Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-01-05 Agenda Packet
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the office of the City Clerk and that I posted the document according to Brown Act requirements. WAtD Datec!c Zd Siped: I CITY OF CHULA VISTA • • a ZEMKE Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor John McCann, Councilmember- District 1 Maria V. Kachadoorian, City Manager Jill M. Galvez- Councilmember- District 2 Glen R. Googins, City Attorney Stephen C. Padilla- Councilmember- District 3 Kerry K. Bigelow, City Clerk Andrea Cardenas- Councilmember- District 4 Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:00 PM Via Teleconference Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20, AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF MAY PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW THE MEETING ON TELEVISION AND/OR ONLINE AND NOT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. HOW TO WATCH: Watch the meeting via livestream at https://chulavista.iegistar.comICalendar.aspx, on AT&T U-verse channel 99(throughout the County), and on Cox Cable channel 24(only in Chula Vista). Recorded meetings are also aired on Wednesdays at 7 p.m. (both channels)and are archived on the City's website. HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Visit the online eComment portal for this meeting at: https://chulavista.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. The commenting period will be open shortly after the agenda is published will remain open through the meeting. All comments will be available to the public and the City Council using the eComment portal. Comments must be received prior to the time the Mayor calls for the close of the commenting period. Comments received after such time will not be considered by the City Council. If you have difficulty or are unable to submit a comment,please contact the City Clerk's Office at cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov or(619)691-5041. ACCESSIBILITY. Individuals with disabilities are invited to request modifications or accommodations in order to access and/or participate in a City meeting by contacting the City Clerk's Office at cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov or (619) 691-5041 (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. "`The City of Chula Vista is relying on commercial technology to livestream and accept public comments via Granicus, Inc. With the increase of virtual meetings, most platforms are working to scale their systems to meet the new demand. If we have technical difficulties, we will resolve them as quickly as possible. City staff will take all possible measures to ensure a publicly accessible experience. City of Chula Vista Page 1 Printed on 1213112020 City Council Agenda January 5,2021 CALL 'TCS ORDER ROLL CALL: L: councilmembers Cardenas, Galvez, McCann, Padilla and Mayor Casillas salas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TCS THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DA's'' A. 20-0533 COVID-19 UPDATE BY CITY of CHULA VISTA EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR ATO MARLON KING B. 20-0536 PRESENTATION O THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TRANSPARENCY RESOURCES WEBSITE CONSENT NT C AL.ENDAR (Items 1 .. 8) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. if you Irish to comment on one of these items, Cho so at https.-Ilchulavista.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx 1. 20-0521 ORDINANCE of THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING, A REZONE FOR A 6.94-ACRE SITE LOCATED, AT 676 OSS STREET SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) Department: Development Services Department Environmental Notice: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) 1513-0004 and associated Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been prepared. Recommended Action: council adopt the ordinance. 2. 20-0463 ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT F SES, THE PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE, AND 'TRUNK SEVER CAPITAL. RESERVE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2020 Department: Development Services Department Environmental Cance: The activity is not a "project" as defined under Section 15373 of the California (Environmental Quality Act Mate Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Mate Guidelines Section 150601(c)(3) no environmental review is regluired. Recommended Action: Council receive the report.. City of Chula Vista Page 2 Printed on 92/311202+0 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 2 of 767 City Council Agenda January 5,2021 3. 120-0472 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 8 (GREENS FEES) OF THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND ESTABLISHING NEW GREENS FEES AT THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Department: Economic Development Department Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidlellines Section 150601(c)(3) no environmental review is required., Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 4. 20-0491 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, WAIVING MINOR IRREGULARITIES, AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE "MAJOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FY 2018/2019 (STM0397 PROJECT TO FRANK AND SON PAVING, INC., AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS, THEREFOR 4/5 VC REQUIRED) Department: Engineering Department Environmental Notice: The Project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Section 15302 Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction), and Section 15,303 Class, 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 5. 120-0528 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT' WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC. FOR CIP ST 0443 "S,IDEWALK REHABILITATION CITYWIDE (MEASURE P) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM CONTRACT AMOUNT AND EXTEND THE, TERM OF THE AGREEMENT Department: Engineering Department Environmental Notice: The Project qualifies, for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing) Facilities) and Section 15061(b)(3). Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution City of Chula Vista Page 3 Printed on 1213112020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 3 of 767 City Council Agenda January 5,2021 6. 120-0435 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROPERTY LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH PIMA MEDICAL INSTITUTE, INC. FOR USE OF CITY-OWNED, REAL ESTATE AT 1 77 1 FOURTH AVENUE Department: Animal Care Facility Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as, defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidlellin�es Section 150601(c)(3) no environmental review is required., Recommended Action: Council adopt the (resolution. T. 20-0518 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND CITY OF LEMON GROVE FOR PROVIDING ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES Department: Animal Care Facility Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as, defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidlellin�es Section 150601(c)(3) no environmental review is required., Recommended Action: Council adopt the (resolution. 81. 20-0519 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 OTHER GRANTS FUND, BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $25,1000 TO THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY GRANT FOR UNANTICIPATED GRANTS (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Department: Animal Care Facility Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as, defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 150601(c)(3) no environmental review is reqluired. Recommended Action: Couln�cil adopt the resolution. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons commenting during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff If you wish to comment, you may do so at https.-Ilch ula vista.legistar.com/Calendar.asp 9. 120-0532 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED for January 5, 2021 City of Chula Vista Page 4 Printed on 1213112020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 4 of 767 City Council Agenda January 5,2021 ACTION ITEMS The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the Council and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to comment on one of these items, you may do so at https.-Ilchula vista.legistar.com/Calendar.asp. 10. 20-0407 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.26OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH ENERGY BENCHMARKING AND CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (FIRST READING), Department: Economic Development Department Environmental Notice: The Project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines Section 15308 Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment). In addition, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Project also qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Recommended Action: Coulncil place the ordinance on first reading., 11. .20-0523 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING PROPOSALS AND AWARDING AN AGREEMENT TO WIT MAN ENTERPRISES, LLC TO PROVIDE EMS BILLING AND COLLECTION SERVICES Department: Fire Department Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 150601(c)(3) no environmental review is reqluired. Recommended Action: Coulncil adopt the resolution. 12. .20-0524 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO PROCESS PURCHASE ORDERS WITH LIFE-ASSIST AND BOUND, TREE MEDICAL, FOR MEDICAL TRANSPORT SUPPLIES Department: Fire Department Environmental Notice: 'The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 150601(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista Page 5 Printed on 1213112020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 5 of 767 City Council Agenda January 5,2021 CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT'S 13. 120-0526 RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING BOARDS & COMMISSIONSI: -Dr. Harriet Baber, Human Relations Commission -Francisco Fimbres, International Friendship Commission -Barbara Orozco-Valdivia, Healthy Chula Vista Advisory Commission (Expert Rep.) COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS CLOSED SESSION Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on the next business day following the Council meeting at the City Attorney's office in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act(Government Code 54957.7). 14. 20-0543 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 549,57.6 Agency designated representatives-. Maria Kachad�oorian, Kelley Bacon, Courtney Chase,1 David Bilby, Glen Goo ins Employee organization: Local 2180 International Association of Firefighters ADJOURNMENT to the regular City Council meeting on January 19, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., in the CouncilChambers. Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item,on this agenda are available for public review,please contact the Office of the City Clerk at cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov or(619) 691-5041. Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published online. City of Chula Vista Page 6 Printed on 1213112020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 6 of 767 CITY A ;F I I EM E N T' (- NDA STAT PRO CITY OF C HU[A V I STA fti January 5,2021 File D: 20-0521 11 T11'11E ORDINANCE of THE CITY of CHULA VISTA APPROVING A REZONE FOR A 6.94-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 676 Moss STREET (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) RECOMMENDED Council adopt the ordinance. WIMMARY On December 7, 2018, shopoff Realty Investments, LLC ("Applicant" or "Developer") submitted a Major Planning Application for a General Plan Amendment (MPA18-0015), a Rezone (PCZ18,-0001), Tentative Map (PCS18-0006), Design Review (DR18-0028), Variance (ZAV18-0001) and (IS18-0004), Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting, Program for approval of a 141-Unit Condominium project. The use, as proposed, will serve a regional housing market demand in addition to the already established demand of patrons andvisitors to the Chula Vista area.The site is currently operating with four businesses and a maximum of 40 employees. The site is currently zoned industrial and each business operates in one or more of the following services: industrial repair, fabrication, and salvage. (see Locator Map,Attachment 1). On July 22, 2020, via a virtual Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission considered and approved the project for recommendation to the Chula Vista City Council. The Planning Commission's, approval Motion passed by avote of 6 -- Yes to o -- No. Fetters of opposition and in support of the project (including electronic comments) were received and are provided as Attachment S. The Project design originally presented to the Planning Commission reflected a wastewater system with two sewer mains connecting to both Industrial Boulevard and Moss street in order to avoid the Telegraph.Canyon. Drainage Channel. This design was dependent on two outside agencies (MTS, and Sweetwater Authority) approving easements across their properties to connect to the sewer main in Industrial Boulevard. Due to both agencies denying approval of the required easements, revision to the Project's onsite wastewater system was necessary. The onsite wastewater utilities will now include a subterranean private pump system to serve approximately 86 units or 61 percent of the project. All of the units to be served by the pump system are located north of the Telegraph Canon Channel box culvert drainage facility. In order to accommodate on-site equipment associated with the pump system, the applicant removed 10 guest parking spaces from the Project as originally presented to the Planning Commission. Proposed on-site parking continues to :: 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 7 of 767 exceed minimum requirements. Staff now presents the project for City Council consideration and action. The approval at issue is the, Major Planning Application for a General Plan Amendment (MPA18-0015), a Rezone (PCZ18-0001), Tentative Map (PCS18-0006), Design Review (DR18-0028), Variance (ZAV18-0001) and (IS18-0004) Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS18-0004 in accordance with the, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Director of Development Services has determined that the Project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation of' a Mitigated Negative Declaration, I518-0004 and associated Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to the CEQA Initial Study (I518-0004] conducted, the Project could result in significant effects on the environment regarding Biology, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Greenhouse Gas, Hazardous Materials,and Geology. However,revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant as presented in the MND would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The MND IS18-0004 and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were circulated for public review from April 27, 2020 through May 27, 2020. Approximately 4 comments were received. