average response time of 6 minutes or less for all Priority 1 calls (measured annually).
B. Priority 2 - Urgent Calls 6 - Properly equipped and staff police units shall respond to all
Priority 2 calls within 12 minutes or less (measured annually).
Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch and travel time
to the building or site address, otherwise referred to as “received to arrive.”
IV.2.2. Service Analysis
The City of Chula Vista Police Department provides police services. The purpose of the
Threshold Standard is to maintain or improve the current level of police services
throughout the City by ensuring that adequate levels of staff, equipment and training are
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 Police Priority 1 and Priority 2
threshold standards on May 28, 2002 with adoption of Ordinance 2860. On April 14, 2015,
with adoption of Ordinance 3339, the City Council made additional amendments to the
Priority 1 and Priority 2 threshold standards. 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.
IV.2.3. Project Processing Requirements
The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues
for Police Services.
A. Services reviewed must be consistent with the proposed phasing of the project.
B. Able to demonstrate conformance with A Master Plan for the Chula Vista Civic Center
dated May 8, 1989, as amended.
IV.2.4. Existing Conditions
The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) provides law enforcement services to the area
encompassing the project. The CVPD is located 315 Fourth Avenue in Chula Vista. This
facility is expected to be adequate through the build-out of eastern Chula Vista. Currently,
CVPD maintains a staff of approximately 223 sworn officers and approximately 89 civilian
support personnel. FC-2 is within Police Patrol Beat 32 that is served by at least one Beat
Officer per shift.
IV.2.5. Adequacy Analysis
With adoption of Ordinance 3339, the Police Priority 1 threshold standard was changed
from 7 minutes to 7 minutes 30 seconds, with an average response time changed from 5
5 Priority 1 - Emergency calls are life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or accident); robbery
or panic alarms; urgent cover calls from officers. Response: Immediate response by two officers from any source or
assignment, immediate response by paramedics/fire if injuries are believed to have occurred.
6 Priority 2 - Urgent calls are misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls (domestic violence
or other disturbances with potential for violence); burglar alarms. Response: Immediate response by one or more officers
from clear units or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.).
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
41
minutes 30 seconds to 6 minutes. The implementation of the new threshold standard
included changing the reporting methodology by:
• Starting the clock at “received to arrive” rather than “route to arrive”;
• Eliminating a “normalization” calculation that was created due to higher reporting
times in eastern versus western Chula Vista;
• Adding false alarms to the call volume.
According to the GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report the response times for Priority
1 Calls for Service (CFS) were not met during the 2017 fiscal year (see Table D.1). The
CVPD responded to 72.2% of Priority 1 emergency response calls within 7 minutes and 30
seconds, which is 8.8% below the threshold standard of 81 percent.
The Police Department has implemented PremierOne to help route calls for service more
efficiently. The system went live summer 2017 and continues to be reviewed and adjusted.
Specific units are properly staffed; however, the actual unit-per-beat count is below the
necessary levels to meet the demands of the community. The Police Department
emphasizes that any population growth that is not supported by the correct level of sworn
staff will negatively impact the level of service a police force can offer.
Current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate forecasted growth
in the next 12-18 months or 5 years.
Table D.1
Priority 1 – Emergency Calls or Services
Fiscal Year Call Volume
% of Call Response w/in
7 Minutes 30 seconds
(Threshold = 81%)
Average Response
Time (Minutes)
(Threshold = 6
minutes)
FY 2017 765 of 65,672 72.2% 6:74
FY 2016
742 of 67,048 71.0% 6:31
FY 2015 675 of 64,008 71.2% 6:49
FY 2014 711 of 65,645 73.6% 6:45
FY 2013 738 of 65,741 74.1% 6:42
FY 2012 726 of 64,386 72.8% 6:31
FY 2011 657 of 64,695 80.7% 6:03
FY 2002 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07
FY 1992 - 81.2% 4:54
FY 1990 - 87.6% 4:08
Source: GMOC 2017 Annual Report
The Priority 2 threshold standard was not met for the twentieth consecutive year. With an
average response time of 13 minutes 53 seconds, the 12-minute threshold standard was
missed, and was 3 seconds longer than last year.
As with the Priority 1 threshold standard, the Priority 2 threshold standard was amended in
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
42
2015 with adoption of Ordinance 3339. The Priority 2 “Average Response Time” was
changed from 7 minutes 30 seconds to 12 minutes, and the “percentage of calls responded
to within 7 minutes” portion of the threshold standard was eliminated. Implementation of
the new Priority 2 threshold standard follows the same methodology used for the new
Priority 1 threshold standard, including: 1) Starting the clock at “received to arrive” rather
than “route to arrive”; 2) Eliminating a “normalization” calculation that was created due to
higher reporting times in eastern versus western Chula Vista; and 3) Adding false alarms
to the call volume.
Table D.2
Priority 2 – Urgent Calls or Services
Fiscal Year Call Volume
Average Response Time
(Minutes)
Threshold = 12 minutes
FY 2017 19,309 of 65,672 13:53
FY 2016 19,288 of 67,048 13:50
FY 2015 17,976 of 64,008 13:50
FY 2014 17,817 of 65,645 13:36
FY 2013 18,505 of 65,741 13:44
FY 2012 22,121 of 64,386 14:20
FY 2011 21,500 of 64,695 12:52
FY 2002 22,199 of 71,859 10:04
FY 1992 -- 6:30
FY 1990 -- 6:15
Source: GMOC 2017 Annual Report
Current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate forecasted growth
in the next 12-18 months or 5 years.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
43
IV.2.6. Financing Police Facilities
PFDIF was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 19, 2002 by adoption
of Ordinance 2847. The PFDIF is adjusted every October 1st pursuant to Ordinance 3050,
which was adopted by the City Council on November 7, 2006. The Police PFDIF Fee for
Multi-Family Development is $2,022/unit (see Table A.7)7. The Police PFDIF for
Commercial development is $8,846 per acre. This amount is subject to change as it is
amended from time to time. The project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the
rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. At the current fee rate, the project
Police Fee obligation at build-out is $1,876,983.
Table D.3
Police Fee For Freeway Commercial
Development Number
of DUs
MF
PFDIF/DU
Com’l
Acres
Com’l
PFDIF/AC.
Police Fee for
Freeway Commercial
Multi-Family
Residential 900 $2,022 $1,819,800
Commercial
(Residence Inn) 3.31 AC $8,846 $29,280
Commercial
(Courtyard) 2.81 AC $8,846 $24,857
Commercial Mixed
Use ≈0.34 AC $8,846 $3,046
Totals 900 $1,876,983
The projected fee illustrated in Table D.3 is an estimate only. Actual fees may be different.
PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer
actions that change residential densities, industrial acreage or commercial acreages.
IV.2.7. Threshold Compliance
Compliance will be satisfied with the payment of public facilities fees. The proposed
project will be required to pay public facilities fees for police services, based on the number
of dwelling units and commercial acreage, prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy;
the fees shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time payment is made.
7 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 10/01/18. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula
Vista at the time of building permit.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
44
IV.3 FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
IV.3.1. Threshold Standard
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond
to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases.
IV.3.2. Service Analysis
The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) provides Fire and Emergency Medical
Services (EMS). EMS is provided on a contract basis with American Medical Response
(AMR). The City also has countywide mutual and automatic aid agreements with
surrounding agencies, should the need arise for their assistance. The purpose of the
Threshold Standard and the monitoring of response times are to maintain and improve the
current level of fire protection EMS in the City. Fire/EMS facilities are provided for in the
Fire Facility, Equipment and Deployment Master Plan (FFMP) adopted by City Council
on January 28, 2014. The FFMP indicates that the number and location of fire stations
play a key role in determining response times. The FFMP evaluates the planning area's
fire coverage needs, and recommends a network of twelve stations at build out to meet and
maintain threshold standard compliance (see Table E.1).
IV.3.3. Existing Conditions
There are currently nine (9) fire stations serving the City of Chula Vista. The existing
station network is listed below:
Table E.1
Current Fire Station Facilities
Station Location Equipment Staffing
Current Fire Station Facilities
Station 1 447 F St. Engine 51/Truck 51/Battalion 51 Assigned: 24 - On Duty: 8
Station 2 80 East J St. Engine 52 Assigned: 9 - On Duty: 3
Station 3 1410 Brandywine Ave. US&R 8 53 + Tender & Trailer Assigned: 12 - On Duty: 4
Station 4 850 Paseo Ranchero Engine 54 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Station 5 391 Oxford St. Engine 55 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Station 6 605 Mt. Miguel Rd. Engine 56/Brush 56 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Station 7 1640 Santa Venetia Rd. Engine 57/Truck 57/Battalion 52 Assigned: 24 On Duty: 8
Station 8 1180 Woods Dr. Engine 58 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Station 9 291 E. Oneida Street Engine 59 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Planned Fire Station Facilities
EUC New Engine/ New Truck Unknown
Bayfront New Engine/ New Truck Unknown
Village 8 West New Engine/ New Truck Unknown
Source: CVFD
The adopted FFMP sets forth a plan for a Fire/Emergency Medical Services delivery
system within the City of Chula Vista that can, upon build-out, meet the expected growth
of the City. The FFMP recommends the expansion of one existing fire station and the
addition of three new fire stations for a total of twelve fire stations. The FFMP anticipated
8 National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System Team
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
45
the University Villages development. Two of the new fire stations are within Otay Ranch,
one in Village 8 West, the other in the Millenia project, which is consistent with the Otay
Ranch GDP and EUC SPA Plan. Additionally, a third fire station would serve the
Bayfront. All future growth projected in the City will be served by the station locations
and configuration as outlined within the FFMP, or as amended.
During the City’s next comprehensive update of the PFDIF program, the level of capital
program financial support required from both the General Fund and the PFDIF will be
determined. The City's PFDIF program is the primary funding source for the one-time fire
related facility capital expenditures; the General Fund is the funding source for the
operating costs. Cost sharing between the City and the PFDIF will also be determined
during the PFDIF update and the new aforementioned development related facilities will
be added to the PFDIF program fee calculation.
American Medical Response (AMR) is contracted by the City of Chula Vista to provide
Emergency Medical Services. There are four AMR units that provide paramedics to the
City of Chula Vista exclusively. Currently two full-time units are stationed within the city
limits and are dedicated to Chula Vista, while two other full-time units are shared with
other cities. The Chula Vista Fire Department is also providing an Advance Life Support
(ALS) program to provide residents with the most appropriate emergency medical care in
a timely manner.
IV.3.4. Adequacy Analysis
The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) currently serves areas within the City's
boundaries, including the Freeway Commercial project. The closest CVFD stations to the
project site are:
• Fire Station #7, located in Village 2 – 1.5 miles.
• Fire Station #8, located in Eastlake III – 2.5 miles
The station nearest to the Freeway Commercial Condominium project is Station #7. This
station is approximately 1.5 miles from the Freeway Commercial Condominium project.
Station #8 is located in the Eastlake Woods neighborhood, which is approximately 2.5 miles
away. The department’s standard response to a fire at the project site with the proposed uses
could include: Four Fire Engines from Stations 4, 6, 7 & 8; Two Trucks from Stations 1 &
7; Two Battalion Chiefs from Stations 1 & 7; and One Urban Search & Rescue team from
Station 3.
According to the GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report, Fire and EMS complied with
the threshold standard, which is responding to calls within 7 minutes 80% of the time.
They responded within 7 minutes 80.6% of the time.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
46
Table E.2
FC-2 SPA Fire Response Times
Years Call
Volume
% of All Call
Responded to
Within 7:00
Minutes
(Threshold =
80%)
Average
Response
Time for
all Calls
Average
Travel
Time
Average
Dispatch
Time
Average
Turn-out
Time
2017 13,665 80.6 5:50 4:07 0:53 0:50
2016 13,481 74.8 6:15 4:25 0:55 0:56
2015 12,561 78.3 6:14 3:51 1:12 1:10
2014 11,721 76.5 6:02 3:34 1:07 1:21
2013 12,316 75.7 6:02 3:48 1:05 1:08
Source: GMOC 2017 Annual Report
The FFMP includes additions to the existing network of fire stations, which should result
in improved response times. The FFMP does not specify definitive dates or triggers for
fire station construction to begin, nor has a funding mechanism been identified.
The fire department has determined that the following system improvements are required
to make significant improvements in compliance:
• Additional fire stations within the network;
• Additional improvements in call for service dispatch processes;
• Improved management of response time performance to include interactive
discussion with fire crews, use of mapping capabilities, and shared data with
stakeholders.
IV.3.5. Fire Suppression Facility Analysis
The CVFD has four fire stations west of Interstate 805, where streets are on a traditional
grid pattern, and five fire stations east of Interstate 805, where there is less street
connectivity. Despite several more calls on the west side, these stations consistently
comply with the threshold standard, while the stations in the east face more geographic
challenges to comply. New developments in the eastern portion of the city will require
better street connectivity and an increased awareness for emergency vehicle access to
improve response times. The CVFD has indicated that new fire stations and associated
apparatus is necessary to accommodate new growth over the next five years.
IV.3.6. Financing Fire Suppression Facilities
The PFDIF was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 19, 2002 by
adoption of Ordinance 2847. The PFDIF is adjusted every October 1st pursuant to
Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City Council on November 7, 2006. The Fire
PFDIF Fee for Multi-Family Development is $1,139/unit (see Table A.7)9. The Fire PFDIF
for Commercial development is $4,186 per acre. This amount is subject to change as it is
9 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 10/01/18. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula
Vista at the time of building permit.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
47
amended from time to time. The project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the
rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. At the current fee rate, the project
Fire Fee obligation at build-out is $1,052,160.
Table E.3
Fire Suppression System Fee For FC-2
Development DU’s MF
PFDIF/DU
Com’l
Acres
Com’l
PFDIF/AC. Fire/EMS Fee
Multi-Family Residential 900 $1,139 1,025,100
Commercial (Residence Inn) 3.31 AC $4,186 $13,856
Commercial (Courtyard) 2.81 AC $4,186 $11,763
Commercial Mixed Use 0.34 AC $4,186 $1,441
Totals 900 $1,052,160
The projected fee illustrated in Table E.3 is an estimate only. Actual fees may be different. PFDIF Fees are subject
to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions that change residential densities or
commercial acreages.
IV.3.7 Threshold Compliance
A. The City will continue to monitor fire department responses to emergency fire and medical
calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis.
B. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential dwelling units, the
applicant(s) shall pay PFDIF in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of
payment and phasing approved in this document, unless stated otherwise in a separate
development agreement.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
48
IV.4. SCHOOLS
IV.4.1. Threshold Standard
The City shall annually provide the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and
the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) with the City’s annual 5-year
residential growth forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate
forecasted growth, both citywide and by subarea. Replies from the school districts should
address the following:
A. Amount of current classroom and “essential facility” (as defined in the Facility Master
Plan) capacity now used or committed;
B. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities and identification of what
facilities need to be upgraded or added over the next five years;
C. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities identified; and
D. Other relevant information the school district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the City
and GMOC.
IV.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 Vista. The purpose of the threshold standard is to ensure that the districts
have the necessary school sites and funds to meet the needs of students in newly developing
areas in a timely manner, and to prevent the negative impacts of overcrowding on the
existing schools. Through the provision of development forecasts, school district personnel
can plan and implement school facility construction and program allocation in line with
development.