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has independently evaluated the comments and prepared written responses describing the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised. The Response to Comments (RTC's), MND and MMRP are included as Attachments (See Attachment 2). Following the Planning Commission approval and recommendation to City Council there was a change to the proposed wastewater system in the Project causing for a revised and updated Errata.The proposal would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects,. The new information added to the DraftIS/ MND is not significant, and recirculation is not required in accordance with Section 15073.5(c). In conformance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft IS/MND, technical appendices and reports, updates as referenced herein, together with the Errata, comprise the Final MND and are intended to serve as documents that will inform the decision-makers and the public of the environmental effects of this Project. Additional details of the proposed private sewer pump station are provided in the Sewer Feasibility and Technical Report (Attachment 10), prepared by Michael Baker International, dated November 11, 2020, attached hereto and incorporated into the IS/MND,. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION On July 22, 2020 the Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the Project at a virtual meeting. A motion to recommend approval of the Project passed by a vote of -Yes to 0 No. The Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval is provided as Attachment 4. Public comments submitted to the Planning Commission are provided as Attachment 5 (including electronic comments). P ill. g e 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 8 of 767 DISCUSSION The Applicant proposes a General Plan Amendment from Limited Industrial (IL) to Residential High (RSI), a Rezone from Limited Industrial (ILP) to Apartment Residential (R-3),and a Tentative Subdivision Map (TM), Design Review (DR), and Variance (ZAV) for conversion of an existing industrial facility to 141-unit (2 & 3 bedroom) tow home project consisting of 18 three-story buildings with attached 2-car garages, tot lot and common open space on an approximately 6.94-acre lot.The request for a variance is due to an existing double barreled 10'x 12" box culvert within the Telegraph Canyon Channel which bisects the site from east to west and requires a 45-foot easement in a north to south direction to bisect the site. This naturally occurring hardship requires the applicant to propose a 5-foot encroachment into the front yard setback in order to shift building away from an existing culvert easement (the "Project"). On December 7, 2018 the Applicant filed applications to process all of the subject items. The Project is on an approximately 6.94-acre lot located along the north side of Moss Street, east of an industrial building and rail line adjacent to Industrial Boulevard (the 'Site"). The Site is located between existing multifamily residential apartments to the east, industrial uses to the west and north, and single- family residential across Moss Street to the south. The current General Plan designations and densities along the north side of Moss Street are Residential High (18-27 dwelling units per acre du/acre]) and Urban Core (28-60 du/acre). East of the Site are two multifamily developments,the Villa Marina Apartments consisting of 175 units on 6.0 acres with a density of 29 du/acre and the newest development along Moss Street and r"'I Broadway, Del Oro Apartments consisting of 80 units on 2.49 acres with a 32 du/acre density. The project Site will be consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential High (18-27 du/acre) and provide approximately 20 du/acre and remain consistent with the mass and scale of adjacent multifamily properties. The Project requires Environmental Review and an amendment to the City's General Plan,a Rezone,a Tentative Subdivision Map,a Design Review Permit and a Variance as listed below: Item Permit Mitigated Negative Declaration IS18-0004 General Plan Amendment MPA18-0015 Rezone PCZ -0001 Tentative Map PCS -0006 Design Review DR18-0028 Variance ZAV18-0001 Because the project is consolidated in accordance with Section 19-14-050 of'the Chula Vista Municipal Code (C'VMC), all entitlements will be considered by the City Council. The Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council is limited to legislative actions (e.g.,requested amendments to the General Plan). PUBLIC INPUT A meeting was held at the Chula Vista Library, South branch to inform the public regarding the proposed Project and receive input on September 4, 2019.Concerns raised by the public at the meeting included: 1. potential adverse parking impacts to the neighborhood and allowance for boats and recreational vehicles onsite; P ill. g e 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 9 of 767 Z. traffic impacts to the area; 3. potential environmental impacts and California Environmental Quality Act determination in utilizing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MNDs. Environmental Impact Report(EIR); 4. pedestrian safety from poor condition of existing sidewalks; S. potential job loss from the existing uses associated with the land use change from Industrial to Residential;and 6. the fiscal impact to the City's General Fund and revenues. Based on the concerns raised,the following Project features were revised and/or established in response: 1. The Project provides all required parking (2 spaces per unit) onsite in private garage spaces connected to each respective unit, as well as 64 surface parking spaces in excess of the municipal code requirements for visitors and tenants. 2. A Traffic Analysis was performed utilizing the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) methodology based on the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (December 2018). The VMT analysis determined that the Project generates roughly 60% of the VMT of the average in the area, well below the 85% threshold and concluded that there would be no traffic impacts. 3. All potential significant environmental impacts can be mitigated; therefore, the City as the lead agency has determined that an MND prepared for this Project is consistent with California Environmental Quality Act provisions. 4. There are currently no sidewalks fronting the site. The Project will provide full street improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter along the entire width of the frontage along Moss Street. 5. An Industrial Lands Analysis (ILA) was prepared to determine the potential impact of job loss as a result of this Project. The ILA indicates that the 2,145 acres of land currently designated for industrial uses in the City far exceeds the total projected demand for industrial land through 20�50 (88,8 acres). There are currently 731 acres of industrial land in use and over 1,400 acres of unused or vacant industrial land available for future growth. It is projected that another 157 acres of industrial land will be required to meet the demand for industrial development through 2050. 'The 1,414 acres of currently available vacant industrial land is almost nine (9) times the projected demand of 15,7 acres through 2050. The Project would have a negligible effect on the City's employment capacity and will not affect the City's ability to meet projected industrial growth. The businesses on the project site currently employ up to 38 persons. The businesses will need to locate elsewhere.As noted,there are 2,145 acres of industrial land in Chula Vista (7,31 acres developed and 1,414 acres available for industrial development) to accommodate these businesses in Chula Vista. The primary tenant with 14 employees has reportedly already signed a lease to relocate nearby. 6. A Fiscal Impact Analysis (F'IA) was prepared to determine the net fiscal impact of the existing (Industrial) and proposed (Residential) land uses on the City's General Fund. The FIA concluded that the proposed land use would result in a net positive fiscal impact to the City in the amount of $311,000 over 20 years, compared to the existing land use which currently results in a net deficit of approximately ($29,000) over the same time period. The FIA found that industrial redevelopment on the site is not feasible based on anticipated construction and potential project sales prices. The residual land value would be lower than the value of the existing land and improvements of the site by approximately$1.4 to$1.9 million. P ill. g e 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 10 of 767 Staff -prepared a response to the issues raised by the residents. The response document is attached (see Attachment 3). BACKGROUND The current General Plan land use designation for the 6.94-acre Project site is Limited Industrial (IL). The proposed Project requires amendments to the General Plan (GP), a Rezone, a Tentative Map, and requires approval through the processing of a Design Review Permit and a Variance. All are subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The MND analyzes potential impacts to traffic, air quality, visual, global climate change, noise, land use, public services and utilities, and other environmental issue areas. The property has been historically used for industrial purposes, specifically, industrial repair, fabrication, and salvage. It was occupied by four businesses, Rapid Prep (4-employees), Hawthorne Machinery (4 employees), Kleenblast (4-6 employees) and Southwest Mobile Storage (12-employees). Currently, Rapid Prep is no longer at the site and in the process of relocating. Hawthorne Machinery will be moving in to a new building off Industrial Boulevard (Tun-4-All" Site) and Kleenblast remains on a month-to-month lease and Southwest Mobile Storage will remain on-site until June 2021. The project Site is located at 676 Moss Street within the Harborside Neighborhood of the City. 'The Site lies within the Southwest Planning Area and Montgomery Subarea,as defined in the General Plan (Section 8.2). The Project will provide additional high-density housing to southwest Chula Vista. The Project is compatible with, complements, and strengthens the neighboring residential developments by removing a noxious industrial use from an otherwise predominantly residential environment along Moss Street. The proposed Residential High (RH) General Plan designation is compatible with the existing RIS adjacent to the east,. Limited Industrial designations to the north and west and provides an additional buffer between industrial uses to the north and single-family residential to the south. The Project would create an alignment of uses on both sides of Moss Street between Colorado Avenue and Broadway. The proximity to other high-density housing, regional transit options, commercial businesses, and public facilities creates the opportunity to develop a pedestrian.-friendly and transit-accessible housing project that aligns with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The development will increase housing opportunities and availability while reducing an overconcentration of low-income housing within the west side of Chula Vista as referenced in the Balanced Communities Policy Guidelines (Attachment 11). DISCUSSION: 1. Location,ExistingSit,e,Characteristics,and Ownerste ip The approximately 6.94-acre Site lies near the corner of Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard within western Chula Vista. Currently, the Site is used by multiple industrial businesses for fabrication, repair, and salvage work. There are four permanent structures currently on the Site: three warehouses and one metal canopy. These structures were constructed during the 1960s and 1970s; no significant investment has occurred on the Site for decades.The Site frontage on Moss Street is unattractive, lacking sidewalks and landscaping. The P ill:1. g e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page I I of 767 frontage contains dirt and gravel, and the street curb is asphalt, either broken or missing. 'There are three large entrances with sliding chain link gates. The Site is enclosed by a chain link fence with razor wire,with temporary fabric signs and plastic tarps intermittently attached to the fence, a large back-flow preve,nter, graffiti,and visible industrial equipment storage. The Site is approximately 650 feet east of Interstate 5 (1-5) and directly north of a single-family home neighborhood, designated as Residential Low Density (RLM in the General Plan. It is bordered by industrial facilities to the north and southwest, designated as IL in the General Plan. A mobile home park, designated as Residential Medium Density (RM) in the General Plan, is located about 550 feet to the southwest, across Industrial Boulevard. Directly west is one small industrial building and rail tracks,designated as IL and Open Space (OS), respectively, in the General Plan. Further north is a large residential block, consisting of properties designated as RH, RLM, and RM. Directly to the east are high density residential apartments and a lightly used parking facility for the Sweetwater Union High School District. Further east is a mixed-use commercial corridor(MUR ,part of the South Broadway Corridor District. Direct access to the Site is currently provided on the north side of Moss Street. Regional access is provided by 1-5 via the Industrial Boulevard exit to the west and 1-805 via the L Street exit to the east. Public transit access is provided by the Palomar Street Trolley Station approximately 0.65 miles to the south and H Street Station approximately 1.3 miles to the north. A bus stop on Broadway and Moss (0�.3 miles from the Site) is served by MTS 932,which provides north-south service and connections to different trolley stations. Current pedestrian access to the Site is limited,as there is no sidewalk along the frontage.The Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan (CVP P) specifically calls for the construction of sidewalk along Moss Street in front of the Site (CPMP,P. 159). The Site contains a double barrel 10'xl2' box culvert for the end of the Telegraph Canyon drainage channel which bisects the Site.The Site also contains a short rail-spur and easement which will be relinquished prior to construction. The Site is entirely developed and consists of almost completely disturbed land cover. Existing vegetation is limited to a few small trees along the eastern edge and some minor scrub vegetation along the rail-spur.There are no natural watercourses or other features on the Site. 2. Project Descr i tion The Project proposes an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation of the Project Site from Limited Industrial (IL,) to High Density Residential (RH). The Project also proposes to rezone the Site from Limited Industrial Precise Plan (ILP) to Residential Apartments (R-3). The new land use would be limited exclusively to townhomes. Eighteen townhouse and courtyard-style buildings with 141 residential units would be constructed on the Site, achieving a density of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). 3. Land Use and Zonin The table below shows the current and proposed General Plan, and zoning designations for the subject site and the surrounding sites: P ill. g e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 12 of 767 Current Use, Existing General Proposed Existing Proposed Plan General Zoning Zoning Plan Site Multiple industrial Limited Industrial Residential Limited Residential businesses for High (18-27 Industrial Apartments (R-3), fabrication,repair, du/ac) and salvage work. There are four permanent structures currently on the site: three warehouses and one metal canopy. North Industrial facilities Limited Industrial N/A Limited N/A Industrial (IL) P i". g e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 13 of 767 Current Use Existing General Proposed Existing Proposed Plan General Zoning Zoning Plan East High density Limited Industrial N/A Limited IL residential Residential High Industrial R-3 apartments and a lightly used parking facility for the Sweetwater Union High School District. Further east is a mixed-use commercial corridor (MUR), part of the South Broadway Corridor District. South Single Family Residential Low N/A R-1 N/A Mobile-home park Medium (6-11 du/ac) West One small industrial Limited Industrial N/A Limited N/A building and rail Open Space Industrial tracks 4. Proposed Amendments Following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Rezone. Chula Vista General Plan: Amend Land Use&Transportation (:AUT) Element's applicable tables and exhibits to reflect change in land use designation of 6.9-acres from Limited Industrial to Residential High. (see Attachment 4). Chula Vista Municipal Code: Change the zone from Limited Industrial (IL,)to Apartment Residential Zone (R-3). 5. Consistency with Development Standards The General Plan amendment from Limited Industrial to Residential High and corresponding Rezone from, IL to R-3 will apply the development standards of the R-3 zone.The proposed Project complies with the R-3 zone standards with the exception of a variance request to allow encroachment into the front yard setback. ge 11 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 14 of 767 ANALYSIS: 1. General Plan Amendment Existing Conditions The Site is located north of Moss Street within the South Broadway District within the Southwest Planning Area, and currently designated as Limited Industrial. The Site is within an existing urbanized area with Limited Industrial, Residential High, and Mixed-Use Residential (MUR) designations north of Moss Street, between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway. Onsite activities include multiple industrial businesses for equipment rental, storage,fabrication, repair, and salvage work.These businesses operate adjacent to the 175-unit Villa Marina apartments directly east,which are affected by noise,dust and odors from these existing businesses.Further east,adjacent to the Villa Marina apartments, at the corner of Moss Street and Broadway is the Villa Del Oro 80-unit mixed-use apartment complex. High-density residential are the predominant land uses along the north side of Moss Street between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard. General Plan Amendment Considerations The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from Limited Industrial (IL) to Residential High (RH 18-2,7 du/acj, in conjunction with other required entitlements,would allow for the future development of a 141-unit townhome development.The for-sale townhomes would help meet the need of the surrounding community for additional market-rate housing in an area lacking for-sale development.,General Plan Objective LUT 1 calls for a balance of residential and non-residential development throughout the City.The provision of a higher-density housing project in proximity to transit,higher-density residential, commercial and industrial uses would promote this balance of uses. In addition, the proposed townhomes, which are immediately adjacent to an existing higher-density apartment complex directly east and smaller single-family residential to the south would be designed in such a manner that it would be consistent with Policy LUT 4.5 of the General Plan, which calls for maintaining the character and quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Amending the General Plan to RH would allow the development of new townhomes that will support a current market demand identified by the Applicant for such housing in the area. The proposed new use would be similar to the adjacent and nearby housing mix which consists of multi-and single-family products, in order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding land uses. General Plan Consistency In terms of General Plan Consistency,the new RH land use designation would be compatible with the existing industrial (IL) and high density residential (RH) adjacent to the Site, as well as the single- family homes (RLM) located south of Moss Street. The following are the major policies that implement the General Plan objective discussed above,and how the Project proposal complies with the same. (LUT 1.6) Attract and maintain land uses that generate revenue for the City of Chula Vista, while maintaining a balance of other community needs,such as housing,jobs,open space,and public facilitics. P :1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 15 of 767 A Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the Project indicates,an annual positive net fiscal impact to the City in perpetuity, with expected revenues of approximately $311,000 over the 20-year analysis period. • (LUQ"1.7) Provide high-quality public facilities, services, and other amenities within close proximity to residents. The Project is located within walking distance to transit, public services, and amenities, including schools,parks,bus stops,and other public facilities.The Site is within a high-quality transit corridor. • (LUT 1.9) Provide opportunitiesfor development of housing that respond to diverse community needs in terms of density,size,location, and cost. This Project provides a mix of'unit types and sizes to accommodate diverse housing needs in the City. The variation in the number of bedrooms,bathrooms, options, and private open space all factor into providing a range of home prices and housing choices. The development will increase housing opportunities and availability while reducing an overconcentr,ation of low-income housing within the west side of Chula Vista as referenced in Exhibit I in the Balanced Communities Policy Guidelines (Attachment 11).The Balanced Communities Policy was adopted in 1981 as part of the Housing Element General Plan requiring affordable housing with developments greater than 50 units. The proposed project meets the policy exemption which grants a waiver to project site's within a census tract area defined as "Area of Low/Moderate Income Concentration." Due to this, the project will be waived of the requirement and add variation in housing availability and remain consistent with the intent of the General Plan. 0 (Policy LUT 1.10): Maintain an adequate supply of land designated and zoned for residential use at appropriate densities to meet housing needs, consistent with the objective of maintaining a balance of land uses. This Project creates new residential uses at densities compatible with the adjacent uses, strengthening the balance of land uses in the immediate surroundings. 'The RH designation is consistent with similar high-density land uses north of Moss Street and low-medium residential densities south of Moss Street. The additional high-density housing would further help the city in achieving its State mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA) requirements. • (Policy LUT 4.2): Protect existing, stable, single-family neighborhoods through zoning or other regulations that discourage the introduction of higher density residential or other incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses andlor activities. This Project is compatible with the adjacent predominantly higher-density housing north of Moss Street and does not add an incompatible or potentially disruptive land use. It is located across the street from a single-family neighborhood and would increase the integrity of the residential P :1 g e 13 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,of 767 neighborhood by providing additional buffer from Industrial uses to the north and aligning residential uses on Moss Street. • (LUT 43) Require that new development, or redevelopment, through consideration of site and building design, and appropriate transition and edge treatments does not negatively affect the nature and character of nearby established neighborhoods or development. The Project will be developed on an existing parcel that is proximate to transit, 1-5 Freeway and existing roadways and adjacent to multi- and single-family residential neighborhoods , and designed with high-quality architecture and open space, which compliments the adjacent industrial and residential uses. Landscaping and fencing are provided to screen and buffer the residential from the industrial uses to the north and west. • (Objective - LUT 11): Ensure that buildings and related site improvements for public and private development are well-designed and compatible with surrounding properties and districts. This Project proposes modern architecture that will integrate well into the existing neighborhood. The provision of 336 parking spaces onsite ensures the neighboring single-family homes will not be impacted by parking, and the improved frontage will increase pedestrian accessibility and mobility for residents in the area.A total of'54guest spaces and 282 private garage spaces are provided. • (LUT 172): Direct higher intensity and mixed-use developments to areas within walking distance of transit, including San Diego Trolley Stations along E, H, and Palomar Streets, and new stations along future transit lines,including Bus Rapid Transit. The Project is within 0.3 miles of an MTS 932 bus stop on Broadway and within 0.65, miles (15-20- minute walk) of the Palomar Street trolley station. • (LUT 42.11): Building heights on both sides of Broadway and along Industrial Boulevard in the South Broadway District shall be primarily low-rise buildings. This Project proposes three-story, low-rise buildings, similar to the adjacent apartment complexes. They are not mid-,rise or high-rise.They do not front on Broadway or Industrial Boulevard. • (ED 1-3): Encourage the preservation and expansion of existing industrial uses in areas designated as industrial. This Project is not consistent with the policy to preserve and expand existing industrial uses because it removes approximately 7 acres of industrial land from southwest Chula Vista; however, based on the findings of the Industrial Land Analysis it will have no material impact on the ability of the City to meet future industrial growth. It meets the goals of the policy to ensure the long-term fiscal health and economic vitality of the City.The Project will: N Remove an unattractive,blighted industrial use that diminishes the value of and investment in surrounding residential property. N C'lean up the Site,which would likely be economically infeasible for industrial reuse. P i' g e 14 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 17 of 767 ® Generate a positive fiscal impact to the City, projected to exceed $311,,000 over a 20-year timeframe,replacing an existing use that is projected to create a net deficit of$29,00�O for the City over the same period. ® Complete planned improvements including curb, sidewalks, and landscaping along Moss Street to the benefit of the entire neighborhood. The Site is very small (0.32 percent) in terms of total allocated industrial lands in the City (2,145 acres). The approximately 7-acre site accounts for roughly 1.5 percent of the industrial lands in the Interstate 5/Industrial Boulevard Corridor (47'0 acres). The Project does not propose or encourage the conversion of adjacent industrial uses. The re-designation of the subject industrial land to high-density residential is beneficial because it creates a clearer, logical, and natural land use profile on Moss Street, provides additional buffering and protection of the existing single-family neighborhood, and supports the mixed uses in the South Broadway Corridor. Undeveloped industrial lands are designated around the Otay Landfill and Chula Vista Bayfront,and those will help absorb industrial demand in the City. Per the ILA,there are 1,414 unused acres of land designated as industrial in the City's General Plan, nearly nine (9) times the amount needed to meet the projected demand of 157 acres through 2050. (ED 1.5): Cons ider fiscal implications of General Plan amendments that propose changes to industrial and commercial lands. As mentioned above, the Project is anticipated to generate a net positive fiscal impact to the city in perpetuity, totaling over $3,11,000 in the first 20 years of the Project) compared to the existing industrial use that creates an annual net deficit in perpetuity, projected to total more than $29,000 over the same period. The Project is consistent with GP policies listed above providing appropriate transitions between land uses, maintaining the integrity of stable residential neighborhoods, directing higher density housing within areas served by transit,, preserving adequate amount of industrial and commercial lands, and fiscal impacts of proposals to reduce such lands.As stated above,the Project will be buffered from adjacent existing industrial uses to the north by providing landscaping, walls, and setbacks. The Project would also provide additional buffer between the industrial uses to the north and existing single-family residential on the south side of Moss Street that reinforce the importance of maintaining the integrity of stable residential neighborhoods. The fiscal impact to the City is projected to be a net positive,with the Project anticipated to generate over $311,000 over the first 20 years, compared to the existing industrial use of generating a fiscal deficit of $29,000 over the same time period. The Project would therefore result in a net fiscal benefit to the City of approximately$340,000 over 20 years. Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Facilities Financing Plan As a part of the Project, Koss ont Companies on behalf of the Applicant conducted a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA). The FIA was prepared using the City's approved framework to provide a consistent evaluation of all Chula Vista projects. The high-density and for sale nature of the residential units are expected to create P :1 g e 15 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 18 of 767 frequent sales and reassessments, generating net revenue for the City. The F'IA also analyzes the, existing industrial uses located on the property. Based on the City's model,the existing industrial uses create annual net deficits. The FIA indicates that the Project will generate net positive revenues in perpetuity (over $311,000 in 20 years),while the existing industrial uses are anticipated to create fiscal deficits in perpetuity (429,000 in 20 years). Additionally,the FIA studied the potential industrial redevelopment of the property.The analysis found that even with highly conservative assumptions and low projected development costs, the potential industrial redevelopment would have a residual land value substantially less than the current value of the property (approximately$5.1 million versus $6.5 to 7 million dollars). The residual land value is at least $1.4 million lower than the likely value of the property. Therefore, industrial redevelopment would not be feasible in the foreseeable future., The Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFD) prepared for the City by Michael Baker International, addresses all of the public facility needs associated with the proposed residential development on the 6.,94-acre site., The PFFD has been prepared under the requirements of' the City of' Chula Vista's Growth Management Program (GMP) and Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) [CVMC 19.09). The preparation of the PFFP is required in conjunction with the preparation of the Tentative Map to ensure that the development is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan,GMP and GMO. The PFFD for this Project analyzes the proposed 141-unit addition, any potential impacts on public facilities and services, and identifies the facilities, phasing and timing triggers for the provision of facilities and services to serve the Project,consistent with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The Project does not require the provision of any off-site public improvements;all impacts to public facilities can be effectively mitigated through the payment of development impact fees (RIFs). The only public improvements required for the Project is the provision of a new sidewalk,curb and gutter,and landscaping along the Project frontage on Moss Street. The enhanced frontage will be constructed concurrently with the Project and will not be phased. Industrial Market Considerations&Industrial Lands Analysis(ILA) The Applicant prepared an Industrial Lands Analysis (ILLS) to study the potential impacts of the proposed approximately 7-acre reduction of the industrial-designated property on the City's supply of existing and planned industrial inventory (See Attachment 3,). The study evaluated the demand and supply of industrial lands in the year 2035 and 2050 Horizon,and the significance of said 7-acre reduction. The key findings are as follows: • The City's Industrial Lands capacity is 2,145 acres based on the current General Plan. • Approximately 731 acres of industrial lands were utilized as of 2010. There are 1,414 acres of designated industrial lands that are not in use. • The proposed 7-acre industrial lands reduction represents less than 1 percent (0-32 percent) of the total 2,145 acres of industrial land in the City's General Plan. • The overall required industrial land to meet the demand is 807 acres in 2035,and 88,8,acres in 2050,, which is inclusive of the 731 acres already in use. • The incremental demand for industrial land is 7 6 acres by 2 0 5,and 15 7 acres by 2 05 0.The available supply in 2035 (1,414 acres) to meet the additional demand (76 acres) represents an excess of P :1 g e 16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 19 of 767 available land of 18.4 times the demand. The available supply in 2050 (1,414 acres of vacant industrial land) represents approximately 8.9 times the acreage of the demand (157 acres). As indicated above, the City's, currently designated industrial land significantly exceeds the projected demand for industrial lands through a Year 2050 horizon and would be able to accommodate the proposed reduction of 7 acres without adversely affecting the City's employment or industrial capacity., As demonstrated by the FIA referenced above, redevelopment of the Site for industrial uses is not financially viable based on anticipated costs and the projected resultant residual land value. 2. Rezone The proposed use is located in a Limited Industrial (ILP) zone with a General Plan designation of Limited Industrial (IL) that has been amended to Residential High. The Limited Industrial (ILP) zone requires a corresponding rezone to the Apartment Residential (R3) to allow 141-unit townhomes to be approved. The approvals to allow 141-unit townhomes will be determined by City Council through a consolidated hearing (see Attachment 6, Project Plans). In addition to the Rezone and Design Review permit,the City Council will also be reviewing a Tentative Map and Variance applications associated with this Project. The amended General Plan designation of Residential High allows 18-27 dwelling units per acre, and the R3 zone is appropriate for this type of use.The density for the 141-unit townhomes is approximately 20 du/ac. Therefore,the proposed zoning designation of R3 is consistent with the General Plan. Conformance with Chapter 19.80(Controlled Residential Development)of the Chula Vista Municipal Code CVMC Chapter 19.80 requires that the following be analyzed when a property is rezoned: 19. 0.070 Chula Vista,Zoning Code Modification A. Rezoning of property designated for residential development under the City's zoning code shall be permitted only to the next highest residential density category in any two year period according to the following schedule: A Agricultural Zone RE Residential Estates Zones R-1 Single Family Residential R-2 One and Two-Family Residential Zone R-3 Apartment Residential Zone The property is being rezoned from an industrial zone to a residential zone. 'The above provision addresses property that is being rezoned from residential to residential; and therefore,this provision is only applicable in relation to traffic generation. B.Any annexation of lands within the Citys sphere of influence shall conform to the purposes,intent and requirements of this ordinance. This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands. P g e 17 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 20 of 767 C After property is annexed by the City, the prezoning approved for the,subject property cannot be amended orchanged inany way far a two year period. The provision shall apply only to prezones approved after the, effective date of this ordinance. This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands. D. Rezoning commercial or industrial property to a residential zone shall be permitted only to the maximum residential density corresponding to the potential traffic generation that was applicable prior to the rezoning to residential. In addition, property which is rezoned from residential to commercial or industrial may not be rezoned to a residential category of higher density than that which was applicable prior to the rezoning to commercial or industrial. The subject property is currently designated ILP.The first sentence of the above language is what applies to this proposed rezone from an industrial to a residential category.The rezone of'the property will only be rezoned to the maximum residential density, which is R-3, which complies with CVMC Section 19.80.070D. Pursuant to the SANDAG Trip Generation Guidelines,the 6.9 acre Site could generate up to 1,380 average daily trips (ADT's) under the existing Limited Industrial (IL) zoning. A total of 1,128 trips could be generated under the Apartment Residential (R3) zoning. Therefore, the multifamily residential use will generate fewer trips than an industrial or commercial use, and the rezone is therefore consistent with CVMC Chapter 19.80. Additionally, an analysis was prepared entitled Transportation Impact Analysis - Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)- by Linscott, Law&Greenspan,Engineers (LLG , dated 2020.The transportation impact analysis was prepared under the guidance of City Staff, utilizing methodologies presented within the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (oPR] Technical Advisory developed to assist with implementation of Senate Bill 743 (SB, 743), which resulted in a shift in the measure of effectiveness for determining transportation impacts from Level of Service (LOS) and vehicular delay to VMT. VMT analyses are required for use in all CEQA documents as of July 1, 2020. Pursuant to S13743, Section 15065,.3(c) states., "A lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately." Projects considered after July 1, 2020 are prohibited from using LOS to determine transportation impacts and shall apply statewide. The City use of OPR Technical Advisory guidance for its significance thresholds has determined that 15%, or more reduction in VMT from the regional average, or 17.6,0 VMT per capita,is the threshold. Based on the screening map, the VMT per capita for the Project is 10-80 STMT per capita, which is 61-36% of the regional average.This is equivalent to 38.64%less than the regional average and is therefore presumed not to be significant. Thus, the Project is concluded to have no significant transportation impacts for the purposes of EQA, and no VMT-related mitigation measures are required. P g e 18 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 21 of 767 1. All off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision already exist. The on-site private streets are designed in accordance with the City design standards and/or requirements and provides for vehicular and pedestrian connections. 3. Tentative Maxi The Tentative Map proposes to combine three existing parcels into one 6.9-acre condominium lot with 141 units., Project Access: Access to the Project is provided via one full access, unsignalized driveway on Moss Street. Emergency fire access is provided via a secondary Project driveway on Moss Street, with access controlled by removable bollards., The Project proposes private streets that will provide direct access to the units. Pedestrian access will be provided by a network of internal sidewalks that connect to Moss Street. Subdivision Design: The subdivision design consists of one lot for eighteen (18) row and courtyard townhome style residential buildings. The subdivision would include centrally located common open-space and surface parking spaces available to all residents. Grading.- The Site is generally rectangular,with a quarter circle located directly north of 680 Moss Street and south of the Sweetwater Union High School property. The topography of the Site is relatively flat with elevations of approximately 36 feet above mean sea level (AMSL . The property will be graded to accommodate the proposed residential development. The conceptual grading plan proposes to import approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill and raise the Site elevation to approximately 38 feet AMSL. The conceptual grading plan would direct drainage into newly constructed storm drains, which would ultimately flow into the existing box culvert on the Site. Stormwater flows would be treated using proprietary best management practices. The Applicant shall obtain a Land Development Permit prior to beginning any earthwork activities at the Site and before the issuance of building permits in accordance with CV 1C Chapter 15.05.The Applicant shall also submit grading plans in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual and the City's Development Storm Water Manual requirements. Utilities: Water and sewer service would be provided by an existing main on Moss Street. The proposed water and sewer lateral would be privately owned and maintained. The Project is within the Sweetwater Authority service area. The Project proposes separated water and fire laterals to provide for the required water pressures. Both water and fire laterals will connect to the existing water main on Moss Street. Sewer service is provided by the City of Chula Vista. The onsite wastewater utilities will include a subterranean private pump system to serve approximately 86 units or 61 percent of the project, all north of the Telegraph Canyon Channel box culvert drainage facility.The Project will construct one private eight-inch sewer lateral connecting to existing public utilities on Moss Street. P g e 19 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 22 of 767 4., Land Use Compatibility The existing industrial uses are incompatible with the adjacent residential neighbors.'Te Site directly abuts high-density residential apartments (Villa Marina Apartments) and is across the street from single family residential dwellings south of Moss Street.The Project will complement the adjacent apartment complex and single-family neighborhood and complete a logical continuum of residential lad uses wile preserving industrial uses west of Colorado Avenue,as specifically called for in the General Plan. In addition,the Project will provide a logical land use transition and buffer from the low/medium-density single-family residential south of Moss Street to the limited industrial north of the Site. 5. Desi n Review Compliance with Development Standards R-3, Development Standards: The Applicant must demonstrate that they are in compliance with all development standards of the R-3 zone unless exceptions are provided for elsewhere in the CVMC.The Project is in compliance with all development standards with exception of the front yard setback,and is requesting a variance,which is discussed in Section of this report. Required for Project Proposed for Project :wilding height 45 feet&3 12 Stories 45 feet Setback: Front 15 feet 10 feet* Side Yard (interior) 5 feet 12 feet Side Yard (exterior) 5 feet 12 feet. Rear yard 17 feet 15 feet(with 2-ft encroachment)** Maximum lot coverage 50% 3 5% Parting 2 spaces/unit 282 Covered: 282*** Open-Guest: 54 Accessible: -Cars Total Parting Spaces Required= 282 Total Provided: 336 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 23 of 767 Re+qur+ed.for Project Proposed for Project Open space: -BR unit 400 square feet per unit; 32 units 12,800 square feet Common open space: 36,8+ 4 square feet. 8-BR unit 480 square feet per unit; 34 units 1+ ,320 square feet Private open Space: 38,247 square feet 4-BR unit 560 square feet per unit; 75 units 42,008 square feet Total open Space: 75,111 square feet Total required 71,12 o square feet Minimum floor area per dwelling unit: -BR Unit 650 square-feet 1,196 x.1,235 square-feet 3-BR Unit 750 square feet 1,652 x.1,838 square feet 4-BR Unit 850 square feet 1,758&2,002 square feet 1. `CVMC 19.1.4.1.40 states the granting of a variance is an:administrative act to allow a variation from the strict application of the regulations of the particular zone, and to provide a reasonable use for a parcel of property having unique characteristics by virtue of its size, location., design or topographical features, and its relationship to adjacent or surrounding properties and developments. 