On November 3, 1998, California voters approved Proposition 1A, the Class Size
Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998. Prior
to the passage of Proposition 1A, school districts relied on statutory school fees established
by Assembly Bill 2926 ("School Fee Legislation") which was adopted in 1986, as well as
judicial authority (i.e., Mira-Hart-Murrieta court decisions) to mitigate the impacts of new
residential development. In a post Proposition 1A environment, the statutory fees provided
for in the School Fee Legislation remains in effect and any mitigation requirements or
conditions of approval not memorialized in a mitigation agreement, after January 1, 2000,
will be replaced by Alternative Fees (sometimes referred to as Level II and Level III Fees).
The statutory fee for residential development is referred to in these circumstances as the
Level I Fee (i.e., currently for unified school districts at $3.48 per square foot for new
residential construction and $0.56 per square foot for new commercial and industrial
construction).
CVESD utilizes their current Fee Justification Report, by SDFA, to quantify the impacts
of new residential development on the district’s school facilities, and to calculate the
permissible Alternative Fees to be collected from such new residential development. To
ensure the timely construction of school facilities to house students from residential
development, alternative fees or implementation of a Mello Roos Community Facilities
District (CFD) will be necessary.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
49
Both CVESD and SUHSD are justified per Gov’t Code to collect the maximum fee of
$3.79 per square foot for new residential construction. CVESD has an agreement with
SUHSD specifying the amount of the development fee that each district collects from new
residential development.
Sweetwater Union High School District utilizes their current “Sweetwater Union High
School District Long Range Comprehensive Master Plan.” Implementation of the SUHSD
Plan is ongoing and has resulted in the upgrading of older schools and accommodating
growth. In November 2006, the community supported Proposition O, a 644-million-dollar
bond measure. This bond measure addresses the critical and urgent safety needs of the
district’s campuses. The types of repairs and improvements that Prop O addresses
included: improving handicap accessibility, removing asbestos and lead paint, and
upgrading fire and life safety systems.
In November 2012, the community supported Proposition E, a 90-million-dollar bond
measure. This bond measure addressed the renovation and upgrades of the existing
campuses within the CVESD.
IV.4.3 Project Processing Requirements
The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues
for School Services:
A. Identify student generation by phase of development.
B. Specific siting of proposed school facilities will take place in conformance with the
Sweetwater Union High School District Long Range Comprehensive Plan, and Chula
Vista Elementary School District's Standards and Criteria.
C. Reserve school sites, if necessary, or coordinate with the district for additional school
classrooms.
D. Provide cost estimates for facilities.
E. Identify facilities consistent with proposed phasing.
F. Demonstrate the ability to provide adequate facilities to access public schools in
conjunction with the construction of water and sewer facilities.
G. Secure financing.
IV.4.4. Existing Conditions
A. School Facilities Inventory, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Currently, the CVESD's inventory consists of 46 elementary schools including 5 Charter
schools. In addition, CVESD oversees two independent charter schools. Table F.1 lists
existing schools together with the capacity and enrollment of each. Capacity using existing
facilities is approximately 32,581. Estimated enrollment for the 2017/18 school year is
approximately 29,598. Forty of the district’s 46 schools are located within the City of Chula
Vista. Most of the District’s 40 schools have some capacity (see Table F.1). According to the
GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report, the CVESD reported that, with the addition of
a new elementary school by 2021, they should be able to provide the facilities necessary to
accommodate additional students in Eastern Chula Vista in the next five years.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
50
Table F.1
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Enrollments vs. Capacity
Schools 2017/2018 Enrollment
through week 10/6/17
State Loaded
Classroom Capacity
Remaining
Capacity
Allen 368 500 132
Arroyo Vista Charter 985 1,000 15
Camarena 1,075 1,100 25
Casillas 457 573 116
Castle Park 394 485 91
Chula Vista Hills 562 600 38
Clear View 509 540 31
Cook 331 500 169
CV Learning Comm. Charter 1,536 1,150 -386
Discovery Charter 953 959 6
Eastlake 563 714 151
Feaster/Ed Charter 1,243 1,050 -193
Finney 385 536 151
Halecrest 521 589 68
Harborside 708 863 155
Hedenkamp 1,033 1,000 -33
Heritage 808 900 92
Hilltop Drive 565 551 -14
Juarez-Lincoln 570 711 141
Kellogg 327 377 50
Lauderbach 793 989 196
Liberty 729 764 35
Loma Verde 499 634 135
Los Altos 330 501 171
Marshall 657 686 29
McMillin 825 793 -32
Montgomery 340 493 153
Mueller Charter 1,477 875 -602
Muraoka 537 723 186
Olympic View 785 825 40
Otay 544 713 169
Palomar 365 411 46
Parkview 353 552 199
Rice 611 727 116
Rogers 443 635 192
Rohr 327 489 162
Rosebank 586 714 128
Salt Creek 945 925 -20
Silver Wing 407 500 93
Sunnyside 456 501 45
Tiffany 470 598 128
Valle Lindo 460 689 229
Valley Vista 603 650 47
Veterans 911 893 -18
Vista Square 652 689 37
Wolf Canyon 600 914 314
Totals 29,598 32,581 2,983
Source: CVESD Fee Justification Report for New Residential & Commercial/Industrial Development dated March 2018
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
51
Note: Total Enrollment includes 1,701 students from the Charter Schools in grades 7-12
CVESD
Table F.2
Sweetwater Union High School District
Enrollments vs. Capacity
School Site
2017 Projected
Enrollment as of
12/17
Approximate
Capacity
Capacity vs.
Projected
Middle Schools
Bonita Vista 1,114 1,515 401
Castle Park 847 1,201 354
Chula Vista 849 1,329 480
Eastlake 1,701 1,867 166
Hilltop 980 1,380 400
Rancho del Rey 1,693 1,646 -47
Subtotal 7,184 8,938 1,754
High Schools
Bonita Vista 2,244 2,299 55
Castle Park 1,515 2,238 723
Chula Vista 2,290 2,377 87
Eastlake 2,940 2,722 -218
Hilltop 1,986 2,538 552
Olympian 2,399 2,346 -53
Otay Ranch 2,340 2,621 281
Palomar 338 502 164
Subtotal 16,052 17,643 1,591
Total 23,236 26,581 3,345
Source: GMOC 2017 Annual Report
B. School Facilities Inventory, Sweetwater Union High School District
Established in 1920, SUHSD is the largest secondary school district in the State of
California. Four feeder school districts provide education for students through either
the sixth or eighth grade. SUHSD currently operates 32 schools – ten middle schools
(grades 7-8), one junior high school (grades 7-9), twelve high schools, one continuation
high school, four alternative education programs and four adult education schools.
Planned for the future is middle school #12 and high school #14. According to the
GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report, the SUHSD reported that, with the addition
of a new middle school by 2022, they should be able to provide the facilities necessary
to accommodate additional students in Eastern Chula Vista in the next five years.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
52
C. Community Facilities District (CFD)
Several master-planned communities within Eastern Chula Vista are currently in a
CFD while other communities have entered into agreements with the District to form
a CFD. Because these developments have already secured mitigation to ensure the
timely construction of school facilities to house students generated from these
developments they are deemed Mitigated Developments by the District and are
excluded from the payment of Alternative Fees. Residential development projects that
have currently not mitigated the impacts that result from their development projects
are considered “Unmitigated Developments.”
In the event that schools are overcapacity, the school district uses relocateable
classrooms to temporarily house additional students until a new facility opens. In
recognition of the impact on school facilities created by new development, the
District and developers may enter into various mitigation agreements in order to
ensure the timely construction of school facilities to house students from new
residential development (“Mitigation Agreement”). Historically, developers and
school districts have entered into School Mitigation Agreements and community
facilities district (“CFD”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
Act of 1982, to finance school facilities. However, per AB 2926, in the absence of a
mitigation agreement, the developer shall pay the statutory school fees under state
law in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
IV.4.5 School Sizing and Location
The project is proposed to consist of 900 multi-family residential dwelling units at build
out. At completion, the proposed project could generate approximately 463 students using
the following Student Generation Factors:
Table F.3
Student Generation Rates
District
Single
Family
Detached
Single Family
Attached (Condos,
Duplex, Triplex)
Multi-Family
(Apartments)
Weighted
Average (All
CFD DU)
CVESD .4015 .3573 .2543 .3725
SUHSD –
Middle School .1154 .0734 .0712 .10
SUHSD –
High School .2548 .1622 .1504 .22
Source: CVESD & SUHSD
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
53
By school category, the project is expected to generate the following students:
Table F.4
Estimated Project Student Generation
Multi- Family
Dwelling Units
Elementary
(K-6)
Middle
(7-8)
High School
(9-12) Total Students
900 259 65 139 463
School Size Standards: Elementary 800 students
Middle 1,500 students
Senior High 2,400 students
Chula Vista Elementary School District
As noted in Table F.4, the build-out of the project would generate the need to house
approximately 259 elementary school age students within the Wolf Canyon attendance
area. A portion of the project was within CFD 1, however, the district and the developer
agreed to detach the project from CFD 1 and annex into the new CFD 19 that will include
the FC-2 project and a portion of Village 2. The new CFD 19 will assess a new annual tax
per the mitigation agreement and Rate and Method of Apportionment. Non-residential
property will pay the State mandated school fee. This CFD was formed to cover the costs
of the District's capital facilities required to serve the development area.
A new 800-student school (#46) in Otay Ranch Village 2 opened in July 2017, providing
relief to Wolf Canyon Elementary, which is nearing capacity. A second school in Village
2, which will accommodate 600 students, is also planned. New schools will also be added
in Village 3 and the Eastern Urban Center (Millenia). The school district has discontinued
zone transfers so that students can attend school in the communities where they live.
Sweetwater Union High School District
The project is currently within the Eastlake Middle School and Olympian High School
attendance areas. Both schools are at capacity and the Project will generate additional need
for new schools.
The school district is working on updating its Facilities Master Plan and has met with the
City to discuss potential high school and middle school sites. The district will need to
acquire another 50+-acre site to accommodate future growth.
The SUHSD formed CFD 19 to mitigate for the school impacts of the entire FC project.
Property will be assessed an annual tax pursuant to the mitigation agreement and Rate and
Method of Apportionment for CFD 19. Non-residential property will pay the State
mandated school fee.
IV.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
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
54
collected by law represents less than one-fourth the cost to construct schools. The SUHSD
is unable to meet the needs of this project with current school facilities and it is unable to
construct new facilities to meet the impacts of this project through the provision of school
fees.
In recognition of this funding deficiency, it is the policy of each district to fully mitigate
the facility impacts caused by a master planned community via the creation of a Mello
Roos Community Facilities District. The following Mello-Roos Districts have been
created by each district:
SUHSD CVESD
CFD
Number Location CFD
Number Location
1 Eastlake 1 Eastlake
2 Bonita Long Canyon 2 Bonita Long Canyon
3 Rancho del Rey 3 Rancho del Rey
4 Sunbow 4 Sunbow
5 Annexable 5 Annexable
6 Otay Ranch (V1 & V5) 6 Otay Ranch (V1 & V5)
7 Rolling HillsRanch*. 7 Rolling Hills Ranch*
8 Coral Gate (Otay Mesa) 8 No CFD 8
9A Ocean View Hills 9A No CFD 9A
9B Dennery Ranch 9B No CFD 9B
10 Remington Hills/Annexable 10 Dennery Ranch/Annexable
11 Lomas Verdes Lomas Verde
12 Otay Ranch (V1 West) Otay Ranch (V1 West)
13 San Miguel Ranch San Miguel Ranch
14 Otay Ranch (V11
Brookfield/Shea) 14 Otay Ranch (Village 11
Brookfield/Shea)
15 Otay Ranch (V6) 15 Otay Ranch (V6)
16 Otay Ranch (Portion of V6) 16 No CFD 16
17 Otay Ranch (Portion of V2
& V7) 17 Otay Ranch (Portion of V2 & V7)
18 Eastern Urban Center
(Millennia) 18 Eastern Urban Center (Millennia)
19 PA12 & Portion Otay Ranch
(V2) 19 PA12 & Otay Ranch (V2)
20 V3 North 20 V3 North
*No tax obligation. CFD was mitigated by a fee payment.
Based on historical data available from each district an estimate of costs for the
construction of school facilities on a per student basis is provided. Both districts follow
state standards for determining the costs and size for school construction. The cost for a
high school, including land acquisition, is approximately $121,375 per student (2018
dollars). Excluding land, the cost for a high school is approximately $ $93,332 per student
(2018 dollars). The cost for a middle school, including land acquisition, is approximately
$42,627 per student (2018 dollars). Excluding land, the cost for a middle school is
approximately $33,858 per student (2018 dollars). Estimated cost per new dwelling unit
is approximately $26,878 for grades 7 – 12. The cost for an elementary school, including
land acquisition, is approximately $63,146 per student (2018 dollars). Excluding the land,
the cost of an elementary school is approximately $46,384 per student. Estimated school
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
55
facility cost per dwelling unit is approximately $13,911. Land acquisition cost is calculated
at approximately $1,000,000/net usable acre (10-acre elementary school site). Using the
aforementioned costs per student together with the school size, the following costs per
facility can be anticipated.
Elementary School Cost
(800 students) ($46,384/student w/o land cost) $37,106,880
(800students) ($63,146/student w/land cost) $47,106,880
Middle School Cost
(1,500 students) ($33,858/student w/o land cost) $109,351,000 (1,500 students) ($42,627/student w/ land cost) $141,175,000
High School Cost
(2,400 students) ($93,332 /student w/o land cost) $209,957,000
(2,400 students) ($121,375/student w/ land cost) $278,971,000
IV.4.7 Threshold Compliance
Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the
applicant(s) shall provide evidence or certification by the SUHSD and CVESD that any
fee charge, dedication or other requirement levied by the school district has been complied
with or that the district has determined the fee, charge, dedication or other requirements do
not apply to the construction or that the applicant has entered into a school mitigation
agreement. School Facility Mitigation Fees shall be in accordance with the fees in effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
56
IV.5 LIBRARIES
IV.5.1 Threshold Standard
The City shall not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet (GSF) of library
space, adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 residents.
IV.5.2 Service Analysis
The Chula Vista Library is a division of the City of Chula Vista Community Services
Department, providing library facilities and services.
IV.5.3 Project Processing Requirements
The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues
for Library services:
A. Identify phased demands in conjunction with the construction of streets, water and
sewer facilities.
B. Specifically identify facility sites in conformance with the Chula Vista Library Master
Plan.
IV.5.4 Existing Conditions
The City provides library services through the Civic Center Branch Library, the South
Chula Vista Branch Library and, Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library. The Civic
Center Branch Library is located at 365 F Street, approximately seven miles from the FC-
2 project and is the largest library facility within the city, consisting of a two-story, 55,000-
square-foot building. The South Chula Vista Branch Library is located at 389 Orange
Avenue, approximately six miles from the project and consists of approximately 37,000
square feet. The Otay Ranch Branch Library is located at 2015 Birch Road in the Otay
Ranch Town Center, approximately one-quarter mile from the project and consists of
approximately 5,400 square feet. The existing and future libraries are listed on the Table
G.1 and Table G.2, respectively.