2. **CVMC 19.28.070(A)(2) provides that in those cases where the rear yard abuts an -3,commercial or industrial zone, the Planning Commission may grant up to a10-foot reduction in the rear yard setback; provided, it is found that the affected open space has been:transferred to a more beneficial location on the lot. I ***CVMC 19.62.020(E) states that tandem parking shall not qualify as required parking unless specifically approved by the planning Commission. Site Planning, Compatibility and Scale The Project was analyzed based on the design guidelines established in the City of Chula Vista design.Manual. Following is a set of design standards applicable to the proposed Project followed by a statement indicating, how the Project is consistent with those guidelines. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 24 of 767 The arrangement of structures, parking and circulation areas, and open spaces should recognize the particular characteristics of the site and should relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function,scale, character and materials; Clustering of multifamily units should be a consistent site planning element. Large projects should be broken up into groups of structures. Combining elements of varying height in building clusters; The scale of multiple family projects should be considered in the context of their surroundings. Large projects should be broken up into groups of smaller structures and taller structures should provide increased setbacks so as not to dominate and impose on surrounding uses and the character of the neighborhood. The Project contains 141 townhomes divided into 18 separate buildings ranging in design and size from single row buildings consisting of' 3-plea to 6,-p�lex, and courtyard buildings starting at 11-plea to 13-plea townhome units. The overall building arrangement, parking, recreational and open space areas, and landscaping creates a balanced mix of compact buildings with ample spatial separation on-site. The Project orientation provides one entry off of Moss Street and one circulation loop for access to each building and guest parking. Each building is 3-stories with garage parking on the first level oriented behind the main entrance of each townhome.The building structures are evenly distributed along the site and have a centrally located common recreation area for residents. The Project has been designed to integrate and blend with the context, character, and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The Project will be a pedestrian friendly development intended to provide internal connectivity with open space, landscaping and residential units designed to be interior facing buildings. The surrounding neighborhoods consist of a mix of building typologies, including 2 & 3-story multifamily buildings to the east,single family homes across Moss Street to the south and an adjacent industrial building to the west and north of the parcel. East of the Project, the newest multifamily development is within a distance of 900-ft and built at a height of 3,-stories. Because the existing multifamily building to the east contains buildings of a similar size (3 stories) along the same street, staffbelieves that the proposed height of 45-feet is compatible with the existing adjacent land use and the R-3 Zone maximum height(45 feet).Other surrounding residential properties to the east are multifamily buildings with a compatible height of 2-stories, to the south are 1-story single-family residential properties with interior facing entrances oriented east to west not visually impaired by the Project development. Walls and Secu,ri,ty: When security fencing is required,it should be a combination of solid walls with pilasters and decorative view segments, or short solid walls and wrought iron grillwork combination. Large expanses of wall surfaces should be offset and architecturally designated to prevent monotony. Perimeter security fencing is proposed to be a 6.0-foot Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) wall with a precision cap painted in earth tones to blend in with the surrounding landscape areas. Masonry P J g e 22 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 25 of 767 pilasters shall be located approximately every 100-feet along the fence line as well as at corner and entry transitions to break up long runs of fencing. Buildin-a Architecture The architecture should consider the compatibility with surrounding character, including harmonious building style,form, size, color, material and roofline. In developed areas, the new project should meet or exceed the standards of quality which have been set by surrounding development. 0 Heights and setbacks within the same building should be, varied, and wall planes should be staggered both horizontally and vertically in order to create pockets of light and shadow and provide visual relief from monotonous, uninterrupted expanses of wall. 0 Colors and materials should be complementary to the chosen architectural style and compatible with the character of surrounding development. Materialsfor multiple family projects should be durable and require low maintenance. They should be consistently applied and work harmoniously with adjacent materials. Piecemeal embellishments and frequent changes in materials should be avoided. Materials tend to appear substantial and integral when material changes occur at changes in planes. 0 Colors and materials should be consistent with the chosen architectural style and compatible with the character of surrounding development. Sensitive alteration of colors and materials can produce diversity and enhance architectural form. There is no particular architectural style required for multifamily residential structures. However, high quality,innovative and imaginative architecture is encouraged.The Project has a modern design, incorporating stucco,horizontal lap sidings, and awnings. Colors and materials are white, light tan& brown with earth tone variations and red accents. Wall planes are staggered to create visual relief, and the roof lines are heightened at various points throughout the buildings to create visual interest. All wall surfaces visible to the public are architecturally enhanced and the buildings have offsets and architectural details,consistent with the Chula Vista Design Manual. Setbacks for the building are met along the interior side yards in the CVMC but require a variance for the front and allowance for encroachment into the rear yard setback. The Applicant is requesting a Variance for front yard encroachment as a result of a physical site constraint and approval from City Council as recommended by Planning Commission under CVMC Section 19.28.070 for rear yard encroachment into the setback. The proposed rear yard setback is 15 feet instead of 17 feet. The rear yard setback will not detrimentally affect the adjacent property or the future residents of the Project. The CVMC requires that projects add 2 feet of rear yard setback for every story over 25 feet, so the required rear yard setback of the Project is 17 feet. The CVMC specifically allows for the City Council to approve the recommendation of Planning Commission to grant a 10-foot reduction in the rear yard setback if the R-3 abuts a commercial or industrial property,provided that the open space has been transferred to a more beneficial location on the lot (CVMC 19.28.070.A.2).The Project proposes a 2-foot reduction P :1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 26,of 767 in the rear yard setback from 17 feet to 15 feet. The reduction of the rear yard setback is required due to the existing box culvert on site, because buildings cannot be constructed on top of or immediately adjacent to the culvert. Equivalent open space has been transferred to a location in the center of the Project Site,which is a more beneficial and accessible location. The industrial uses to the north are screened and buffered from the residential units with a 6-foot wall and landscaping, including tree species specifically selected to create an effective vertical buffer along the Site boundary. The proposed setbacks and proper screening will protect nearby uses from noise,light intrusion,and other potentially objectionable influences incidental to residential use.The maximum allowable lot coverage is 50%, however,the Project proposes a total lot coverage of 35% percent. Landscanin-a&Scree • Landscape planting is to be used to frame,soften,and embellish the quality of the environment, to buffer units from noise or undesirable views, to break up large expanses of parking, and to separate frontage roads within a project from public streets. To accomplish these design objectives, landscape elements need vertical dimension. Trees and tall shrubs are needed in addition to grass and groundcover. Trees can also be used to provide shading and climatic cooling. • Landscaping around the base of buildings is recommended to soften the edge between pavement and the structure. Entrances should be accented to provide focus. Trees should be located throughout the parking lot and not simply at the ends ofparking aisles. The Project uses extensive landscaping to soften the edges of both the surrounding urban community and the modern architecture within the Project itself. The portion of the parcel fronting onto Moss Street is lined with a proposed mix of landscaping to include California Sycamore trees and Australian Willow and African Sumac along the perimeter of the Site to help shade front yards and provide an additional layer of visual interest at the edges. The plant palette emphasizes low water use plant material in order to comply with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (CVMC Chapter 20.12). A mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover have been placed throughout the Site, with an emphasis on placement at the ends of buildings to soften the edge between pavement and structure. In addition, the interior landscaping along pedestrian-oriented walkways and interior courtyards is consistent with a pedestrian oriented design to soften pavement and structures. " en " ace tructures.OpenSpace • Required common open space and recreation areas are expected to be centrally and conveniently located for all of the residents. Private open spaces should be contiguous to the units they serve and screen e,dfrom public view. The Applicant is exceeding the minimum of 71,120 square-feet and providing a total of 75,111 square-feet of open space, which includes a large centrally located 18,336 square foot recreational area with the remainder in common and private open space areas.Private open space is provided contiguous to the units. PJ i: g e 21 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 27 of 767 Parking and Access City of Chula Vista Off-Street Parking Regulations per CVMC 19.62.050(12) require that dwellings provide a garage or carport of 400 square-feet. The Applicant is providing a 2,-car garage per dwelling unit and an additional 54 guest spaces.The 2,-car garage will vary between tandem parking design and standard adjacent parking and depend on Planning Commission approval of' tandem. parking for the proposed Project., The, Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with tandem parking. The Project's main access is proposed strictly via Moss Street, a collector street on the, south side, of the, Project. 6., Variance Per CVMC Section 19.14.190A-D, the City Council may grant a variance in accordance with the variance findings, including establishing a hardship particular to the property that exists on the Site and was not created by any act of the owner. A variance from the front-yard setback requirement is necessary due to the existence of the 'Telegraph Canyon Channel easement and a double barreled 10'x12' concrete box culvert that runs through the Site.The culvert bisects the Site, and all buildings must be set back from the culvert. No buildings can be constructed above or immediately adjacent to the culvert. The proposed front-yard setback is 10 feet instead of 15 feet due to the need to shift buildings away from the culvert on both sides. The culvert imposes a burden that is not created by the owner and that provides a constraint on development. The box culvert is an existing condition inherently associated with the Site. The development potential of the Site is limited by the culvert because nothing can be constructed above or immediately adjacent to the culvert. The front-yard setback variances are requested so the development potential of the Site will not be reduced due to the necessary building setbacks from the culvert. The 10-foot setback from the building to the right of way results in a frontage that is comparable and compatible with adjacent development. At the closest, the buildings are approximately 10.2 feet from the property line and 16.6 feet from the back of the sidewalk,which is similar to the nearby properties on Moss Street,. The properties immediately adjacent to the Project have setbacks from the back of sidewalk to the buildings of approximately 20-25 feet; the single-family homes to the south have setbacks from the sidewalk of approximately 12-16 feet.A mixed-use apartment building at the corner of Moss Street and Broadway has a setback between 0 and 10 feet from the sidewalk. The Project frontage incorporates landscaping that enhances the pedestrian environment, with trees between the proposed buildings and the sidewalks. 