Table G.1
Existing Library Facilities
Existing Libraries Square Footage
Civic Center 55,000
South Chula Vista 37,000
Otay Ranch Town Center 5,412
Total Existing Square Feet 97,412
The Chula Vista Public Library Strategic Facilities Plan identified ways to improve library
service delivery to the community, particularly to residents of Eastern Chula Vista. The
plan indicates that the additional needed library square footage can be developed as
multiple smaller branches, or as one large library. However, the library’s operating budget
has been significantly reduced and capital funding is not currently available. Therefore,
the facilities plan does not determine which option would be implemented. The options
will be evaluated when capital and operating funds become available. Additional measures
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
57
such as mall outlets, book vending machines, a bookmobile, and service partnerships are
identified as possible interim measures. The library branch at the Otay Ranch Town Center
is an interim measure that opened in April 2012 and expanded in 2014 to over 5,000 square
feet.
IV.5.5 Adequacy Analysis
Using the Threshold Standard of 500 square feet of library space per 1,000 population, the
demand for library space based on Chula Vista’s estimated population of 271,32310 as of
12/31/2017 is approximately 135,662 square feet. Chula Vista currently provides
approximately 97,412 square feet of library space. This represents an approximate 38,250
square-foot deficit. The demand generated by the 8,300 forecasted dwelling units City-
wide through 2022 (GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report) is approximately 13, 322
square feet (8,300 x 3.2111/1,000) x 500). By 2022, the demand for library space generated
by the existing and forecasted dwelling units totals approximately 148,983 (135,662 +
13,322) square feet. Comparing this demand to the existing library square footage of
97,412 square feet results in a deficit of approximately 51,571 square feet unless the City
completes the Rancho Del Rey or Millennia Regional Library or a combination of a
Regional Library and numerous branch libraries before 2022.
Table G.2 illustrates the need to increase Library Facilities over the next five years to keep
pace with the city’s projected growth. The table assumes the Millenia Library is completed
and the Otay Ranch Branch is closed. The SANDAG 2030 build-out population for Chula
Vista is approximately 289,044. This population will require approximately 144,500
square feet of Library Facilities.
The GMOC Threshold Standard for libraries is 500 square feet of library space per 1,000
residents. According to the GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report, the current service
ratio for FY 2017 was approximately 349 square feet for every 1,000 residents. Therefore,
the City does not currently meet the threshold standard for libraries.
Construction of the proposed 30-35,000 square foot Library at the Millenia project may
not achieve the City’s Threshold Standard compliance. The GMOC Annual Report
indicated that “either doubling the size of the Millenia library to 70,000 square feet or
constructing two 35,000 square-foot libraries – one in Millenia and one on the Rancho del
Rey library site – will be necessary to achieve compliance at build-out.”
10 GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report
11 City forecasting Population coefficient of 3.21 persons per household.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
58
Table G.2
Library Space Demand vs. Supply
Estimated
Population
Demand
Square Footage
Estimated Supply
Square Footage
Above/(Below)
Standard
Estimated Existing
Citywide 12/31/16 271,323
135,662 97,412 (38,250)
Regional library at Millenia
(EUC) 2022 32,500 (682)
Forecasted Projects to 2022 26,643 13,322 (10,500)
Subtotal 297,966 148,983 129,9121 (19,071)
Note 1: Assumes the Millenia Library completed with the closing of the Otay Ranch Branch
Source: 2017 GMOC Annual Report
IV.5.6 Financing Library Facilities
The PFDIF was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 19, 2002 by
adoption of Ordinance 2847. The PFDIF is adjusted every October 1st pursuant to
Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City Council on November 7, 2006. The current
PFDIF for single-family residential and multi-family development is $1,627/unit. This amount
is subject to change with the adoption of Ordinance 3010. The PFDIF amount is subject to
change as it is amended from time to time. Both residential and non-residential development
impact fees apply to the project. The calculations of the PFDIF due for each facility are
addressed in the following sections of this report. At the current library fee rate, the Otay Ranch
FC-2 Library Fee obligation at build-out is $1,620,900 (see Table G.3).
Table G.3
FC-2 Estimated Library Fee12
Development DU’s MF
PFDIF/DU Acres Com’l
PFDIF/AC. Library Fee
Multi-Family
Residential 900 $1,801 N/A N/A $1,620,900
Totals 900 $1,620,900
The projected fee illustrated in Table G.4 is an estimate only. Actual fees may be different.
PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer
actions that change residential densities.
12 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 10/1/18 Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula
Vista at the time of building permit.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
59
IV.5.7. Threshold Compliance
A. Project compliance will be satisfied with the payment of Public Facilities Fees. The
proposed project will be required to pay public facilities fees for Library services,
based on the number of dwelling units, prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy;
the fees shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time payment is made.
B. Prior to the issuance of each certificate of occupancy for any residential dwelling
units, the applicant shall pay the required PFDIF in accordance with the fees in effect
at the time of payment and phasing approved. Payment of the PFDIF would represent
the project’s fair share contribution to meet the City’s Threshold Standard for library
space.
C. The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor library facilities and services and
report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
60
IV.6 PARKS, OPEN SPACE, TRAILS AND RECREATION
IV.6.1 Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard
Population Ratio: Three (3) acres of neighborhood and community park land with
appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of I-805.
IV.6.2 Service Analysis
The City of Chula Vista provides public park and recreational facilities and programs
through the Community Services Department which is 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, who makes
recommendations 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 Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial (FC) SPA must conform to the Chula Vista Parks
and Recreation Master Plan, as amended, which provides the guidance for planning, siting
and implementation of neighborhood and community parks. Further, the SPA Plan must
conform to the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and the Otay Valley Regional
Park Concept Plan.
IV.6.3 Project Processing Requirements
A. Identify park demands in conformance with the number of dwelling units constructed,
street improvements and in coordination with the construction of water and sewer
facilities.
B. The specific siting of public parks and recreation facilities shall be in conformance
with the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
C. Sites reserved for park purposes within the project.
IV.6.4 Existing Conditions
The FC-2 site is currently entitled as a transit-supportive mixed-use project with up to 600
Multi-Family Residential Units, 15,000 square feet of Commercial Retail, a new 2-acre
urban park with 4.69 acres of equivalence enhancements and two hotels with a minimum
of 300 rooms. Baldwin & Sons, the current developer of the FC-2 site, has proposed to
add 300 multi-family units to the east portion of FC-2. This density increase would allow
the developer to maximize land use potential within walking range of the Otay Ranch BRT
stop, ensure transit-supportive densities near the BRT line, establish a compact walkable
community by replacing surface parking with 5-level structured parking, and provide a
more diverse mix of housing types in a fiscally sustainable manner.
The City of Chula Vista’s existing and future parks are depicted in the Park and Recreation
Element of the General Plan. Current information is contained in the city’s Parks and
Recreation Master Plan.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
61
IV.6.5 Project Park Requirements
Compliance with Public Park Standards
If the 300 DU increase is approved, the Freeway Commercial Mixed-Use Project will
generate an estimated population of 2,349 (900 dwelling units x 2.6113 population factor).
To meet the City threshold requirements, the amount of parkland dedicated is based on a
standard of 3 acres per 1,000 populations (see Table H.1). The standard is based on State
of California Government Code 66477, also known as the Quimby Act, that allows a city
to require by ordinance the dedication of land or payment of fees for park or recreational
purposes.
Table H.1
Quimby Act Parkland Requirements
Freeway Commercial
Population Standard Parkland Acres
Required
2,349 3 acres per 1,000
population 7.05
All new development in the City of Chula Vista is subject to the requirements contained in
the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance CVMC Chapter 17.10. The ordinance
establishes fees for park land acquisition and development, sets standards for dedication
and establishes criteria for acceptance of parks and open space by the City of Chula Vista.
Fees vary depending upon the type of dwelling unit that is proposed. There are three 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) and Mobile Homes. Single Family Housing is defined as a freestanding
structure with one residential unit. Multi-Family Housing is defined as any freestanding
structure that contains two or more residential units. Parkland dedication requirements are
shown below on Table H.2.
Table H.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.
13 CVMC 17.10.040.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
62
Table H.3
Freeway Commercial Project
Preliminary Parkland Dedication Requirements
Dwelling Unit Type Number of
D.U.
Parkland
Required/DU Required Acres
Single Family 0 460 sf 0
Multiple Family 900 341 sf 7.05
TOTALS 900 7.05
The City’s Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance (CVMC 17.10) is based on the
Quimby Act. Based on the City’s Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance, the parkland
requirement for the FC-2 Project is approximately 7.05 acres (see Table H.3).
IV.6.6 Park Adequacy Analysis
Table H.4 is a comparison of park acreage demands and supply east of Interstate 805 for
existing, approved projects, as well as the phased addition of the project. A review of the
existing and approved park demands for Chula Vista east of I-805 including the project
indicates the estimated 2017 demand of approximately 453.8 acres of Neighborhood and
Community Parks. The 2017 estimated supply of park acreage east of I-805 is 604.25
acres, which is 150.45 acres more than the projected demand.
Table H.4
Estimated Park Acreage Demand Compared to Supply East of Interstate 805
Population
East of I-80514
Demand
Park
Acres15
Existing
Park
Acres
Eligible
Credit
Acres
Net Acres
+/-
Standard
Estimated
2017 151,266 453.8 604.25 16 604.25 +150.45
Forecasted
2017 - 2022 17,54217 52.62 61.46 18 61.46 +8.84
Total 168,808 506.43 665.71 665.71 +159.29
Source: GMOC FY 2017 Annual Report
IV.6.7 Open Space, Trails and Recreation
A. Open Space
Open space within the FC-2 site will be provided by a landscaped buffer area along
Olympic Parkway and Eastlake Parkway. Open space lands are indicated on the
Landscape Plan (Exhibit 11).
B. Trails
Off-street trail routes which connect to the community-wide system of Otay Ranch as
14 Population figures are from the GMOC FY 2017 Annual Report.
15 City of Chula Vista's Threshold requirement is 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents that are east of I-805.
16 Existing Park Acreage is from the GMOC FY 2017 Annual Report.
17 Population figure derived from the GMOC FY 2017 Annual Report.
18 Forecast data identified includes addition of parkland anticipated to be opened within the identified time horizon.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
63
well as the regional system described in the Circulation Element of the Chula Vista
General Plan are included as components of the perimeter arterials of the Freeway
Commercial Center. The FC-2 project is surrounded by large-scale commercial and
residential, there is an opportunity to connect uses via pedestrian routes and pedestrian-
oriented design features within the project along the internal streets, including and
extending from the project entries to major destinations within the commercial center.
The intersections of the internal streets are designated as "pedestrian enhanced
intersection," where pedestrian oriented features (such as pedestrian plazas, shop fronts
on sidewalk, etc.) will be provided.
The "Village Pathway," providing community-wide pedestrian and bicycle circulation
connections will be located off-site on the south side of Birch Road and the Regional
Trail located along Olympic Parkway. Bicycles will share the traffic lanes with motor
vehicles on the FC-2 internal streets due to the low (25 mph) speed limit.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
64
Exhibit 11
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
65
IV.6.8 Financing Park Facilities
Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as amended, governs the financing of
parkland and improvements. Included as part of the regulations are Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fees established for the purpose of providing neighborhood and
community parks. The Ordinance provides that fees be paid to the City prior to final
inspection.
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. Ordinance 2886
was approved by the Chula Vista City Council, which amended Chapter 17.10 of the
CVMC to update the Parks Acquisition and Development Fees on November 19, 2002. On
July 13, 2004, the City Council approved Ordinance 2945, which amended the CVMC
Chapter 17.10 master fee schedule to adjust the Parkland Acquisition and Development
(PAD) Fees for Neighborhood and Community Park requirements and the collection of In-
Lieu PAD Fees from Residential developments that are not required to submit a subdivision
map or parcel map.
On October 25, 2005, the Chula Vista City Council approved Ordinance 3026, which
amended CVMC Chapter 17.10 to adjust the Park Acquisition and Development Fees to
pay for new park facilities. Ordinance 3303 was approved by the Chula Vista City Council
on February 11, 2014 to amend Chapter 17.10 by deleting the Hotel and Motel requirement.
Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, first adopted in 1971, details
requirements for parkland dedication, park improvements and the collection of in-lieu fees
(i.e., PAD fees) from developers of residential housing in subdivisions or in divisions
created by parcel maps, both east and west of I-805. PAD fees cover parkland acquisition
and the cost of related capital items associated with parkland development, including:
• Grading
• Improvements including:
Drainage Systems
Street Improvements
Lighted Parking Lots
Concrete Circulation Systems
Security Lighting
Park Fixtures (drinking fountains, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, etc.)
Landscaping (Trees, Shrubs, Ground Cover and Turf)
Automatic Irrigation Systems
Restrooms and Maintenance Storage
Play Areas (including preschoolers and primary school-age children, with
disabled accessible surfacing, as required)
Picnic Shelters and Tables
Outdoor Sports Venues (tennis courts, baseball/softball/soccer fields.
basketball courts, multi-purpose sports fields, skateboard and roller blade
venues)
• Utilities
The project is responsible for both the park development component and the acquisition
component PAD Fees. The project parkland demand is 7.05 acres based on CVMC 17.10
(Table H.3). The project will meet its parkland obligation of 7.05 acres through two
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
66
separate mechanisms. The obligation of the first 600 residential units will be met through
the provision of a 2-acre public park enhanced to a value equivalent to 4.69 acres of
parkland. The remaining 300 units will satisfy the remaining 2.36 acres of obligation
through payment of a Park Benefit Fee (per the Project’s Development Agreement) equal
to the PAD fees (both Acquisition and Development components) for multi-family units.
Table H.5 identifies the estimated City of Chula Vista October 2018 fees for the Parkland
Acquisition and Development Component of the PAD fees paid for the first 600 units in
FC-2 and the Park Benefit Fee paid for units 601 through 900 in FC-2.
Table H.5
FC-2 Multi-Family Acquisition and Development Fee (Preliminary Calculation)
MF Units
MF Acquisition
Fee
$9,408
MF
Development
Fee
$5,859
Park Benefit
Fee
$15,267 Total
600 $5,644,800 $3,515,400 - $9,160,200*
300 - - $4,580,100 $4,580,100
Total: $13,740,300
* Figures in this table are preliminary estimates and shall be recalculated at the time when the obligations are
due as determined by the Development Agreement. This table does not include credit for the 2-acre park and
Development Agreement required park enhancements
These fees are estimates only and are dependent upon the actual numbers of units filed on
the final map. The table does not include the provisions of Ordinance 3345 and the
Development Agreement that requires the applicant to provide a 2-acre enhanced urban
park. Recalculation of the Acquisition Fee at the time the obligation is due shall be based
on the Development Agreement and the value of the 2-acre park. Acquisition and
Development 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.
IV.6.9 Financing Recreation Facilities
Ordinance 2887, approved by the Chula Vista City Council on November 19, 2002,
amended CVMC Chapter 3.50 of the Municipal Code, as detailed in the "Public Facilities
DIF, November 2002 Amendment', adding a new recreation component to the Public
Facilities DIF, updating the impact fee structure and increasing the overall fee. Ordinance
3010 approved by the Council on June 14, 2005, amended Chapter 3.50 to update the public
facilities DIF and implemented an automatic annual adjustment based on the building
construction cost index and the U.S. Department of Labor Index (see Ordinance 3010).
Chapter 3.50 was also updated by Ordinance 3050 on November 7, 2006, to update the
public facilities DIF.
Major recreation facilities are funded through a component of the PFDIF. The major
capital items to be included are community centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and
senior/teen centers. Since the demand for major public recreation facilities is created by
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
67
residential development, facilities costs are not spread to commercial/industrial
development. Table H.6 provides an estimate of the Recreational PFDIF for the project.
Table H.6
FC-2 Multi-Family Project
Public Facilities Fees for Recreation19 (Preliminary Calculation)
Development Dwelling Units Recreation Fee Total SF MF $1,367/SF Unit $1,367/MF Unit
Multi-Family 0 900 0 $1,230,300 $1,230,300
The projected fee illustrated in Table H.6 is an estimate only. Actual fees may be different.
Recreation Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or
Developer actions that change residential densities.
IV.6.10 Threshold Compliance
A. Park obligation will be satisfied pursuant to Ordinance 3345 and the City approved
Development Agreement between the City and the Developer, which was approved
and adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on June 16, 2015. The agreement outlines
the Developer’s current 4.69-acre park obligation requirement based on the previously
approved 600 multi-family units. Developer shall pay a Park Benefit fee (which is
equal to the City’s PAD fee at the time of payment) to the City for all additional 300
residential units constructed in FC-2 (i.e. if all 900 residential units are built) to be used
towards other parks in Otay Ranch.
B. Generally, the developer’s obligation of 7.05-acre parkland dedication and
improvement is satisfied by the following:
• Dedicate 2 (two) acres in a permanent park easement.
• Develop a highly amenitized “Turnkey Park.”
• Developer shall invest the value equivalent of the dedication and improvement
requirement for the 4.69 park development than would be typical for a 2-acre park.
The Developer’s value equivalency is based on the acquisition and development
components of the PAD Fees as required by the City.
• Based on City standards in effect as of October 2018.
• Payment of Park Benefit fee in the amount of $4,580,100 (for 300 units).
C. Owner shall receive PAD credits by satisfying its actual park obligations by the
following:
a. The Developer shall grant 2 (two) acres of the FC-2 site to the City in a
permanent easement for public usage, shall develop a highly amenitized,
“turnkey" park” on the Park Site, as described in the Agreement, to the
19 Fee based on Form 5509 dated 10/1/18. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula
Vista at the time of building permit.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
68
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
b. The Park shall generally be located as depicted in Exhibit 11, with the final
location subject to City approval.
c. In order to create an extraordinary public space, the Park shall generally
consist of the elements described in the Development Agreement. Developer
shall invest substantially more to the development and granting of the Park
than would be typical for a City standard park, up to and including the value
equivalent to the dedication and improvement required to satisfy the
Developer’s park obligation for the first 600 residential units constructed in
FC-2, as calculated at the time park obligations for the Project become due.
d. Developer shall commence construction of the Park prior to the issuance of the
five hundred and thirtieth (530th) residential building permit 20 and
substantially complete the Park within fifteen (15) months of commencement
of construction.
e. Developer shall pay Park Benefit fee on units 601 through 900.
D. Prior to issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the
Developer 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
building permit issuance.
20 Per Development Agreement terms.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
69
IV.7 WATER
IV.7.1 Threshold Standard
A. Adequate water supply must be available to serve new development. Therefore,
developers shall provide the City with a service availability letter from the appropriate
water district for each project.
B. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the
Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Municipal Water District with the City's annual 5-
year residential growth forecast and request that they provide an evaluation of their
ability to accommodate forecasted growth. Replies should address the following:
1. Water availability to the City, considering both short- and long-term
perspectives.
2. Identify current and projected demand, and the amount of current capacity,
including storage capacity, now used or committed.
3. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted growth.
4. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities.
5. Other relevant information the district(s) desire to communicate to the City and
the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
IV.7.2 Service Analysis
The Otay Water District (OWD) provides water service for the existing Otay Ranch Town
Center (FC-1) and the FC-2 project. The FC-2 project is located within Improvement
Districts 22 and 27. The district has existing facilities in the vicinity of the project site that
can provide sufficient water services to support the proposed density increase at the FC-2
project. “The Sub-Area Water Master Plan Freeway Commercial”, dated January 2018,
by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. was approved by the OWD on February 28, 2018. The
Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the Freeway Commercial project addresses the
facilities necessary to support the project. In addition, the projected water demands for the
Approved Freeway Commercial project were included in the Otay Water District’s “2010
Water Resources Master Plan”, prepared by PBS&J and adopted November 2010 and
revised in April 2013.
Water service and facilities were addressed in the “Freeway Commercial Conceptual
Water and Recycled Water Study”, dated September 2002, by PBS&J. A subsequent
project design change required an update letter, dated March 3, 2004, by PBS&J,
indicated the original report is still valid. A second update letter entitled
“Memorandum”, dated December 17, 2014 by Dexter Wilson studied the impact of the
change in land use from Freeway Commercial to Mixed-Use. The third update letter entitled
Memorandum, dated September 25, 2017 studied the impact of adding 300 units to the
previously approved mixed-use project. The phasing and financing of water facilities in
this PFFP is based on the third Dexter Wilson Memorandum.
The design criteria implemented to evaluate the potable and recycled water systems for the
Freeway Commercial project are established in accordance with the Otay Water District
Master Plan. The design criteria are utilized for analysis of the existing water system as
well as for design and sizing of proposed improvements and expansions to the existing
system to accommodate demands in the study area.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
70
California Senate Bills 610/221 require a Water Supply Assessment and Verification
(WSAV) report to be prepared for projects proposing 500 or more residential dwelling
units, or projects that demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount
of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project. Since the proposed Freeway Commercial
SPA amendment proposes an equivalent development of more than 500 residential units, a
WSAV was prepared for the project entitled “Water Supply Assessment and Verification
Report” dated February 2015, by Lisa Coburn-Boyd and Robert Kennedy, P.E., in
consultation with Dexter Wilson, Inc., and the San Diego County Water Authority.
IV.7.3 Project Processing Requirements
The SPA Plan and the PFFP are required by the Growth Management ordinance to address
the following issues for water services.
A. Identify phased demands in conformance with street improvements and in coordination
with the construction of sewer facilities.
B. Identify location of facilities for onsite and offsite improvements in conformance with
the master plan of the water district serving the proposed project.
C. Provide cost estimates and proposed financing responsibilities.
D. Identify financing methods.
E. A Water Conservation Plan shall be required for all major development projects (50
dwelling units or greater, or commercial and industrial projects with 50 EDUs of water
demand or greater.
IV.7.4 Existing Conditions
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP) requires that each urban
water supplier providing water for municipal purposes, either to more than 3,000
customers, or more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, must prepare, adopt, and update
a UWMP at least once every five years. This applies to Metropolitan Water District
(MWD), San Diego County Water Authority SDCWA, and its member agencies, including
the OWD. The intent of an UWMP is to present information on water supply, water
usage/demand, recycled water, and water use efficiency programs within a water district’s
service area over a 25 year time frame.
The UWMP process ensures that water supplies are being planned to meet future growth.
The most current supply and demand projections are contained in the 2010 UWMPs of
MWD, SDCWA, and OWD. San Diego County Water Authority member districts rely on
the UWMPs and Integrated Resources Plans (IRPs) of MWD and the Regional Water
Facilities Master Plan of SDCWA to document supplies available to meet projected
demands.
In the 2010 UWMPs, MWD, SDCWA, and all SDCWA member agencies, including
OWD, have determined that adequate water supplies would be available to serve
existing service areas under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year
conditions through the year 2035.
The GMOC annually distributes a questionnaire to relevant city departments and public
facility and service agencies to monitor the status of threshold standards compliance.
The response from the OWD in the Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report included
the topic of existing water system adequacy to serve projected growth for Chula Vista.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
71
The response identified OWD’s capital improvement programs required to serve the
forecasted water demands and identified a list of capital improvement projects (CIPs)
that would need to be implemented in order to meet projected demand. The OWD
concluded that the existing potable and recycled water systems including their CIP
projects should be adequate to meet Chula Vista’s forecasted growth over the next five-
years.
Water conservation efforts remain voluntary in San Diego County since July 2016 when
the drought restrictions enacted in 2015 were rescinded due to the addition of the Carlsbad
Desalination water supply. A prohibition on wasteful water practices such as watering
during rainfall or hosing off sidewalks remains in effect under Executive Order B-40-17.
Future legislation is expected that will establish long-term water conservation measures
and improved planning for more frequent and severe droughts. The district also noted that
City’s required Water Conservation Plans for all SPA Plans, Tentative Maps, and major
development projects has been positive for water conservation within the City. The GMOC
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report indicated that water was compliant with the threshold
standards.
With ample water in storage, the Otay Water District's water supply is very high—well
over what is currently demanded. They continue to pursue a future desalination plant in
Rosarito, Mexico as another source of water, however, saying that doing so may provide
price stability.
A. Metropolitan Water District:
In November 2010, MWD adopted their 2010 Regional UWMP, which evaluates water
supply reliability, over a 20-year period, for average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years
within its service area. MWD developed estimates of total retail demands for the
region, factoring in the impacts of conservation. The water reliability analysis
identifies both the current supplies and supplies under development to meet projected
demands. MWD’s reliability assessment showed that MWD can maintain reliable
water supplies to meet projected demands through the year 2035. MWD also identified
a planning buffer supply intended to protect against the risk that future demands could
be higher than projected. As part of its implementation of the planning buffer, MWD
periodically evaluates water supply development, supply conditions, and projected
demands to ensure that the region is not under or over developing supplies. The
planning buffer will ensure that Southern California, including San Diego County, will
have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands.
B. San Diego County Water Authority:
The SDCWA service area covers approximately 951,000 acres and encompasses the
western third of San Diego County. SDCWA has 24 member agencies, including
OWD. SDCWA is responsible for ensuring a safe and reliable water supply to support
the region’s economy and quality of life for over three million residents. SDCWA
imports between 70% and 95% of the water used in the San Diego region from MWD.
In 2008, MWD provided 71% of the San Diego region’s water supply. Most of this
water is obtained from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) through
a system of pipes, aqueducts, and associated facilities. Historically, SDCWA has relied
on imported water supplies purchased from MWD to meet the needs of its member
agencies. SDCWA is the largest MWD member agency in terms of deliveries,
accounting for nearly 25% of MWD’s delivered water.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
72
According to the SDCWA 2010 UWMP, the San Diego region has reduced water usage
over 50,000 acre feet average during the past three years. Conserved agricultural
transfer water from the Imperial Valley has begun flowing to the San Diego region.
This source provided approximately 70,000 acre feet in 2010 and will provide
approximately 200,000 acre feet by 2021. This relatively new source of water is the
result of SDCWA entering into the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) with
other water agencies in October 2003. The QSA resolved long-standing disputes
regarding Colorado River water use among several agencies, and established a water
budget for the agricultural agencies. This resolution permitted the implementation of
several water conservation and transfer agreements, including the SDCWA/Imperial
Irrigation District (IID) transfer agreement.
Table I.1
Average/Normal Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment (acre feet/year)
Local Supplies 2020 2025 2030 2035
Surface Water 47,940 47,878 47,542 47,289
Water Recycling 43,728 46,603 48,278 49,998
Groundwater 11,100 12,100 12,840 12,840
Groundwater Recovery 15,520 15,520 15,520 15,520
Seawater Desalinization 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
Imported Supplies
IID Water Transfer 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Supply from MWD 230,601 259,694 293,239 323,838
Coachella Canal and All
American Canal Lining
Projects
80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200
Total Projected Supplies 675,089 717,995 753,619 785,685
Total Estimated Demands1 675,089 717,995 753,619 785,685
Difference 0 0 0 0
1 With Conservation
Source: University Villages Project Environmental Impact Report
Table I.2
Single Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment (acre feet/year)
Local Supplies 2020 2025 2030 2035
Surface Water 17,932 17,932 17,932 17,932
Water Recycling 43,728 46,603 48,278 49,998
Groundwater 9,977 9,977 9,977 9,977
Groundwater Recovery 15,520 15,520 15,520 15,520
Seawater Desalinization 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
Imported Supplies
IID Water Transfer 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Supply from MWD 305,101 338,501 376,023 409,389
Coachella Canal and
All-American Canal Lining
Projects
80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200
Total Projected Supplies 718,458 764,733 803,930 839,016
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
73
Total Estimated Demands1 718,458 764,733 803,930 839,016
Difference 0 0 0 0
1 With Conservation. Source: University Villages Project Environmental Impact Report
The SDCWA UWMP contains documentation of existing and planned water
supplies. These supplies include MWD (imported Colorado River water and SWP
water), and local member agency supplies that include (1) IID water transfer
supplies; (2) supplies from conservation projects to line the Imperial Valley’s All-
American Canal and the Coachella Valley’s Coachella Canal; and (3) development
of a seawater desalination facility at the Encina Power Plant in Carlsbad, which is
anticipated to produce 56,000 acre feet per year of water supplies. Additionally,
since 1980, approximately 5 to 30% of member agency water has come from local
sources, primarily from surface water reservoirs. Recycled water and groundwater
recovery projects are growing in importance in the region. These projects coupled
with water conservation efforts have made SDCWA member agencies less
dependent on imported water.
Based on the imported and member agency local water sources, SDCWA estimates
that it, along with member agency local sources, will be able to supply 675,089
acre feet of water in 2020. Therefore, according to the MWD and SDCWA 2010
UWMPs, there is available water to meet all of the region’s anticipated demand, as
shown in Table I.1, and I.2.
C. Otay Water District:
The Project is within the boundaries of the OWD, which provides water services to a
large portion of San Diego East County and Eastern Chula Vista, including the Eastlake
community, Otay Ranch, and Otay Mesa along the U.S./Mexico International Border.
OWD covers 137 square miles with approximately 450 miles of pipelines, 21 pump
stations, and 37 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of approximately 190 million
gallons. OWD provides approximately 90% of its water service to residential and
approximately 10% to commercial, industrial, and other land uses. Average daily
consumption is approximately 40,324 acre-feet. OWD also operates the Ralph W.
Chapman Water Recycling Facility.
The OWD 2010 UWMP provides an overview of OWD’s service area, its current water
supply sources, supply reliability, water demands, and measures to reduce water
demand, and planned water supply projects and programs. Reliability for water service
is based on the documentation in the UWMP’s prepared by MWD and SDCWA and
that these agencies have determined that they will be able to meet potable water
demands through 2035, during normal and dry year conditions. The OWD 2010
UWMP relies on MWD and SDCWA for its potable supply, and OWD works with
these agencies to prepare consistent demand projections for OWD’s service area.
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 Helix Water District’s (HWD)
R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant. Recently, OWD service reliability levels were
enhanced with additional major facilities including an increase in supply capacity from
the Levy Water Treatment Plant.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
74
1. Existing Potable Water System: The project can be served by the Central Service
Area of OWD. This area is supplied water from Connection Nos. 10 and 12 to the
SDCWA aqueduct, which fills 624 Zone reservoirs. Water is then distributed
within the 624 Zone. Water is then pumped to the 980 service zones. There is
water service from the existing 16” water line within the adjacent Olympic
Parkway.