'The front yard setback variance will not negatively affect the right of'moray or neighboring properties. The authorizing of the setback variance will not detrimentally affect adjacent properties or impair the purposes of the public interest.The variance will not adversely affect the City's General Plan or other adopted plans. P g e 22 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 28 of 767 CONCLUSION The proposed Project will result in the development of 141 high density townhome units on an existing industrial property on Moss Street. The Project will increase housing availability in an area with access to transit, public facilities, and commercial development. The Project will contribute to the revitalization of the South Broadway District by adding residential units and enhancing the streetscape on Moss Street to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. The Project has been designed to be consistent with the existing character and quality of the surrounding neighborhood, and it directly implements multiple General Plan goals and policies encouraging the stabilization and protection of existing residential neighborhoods. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property holdings within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action.Consequently,this item does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2,section 18705.2(a)(11),for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code§87100, et seq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRIE NT-,YEAR FISCAL IMPAcr All application fees and processing costs are borne by the Applicant,resulting in no net impact to the General Fund or the Development Services Fund. ONGOIISCAL IMPACT The FIA for the Project estimates that annual fiscal impacts are positive beginning in Year 1. In the first year there is a net fiscal surplus of approximately $70,935, followed by surpluses of approximately $,19,756 in Year 2, $14,348 in Year 3, $10,425 in Year 4, and $6,487 in Year S. The net projected General Fund Impact based upon the proposed land use is projected to be positive,with approximately$311,000 in net revenues over 20 years. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. Errata,Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Written Comments 3. General Plan Amendment,Justification Report, PF'F'P,FIA, ILA Binder 4. Planning Commission Resolution S. Public Comments 6. Ownership Disclosure Form 7. Project Plans 8. Planning Commission Draft Minutes 9. Tentative Map 10. Sewer Study 11. Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy Staff Contact: Oscar Romero,Development Services Department P g e 23 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 29 of 767 C11Y OF CHULAVISTA Planninii Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING of THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CULA MIST July 22, 2020 VIA TELECONFERENCE 00 Pm. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista PLEASE NOTE THAT, PURSUANT To THE GOVERNOR of THE STATE of CALIFORNIA'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20, AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF MAY PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING V"IA TELECONFERENCE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW THE MEETING ONLINE AND NOT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. HOW TO WATCH: Members of the public can access a link to the livestream at www. hulavistaca-gov board . Members of the public who Irish to join by telephone only, may call 1-408-418-9388 (United States'Toll) and enter the access code: 146 232 8303. HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENT'S: Visit the online eComment portal for this meeting at www.chulavistaca-gov/boards- The commenting period will be open shortly after the agenda is published for a particular meeting;and will remain open through the meeting, as described below. All comments will be available to the public and the Planning Commission using the eComment portal. Comments must be received prior to the time the Chair calls for the close of the commenting period. Comments received after such time will not be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have difficulty or, are unable to submit a comment, please contact Gabriel Innocenzi for assistance at ACCESSIBILITY: Individuals with disabilities are invited to request reasonable modifications or accommodations in order, to access and/or participate in a Planning Commission meeting by contacting the Development Services Department at p sal ci:n( chin vist . .gov (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. ***The City of Chula Vista is relying on commercial technology to livestream and accept public comments via C ran cus, Inc. With the increase of virtual meetings, most platforms are working to scale their systems to meet the new demand. If we have technical difficulties,we will resolve them as quickly as possible. City staff will tape all possible measures to ensure a publicly accessible experience.*** ALLY To ORDER ROLL CALL: Commissioners Burroughs, De La Rosa, Milbum, Nava, Torres, Zaker and Chair Gutierrez. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 30 of 767 Commissioner Nava has requested an excused absence. Commissioner Rosa joined the meeting at approximately 6:20 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE ACTION ITEMS 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 27, 2020 StaffRecommendation: Approve the meeting minutes. Commissioner Zaker moved to approve the minutes, Commissioner seconded the motion and it carried by the following vote: Yes—6 - Burroughs, De La Rosa, Gutierrez, Milburn, Torres, Zaker Commissioner Nava absent PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons may address the Board/Commission on any subject matter within the Board/Commission's ,jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Board/Commissionftom discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Board/Commission may schedule the topic fog~futzee, discussion or refer the matter to staff.If you wish to comment, please submit comments electronically at: haps:llchulavista.granicusidc?as.com/me PUBLIC HEARINGS The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law. If.you wish to comment on one of these items, please submit comments electronically at: ttps:llchu,lavi,pta.granicuside,as.com/meeti 2. DR19-0010 Design Review consideration of a seven-story mixed-use building totaling 49,555 square-feet, consisting of a 52-unit apartment complex with an affordable housing component, parking structure, 2,480 square-feet retail commercial with associated open space on approximately 0.48 acres located at 305 E Street. Applicant: Front Runner Investments 1, LLC Project Manager: Caroline Young, Associate Planner Staff recommend ation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution DR 19-,0010 approving the project, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt the proposed resolution as follows: rage 2 1 Planning Commission Agenda July 22, 2020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 31 of 767 Approve Resolution ISR 19-0010 approving the building of a 52-unit apartment complex on approximately 0.48 acres located at 305 E Street. Commissioner Zaker moved to approve the project, Commissioner De La Rosa seconded the motion at it carried by the following vote: Yes—6—Burroughs, De La Rosa, Gutierrez, Milburn, Torres, ,Faker Commissioner Nava absent PUBLIC HEARING 3. IS18-0004,MPA18-0015,PCZ18-0001, PCS18-0006,DR18-0O , and ZAV18-0001 Consideration of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for amendment to the General Plan, Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review, and a Variance for a one-lot 141-unit Townhome project located at 676 Moss Street. Applicant-, Shopoff Realty Investments, LLC Project Manager: Oscar Romero, Associate Planner Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution for 11 8-0004, MPA 18- 00151 PCZ18_00011)FCS 18-0006, DR18-0028, and ZAV18-0001 recommending that the Chula Vista City Council adopt: a.. A resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b.. A resolution for amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; c.. An ordinance for a Rezone, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; d.. A resolution for a Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and, e. A resolution for a Design Review Permit in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and L A resolution for variance accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained. That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt the proposed resolutions as follows: 0 Approve Resolutions IS18-0004, 1'' PA18-,0015, PCZ 18-0001, PCS 18-0006, DR18- 00281, and ZAVI 8-0001 for a condominium project located at 676 Moss Street. Chair Gutierrez moved to approve the project, Commissioner Zaker seconded the motion and it carried by thefbllowing vote; Yes— 6—Burruoghs, .Dela Rosa, Gutierrez, Milburn, Torres, Faker Commissioner Nava absent Page 3 1 Planning Commission Agenda July 22, 2020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 32 of 767 OTHER BUSINESS 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair and Vice-Chair for 2020-2021 The Commission agreed to keep the current Chair and Vice-Chair for 2020-2021 — Com issioner Commissioner Gutierrez will serve as Chair and Commissioner taker will serve as Vice-Chair. Motion made by Commissioner Torres, seconded by Commissioner Zaker and it carried by the Jbllowin vote: Yes—Burruoghs, De La Rosa, Gutierrez, Milburn, Torres, Zaker Commissioner Nava absent 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 6. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS The commissioners congratulated Tiffany Allen as the new Director of Development Services. ADJOURNMENT at 8:05 p.m. to the regular meeting on August 12, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. via teleconference in Chula Vista, California. Page 4 1 Planning Commission Agenda July 22, 2020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 33 of 767 L SZ SITE S51 TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET GENERAL NOTES 0 CITYOF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 1. GROSS AREA:7.29 ACRES2.NET AREA:6.49 ACRES(0.35 AC MOSS ST.RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION) 3. TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 4. PRESENT ZONINi(LIMITED INDUSTRIAL PRECISE PLAN) 5. PROPOSED ZONING:R-3(HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL ZONE) LOMAR ST 6.PRESENT USE:INDUSTRIAL FABRICATION,REPAIR AND SALVAGE 0 An> AVE I I. W -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS(CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX)20.4 DU/AC 7. PROPOSED USE:MULTI 8. INTENDED OCCUPANCY USE:RESIDENTIAL R-2(CONDOS) VICINITY MAP Qaa�_ HIGH KHOOL DISnaff 9. 1 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL __ER UNION L R T.B.PG. NOT TO SCALE D-OeWO .N.2016-11- 10.TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE:SHOWN CREATED BY BRENNER&ASSOC.LAND SURVEYOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY, ""n 0�('ij DATE:OCT.22,2018 11.PRIVATE STREETS A THRU M ARE PROPOSED AS A PRIVATE STREET TO BE MAINTAINED BY HOA. 24' 12.SEWER:PROJECT PROPOSES ONE SEWER CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING SEWER MAIN IN MOSS STREET AT THE DIMENSION VARIES 12' 1 12' DIMENSION VARIES 24' 1 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE. A SEWER PUMP STATION IS PROPOSED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC 3'MIN.(TYP) 3'MIN.(TYP) am SOME 12 12' STREETS A AND E.A SEWER FORCE MAIN WILL PUMP SEWAGE SOUTH OVER THE EXISTING BOX CULVERT.THE FIRE LANE PROJECT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER MAIN IN THE ON-SITE STREETS AND WILL BLDG. BLDG. CONNECT TO EXISTING PUBLIC SEWER MAIN. 1.5% .......... 11.5% 13.DOMESTIC WATER:WATER WILL BE SERVED FROM EXISTING PUBLIC WATER LINE IN MOSS STREET.PROJECT _ _7R Net WILL CONSTRUCT NEW PRIVATE WATER MAIN WITHIN PRIVATE STREETS TO PROJECT ENTRANCE ALONG WITH NEW rNZ7CONCRETE APRON(SLOP METERS. E AND LENGTH VARY) B le 9 14.FIRE WATER:A SEPARATE PRIVATE FIRE MAIN WILL CONNECT TO THE PUBLIC WATER MAIN IN MOSS STREET. E 011 0 01 GUTTER CONCRETEAPRON !!T�IC CURB E 6"CONCRET CUR R BBON 6"CONCRETE CURB 0"CURB_ PER SDRSD G- PER SDRSD G-01 PAVETNT7! RIBBON PRIVATE FIRE WATER SERVICE WILL INCLUDE FIRE HYDRANTS AND FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICE LATERALS. PAVEMENT- 15.STORM DRAINAGE:STORM WATER RUNOFF WILL COLLECT ON-SITE AND DRAIN INTO BIO-RETENTION STRUCTURES at THROUGHOUT HE SIT E T .OVERFLOW DRAINAGE WILL DISCHARGE TO PRIVATE STREET DRAINS.FROM THERE IT WILL FLOW INTO A PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AND DISCHARGE INTO THE EXISTING TELEGRAPH CANYON TYPICAL SECTION TYPICAL SECTION DOUBLE(10 FOOT X 12 FOOT)BOX CULVERT. 24'PRIVATE STREET/FIRE LANE 24'PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE 16.PHASING-PROJECT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN SEVERAL PHASES WITHOUT REGARD TO SEQUENCE. N.T.S. N.T.S. 17.SEE SHEET 3 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR PROPOSED GRADING CONCEPT. 2 18.ELECTRICAL,TELEPHONE AND CABLE TV:ALL SERVICES TO THE SITE WILL BE PROVIDED FROM MOSS STREET. 