2. Recycled Water: The Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility has a rated
capacity of 1.3 million gallons per day (mgd) with a maximum production of
approximately 1.1 mgd and could be expanded to an ultimate capacity of 2.50 mgd.
Typically, the summer demands exceed the 1.1 mgd plant capacity. Recycled
water supply is also available from the South Bay Water Treatment Plant, which
has an ultimate rated capacity of 15 mgd and OWD has capacity rights to 8.0 mgd
of recycled water. This additional source of recycled water will allow OWD to
meet existing and future recycled water demands. The OWD has master planned a
series of pump stations, reservoirs, and transmission lines to integrate this source
of water into the existing recycled water system. Currently, there is a 12-inch
recycled water main within the adjacent Eastlake Parkway.
IV.7.5 Water 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 “Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 SPA Amendment Water Conservation Plan”
dated April 2018, by Baldwin & Sons addresses the water usage requirements of the
proposed project, as well as a detailed plan of proposed measures for water
conservation, use of reclaimed water, and other means of reducing per capita water
consumption from the proposed project, as well as defining a program to monitor
compliance. The Water Conservation Plan is included with the SPA Plan
documentation.
As detailed in the Water Conservation Plan, the FC-2 project is committed to being
water efficient through the use of recycled water for irrigation and utilizing other water
conservation devices and measures. Through the use of recycled water and other water
conservation measures the FC-2 project is expected to reduce the potential potable
water usage by 53,385 gpd, or 24% of the baseline usage.
As evidenced by the information contained in the Water Conservation Plan, the
objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP to incorporate water saving fixtures, drought
tolerant landscaping, and recycled water usage into the development are being met.
Based on information contained in the 1989 San Diego County Water Authority
Annual Report, average water use within the Otay Water District was 220 gallons per
day per capita (20,469.7 AF for a population of 83,000). Based on 2007 data from the
OWD 2008 Master Plan, per capita water usage has dropped to approximately 189 gpd
(33.26 mgd for a population of 186,000). These per capita numbers include non-
residential demands and indicate the effectiveness that the conservation measures are
having. It is expected that this trend will continue as adopted guidelines are
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
75
increasingly focused on reducing per capita water use.
B. FC-2 Potable Water Demand
Table I.3 summarizes the previously approved development in the FC-2 SPA
Amendment area along with the proposed development. The projected water demands
for Freeway Commercial were included in the Otay Water District February 2015
Water Supply Assessment and Verification (WSAV) report.
Table I.3
FC-2 SPA Amendment
Land Use Approved Proposed
MF Residential Units 600 units 900 units
Hotels 300 units 300 units
Park 2.0 acres 2.0 acres
Commercial 15,000 square feet 15,000 square feet
Source: Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.
Table I.4
FC-2 SPA Amendment Water Demand Summary
Land Use Acres Building
Units
Unit Demand
Factor
Total Demand
(gpd)
Approved Water Demand (2015 WSAV)
MF Residential --- 650 255 gpd/unit l 165,750
Hotel Rooms --- 310 115 gpd/unit 35650
Commercial 3.6 --- 1,785 gpd/ac 6,428
Subtotal 207,828
Proposed Water Demand (Current SPA Amendment)
Multi-Family
Residential --- 900 170 gpd/unit l,
2 153,000
Hotels --- 300 115 gpd/unit 34,500
Commercial 3.6 --- 1,785 gpd/ac 2 6,428
Subtotal 193,928
Decreased Water Demand 13,900
1 Assumes recycled water to be used for irrigation
2 Based on 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (OWD)
Source: Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.
Table I.4 summarizes the projected water demands based on the proposed SPA
Amendment. As shown, the projected water demand decreased by 13,900 in the current
scenario as compared to the assumptions in the 2015 WSAV. The reduction in demand
is a result of updated water demand factors used in the ODW 2015 Water Facilities
Master Plan These updated water demand factors for residential development are based
on actual usage data and reflect lower projected usage per unit as a result of water
conservation efforts in recent years. According to the Water Conservation Plan, the
water demand will be reduced approximately 24% through the use of recycled water
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
76
and other water conservation measures to approximately 194,928 gpd.
As shown by Table I.4, the projected water demand for the amended project is lower
than the previously estimated 2013 WRMP. This information will be provided by the
developer to OWD for their use in regional water supply planning.
The sizing of the existing 16-inch water line in Olympic Parkway, 20-inch line in
Eastlake Parkway, and proposed 12-inch line in Town Center Drive is adequate to
support the proposed development and, thus, no changes to the proposed Freeway
Commercial water system are necessary as a result of the proposed development.
California Senate Bills 610/221 require a Water Supply Assessment and Verification
(WSAV) report to be prepared for projects proposing 500 or more residential dwelling
units, or projects that demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the
amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. The proposed PA-12 SPA
amendment includes a WSAV report dated 2015.
The City of Chula Vista utilizes the Uniform Fire Code for determining required fire
flows and durations for new development. Specific flows will ultimately depend on
building type and size. The approved Freeway Commercial Project was based on the
1995 OWD Master Plan that used 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) flow for 5-hours in
assessing storage capacity adequacy, necessary pumping capacity and distribution
piping requirements. The WRMP requires a fire flow of 5,000 gpm for a minimum 4-
hour duration and 20 psi residual pressure for the Hotel uses.
C. FC-2 Recycled Water Demand
Within the FC-2 Project, recycled water will be used to irrigate street parkway
landscaping, manufactured slopes along the circulation areas, commercial landscaping,
open space and park area. Dexter Wilson estimated projected recycled water demands
for the proposed project are approximately 31,560 gpd. Table I.5 contains a summary
of the projected recycled water demands for the FC-2 SPA Amendment.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
77
Table I.5
FC-2 SPA Amendment Projected Recycled Water Demands
Land Use 21 Quantity
Recycled
Water
Factor22
Net
Recycled
Acreage
gpd/ac.
Average
Demand
(gpd)
Approved
Multi-Family
Residential 600 units 15%
30 gpd/unit 18,000
Commercial 4.0 ac. 10% 0.4 1,900 760
Park 2.0 ac. 100% 2.0 1,900 3,800
Subtotal: 22,560
Proposed
Multi-Family
Residential 900 units 15%
30 gpd/unit 27,000
Commercial 4.0 ac. 10% 0.4 1,900 760
Park 2.0 ac. 100% 2.0 1,900 3,800
Subtotal 31,560
Increased Recycled Demand 9,000 gpd
Source: Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.
D. Otay Water District Master Plan
The OWD's master plan includes water demands for this project as part of the overall
demands in the area based upon the City of Chula Vista land use data.
IV.7.6 Existing Potable Water Facilities
The Central Service Area of the OWD serves the Freeway Commercial project. This area
of the District is supplied water from Connection Number 10 and 12 to the SDCWA
aqueduct that fills 624 Zone reservoirs. Water is then distributed within the 624 Zone
where it is pumped up to the 711 Zone (1st lift) storage and distribution system. Water is
supplied to the 980 Zone storage and distribution system by the Eastlake Pump Station,
which takes suction from the 1st lift (711) Zone. The Eastlake pump station supplies the
entire 2nd lift zone.
The entire FC-2 site has been graded. Elevations on the FC-2 parcel range in elevation
from low of approximately 645 to a high of approximately 657 feet. The project is within
the 980 water service zone (2" lift zone) and is supplied from the 711 water service zone
(1st lift zone).
IV.7.7 Existing Recycled Water Facilities
Currently, the source of recycled water for the OWD is the Ralph W. Chapman Water
Recycling Facility. This facility has a capacity of 1.3 MGD and can be expanded to an
ultimate capacity of 3.84 MGD. Two ponds in the District's Recycled Use Area near the
two existing 980 Zone potable water tanks provide storage of the treated effluent.
The recycled water storage ponds have a high water line of approximately 944 feet and
21 Acreages based on Site Utilization Plan prepared by Cinti Land Planning (August 1, 2004)
22 Percentage irrigated is based on WRMP
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
78
provide the storage and supply for the 944 Zone distribution system. Recycled water
pressure range between 135 psi to 165 psi for the FC-2 Project and is sufficient to provide
fire protection. The 944 Zone’s recycled water supply will be ultimately augmented by
the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, which will supply the 680 Zone and then pumped
to the 944 Zone. There are currently no 944 Zone pipelines in place to supply recycled
water to the FC-2 Project. Facilities within both of these zones are planned within Olympic
Parkway along the northern boundary of the project.
IV.7.8 Proposed Facilities
The proposed FC-2 project shall be responsible for constructing all potable and recycled
water improvements necessary to serve the project, which includes but are not limited to
the proposed 12” water line in Town Center Drive and associated connections and upgrades
(see Exhibit 12 and 13). Further, the proposed project shall adequately provide potable
and recycled water service without relying on any proposed water construction phasing by
other developments.
IV.7.9 Financing Water Facilities
The financing and construction of potable water facilities is provided by two methods:
Capacity Fees:
Otay Water District’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) wherein the District facilitates
design and construction of facilities and collects an appropriate share of the cost from
developers through collection of capacity fees from water meter purchases. Capital
Improvement Projects typically include supply sources, pumping facilities, operational
storage, terminal storage, and transmission mains.
The Otay Water District may use bond debt financing from Improvement Districts 22 and
27 to assist in the financing of the District’s CIP program. CIP projects are paid for by
capacity fees collected on the sale of water meters after building permit issuance.
Exaction:
The developer is required to finance, construct, dedicate water and recycled water facilities
that serve only his/her development to the Otay Water District.
Potable Water Improvement Costs
The total capital cost for potable water facilities will be determined at the time the system
is designed and approved by OWD. 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 approved by OWD. The District may provide reimbursement for
construction and design costs associated with development of these improvements.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
79
IV.7.10 Threshold Compliance
A. The approved “SAMP Freeway Commercial” dated January 2018, by Dexter Wilson
identify water facilities to be constructed to provide the appropriate level of water
service to meet the criteria established within the plans. The potable and recycled
water systems have been designed and the costs identified by phase of development.
The Developer shall be responsible for constructing all potable and recycled water
improvements necessary to adequately serve the FC-2 SPA Amendment Project.
B. The developer shall request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the
OWD prior to a final map being approved for the FC-2 parcel of the Freeway
Commercial Project.
C. The developer shall provide the OWD the projected increased water demand for the
FC-2 SPA Amendment project.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
80
Exhibit 12
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
81
Exhibit 13
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
82
IV.8 SEWER
IV.8.1 Threshold Standard
A. Existing and projected facility sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City
engineering standards for the current system and for budgeted improvements, as set
forth in the Subdivision Manual.
B. The City shall annually ensure adequate contracted capacity in the San Diego
Metropolitan Sewer Authority or other means sufficient to meet the projected needs of
development.
IV.8.2 Service Analysis
The City of San Diego Metropolitan District provides sewer treatment services for the City
of Chula Vista and 14 other participating agencies in accordance with the terms of a multi-
agency agreement (Metro Agreement). The Metro system currently has adequate sewage
treatment capacity to serve the region until approximately 2025. The Developer shall pay
capacity fees prior to building permit issuance. Development shall not occur without
adequate sewer capacity as determined by the City Engineer. Building permits will not be
issued if the City Engineer has determined that adequate sewer capacity does not exist.
Sewer service to the project site is provided by the City of Chula Vista. Future development of
the FC-2 site will require a connection to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor located in Olympic
Parkway. The capacity of the off-site sewer facilities to serve the FC-2 SPA Amendment
project has been analyzed by the “Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SPA
Amendment Sewer System Evaluation” dated September 25, 2017, by Dexter Wilson
Engineering, Inc. This study is referred to as the Dexter Wilson Sewer Study throughout
this PFFP. The study includes an analysis of a connection to the Poggi Creek Interceptor
Sewer located in the adjacent Olympic Parkway.
The base source of information regarding the existing and recommended sewer facilities is
from the “Freeway Commercial Conceptual Sewer Study” dated July 2002 by PBS&J and
City engineering. This study is referred to as the PBS&J Sewer Study throughout this
PFFP. An update letter dated March 3, 2004, was provided by PBS&J, indicating the
original 2002 report is still valid for the reconfigured FC-1 SPA project.
IV.8.3 Project Processing Requirements
The SPA Plan and the PFFP are required by the Growth Management ordinance 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 facilities for onsite and offsite improvements, including reclaimed
water facilities, in conformance with the Dexter Wilson Sewer Study.
3. Provide cost estimates for all facilities and proposed financing responsibilities.
4. Identify financing methods.
IV.8.4 Existing Conditions
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
83
The Project area is within the City of Chula Vista’s Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin. Sewage
generated within the Project will ultimately flow to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor in
Olympic Parkway. The proposed on-site collection system serving the FC-2 parcel will
drain northward to a connection to the Interceptor just west of Eastlake Parkway.
The existing Poggi Canyon Interceptor currently flows west along Olympic Parkway to
Brandywine eventually connecting to the Salt Creek Interceptor, which ultimately connects
to the Metro system facilities just west of Interstate 5. As a part of other Projects, the 18-
inch Poggi Canyon Interceptor in Olympic Parkway was extended to the Project entrance
at the FC-2 Entry Street.
IV.8.5 Proposed Land Use Change
Table J.1 summarizes the previously approved development in the FC-2 SPA Amendment
area along with the new development currently being proposed.
Table J.1
FC-2 SPA Amendment
Land Use Approved23 Proposed
MF Residential Units 600 units 900 units
Hotels 300 units 300 units
Park 2.0 acres 2.0 acres
Commercial 1.4 acres* 1.4 acres*
*Assumes retail floor space to site area ratio of 0.25 for 15,000 sq. ft., or 0.34 acres.
Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.
An evaluation of the proposed land use change impact will have on the sewer collection
system has been prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering. This evaluation includes an
estimate of the projected sewage flows. The August 2004 approved SPA plan provided the
projected sewer flows when the project was initially approved. Table J.2 provides a
comparison between projected sewer flows from the approved sewer study and the current
land use plan proposal, per the proposed FC-2 Amendment. The result of the evaluation is
that there is a total increase of approximately 237 EDUs over and above the 2004 SPA Plan
as a result of the additional 300 multifamily units. Compared to Currently Approved
Project, the proposed addition of 300 multi-family units results in an increase of 237
EDU’s.
23 Based on the 2016 SPA Plan Amendment, approved by Resolutions No. 2016-187, 2016-188, Ordinance No.
2016-3376.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
84
Table J.2
FC-2 SPA Amendment Sewer Flow Summary
Land Use Acres Building
Units
Generation
Factor
Average Flow
(gpd)
FC-2 Originally Approved Sewer Flow (2004)
Commercial 34.5 --- 2,500 gpd/ac 86,250
FC-2 Currently Approved Sewer Flow
MF
Residential
Units
--- 600 182 gpd/unit 109,200
Hotels --- 300 76 gpd/unit 1 22,800
Park 2.0 --- 410 gpd/ac 820
Commercial 1.4 --- 1,401 gpd/ac 1,960
Subtotal 134,780
FC-2 Proposed Sewer Flow
MF
Residential
Units
--- 900 182 gpd/unit 163,800
Hotels --- 300 76 gpd/unit 1 22,800
Park 2.0 --- 410 gpd/ac 820
Commercial 1.43 --- 1,401 gpd/ac 1,960
Subtotal 189,380
Increased Sewer Flow 54,600
Increased Sewer EDUs 2 from current approval 237
1 Based on 0.33 EDU/Rm. Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.
2 Based on 230 GPD/EDU.
3 Assumes retail floor space to site area ratio of 0.25 for 15,000 sq. ft., or 0.34 acres.
IV.8.6 Adequacy Analysis
The wastewater master plan evaluates sewer facilities from two aspects, the current and
future adequacy of trunk sewers and the future wastewater treatment facilities.
A. Wastewater Treatment:
According to the GMOC 2017 Annual Report, the City’s sewer facilities are in
compliance with the Threshold Standard and it is projected to remain in compliance
for the next five years (See Table J.3). However, additional treatment capacity will be
required as the City begins to approach build-out projections
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
85
Table J.3
City of Chula Vista
Sewage Flow & Treatment Capacity
Million Gallons
per Day (mgd)
Fiscal
Year
2015
Fiscal
Year
2016
Fiscal
Year
2017
Projection
for next 18
months
Projection
for next 5
years
Projection
for “Build-
out”*
Average Flow 15.499 15.385 15.426 15.986 17.235 20.760
Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864
* Buildout Projection based on Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (2005).
Source: GMOC 2017 Annual Report
B. Poggi Canyon Basin:
Wastewater generated within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin is conveyed to the City
of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department (Metro) sewerage system via the
Poggi Canyon Interceptor, which generally follows from Olympic Parkway to
Brandywine Avenue and then extends southerly to the Salt Creek Interceptor near the
intersection of Palm Avenue and Main Street.
In accordance with the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Dexter Wilson used
the City’s sewage generation rates for commercial, residential and hotel land use to
estimate the total annual average wastewater flows produced from the FC-2 SPA
Amendment project (see Table J.2). On-site and off-site collection, trunk, and
interceptor facilities were evaluated by Dexter Wilson Engineering based on this
sewage flow. In addition, the design criteria are used for analysis of the existing sewer
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.
Dexter Wilson Engineering’s evaluation of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor is
based on the April 2009 Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer Development Impact
Fee Update (DIF Report). A comparison of the current FC-2 plan and the proposed
FC-2 SPA amendment versus the assumptions in the DIF Report was prepared. Table
J.4 provides the sewer flow projections for the current land use plan for the proposed
amendment compared to the 2009 DIF Report. As shown, the Poggi Basin
projections in the 2009 DIF Report would be increased by approximately 403 EDUs
based on the current plan for the proposed FC-2 SPA Amendment.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
86
Table J.4
FC-2 SPA Amendment
Poggi Basin EDU Summary
Description Quantity Unit Flow
Factor
Average
Flow, gpd EDUs
2009 DIF Study
C-1 30.4 ac. 2,500 gpd/ac. 76,000 330.4
C-2 8.2 ac. 2,500 gpd/ ac. 20,500 89.1
Subtotal 2009 DIF Study 420
Current Plan with Amendment
Res.
Apartments 900 units 182 gpd/unit 163,800 712.21
Hotels 300 units 76 gpd/unit 22,800 99.12
Park 2.0 ac. 410 gpd/ac. 820 3.6
Commercial 1.4 ac. 3 1,401 gpd/ac. 1,960 8.5
Subtotal Current Plan with Amendment 823
Increase 403
1 Based on 230 GPD/EDU.
2 Based on 0.33 EDU/Rm.
3Assumes retail floor space to site area ratio of 0.25 for 15,000 sq. ft., or 0.34 acres.
Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.
C. Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer:
The Poggi Canyon Interceptor available capacity was evaluated by the Dexter Wilson
Sewer Study considering the proposed land use changes. Data on the Poggi Canyon
Interceptor was obtained from the April 2009 Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer
Development Impact Fee Update prepared by PMC. Data from this report includes
existing permitted EDUs in the basin as well as committed EDUs based on previous
project approvals.
Since the preparation of the 2009 PMC Study, a few proposed projects have the
potential of increasing the number of units that will flow into the Poggi Interceptor. A
brief description of these projects from the Dexter Wilson Sewer Study is provided
below:
1. Village 2 Unit Transfer. As outlined in an August 4, 2011 memorandum, Baldwin
and Sons processed a unit transfer that did not change the total unit count in Village
2 but transferred units between neighborhoods. The net effect of these transfers
was a shift of 84 EDUs from the Wolf Canyon Basin to the Poggi Basin. These
EDUs were considered in the Dexter Wilson Sewer Study.
2. JPB Village 2 SPA Amendment. The JPB Village 2 SPA Amendment increased
the unit count in Village 2 by 197 units. Per the November 21, 2011 Sewer System
Evaluation that was done for this project, the net effect of this land use change was
the addition of 160 EDUs to the Poggi Basin. These additional EDUs were
considered in the Dexter Wilson Sewer Study.
3. Village 2 Comprehensive SPA Amendment. Baldwin and Sons processed a
comprehensive SPA Amendment that increased the number of units in Village 2
by approximately 1,500 units. The impact of this was an increase of 1,098 EDUs
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
87
in the Poggi Basin. These numbers include the unit transfer and JPB
Amendment discussed above.
4. Eastern Urban Center (EUC). The EUC was approved in September 2009,
shortly after the 2009 PMC Study was prepared. The PMC Study did, however,
anticipate the EUC project and included 429 EDUs from the EUC in the
calculation of the Poggi Interceptor Fee. These units include 189 EDUs within
the Poggi Basin and 240 EDUs that are proposed to be permanently diverted
from the Salt Creek Basin to the Poggi Basin. The current estimate for the EUC
is 457 EDUs and so an additional 28 EDUs from the EUC have been considered
in Dexter Wilson sewer system evaluation.
Table J.5 provides a reach by reach summary of permitted and committed EDUs and
provides the impact that the FC-2 SPA Amendment would have on remaining capacity.
Exhibit 14 identifies the reach locations and indicates where the FC-2 SPA
Amendment EDUs will connect to the Poggi Interceptor. As shown in Table J.7, only
the two reaches already identified for future replacement are shown as being over
capacity. The proposed amendment does not require additional reaches of the Poggi
Canyon Interceptor to be upgraded in the future. Upon approval of the proposed FC-2
SPA Amendment, the Poggi Basin Gravity Sewer Development Impact Fee should be
updated to reflect the additional units.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
88
So
u
r
c
e
:
D
e
x
t
e
r
W
i
l
s
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
89
Poggi Interceptor Map
Exhibit 14
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
90
Exhibit 15
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
91
IV.8.7 Recommended Sewerage Facilities
The recommended onsite sewer system for the FC-2 SPA Amendment area consists of
gravity sewer lines that will convey flow to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor in Olympic
Parkway. Based on the average flow presented in Table J.2 and a peak factor of 2.22 from
the City Subdivision Manual, the projected peak flow for the project is 0.42 mgd. An 8-
inch gravity sewer line with a minimum slope of 1.0% is adequate to convey this total
project flow.
IV.8.8 Freeway Commercial North Improvements
The proposed FC-2 SPA Amendment will exceed the units foreseen in the 2009 Poggi DIF
update, however, the limits of the required DIF improvements remain the same. The cost
related to the DIF improvements has been identified in the Poggi DIF program and the FC-
2 SPA Amendment project will be required to update the Poggi DIF study as a condition
of approval for the project. The developer proposes an onsite sewer system consisting of
8-inch sewer lines with a single point of connection to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor at
Town Center Drive.
IV.8.9 Financing Sewerage Facilities
The Poggi Basin Plan established a fee for funding capital improvements. City of Chula
Vista Ordinance Number 2716 established the fee to be paid by future development within
the Poggi Canyon Basin. Table J.6 summarizes the Poggi Canyon Basin Impact Fees to be
paid for the proposed project. There is a $45 sewer administration fee is assessed per
proposed connection. Table J.7 summarizes the Sewerage Capacity Fees to be paid for the
proposed project. Fees are calculated using City factors.
Table J.6
Estimated Poggi Canyon Basin Impact Fees
Land Use Quantity EDUs Impact Fee @ $265/EDU
MF Residential 900 units 675 $178,875
Hotels 300 units 122.44 $32,446
Commercial .34 acres 3.2 $848
Total 800.64 $212,169
Table J.7
Estimated Sewerage Capacity Fees
Land Use Quantity EDUs Fee @ $3,851/EDU
MF Residential 900 units 711 $2,738,061
Hotels 300 units 122.44 $471,516
Commercial .34 acres 10.7 $41,206
Total 844.14 $3,250,783
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
92
II.8.10 Threshold Compliance
A. All gravity sewers will be designed to convey peak wet weather flow. For pipes with
diameter of 12 inches and smaller, the sewers will be designed to convey this flow
when flowing half full. 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.
B. The applicant for the FC-2 SPA Amendment project shall:
1. Pay all current sewer fees required by the City of Chula Vista.
2. Comply with Section 3-303 of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual.
3. Construct all on and off-site sewer lines and connections as required by the City
Engineer to serve the project.
C. Prior to each final map the developer shall either demonstrate that Poggi Sewer has
adequate capacity or upsize the inadequate segment, all to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services and the City Engineer.
D. Prior to the first final map, Developer shall fund the updates of the Poggi Canyon
Sewer DIF to include the projects proposed additional units. Further, prior to the first
final map developer shall agree not to protest the update of the Poggi Canyon Sewer
DIF.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
93
IV.9 Drainage
IV.9.1 Threshold Standard
A. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City engineering standards and shall comply
with current local, state and federal regulations, as may be amended from time to time.
B. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system, with
respect to the impacts of new development, to determine its ability to meet the goal and
objective for drainage.
IV.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 City of Chula Vista Public Facilities Plan Flood Control Summary Report” dated March
1989 (Phase II) provides details for the city planned drainage facilities.
Otay Ranch FC-2 project existing conditions and proposed drainage improvements are identified
in the “Otay Ranch Planning Area 12, Drainage Study” October 7, 2014, by Hunsaker &
Associates, which is referred as the Hunsaker Drainage Study throughout this PFFP. The
Hunsaker Drainage Study identifies the Pre-Development and Post-Development Conditions
flow rates for 50-year and 100-year storm events; the required size of the proposed storm drain
facilities needed to route the expected runoff through the developed site; and a capacity analysis
and recommendation for the existing storm drain capacity once the site is developed. A Drainage
Report and a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) were prepared by SB&O Inc.
on August 8, 2018 for the east portion of FC-2.
The existing project storm water quality conditions and proposed water quality improvements
are identified in three reports. Each report focuses on a specific area within FC-2 and are referred
collectively as the Hunsaker WQTR throughout this PFFP. The reports include the following:
• The Hotel Site: “Water Quality Technical Report (Major WQTR) for Otay Ranch Village
12, PA-12 West Residential”, October 20, 2014 by Hunsaker & Associates.
• The Eastern Residential area: “A Drainage Report and a SWQMP”, August 8, 2018 by
SB&O Inc.
• The Western Residential area: “Water Quality Technical Report (Major WQTR) for Otay
Ranch Village 12, PA-12 West Residential”, December 31, 2015 by Hunsaker & Associates.
The Hunsaker and SB&O WQTRs have been prepared to implement the methods and procedures
as described in the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Manual and Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for BMP design. The treatment of the runoff from the project is
addressed in the WQTR. The proposed design will utilize on-site Low Impact Development
(LID), Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Bioretention Integrated Management Practices
(IMP’s) Treatment Controls to treat the 85th percentile flow from the development.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
94
The FC-2 project is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board (SDRWQCB). The FC-2 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 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for
the region in which the project is located.
The “City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual”, December 2015, addresses the onsite post-
construction storm water requirements for Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects
(PDPs) and provides procedures for planning, preliminary design, selection, and design of
permanent storm water BMPs based on the performance standards as required by the Municipal
Storm Water Permit for the San Diego Region [Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by R9-
2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100].
The requirements in the Chula Vista BMP Design Manual were effective February 16, 2016 and
replaced the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Manual (January 2011). All development projects
must comply with the requirements.
IV.9.3 Project Processing Requirements
The SPA Plan and the PFFP are required to address the following issues for drainage issues:
A. Identify phased demands.
B. Identify locations of facilities for onsite and offsite improvements.
C. Provide cost estimates.
D. Identify financing methods.
IV.9.4 Existing Conditions
The FC-2 site is located within the northwest portion of the overall Otay Ranch Planning Area
12 or Freeway Commercial North site, which is bisected by Town Center Drive. The FC-2 site
has been mass graded with an average slope of 1.1%. Sediment basins are located at the
southwest and southeast corner of the Olympic Parkway-Town Center Drive intersection to desilt
runoff from the site. Runoff from these basins is conveyed towards the existing storm drain along
Town Center Drive. This storm drain ties into the existing Olympic Parkway storm drain system
and Poggi Canyon Creek downstream. The existing storm drain was designed as part of the
Improvement Plans for Olympic Parkway (from SR-125 to the SDG&E Easement). The
flowrates for the existing storm drain were based on ultimate buildout of Otay Ranch Planning
Area 12 using runoff coefficients consistent with a commercial development. Therefore,
problems with capacity of the downstream storm drain system are not anticipated by the Hunsaker
Drainage Study.
The “City of Chula Vista Public Facilities Plan, Flood Control Summary Report”, March 1989,
by the City of Chula Vista, shows fifteen major drainage basins in Chula Vista. These drainage
basin boundaries were determined by existing topography, drainage conditions and land uses.
Four of these are essentially developed and not expected to have significant changes in runoff.
Eleven drainage basins are east of I-805 with one of the basins, Long Canyon, is mostly
developed to the predicted densities in Scenario 4 of the general plan. Only the remaining ten
basins will experience major development and the subsequent changes in drainage conditions.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
95
The City’s Drainage Master Plan analyzed current and future requirements for drainage facilities.
The report details three alternative solutions for drainage in each basin. Because drainage
facilities are directly related to the type and location of future development, it is not possible to
determine which specific improvements will be required until the development project is
presented and reviewed by staff at which time specific requirements will be determined and
applied to the project.
The hydrologic calculations were performed by Hunsaker for various areas within Planning Area
12 west of Town Center Drive. Runoff values obtained were based on the interim and ultimate
buildout of the areas west of Town Center Drive in order to verify that the existing downstream
storm drain had sufficient capacity. The values in Table K.1 below are the cumulative flows
from the area west of Town Center Drive for the Interim Conditions.
Table K.1
Site Runoff Flows - Interim Condition*
Project Subarea Area (acres) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
PA 12 West, north portion 5.77 16.68 18.81
PA 12 West, south portion 17.45 15.58 17.84
PA 12 West (cumulative) 23.22 32.26 36.65
Source: Hunsaker & Associates
* PA 12 East is undeveloped in the interim condition
IV.9.5 Proposed Facilities
A. Storm Drainage
The values in Table K.2 below are the cumulative flows from the area west of Town Center
Drive for the Ultimate Conditions.
Table K.2
Site Runoff Flows - Ultimate Condition
Project Subarea Area (acres) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
PA 12 West, north portion 22.59 59.70 68.05
PA 12 West, south portion 0.63 2.56 2.91
PA 12 West (cumulative) 23.22 62.26 70.96
PA 12 East (cumulative) 10.41 40.5 46.02
Source: Hunsaker & Associates
The existing storm drain along Town Center Drive, which connects to the Olympic Parkway
storm drain system was sized per the “Grading Plans for Olympic Parkway (from SR125 to
the SDG&E Easement)”. The storm drain was sized based on the assumption that PA12
would be developed as a commercial development with a runoff coefficient of 0.85. Those
calculations determined a runoff of 78.3 cfs from the PA 12 site based on hydrologic
methodology being used in 2002. Subsequent changes to the hydrologic methodology
dictated by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego in 2003 have typically
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
96
shown significant flow increases relative to values obtained in 2002 or earlier. Thus, the
discrepancy in flows generated by PA 12 are expected although the land use and area have
not changed. A preliminary hydraulic analysis by Hunsaker was performed on the existing
storm drain along Town Center Drive using the calculated flows from the PA 12 site (west
of Town Center Drive) to verify that it was not compromised. The Hunsaker Drainage Study
includes this analysis, as well as the reference ‘As- Built’ drawings for the existing storm
drain along Town Center Drive.
According to the Hunsaker Drainage Study the northeast and southern portion of the PA-12
site will remain undeveloped in an interim condition. A new sediment basin within the
southern portion will be constructed until this portion is developed. The new basin was sized
per the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual (Section 3-204.4). The basin size required
to desilt the southern portion of the site was determined to be 89’ wide by 179’ long and 6.5’
deep. The basin will require a 48” perforated pipe extending to a height of 3.5’ from the base
of the basin. This riser will produce a head of 0.54 feet based on a Q100 flowrate. Please
reference the Hunsaker Drainage Study for sediment basin calculations. Hunsaker concludes
that the proposed site layout of FC-2 site as presented in the current grading plans will not
present any unanticipated hydrologic concerns on the existing downstream storm drain
infrastructure (see Exhibit 16 Drainage Plan).
B. Storm Water Quality
Urban runoff discharged from municipal storm water conveyance systems has been identified
by local, regional, and national research programs as one of the principal causes of water
quality problems in most urban areas. The Municipal Storm Water Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Municipal Permit), issued on February 21, 2001 to the
City of Chula Vista, the County of San Diego, the Port of San Diego, and 17 other cities in
the region by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB), requires
the development and implementation of storm water regulations addressing storm water
pollution issues in development planning and construction associated with private and public
development projects.
The City requires that sufficient information and analysis on how the project will meet the
water quality requirements shall be provided as part of the Tentative Map and/or Site Plan
review process. In this manner, the type, location, cost, and maintenance characteristics of
the selected BMPs will be given consideration during the project planning and design.
Therefore, the City requires that prior to approval of any Tentative Map and/or Site Plan for
the project, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall obtain the approval of the City
Engineer of a Water Quality Technical Report containing specific information and analysis
on how the project will meet the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Storm Water and
Discharge Control Ordinance and the NPDES Municipal Permit (including the Final Model
SUSMP for the San Diego Region).
The overall FC-2 development site is currently graded and slopes towards the existing
sediment basins. Town Center Drive divides PA 12 into two parcels. A sediment basin is
located at the southeast corner of the Olympic Parkway- Town Center Drive intersection to
address runoff from the area east of Town Center Drive. Runoff from this basin is conveyed
towards the existing storm drain along Town Center Drive. This storm drain ties into the
existing Olympic Parkway storm drain system and Poggi Canyon Creek downstream.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
97
The Hunsaker WQTR indicates that due to the FC-1 onsite type “D” soils that infiltration is
not recommended. Therefore, infiltration BMP’s or LID features are not proposed.
Hunsaker designed the storm drain system and layout to address peak flows as well as to
integrate water quality features needed to comply with the City of Chula Vista Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements for water quality.
1. FC-2 Hotel Site:
The Hotel Site is located within the northwest portion of the Planning Area 12 or FC-2
site. It is South of Olympic Parkway, west of Town Center Drive, east of SR-125, and
north of Birch Road. Two hotels are proposed west of Town Center Drive. The
westernmost hotel has been completed in opened in October 2017. The site will
eventually consist of two hotel buildings, parking spaces, and storm drain and water
quality facilities to collect and treat all runoff from the site. On an interim basis, the
existing sediment basin located at the future location of the second hotel site will be
converted into a hydromod basin to address hydromodification of the westernmost hotel
site.
The aforementioned existing sediment basin immediately west of Town Center Drive
currently collects all onsite runoff (from areas west of Town Center Drive). An existing
riser and storm drain connect to the existing storm drain on Town Center Drive, which
connects to the Olympic Parkway storm drain system. Runoff from the first hotel site will
be collected by inlets and piped towards the existing sediment basin and existing storm
drain within Town Center Drive. The developed site will contain drainage facilities such
as inlets, storm drain, and street gutters to direct flow to the existing storm drain at
Olympic Parkway.
The hotel site will include a few open landscaped areas that are planned to be used as
water quality facilities. In addition, some of these areas will serve as collection points for
peak flow runoff. Permeable pavement areas within the hotel parking areas will serve for
LID treatment for those respective areas. Peak flows for those areas will be directed
towards downstream storm drain inlets.
Biofiltration units (Bio-Clean Modular Wetland Units or approved equal) will be specified
at the two inlets along the entry road to the site. These units will be flow-based and will
treat the Q85th flow being delivered towards each unit from the respective street.
2. FC-2 West Residential Site:
The West Residential Site is located within the southern portion of the overall Planning
Area 12 or FC-2 west site. It is South of Olympic Parkway, west of Town Center Drive,
east of SR125. The site will consist of multifamily dwelling units, a park, a biofiltration
basin, and associated improvements typical of multi-family sites. Utilities such as sewer,
water, and storm drain will connect to existing facilities adjacent to the site. Water
quality and hydromodification facilities will also be constructed onsite for mitigation of
site runoff. The site will be accessed by two entry roads from Town Center Drive.
Drainage facilities will be built as part of the FC-2 West Residential development and
will include storm drain, inlets, headwalls, cleanouts and rip rap outlet dissipation
devices. The storm drain from the site will connect downstream to the storm drain which
will be constructed as part of the Hotel site improvements. The proposed flows from the
residential areas have been considered in the design of the hotel site storm drain design.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
98
Similar to the other areas within the FC-2 site, infiltration is not recommended for this
site because of the type “D” soils. Therefore, infiltration BMPs or LID features are not
proposed. Storm drain from this residential area and park site will connect to the storm
drain which will be built as part of the Hotel improvement plans. Therefore, storm drain
inverts will be constrained to those set per the Hotel plans. The western boundary of the
site includes open space which can be utilized as a location for a water quality/HMP
facility.
The park area will be considered self-treating since it will consist of pervious areas. The
residential areas propose to use a biofiltration facility as treatment control BMPs. The
biofiltration basins were sized to treat the design capture volume (DCV) from the area,
which is tributary to it. The BMP surface area, which is the bottom area of the
bioretention area, was sized to ensure that the entire water quality runoff would filter
through the amended soil layer. The total DCV will be accounted for within the
engineered fill and gravel layers as well as the ponded volume above the basin bottom.
3. FC-2 East Residential Site:
The FC-2 East Residential or Planning Area 12 East site is located within the Eastern
portion of the FC-2. It is South of Olympic Parkway, east of Town Center Drive, west
of Eastlake Parkway, and north of Birch Road. The western boundary is the existing
Town Center Drive that connects to Olympic Parkway at its northern end. The site will
consist of residential units as well as retail shops, a swimming pool, parking lots, and
open spaces. Utilities such as sewer, water, and storm drain will connect to existing
facilities adjacent to the site. Water quality and hydromodification facilities will also be
constructed onsite for mitigation of site runoff. In addition, the proposed residential
project will include a few open landscaped areas that will be used to construct water
quality facilities.
The overall FC-2 is currently graded. Town Center Drive divides it into two parcels. A
sediment basin is located at the southeast corner of the Olympic Parkway- Town Center
Drive intersection to desilt runoff from the area east of Town Center Drive. Runoff from
this basin is conveyed towards the existing storm drain along Town Center Drive. This
storm drain ties into the existing Olympic Parkway storm drain system and Poggi Canyon
Creek downstream.
In accordance with the SWQMP (prepared by SB&O), the PA 12 East Residential project
proposes a combination of biofiltration basins and proprietary structures to provide
treatment, along with an underground storage and control facility to provide HMP
compliance.
After review and analysis of various treatment options, SB&O selected the Design BMPs
that were deemed to be effective and feasible for the project. The following summarizes
the City of Chula Vista’s standard water quality mitigation measures to be implemented
for this project.
• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan: Prior to issuance of each grading permit for
Otay Ranch FC-2 project or any land development permit, including clearing and
grading, the project applicant shall submit a notice of intent and obtain coverage under
the NPDES permit for construction activity from the SWRCB.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
99
• Post-Construction/Permanent BMPs: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the
City Engineer shall verify that parcel owners have incorporated and will implement post-
construction BMPs in accordance with current regulations.
• Limitation of Grading: The project applicant shall comply with the Chula Vista
Development Storm Water Manual limitation of grading requirements.
• Hydromodification Criteria: The project applicant shall comply, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer, with city Hydromodification Criteria or the hydrograph modification
management plan, as applicable.
The combination of proposed construction and permanent BMP’s will reduce, to the
maximum extent practicable, the expected project pollutants and will not adversely
impact the beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
IV.9.6 Financing Drainage Facilities
A. Onsite Facilities
City policy requires that all master planned developments provide for the conveyance of
storm waters throughout the project to City engineering standards. The Freeway Commercial
North project will be required to construct all onsite facilities needed for the project.
In the newly developing areas east of I-805, it is the City’s policy that development projects
assume the burden of funding all maintenance activities associated with drainage facilities.
As such, the City will enter into an agreement with the project applicant whereby
maintenance of drainage facilities will be assured by one of the following funding methods:
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 drainage maintenance purposes.
B. Offsite Facilities
Off-site drainage facilities that are necessary to support the proposed project are either
constructed or are in the process of being designed and processed with the City of Chula
Vista by other projects. There are no off-site drainage facilities required of the project.
However, if other projects do not complete an off-site drainage facility that is necessary for
this project the applicant may be required to complete the facility.
The proposed project modifications shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local
rules and regulations including compliance with NPDES permit requirements for urban
runoff and storm water discharge. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for design, treatment
and monitoring for storm water quality will be implemented as delineated in the approved
WQTR with respect to municipal and construction permits. Compliance with all applicable
rules and regulations governing water quality as well as implementation of all mitigation
measures outlined in the FEIR would ensure no additional impacts to water quality beyond
those previously analyzed would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
IV.9.7 Threshold Compliance
A. Prior to approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site Plan by the Design Review Committee,
whichever occurs first, applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Chula Vista
Storm Water and Discharge Control Ordinance and the NPDES Municipal Permit (including
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
100
the Final Model SUSMP for the San Diego Region). The Applicant shall obtain the approval
of the City Engineer of a WQTR.
B. The project shall comply with the recommended mitigation measures provided in the
Hunsaker Drainage Study and the Hunsaker WQTR and SB&O Drainage Study and SWQMP
and the Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project.
C. The project shall be responsible for the conveyance of storm water flows in accordance with
City Engineering Standards. The City Engineering Division will review all plans to ensure
compliance with such standards.
D. The project shall incorporate urban runoff planning in the Tentative Map and/or Site Plan.
E. The project shall be required to comply with all current regulations related to water quality
for the construction and post construction phases of the project. Both the future land
development construction drawings and associated reports shall be required to include
details, notes and discussions relative to the required or recommended BMPs.
F. The project applicant will assure the maintenance of drainage facilities by a property owner’s
association that would raise funds through fees paid by each property owner and/or
participation in a CFD established over the entire project to raise funds through the creation
of a special tax for drainage maintenance purposes.
G. Additional drainage analysis may be required at the tentative map phase of the project to
demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on-site storm drain system(s) and the existing
storm drain connections.
H. Future drainage reports shall be prepared by the Applicant, as required by the City of Chula
Vista, for the final engineering phase(s) of the project.
I. The project applicant shall comply with the Project FEIR Water Quality & Hydrology mitigation
measures. A full discussion of these mitigation measures can be found in the Project FEIR.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
101
1/19/2016
Exhibit 16
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
102
IV.10 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE PROTECTION
IV.10.1 Threshold Standard
The City shall pursue a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target consistent with appropriate
city climate change and energy efficiency regulations in effect at the time of project application
for SPA plans or for the following, subject to the discretion of the Development Services
Director:
A. Residential projects of 50 or more residential dwelling units;
B. Commercial projects of 12 or more acres (or equivalent square footage);
C. Industrial projects of 24 or more acres (or equivalent square footage); or
D. Mixed use projects of 50 equivalent dwelling units or greater.
IV.10.2 Service Analysis
The City of Chula Vista has a Growth Management Element (GME) in its General Plan. One of
the stated objectives of the GME is to be proactive in its planning to meet federal and state air
quality standards. This objective is incorporated into the GME's action program.
To implement the GME, the City Council has adopted the Growth Management ordinance that
requires Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIP) for major development projects (50 residential
units or commercial/industrial projects with equivalent air quality impacts). Title 19 (Sec.
19.09.050 A.3) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that a SPA submittal contain an
AQIP. The AQIP shall include an assessment of how the project has been designed to reduce
emissions as well as identify mitigation measures in accordance with the adopted AQIP
Guidelines.
The Chula Vista City Council adopted the 2008 state Energy Code (Title 24) with an amendment
requiring an increased energy efficiency standard. This amendment went into effect on February
26, 2010, as Section 15.26.030 of the Municipal Code. As required by this amendment, all
building permits applied for and submitted on or after this date are subject to these increased
energy efficiency standards. The increase in energy efficiency is a percentage above the new
2008 Energy Code and is dependent on climate zone and type of development proposed.
• New residential and nonresidential projects that fall within climate zone 7 must be at
least 15% more energy efficient than the 2008 Energy Code.
• New low-rise residential projects (three-stories or less) that fall within climate zone 10
must be at least 20% more energy efficient than the 2008 Energy Code.
In Addition, per Section 15.12 of the City’s Municipal Code, all new residential construction,
remodels, additions, and alterations must provide a schedule of plumbing fixture fittings that will
reduce the overall use of potable water by 20%.
The City of Chula Vista has developed a number of strategies and plans aimed at improving air
quality. The City is a part of the Cities for Climate Protection Program, which is headed by the
International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). In November 2002, Chula
Vista adopted the CO2 Reduction Plan to lower the community’s major greenhouse gas
emissions, strengthen the local economy, and improve the global environment. The CO2
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
103
Reduction Plan focuses on reducing fossil fuel consumption and decreasing reliance on power
generated by fossil fuels, which would have a corollary effect in the reduction of air pollutant
emissions into the atmosphere.
IV.10.3 Adequacy Analysis
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs) and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health.
The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to
an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health.” The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as an air pollutant that
may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness or that may pose a present
or potential hazard to human health.
Impacts to air quality are addressed in “Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch
Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area 12 (FEIR)”, 2003, City of Chula Vista. The
proposed modifications addressed in this Addendum would not result in an increase in overall
land use intensity or substantially change traffic distribution patterns and would result in a
decrease in traffic generation.
In May 2015, the City approved the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments, as well as
entitlements, for the proposed modifications through approval of the First Addendum to the
FEIR. First and Second Addenda to the FEIR modified the project to allow for the construction
of 600 multifamily residential units, 15,000 square-feet of commercial space in a mixed-use
format, and 2.0 acres of public parkland. The FEIR and the First Addendum are collectively
referred to as the "FEIR."
“A Third Addendum to the EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan Planning Area 12”, August 28, 2018, City of Chula Vista provides more specific
detail regarding the proposed modifications for the approval of the SPA Plan Amendment, and
Freeway Commercial North Master Precise Plan Amendment to add 300 Multi-family uses to the
previously approved project.
The “Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project” dated
March 24, 2016, by SRA (SRA Report), was the basis of the Second Addendum. SRA prepared
a technical memorandum evaluating the impacts associated with the proposed density increase
amendment. The SRA Report and memorandum evaluated the potential for adverse impacts to
the ambient air quality due to construction and operational emissions resulting from the Project.
The report indicates that construction would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the
local air shed caused by soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion pollutants
from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction
materials.
Construction emissions as estimated in the SRA Report would be below all significance
thresholds for criteria air pollutants and would not exceed those levels identified in the FEIR.
The site would be watered at least three times daily to control fugitive dust emissions, and vehicle
speeds would not exceed 15 miles per hour, per FEIR mitigation measure 5.4-2. In addition, low-
VOC paints would be utilized during architectural coatings. With incorporation of these design
features, construction emissions were estimated to be below construction emissions estimated in
the FEIR. The FEIR also identified mitigation measures 5.4-1 and 5.4-2, which reflect dust
control measures and measures to reduce VOC and NO emissions.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
104
With the proposed increase of residential density, operational emissions would be well below the
levels identified in the FEIR. As discussed, the proposed modifications would result in fewer
trips than the approved project; therefore, mobile emissions resulting from the proposed
modifications would be lower than that previously analyzed in the FOR. Additionally, mitigation
measures 5.4-3 and 5.4-4 are identified in the FEIR, which would further reduce operational
emissions.
The SRA Report determined that there are no new significant sources of construction or
operational air emissions or health risk impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR that would
occur with implementation of the proposed modifications to the approved project.
IV.10.4 Threshold Compliance
The project applicant shall comply with the FEIR and SRA Report Air Quality mitigation
measures. A full discussion of these mitigation measures can be found in the aforementioned
documents.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
105
IV.11. CIVIC CENTER, CORPORATION YARD AND ADMINISTRATION FEES
There are no adopted threshold standards for such Public Facilities as the Civic Center Expansion,
Corporation Yard Relocation and Administration. Funds for the most recent renovation of the
Civic Center are tied to the collection of the PFDIF fees in effect at the time of payment and prior
to certificate of occupancy issuance. The information regarding the Corporate Yard and other
Public Facilities is being provided in this section of the PFFP to aid in calculating the required
PFDIF.
The PFDIF was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 7, 2006 by adoption of
Ordinance 3050. Current applicable fees for Civic Center multi-family residential is $2,968/unit
and general commercial (including office) development is $9,997/acre. Current applicable fees
for Corp Yard multi-family residential is $403/unit and general commercial (including office)
development is $8,552/acre. The PFDIF amount is subject to change as it is amended from time
to time. Both residential and non-residential development impact fees apply to the project. The
calculations of the PFDIF due for each facility are addressed in the following tables of this report.
At the current fee rate, the FC-2 SPA Amendment Civic Center Expansion Fee obligation at
build-out is approximately $2,735,824 (see Table L.1).
Table L.1
Civic Center Expansion Fees
Development DU’s MF
PFDIF/DU Acres Com’l
PFDIF/AC.
Estimated Civic
Center Fee
Multi-Family Residential 900 $2,968 $2,671,200
Commercial (Residence
Inn) 3.31 $9,997 $33,090
Commercial (Courtyard) 2.81 $9,997 $28,092
Commercial Mixed Use 0.34 $9,997 $3,442
Totals 900 $2,735,824
At the current fee rate, the FC-2 SPA Amendment Corporate Yard Fee obligation at build-out is
approximately $417,983 (see Table L.2).
Table L.2
Corporate Yard Relocation Fees
Development DU’s MF
PFDIF/DU Acres Com’l
PFDIF/AC.
Estimated Fee
Corporate Yard
Multi-Family Residential 900 $403 $362,700
Commercial (Residence
Inn) 3.31 $8,552 $28,307
Commercial (Courtyard) 2.81 $8,552 $24,031
Commercial Mixed Use 0.34 $8,552 $2,945
Totals 900 $417,983
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
106
At the current fee rate, the FC-2 SPA Amendment Administration Public Facilities Fee obligation
at build-out is approximately $587,186 (see Table L.3).
Table L.3
Public Facilities Fees For Program Administration Facilities
Development DU’s MF
PFDIF/DU Acres Com’l
PFDIF/AC.
Estimated
Admin. Fee
Multi-Family Residential 900 $637 $573,300
Commercial (Residence
Inn) 3.31 $2,148 $7,110
Commercial (Courtyard) 2.81 $2,148 $6,036
Commercial Mixed Use 0.34 $2,148 $740
Totals 900 $587,186
*Includes 0.34 acres of commercial mixed use
The projected fees, illustrated in Tables L.1, M.2 and M.3, are estimates only. Actual fees may
be different. PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or
Developer actions that change residential densities, industrial acreage or commercial acreages.
Civic Center, Corporation Yard and Administration Facilities fees shall be paid prior to final
inspections, at the rate in effect at the time payment is made.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
107
IV.12. FISCAL ANALYSIS
IV.12.1 Threshold Standard
A. Fiscal Impact Analyses and Public Facilities Financing Plans, at the time they are adopted,
shall ensure that new development generates sufficient revenue to offset the cost of providing
municipal services and facilities to that development.
B. The City shall establish and maintain, at sufficient levels to ensure the timely delivery of
infrastructure and services needed to support growth, consistent with the threshold standards,
a Development Impact Fee, capital improvement funding, and other necessary funding
programs or mechanisms.
IV.12.2 Facility Master Plan
There is no existing Master Plan for fiscal issues. However, an economic base study and a long-
range fiscal impact study was included as part of the Chula Vista General Plan.
IV.12.3 Project Processing Requirements
The SPA Plan and the PFFP are required by the Growth Management ordinance to prepare a
phased fiscal/economic report dealing with revenue vs. expenditures including maintenance and
operations.
IV.12.4 Fiscal Analysis of Project
IV.12.4.1 Introduction
For the proposed Amendment which adds 300 DUs to the previously approved mixed-use project,
Spicer Consulting Group (SCG) prepared a “Fiscal Impact Analysis of Otay Ranch Freeway
Commercial North” dated January 30, 2018. This report is referred to as the SCG FIA throughout
this Supplemental PFFP and this section of the PFFP is based upon the SCG FIA.
IV.12.4.2 Fiscal Impact Methodology
The FC-2 Amendment fiscal impact analysis was prepared in accordance with the City’s newly
developed SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) Framework. As prescribed in the SPA Fiscal
Impact Framework, SCG used revenue and expenditure factors from the SPA Fiscal Impact
Framework to estimate fiscal revenues and expenditures expected to grow proportionally with
new development. Special analysis models were used to estimate revenues, such as property tax
revenues, transient occupancy tax, vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues, and sales taxes that may
not grow proportionately with new development.
IV.12.4.3 Fiscal Impact Analysis Results
The annual net fiscal impact associated with the Project over the ten-year period is summarized
in Table M.1, below. Table M.2 represents the comparison of the net revenues between the
currently approved Project and the proposed amendment Project. As with the currently approved
Project, the amended Project is projected to generate a positive net fiscal impact to the City’s
General Fund. While the public safety cost is increasing with the additional 300 multi-family
units, the Project is still expected to generate a positive annual net fiscal revenue to the City of
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
108
Chula in Year 10 of approximately $1.4 million.
Project expenditures over the 10-year period are illustrated in the Appendix. SCG projected
annual expenditures associated with the Project to increase each year. There is a significant
increase in expenditures between Years 1 and 5, primarily attributed to Police and Fire
expenditures as all the new residential units are absorbed. Thereafter, projected expenditures
remain relatively constant at low $800,000 (814,004 - $837,226) because the Project is expected
to be built out as of Year 5.
Project revenues over the 10-year period are detailed in the Appendix. SCG projected annual
revenues associated with the Project to increase each year over the 10-year period; the largest
increase occurs between Years 2 - 4 ($658,148 to $1,320,195), attributed to the addition of TOT
tax from the construction of the second hotel and sales tax from the 15,000 sq. ft. of commercial
in mixed-use format.
able M.3
IV.12.4.4. Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions
According to SCG, both the FC-2 Amendment and Approved FC SPA Plan are projected to
generate a positive net fiscal revenue to the City of Chula Vista in Year 10. The FC-2
Amendment is expected to generate $802,187 more than the Approved FC SPA in Year 10. Table
M.4 presents the annual opportunity (cost)/benefit between the FC-2 Amendment and the
Approved FC SPA Plan.
Table M.2
Net Revenues of Approved FC SPA vs. Amended FC SPA
10 Year Analysis
Net Revenues Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Cumulative Average
Approved FC2 $645,133 $629,387 $981,061 $1,411,651 $1,435,353 $1,615,559 $ 2,805,261 $1,280,526
Proposed FC2 $645,133 $658,148 $1,005,450 $1,320,195 $1,311,647 $1,432,418 $ 1,845,954 $1,184,595
Net Change $- $28,761 $24,390 $(91,456) $(123,706) $(183,140) $ (959,308) $ (95,931)
Source: SCG
Table M.1
FC2 Amendment Fiscal Impact
10 Year Analysis
Proposed FC2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Cumulative Average
Revenues $653,432 $785,376 $1,368,936 $2,041,727 $2,278,011 $2,439,411 $ 8,997,264 $1,899,726
Expenditures $8,298 $127,229 $363,486 $721,532 $966,365 $1,006,993 $ 7,151,311 $ 715,131
Net (projected) $645,133 $658,148 $1,005,450 $1,320,195 $1,311,647 $1,432,418 $ 1,845,954 $1,184,595
Source: SCG
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
109
V.1 PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCE
V.1.1 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 Freeway Commercial North 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. 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.
Constructed by the public agency or developer.
It is anticipated that all three methods will be utilized for the Freeway Commercial North project
to construct and finance public facilities.
V.1.2 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 and recreation improvements.
The use of subdivision conditions and exactions, where appropriate, will insure 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.
V.1.3 Development Impact Fee Programs
Development Impact Fees are imposed by various governmental agencies, consist with State law,
to contribute to the financing of capital 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.
Freeway Commercial North, 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
Freeway Commercial North and areas beyond this specific project. These fees may include but
not be limited to:
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
110
1. Eastern Chula Vista ETDIF — 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.
3. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee — Public Facilities DIF established to collect
funds for Civic Center Facilities, Police Facilities, Corporation Yard Relocation, Libraries,
Fire Suppression System, Geographical Information System (GIS), Mainframe Computer,
Telephone System Upgrade and a Records Management System.
4. Park Acquisition and Development Fee — PAD Fee established to pay for the acquisition
and development of park facilities.
5. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee — to pay for constructing sewer
improvements within the Poggi Canyon basin.
6. Sewerage Participation Fee — established fee to aid in the cost of processing sewerage
generated in the city.
7. 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.
V.1.4 Debt Finance Programs
The City of Chula Vista has used assessment districts to finance a number of street improvements,
as well as sewer and drainage facilities. Both school districts have implemented Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Districts to finance school facilities.
Assessment Districts
Special assessment districts may be proposed for the purpose of acquiring, constructing,
maintaining certain public improvements under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, the
Improvement Bond Act of 1915, the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, and the Lighting and
Landscape Act of 1972. The general administration of the special assessment district is the
responsibility of the public agency.
Special assessment financing may be appropriate when the value or benefit of the public facility
can be assigned to a specific property. Assessments are levied in specific amounts against each
individual property on the basis of relative benefit. Special assessments may be used for both
publicly dedicated on-site and off-site improvements and maintenance.
As a matter of policy, the City limits the type of improvements, which can be financed by
assessment district bonding in residential projects. Such improvements are generally limited to
collector streets and larger serving entire neighborhood areas or larger. This policy applies to
backbone infrastructure including streets, water, sewer, storm drain, and dry utility systems.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
111
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 financing 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.
V.1.5 Other Methods Used to Finance Facilities
General Fund
The City of Chula Vista's general fund serves to pay for many public services throughout the
City. Those facilities and services identified as being funded by general fund sources represent
those that will benefit not only the residents of the proposed project, but also Chula Vista
residents throughout the City. In most cases, other financing mechanisms are available to initially
construct or provide the facility or service, then general fund monies would only be expected to
fund the maintenance costs once the facility is accepted by the City.
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 Freeway Commercial North, the following public sites are proposed
to be dedicated:
1. Roads (if public)
2. 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 FC-2.
Developer Reimbursement Agreements
Certain facilities that are off-site and/or provide regional benefits may be constructed in
conjunction with the development of FC-2 SPA Amendment. In such instances, developer
reimbursement agreements will be executed to provide for a future payback to the developer for
the additional cost of these facilities. Future developments are required to pay back their fair
share of the costs for the shared facility when development occurs.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
112
Special Agreements/Development Agreement
An approved development agreement exists between the City of Chula Vista and the Developer
of FC-2. This development agreement will 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.
V.1.6 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.
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 the 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.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
113
V.1.7 Lifecycle Cost
Section 19.09.060 Analysis subsection F(2) of the Growth Management Ordinance requires the
following:
"...The inventory shall include Life Cycle Cost ("LCC") projections for each element in
19.09.060(E)...as they pertain to City fiscal responsibility. The 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 are expected to be large throughout its life.
2. Life Expectancy — For assets with long lives (i.e., greater than five years), costs
other than purchase price take on added importance. For assets with short lives, the
initial costs become a more important factor.
3. Efficiency — The efficiency of operation and maintenance can have significant
impact on overall costs. LCC is beneficial when savings can be achieved through
reduction of maintenance costs.
4. Investment Cost — As a general rule, the larger the investment the more important
LCC analysis becomes.
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.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
114
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.
City Codes and Regulations provide the standards and design specifications that are required for
infrastructure. Developers and contractors are required to meet city standards and design
regulations. These standards and specifications have been developed over time to achieve the
maximum life cycle of infrastructure that will be owned and maintained by the City. Prior to
approval of new infrastructure, City Staff thoroughly reviews all plans and specifications to
insure the maximum life cycle.
The initial construction of roads, traffic signals, sewers, drainage, lighting, etc., usually accounts
for the bulk of the costs associated with a project. The initial construction activities consist of
preliminary engineering, construction engineering, traffic control, etc. Subsequent to initial
construction, the City of Chula Vista is responsible for maintenance, rehabilitation and eventual
reconstruction/replacement over a projected 50-year life expectancy.
All project public facilities for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial North SPA Plan are subject
to the City’s life cycle cost analysis before construction. The City uses LCC analysis prior to
or concurrent with the design of public facilities required by new development. Such requirement
assists in the determination of the most cost-effective selection of public facilities.
Freeway Commercial PFFP Supplement
115
APPENDIX
Spicer Consulting Group Fiscal Impact Analysis