19.REMOVAL AND RECOMPACTION SHALL BE PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT;COMPRESSIBLE MATERIALS WITHIN AREAS PLANNED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED BUILDING STRUCTURE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED TO COMPETENT MATERIAL Z !7. .w AND REPLACED WITH COMPACTED FILL SOILS. m F_ Lj P/L 20.PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY DEMOLITION OR GRADING PERMIT,THE PROJECT APPLICANT SHALL EX R/W t0_2 Rif[__ EX.R/W <x Z)=) DEMONSTRATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT THAT ALL OFF-ROAD (SOUTH)I- 72' 2 Li 00 (NORTH) CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE USED ON THE PROJECT SITE IN EXCESS OF 50 HORSEPOWER WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH ENGINES MEETING THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY(EPA)TIER IV 36' 36'ROW DEDICATION FINAL OFF-ROAD ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS. - ------------- 16' 20' 26' 10, 21.THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA: 4.5'LANDSCAPE < 5.5' PARKWAY J ... ............. EASEMENT DESCRIPTION REFERENCE SHEET # 0 SDWK TOO. _j - 1 EXISTING BOX CULVERT SHOWN ON SHEET C-3 2 STORM DRAIN(15') SHOWN ON SHEET C-3 0 RIGHT-OF-WAY(36'R/W AT MOSS 3 SHOWN ON SHEET C-3 CA PROPOSED MONOLITHIC CURB,GUTTER, A g, STREET) AND SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-03 4 SEWER ACCESS EASEMENT SHOWN&NOTED ON SHEET C-5 EXISTING 60"RCP STORM DRAIN(COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO P.N ZC30006,SO 20304) I I y I 0 EXISTING 12"PVC WATER <(CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.11031) SITE ADDRESS: < lag EXISTING 12"PVC SEWER $ 676 MOSS STREET (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.04071) CHULA VISTA,CA 91911 80 40 0 80 160 240 < PROPOSED MOSS STREET(WESTERLY P.L.) N.T.S. SCALE: 1"=80' HOWNER/APPL1� > ICANT: SHOPOFF LAND FUND V,LPrn L JAMES O'MALLEY z SWEETWATER AUTHORITY U r w 0� 2 PARK PLAZA,SUITE 700 w P/L L)�2 m I IRVINE,CA 92614 EX.R/W EX.R/W x of 1- (949)417-1936 (SOUTH) <LLJ n Z) (NO TH) 72' m L)0 1 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS 36' MAP SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SWEETWATER 36'ROW DEDICATION AUTHORITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 11/09/2020 16, 20' 20' 16' WATER FACILITIES AND ITS DESIGN STANDARDS(STANDARDS). 0-MALILLY DAIL Q0 10.5'LANDSCAPE > 5.5', PARKWAY 2.THE WATER FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS MAP,INCLUDING SDWK RELATED APPURTENANCES REQUIRED BY SWEETWATER AUTHORITY CIVIL ENGINEER c!) x STANDARDS,SHALL BE INSTALLED AND APPLICABLE FEES IN ............IT I w ACCORDANCE WITH SWEETWATER AUTHORITY RATES AND RULES MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL ........ LEGEND BRIAN STOP.P.E. ......... PROPOSED MONOLITHIC CURB,GUTTER, UTILITY PROVIDERS PAID PRIOR TO FINAL PARCEL MAP RECORDATION. 9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD. < IL _j AND SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-03 PROPERTY LINE ELECTRICITY&GAS SAN DIEGO,CA.92124 Exi 0 ST (858)614-5000 EXISTING 60"RCP ORM DRAIN(COUNTY SAN DIEGO GAS&ELECTRIC ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER J-1 V I <0 OF SAN DIEGO P.N ZC30006,SO 20304) EX.LOT LINE 800-411-7343 618-010-26,618-010-30&618-010-31 < EXISTING 12"PVC WATER STREET CENTERLINE 11/09/2020 (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.11031) SEWER --------- --------- EX.EASEMENT CITY OF CHULA VISTA BASIS OF BEARINGS BRIAN STUP,j P.E DATE > EXISTING 12"PVC SEWER 619-397-6000 <I (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.04071) EX.TEMPORARY NORTH 18'22'05"WEST BEING THE BEARING OF THE CENTERLINE 0 PROPOSED MOSS STREET(EASTERLY P.L.) CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT WATER OF BROADWAY PER RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO.9615. SHEETINDEX SWEETWATER AUTHORITY N.T.S. PROP.EASEMENT 619-409-6751 BENCHMARK C-1 COVER SHEET C-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENCUMBRANCES STORM DRAIN THE BASIS OF ELEVATIONS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTH 0 EX.RIGHT OF WAY C 3 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN V) CITY OF VISTA AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(1 PER NATIONAL C-4 CONCEPTUAL GRADING/STORMWATER 619-397-6000 GEODETIC SURVEY BENCHMARK DESIGNATION;FOUND WELL r- PROP.RIGHT OF WAYC-5 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN MONUMENT AT CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF MOSS STREET EX.R/W EX.R/W CALTRAINIS C-6 FIRE AND CIRCULATION PLAN (WEST) (E T) EX.BUILDING AND BROADWAY,STAMPED-RCE 32133". 72' 760-639-6177 LYING WITHIN QUARTER SECTION 165 OF RANCHO LA INACION, 36' 36' EX.POST TELEPHONE TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH,RANGE 2 WEST,CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AT&T SAN DIEGO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA. PROJECT AREA SUMMERY: 16' 26' 26' 16' EX.VALVE 855-327-0860EXISTING LOT AREA: 0 ELEVATION:54.15(NAVD88) 618-010-26:0.67 AC 0 of PARKWAY @w EX.MANHOLE CABLE TV 68-00-31:6.61 AC ............. cr EX.SIGN TIMEWARNERCABLE 618-010-32: 240 SF pi 714-903-4000 FLOOD ZONET_0TKL 7.2-9 AC EX.FIRE HYDARANT ZONE X [if CONTIGUOUS SIDEWALK EXISTING AC BERM Fif TRASH/REFUSE INSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 0607302152 F PROPOSED LOT USE: 0 0 REPUBLIC SERVICES DATE JUNE 11,2004. 1 LOT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES or EX.TREE 619-421-9400 Ld PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION: m EX.CONTOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT EXISTING 15"VCP SEWER CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY CONDOMINIUM MAP STATEMENT 36'DEDICATION IN MOSS STREET:0.35 AC oor r (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.11031-03) THIS IS A MAP OF A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSED LOT AREA: m 619-425-9600 SECTION 1350 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE PURSUANT TO THE INDUSTRIAL BLVD. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ONE LOT:6.94 AC SWEETWATER UNION HIGH IS 141. (CLASS 11 COLLECTOR) SCHOOL DISTRICT 619-691-5500 C-1 z 0 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. N.T.S. < San Diego,CA 92124 NOVEMBER 09,2020 Phone:(858)614-5000 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERINTLCOM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 34 of767 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENCUMBRANCES TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA _ 010-16-00I V SWEETWATERPUNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ,F 660 L STREET QUITCLAIM DEED DOC NO 2016-061-0802 JJJyyy �I1__ � 1 I U t •. i �-�.` v T EX.FIRE HYDRANT:.. N '00 E 420.73' cP V7 ,'fh APN#618-010-31EXISTING FENCE ARIZONA STREET LEGAL DESCRIPTION j _ 3 �`"` T, LEGEND w fLt� EXISTING FENCE I f - PROPERTY LINE C I. REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,DESCRIBED AS 3 �) C ] o- ,-"`-, 8,0-„,._.,_..-R__,,, o �,. q APN#618-010-32 == a �`" � .. 8 _ -- EX.OFF EFECATCE BASIN EX.LOT LINE FOLLOWS: I x v r - -. T IN M pp o re f --- i N O i _ EI$350 APN618-010-31: I Z= U / -- -�-- _ s(3o"RcrswLv) _ STREET CENTERLINE —————————— EX.EASEMENT ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF QUARTER SECTION 165 LYING I a - SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY 638 FEET OF EVEN WIDTH,AND LYING EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY 240 FEET . ' EX.TEMPORARY EVEN WIDTH THEREOF,ALL BEING LOCATED IN THE RANCHO DE LA NACION,IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, r o 1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.166 MADE BY MORRILL,FILED CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT U py U `r�' ry roe i IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. _ N a Oj cQ ; EX.BUILDING ,' 09�, r, a APN 618-010-26: APN# F Ex.PosT f618-010-26 " TO BE REMOVED THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF QUARTER SECTION 165 OF RANCHO DE LA NACION,IN THE CITY I _ AND RELOCATED EX.VALVE ��. OF CHULA VISTA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.186,FILED IN / I r THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,MAY 11 1869,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: i I �i l/ / 3- EXISTING f b G H EX.MANHOLE Ex.SEWER MH f /�,� h' BUILDING41 fJ, ".' ..,."� TO CATCH EX.SIGN BEGINNING E L POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE R THE SOUTHWESTERLY SECTION FEET OF THE n ' /% /i f rJ DEMOLISHED) NORTHEASTERLY HALF OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY QUARTER OF SAID QUARTER SECTION 165,DISTANT THEREON I � % / TO BE I Ex.BE REMOVED CATCH BASIN RIM33.n EX.FIRE HYDARANT a NORTH 18°19'00"WEST,300.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF MOSS STREET(80.00 FEET WIDE),THENCE IIII °'o " " 1 IE 27 17(30"RCP NELY FH o REM.ED 2 J ( ) I O ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE,BEING PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 150.00 FEET NORTHEASTERLY, l; 9 12 -i IEz6.sz 3o°RCPSELY) MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES,FROM THE ORIGINAL LOCATED CENTER LINE OF SAN DIEGO AND ARIZONA I r i (D ( EX.TREE i POINT IN THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT 397.25 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S MAIN TRACT SAN DIEGO-SAN YSIDRO NORTH 18°19'00"WEST 293.76 FEET TO A / ( ), I /�/ 30.00' EX.CONTOUR O �,I CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY,A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 56°55'53"WEST TO SAID POINT; l oCA THENCE DISTANCE OFTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF 249.23 FEET O AN INTERSECTION WITDH AL NE WHICH S PARALLEL VE,THROUGH A �W TH AND DISTANTL ANGLE OF 35D 48"A Ito'FROM EAST TRACK¢ W Cn M z y EX.CATCH BASIN 50.00' ��- NORTHEASTERLY 15.00 FEET,MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTER LINE OF SAID MAIN TRACK; I PROPOSED ESMT TO MTs / } I o`-o THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 18°19'00"EAST,89.11 FEET TO A POINT DISTANT THEREON f;? 87-0170-8 W W EX.EASEMENT ...... " OFO U NORTH 18°19'00"WEST,300.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF SAID MOSS STREET;THENCE PARALLEL WITH ! TEMPORARY p EXISTING Tauc uaE nrraoz CONSTRUCnoN �' I a= OO PLAN REFERENCE NUMBER w �.J "' ! ;; SAID CENTER LINE,NORTH 71'41'00"EAST,135.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF \ /4 ',CONS7RUCTION a� ExIsrING cuLVERr_:°yup°p cuLVERTC UREAT oN, EASEMENT W N a a r BEGINNING. \` EASEMENT roBEREMoveD W Y 7 CONNECTION p EX.CATCH BASIN PROTECT IN PLACE \\\\ \ \ — I J 87-0247—1 RIMC30.50 BASIN I ,..... --•--(TO BE REMOVED) Z 3= \ FL 28.85 4"PVC NLY ONNE _ J REMOVE GATE d(n C.D - EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID PROPERTY LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500.00 FEET MEASURED 7 I / ' ) f /, I I Q = z / C VERTICALLY FROM THE CONTOUR OF THE SURFACE THEREOF;PROVIDED,HOWEVER,THAT GRANTOR,ITS .\ \ \ 4 FL zs.so a°PVC ELY) SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,SHALL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER TO ENTER UPON, -- ____ ✓_ INTO OR THROUGH THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY GRANTED HEREIN OR ANY PART THEREOF LYING BETWEEN o �"'�I ExlsrwG CULVERT / O 1 �. CONNECTION, _... ..,,,. Ate..;,;;,,,mm ...1._......- --._�.�.-�,.,- -� D_ SAID SURFACE AND 500.00 FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE. I \ I I '' PROTECT IN PLACE n Fs --`-`----------- // r \O "r' N 8,7-0247—Bi 9�—- _—..... —— — _ _..... Oj TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL ^" i .—_ _ .._,,;;;,.._„ 2'12x10 RCP BOX CULVERTS_,,- i 7 50 F EX.4 84'RCP 5D 4 � .m �L I I4 CONCRETE _ 91a.:-_.,,�u� :,_ �:: 1¢. .. I RANSITIDN STRUCCUR 14 r � �,I,-'. EXISTING UTILITY PLAN REFER �� O ---- — REFERENCES - � "`� �'�-t-- - r� -•� US ARMY RPS OF ENGINEERS OS ANGELES I T11 � I 1 CO G (L G � EXISTING EASEMENTS o� I I I 2 ✓`` ---� DISTRICT)TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL DACW DESCRIPTION DISPOSITION DOC.# \ E O09-8.... yb.L.. I �, a ,,, , � P� 7-0016 � N 5 ! 27.00' 5 PUBLIC HIGHWAY-SAN DIEGO LANDS,INC TO REMAIN BK.863,PG.128,9!16/21 ¢J : c 25 00 b 2 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG 11031 0 m I 4 N713 �135. .� cP"�c�� 87 0170-A \ N oN„�� ,,µ 87-0170 - i 7 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT-SDGE TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.74-154472,6111/74 I j R I ao ��\ `Gµap R�eO x v i� 3)CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG 04071 > I i C,, 8 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT-SDGE TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.74-232956,8/27174 "' � W o 2 I m 87-024-BJ ExlsrmGFENCE',�\"` 1Z�1 y "�/ ®STATE OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION _ I/ 9 RAILROAD EASEMENT-SD,AZ&EASTERN RAILWAY CO. TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.77-302949,7!27!77 AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DWG.NO. Z 10 FLOOD DRAINAGE CHANNEL EASEMENT TO REMAIN INSTR.79-044389,1129/79 W I l I \V - 57709-JULY 1970 z 11 FLOOD DRAINAGE CHANNEL EASEMENT TO REMAIN INSTR.83-199081,6/14183 a I!III t~it I" ¢ 5 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG 60-1 L a 12 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT-SDGE TO REMAIN INSTR.85-341634,9/17/85 a i `, ,EXISTING I o OIL I r I..... o{ 1 44 7.50 BUILDING ,.- I oo ©SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WO A3403 IL 13 FLOOD DRAINAGE CHANNEL EASEMENT REMOVE PORTION INSTR.89-011720,1110/89 0 z A + 45.00' 87-0247-81 (TO 8E '" EXISTING oI N w 7O SWEETWATER AUTHORITY MAPBOOK#165 I DEMOLISHED'', EXISTING WALL M H UUJ v 87-0170-A TO REMAIN INSTR.89-011720,1/10/89 I 87-0247-A1 �, w n 87-0170-B TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.89-011720,1/10189 a °',, UILDIN ¢o (I)COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PN.ZC3006,SD20304 87-0170-C TO REMAIN INSTR.89-011720,1110/89 I a �` B(TO HE Q z n N 9O MBI GROUND SURVEY/POTHOLE DATA(DEC.2018) N " 'O Z D_ V) 14 FLOOD DRAINAGE CHANNEL EASEMENT REMOVE PORTION INSTR.89-011721,1/10/89 f ( N o, 1 ( ".- ,"'' DEMOLISHED a" [-- I l.�l .<g V) > 87-0247-A1 TO REMAIN INSTR.89-011721,1/10/89 o O $ , - r�a a 87-0247-Bi TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.89-011721,1110/89 a I CL ID 0 EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS(PER FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PRELIMINARY REPORT ORDER NUMBER ;� w ..I ......, --I n,j. 1 ... 1 a NCS-886424-SD UPDATED AND AMENDED JUNE 7,2018. "" I I _co - l --.. I - EASEMENTS PLOTTED PER BR04ER k ASSOC.LAND SURVEYORS ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY,DATED OCTOBER 22,2018. I I o IEL N-o °�,°r`'E%'.CATCHBASIN ( HYDRANT l J .....i W �`L" <, p(TO BE REMOVED)... — I r I DRANT o U l� � 1 d z EX.CATCH BASIN p p G W O EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED \\ i 1 T I .... ........ l0 Q V1 \ J, I I. ..I...,, ...,,.. {\ / rY U. I H I30.00' a 1,, ; \ i \\\ 112.00' �- 3 o �p �� I 'I i o ;S` �� I I Of 60 I E%.15"PVC SEWER 2 I .,., ..... „_„ 12-PVC SEWER Q !, �o p f _ o EX.1 EX.12"PVC SEWER 2 n 1 f W 2 EX.SWR LATERAL %.DRIVEWAY /--- -- --- — — -- ---_ — . ' — —��r— ---e. �L EX.DRIVEWAY DD y — — EX DRIVEWAY — -- — — _ 1. -,�... - r 3 EX.SWR LATERAL - ° 40 20 0 40 80 120 a _ 'I; r ..., I...... 12 .....-6-�� m EX.12'PVC WATER 2 Ii 4.00 (DEX.SWR LATERAL EX.CATCH BASIN/ K "'" R " / X.AClER! bis .E N T I HDPE SD I E%12 PVC SEWER SCALE: 1"=40' N71 3810 E 420.84 �} ex.lr' a.,. m. I,. -sE, {� � �8 x -r--- 3 I� 3 ., , EX 8'PVC SEWER r" PWER 3 EX.15"PVC SEWER 2 _ .: - L S ET EX 12"PVC Sn VC SEWER E.., EX 8'PVC WATER 7 60"RCP 8 VCP SEW ER O � EX 8"VPC SEWER _ 9755 CI81FenlOnl MOSa BIVd. Z EX 60 RCP SD PUBLIC STREET 3 __ _ _ a 2 2 u w - LAWN San Diego,CA 92124 v - COL ADo - NOVEMBER 09,2020 9' n w ._ AVE a - INTERNATIONAL (8 T. a AVE Phone:858 614-5000 i MBAKE IN L COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 35 of 767 050l TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ICONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN (87-0170-B INSTRA.89-011720,1/10/89, TO BE QUITCLAIMED-PER ALTA) TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP N O. 18-0006 `3,25'EASEMENT ( 3'MIN.(ON DIMENSION VARIES 24' DIMENSION VARIES 3'MIN.(TYP) 12' 12' I I (87-0170-C INSTRA. ( BLDG. BLDG. 19'± I 89-011720,1/10/89) 27.00'EASEMENT 13'± I 676 MOSS STREET BLDG. I (87-0170-A INSTRA. BLDG. 1.5% 1.5% CONCRETE APRON(SLOPE N0. I I I 89-011720,1/10/89) I ( N0. 0"CURB AND LENGTH VARY) 10 18' ( 24'PRIVATE I ST.K ( 17' ( 11 CONCRETE APRON O I DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY CITY O F CHULA VISTA,STA, CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT GUTTER 0"CURB APN 618-010-16-00 I I I SWEETWATER UNION,HIGH,SCHOOL,DISTRICT,,, SECTION D-D QUITCLAIM bEED6DOC NO0 L .2616-" FF=40.0 I ( ( I FF-40.0 'll r ~ 061 0802 ET NTS 1 „r. . f,"," DEEPENED I ( I. ( ( DEEPENED I I. +1, OFFSITE EXISTING FOOTING I - v DtrcH - --_ _-.-- 5 0± I I _ r, FOOTING I� _ 1 EXISTING DEPTH F N - N71%f4 00 E IE 31.27 420.73' E w PROPOSED DRAIN I /8.5' TOP OF BOX EL.:l ) VARIES(±1') J 2 o JE 30.60 TYP. I �:t�s.�, O IE 30.50 5 j,t':,¢. +�' 1g (IE=26.2±) I N b s -s EXISTING I o u 24' CONNECTION TO I f I I o o m o m ; < IE 10 ® FF=38.9 AR¢oNA srnEE GRADING TABULATIONS 12 2a' ERT TO Box CULVREMA N oo N R PAD=38.2- SITE GRADING `� Mtn O h w +�� °�T W c� "' TOTAL AREA OF ONSITE TO BE GRADED: 7.29 AC. PROPOSED 6.5'EASEMENT ( I I I I 0 0 0= Z M II oI m n m rn 37.9 GF 37.9 GF 38.2 GF 38.2 GF 38.4 GF TO CITY OF CHU A VISTA [ cD u p m m m M �� 1- M m y %OF TOTAL SITE TO BE GRADED: 100 �- U � ILL�� - � Im 11I p M 9 (� r` •� AMOUNT OF CUT. 0 CUBIC YARDS PROPOSED 15'I 27 a',0 0 2 O d LL a LL a LL¢ - �� -- N Ex.OFFSITE STORM NLEr AMOUNT OF FILL: 10,000 CUBIC YARDS EASEMENT TO EXISTING DOUBLE BOX CULVERT I ,o_ p „- W ILL a I 32.70 37.9 GF 3PRFVAB E S 3azcF•3s.acF - (30 I 35.44 AMOUNT OF EXPORT: 0 CUBIC YARDS o IX x•50 AMOUNT OF IMPORT: 10,000 CUBIC YARDS z t,a IE 29.88', D Il 'RCP SWLY) REMEDIAL GRADING EXPORT: 15,000 CUBIC YARDS THE CITY OF a w \ i¢ a c FF-38.9 CHOLA VISTA 45'EXISTING AND PROPOSED EASEMENTS a ¢ IE 29.60 `b $3 I 3 '•,s - I F- INTERgEP NOTES rya le o I IE 28.35 GF M m -e _ -- pqD=38,2` y EXISTING NOTE:QUANTITIES SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE EXCAVATION 1. ALL BOX CULVERT DIMENSIONS PER U.S.ARMY CORPS OF 3 a / NG OFFSITE AC BERM FOR BUILDING FOOTINGS,UTILITY TRENCHING AND ENGINEERS(LOS ANGELES DISTRICT) I w O o 4 3s� r S, O 9 = ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO BULKING/SHRINKAGE. h SD TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL DACW-09-87-0016 I 1n a \ o 0o 2. SEE SHEET C-2 FOR EXISTING EASEMENT 13. 1 y e cF ` PROPOSED 30"STORM DRAIN(REROUTED). _ 18"SD 15.51 18'S d�IE 31.91 3' ,, , OFFSITE DRAINAGE PASSES THROUGH SITE, SECTION A-A I �� +� 3s, ` e NO ONSITE CONNECTIONS N.T.S. •: _ -- �� �, P F 3B GFQGFIE 28.79 PRIVATE ST.B IE 28.18,EO.ex p FF=38.9 ` u, - LEGEND kA' o/ q� 9 x PAD=38.2 �, I I 36 a� PROPERTY LINE 37.9 GF 37.9 GF 38.2 GF 38.2 GF t 38.4 GF 15 PROPOSED 15'STORM GRAIN EASEMENT �� 50'±TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT I y r0 THE CITY OF 04LLA VISTA IE 29.92 m co _�1• o.as �ti I! - STREET CENTERLINE Q (87-0170-B INSTRA.89-011720,1/10/89, TO BE QUITCLAIMED-PER ALTA) I I \ sa c IE 32.35 ;PRIVATE ST.J �' ------------ EX.EASEMENT o 25'EASEMENT I I f rr '?sg Gp ���3.0 1 •y),`I• `r' m ` - 37.9 GF X37.9 GF 38.2 GF 38.2 GF 38.4 GF 3 6 ------ PROP.EASEMENT o (87-0170-C INSTRA. i as c GF s a - 2a' / 2 7to 3f N O e BUILDING NUMBER o 89-011720,1/10/89) I I AGF Nz 2 FF=38.9 I o �- 18 N ' GF o ( I PROPOSED FENCE UNE as ss M M ". PAD=38.2 a O Z- ss GF, AF q sGF ss 2. o m a LL`O r .._ 15' r%1 Z L EX.DIRECTION OF FLOW 20'± 27.6'E�SEMENT 12'± R/l/7 3 4 N R N 87-0170-A INSTRA. BLDG. 10-FROM EAST TO q �sT 7B• GF LL¢ ° r to I p o o M o J rn (36) EX.CONTOUR BLDG. I F u a u o O s� UNo2E,000 D - BIOCLEAN,�4 `w J W am w N6 12'±I 5' I 25'LANDSCAP AREA 5' I 13'± I 17 BI IocxEaN UNIT l l�I ; `" 3'GF 4G� g - C C 3 o a EX.STORM DRAIN I as-o117zo,1/10/as) I No. I 2- R i as / a:: q ss s tr O �• A \IE 30.50 8"PVC IN 1 ' i ' 12 N, s ,E MWS-L-8-24 _ '� to w N a o_ SD STORM DRAIN Y SDWK SDWK I�, OUT J / GF IE •06 G STORAG IE 26.59 18'IN FF=40.0 �✓ N Z = .. pl 6 ( <, IE 29 00 8'PVC fiO 23 i7; H k B� IE 25 97 18'M PAD=39.3 rr Q(n0 STORM DRAIN PIPE FLOW DIRECTION a m A F 39 S GF 39.5 GF 39.2 OF 2 GF 38.5 OF ]E 26.65 PROPOSED 6.5'STORM BIO-FILTRATION SYSTEM ~ E 6.91 FF=39.0 - 3 I 27. 5 8 GRAIN EASEMENT TO TFE •--.•.••••• Q s s� _ s s s s F �'l OF CHMa.A VISTA (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-4) .. •••• DEEPENED N Tj l p O\ SEE sECTIONS A-A AND B-8 FF-39.2 � �� "'7Ss t o � F s q DEEPENED I I �,,,, I y ------- x TOP OF EX.BOX CULVERT a FOOTING I k i ---- -------- F a T/BOX FOOTING r i,,,, I J / T y 3001,}\\d= s2G Q +FS _+1<I - E.a.esIANDSCAPF I � cy-Cu�NC�iIONro ExIST IVATE ST.K �:I y°j' a o i. BOX EL.=34.0± I _ cl. m a " R% ¢ o.ex a -_ FF FINISH FLOOR TOP OF r ,a F p � [E z5.7o: � EXISTING DEPTH \ 36. SGP y.. -- - -- --_ _-- - -- -- - N cD - 8.4'I 5 I I VARIES(±1') I J I �� \ \ Eey gC7 T \p 2GF ¢ /f ao5 - - - - -- - -- -- -- - I- --- _ 1' f �,rT F L FS FINISH SURFACE N O O J 1-'.R1 \`\�� \� ry +� 1.9X /S 0 24' 39.5 GF 39.5 GF 39.2 GF 38.2 GF 8 8 GF E 33.00 """'- X U a\ ���..\-- � ---. '/%�� / /'//� B FF=40.0 E9MI.(81"1-A INSTR. GF GARAGE FLOOR PROPOSED 18"----t0 6.5 I 12 I I I I z `� / \ - a9 01n20.1/m/69> PRIVATE STORM � _ 1 � � ,, � © � DRAIN(IE=27,40) I I I I (- ovERLnr1D{ H \ m N71 3810E 135 00' - d f 11, /i �' PAD=39.31 GB GRADE BREAK `° ESMT TO CITY OF CHOLA VISTA EXISTING DOUBLE BOX CULVERT - '�y / 1 10 > PROPOSED 6.5'EASEMENT 27' I I a,, r �j� ry j N m 89-0.(e7 o1/10/[NsrR.__ J Q I m �\\�� _` / /i o M M M W o /8s ott72O,i/io/as) xFS 35.1 SPOT ELEVATION E LL u-a I- Z iY �� ui a 11 j ti 0 Q v FLOW DIRECTION Z 45.0'EXISTING AND PROPOSED I I --- ° tr ? r BOX CULVERT EASEMENTS N ©45.0'FLOOD DRAINAGE, ""'A- s - o � Ft -- a IL' FF=40.3 N ro ❑Q PROP.SD CLEANOUT(SDRSD D-09) - CHANNEL ESMI(87-0247-A1 f G G NOTES IX..AINCTION a5 'SH'' PRIVATE ST.D '� 39.1 GF 39.1 GF 39.5 GF 39.5 GF 39.8 GF w O d c,,ll- '',O ,�.. 1 OFLEBOX NGWEERSVIOS ANGELES DISTRICT S.ARMY CORPS I z INSTR.as otnzt t/10/as) �� a c�a S O m O PAD-3s.6 oo, ��I ® PROP.CURB INLET(SDRSD D-02) o _ y �_ 17 16 N iI 25. F F- w"• uj TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL DACW-09-87-0016 I IE zo 4 151 S8' a 1�'" PROP.CATCH BASIN(SDRSD D-08) < * DIMENSIONS VARY(MINIMUM SETBACK 5.0) S F?•4x IE 26.19 1 -1e•sD a ta's0 S tz sD - o„Q""z.�n ® N 2. SEE SHEET C-2 FOR EXISTING EASEMENT 13. I z IXIsnNG fio" r y3;•� F-IE zs.o3 i PRIV IE t.2s u1 > (, I o �- IE 27.09 o.ax ATE ST.D z n EX.CATCH BASIN ¢ N Q p a0 o PROP.MONOLITHIC CURB,GUTTER, O 37.5 GF 37,g GF 37.9 GF 38.2 GF 38.2 OF 39.1 GF 39.1 GF 39.5 GF 39.5 GF 39.8 GF SECTION B-B I o O` DRAIN IE 25. �,,� o 18 u &SIDEWALK(SDRSD G-03) 0 o J �,::, IE 2s. t 2a z-¢0 II,-, FF=40.3 aJ "J,:p N.T.S. u J BIocLEAN uNlr 1',, w tn� "'� 12 J PROP.RIBBON GUTTER o oro 123.55 u¢ m PAD-38.0 PAD-39 6 a NOTE. o ozo 0 0 PAD= 38.0 r y N u_a w� ¢ SEE SHEET C-5 FOR WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. v) MWS{-8 24 IE```I ,.•,,,. a ItnZ 15.0 I 5 o z CI BLDG. EASEMENT u o �¢ IE 26039SD 1'\ \\ a 5g� FF=37.9 16 0 a. CONE TO N0. ( 3 i PAD=37.2 FF=39.2 0 CHULA VISTA) I u ¢tn Q5''A �� I 27.21 PAD=38.5 p Q CITY OF ao 0 1 t) 7.5' S.0' I p I Z 30 36.7 GF 37.1 GF 37.1 GF 37.4 GF 37.4 GF D � l O IXISTINGS9 38.0 GF 38.0 GF 38.4 GF 38.4 GF 38.7 GF J _ 60'STORM • " CMU WALL PER i o� �'zoa iq g �� \+ taw sD s�1 t.°- �`" N 5 h o 2.5'I I LANDSCAPE I o / - a 24'' IE 27.85 8R IE 29.08 FF=40.0 ~I PLANS - I ' 24. 16.\,\ 47„ .. ro \ \ N E� PRIVATE ST.L o fl TYPE l 36:9 GF 372GF 37.2 GF .38.0 GF 38.0 GF 38.4 GF 38.4GF 38.7GF U 5 FG=±37.0 D RAAP 2 DEEPENED I ) ,,,,"": (SDRSD G-31) FF=37.7 --. - 20 FF=39.2 D o FOOTING I I EXISTING OFFSITE I of x,IxcrtoN LA AC BERM 38' 30 SID ��\ AD= 14 1 13 PAD=38.5 or EXISTING R/W fid.... ,�,: IE IN 23;.50 PROPOSED...._. .,,1,r !..J .. � R/N \ 1 0- IXISTINO R/W 40 20 0 40 aQ 120 m 30"PROPOSED RCP -_ n n r t 31.08 Fs )! _ _ _ -4 -- - or " -., STORM DRAIN 1 -CONNECTION /,EXISTING a1Re- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT} EXISTING CURB O �...-.-.-.-..-.- MOSS$- TT TYPE C RAMP EX ISD ... EX ! SCALE: 1"=40' CROSS ER ,� / _=D RAMP- -- W IE-±28.0 _ �- BASIN J.e ;: �GUTTER 7REET I) CROSS GUTTERS(SDRSD G-29) 1 N 9 Q i7- SECTION C-C _ ,,� EXISTING sttlEwALX � 12 --1 DEDICATED o THE N713810 E(420.94 ) ���' �"IXIsrINc SIDEWALK4 - - Q IXISTING R/W TYPE A -TO OF�CHULA VISTA - ISTING R/W -� Imp .' :. San Diego9755 ,CA 92124 mont Mesa Blvd. N.T.S. -: -- (SDRSD G-27) -. - NOVEMBER 09,2020 Phone:(858)614-5000 INTERN ATI 0 N A L MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 36 of 767 CONCEPTUAL GRADING/STORMWATER TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET f, CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA I 30:80 , a, i -- y u — o w s so so o LLo m • o E� w LL o e nzc=n K 28.5 .. ... . . ... �D 15'PROPOSED REAR YARD SETBACK zs wa E za.35 (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) R/W E Z9 1.91 .. O.BS B.BI so--s ♦.fiS 2a.0' 1 ( 24.0' l 24.0' 1 � 24.0' l I A 5 p P n i W_, 7.6' 7.6' 14.8' 15.8' 5.0' 3.0' 3.0' 3.0' Z 112.5 133 7 93 0 J 91.3 .. 37.5 10 2 I � � 60 60 UNI ... � ..� .. ..� ... .. ... .. ....I ... .... JI ... .... ... 1 ..... .. ��.. .. ...W Lr- ^' SWEETWATER O L> UNION HIGH BUILDING 5 BUILDING 7 BUILDING 16 BUILDING 15 BLDG. Of F— I .... scHooL Cr, = tE 2s 5 DISTRICT _j Ifi�.. � „..................... PAD ELEV 38.3 l � 1- N O PAD ELEV 36.9--N... 1 z+ „F,a, ou , 40--__Z,1� � l � l 1 40 PVT.ST.K iPAD ELEV 38.5 PVT. ... ST.B J J PVI.STTD �PAD ELEV PAD ELEV PAD ELEV 37.0 J ' .. . .. . ... ... .. N -38.0 37.2 BIOCLEAN PVI.ST.L UNIT, r I TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL I I 1 2 12 X10 BOX CULVERT oN z. Po3ao R09-87-OCf \ DACW 16 G 2rn r 20 J 27'EXISTING DOUBLE BOX CULVERT 20 11 3,12} I PROPOSED EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA.SEE I a 9 ____ o__- 1,7 -- J � J SHEET C-3 R DETAILS. ME 0 0 —~� MOSS ST ET .., 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 0 CROSS SECTION'A' 80 40 0 80 160 240.01 , w SCALE: HORIZ 1 =40 SCALE: 1.=80' VERT 1"=10' UD J D Z Z Z Q J O CIL U MANHOLE a WETLANDMEDIA VERTICAL BED - -- - - - ------------------ > UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD a PATENTED - - PERIMETER c=i VOID AREA CSL RIM/FG 77, 0 CURB OPENING > = INLET PIPE IE IN FLOWi \ OUTLET PIPES (PER PLAN) I CONTROL o RISER Q -i f a p o !t n N ;� D ` IE PER PLAN , ....:..., 1..,I.,.,.;.. �__ IE OUT o IE PER PLAN y (PER PLAN) NOTE:DIMENSIONS PER PLAN ------- CURB OPENIN ---------- --------- 0 G J �_ NOTE: DIMENSIONS PER PLAN o_ PRE-FILTER DRAIN DOWN LINE ofo CARTRDGE 3'_0- LEFT END VIEW W Y PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW BIOCLEAN STORMWATER m Y of BIOCLEAN STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM BIOCLEAN STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM 0 IC_4 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. Z NOVEMBER 09,2020 San Diego,)6 92124 INTERNATIONAL MBAKPhoneRINTL.14-5000 i MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 37 of 767 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA I... .i E%FIRE HYDRA 4I DR N T IVA E - i -..... N N J 1 o NEW Mi NEW M1 ¢ �� T N IE 29.47 IE 29.82 r � � Q . 3 o O O • c W •••• x • 'L O• PAD 39 C • - coo o P =8.2 O . `O 11" 11 j., 'o M I•EYI Mi 3 I �C� z (,__,�. { •m o >_ co • • 10 cc ID °?• lE 31.52 j Ix J11 `0 W �o o ❑ f// •3 a a N LL a. a I LL ss N sem--PRIVATE ST.I I x c� 0 0 ❑ n I�Q u LL 13- NEW Mi' u, Z Z) W N 4. . I "}N FF=38.9 PAD=38.2 Jly LEGEND ' N u a �I ss 3 I W �' �� LL 9 EXISTING_ PROPOSED N a ( SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY s ► LL - -- EASEMENT 8 SEWER PRIVATE SS s F -� IW M PRIVATE ST.B FF=38.9 SEWER LINE(SDRSD SP-02) ss ss; I _ w / •• • pq 369 N F F E F F PAD=38.2 O`36? a w N WATER LINE(SDRSD WP-02) W-w- I 6 NEW Mi • a O O IE 3t.1s - STORM DRAIN • w LL ss r 3 PRIVATE ST.J �" FIRE HYDRANT(SDRSD FW-01) ►H IXISTING MH 9 I t \8•SF p'903j6 • • ? NF a ' SEWER MANHOLE(SDRSD SM-01 O &M-03A) ( ) I s\°Rrk l 363 w LL FF=38.9 r) LEA IN SOUTH 1&71 )' �\ q F (2 i • w ' w I I R9 I PAD_38.2 o I.E.OUT NORTH(18.66) M Q ozv 0 CV DWN054-56 - M 10 0 06,USTRIA � M I O 0� SEWER CLEANOUT(SDRSD SC-01) IND �01/o6/1e5a FIRE LINE(PRIVATE) NFro o LL (71 3 h I • • -'Y6 I r LL a 3 s • o w p W o' BIO-FILTRATION STRUCTURE CA • SEWER ELECTRICAL / • O � �' _ I a (PER DETAIL SHEET C-4) ���\\ • .X362 �/ CABINET °o�Ln a a •� LL STREET LAM SEWER LIFT STATION c) A. • FF=40.0 w N WITH 8-HR y� PAD=39.3 z (PRIVATE) 3 x P 3 �R8/Fs\ \ I • • EMERGENCY STORAGEREDUCED LQ a N� SSURE cl)l _ 4 RSPpH� I ° a DETTECTION�ASSEMBLY a �1 PFs�Yo�syq ` \ Q __ (SDRSD WR-01) Y \ FF 1 s .:%%' m�.: .... - .. -- a"WATER _. ----------------- SEWER FLOW DIRECTION ME ♦ NEW MH m - 2,4' > I / 3 �ePRIVATE ST.K- TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL .!�\ 6> IE 25.95 / k"Y 9 TOP 36.51 I J �� RI ��� i� ,m� (`F�9 �� - 2-12'x10'RCP BOX CULVERTS 12' 12' m r¢ L o 1 r(/qT� 360 NEW MH r; y LANDSCAPE T FIRE* - ( )-ss ss- /L 39. (SEE SHEET C-3 FOR EASEMENTS SEWER LATERAL SDRSD$$-01 d a 3 I FST IE 28.00 s�k°of�. 1 -11", -" ------ T Q o -� -- - -- -- m� LANDSCAPE FIRE LANE I F S I �a F-ao o `l`��� ^���� � DUAL 3"DUCTILE IRON I\�� SEWER FORCEMAINS �` (J" F- ~ \ / PROP.RIBBON GUTTER 7) 6"CURB 3 CURB ® / F- PAD=39.3 ( I Q oCt�a•IFi�ir1iuuls !•�1 p / 'o rn `o • F 1 U 1.5% 1.5°/ I m l �\\� / �• /' / oNM Nm Q LL • • n Jo ❑ .I - u1- / 11 3 O 1 ��\ i� / LL d ILLL d s i CSO 4"PVC DOMESTIC-ti0 _ �- ~ �� _� LL� • 1. SEE SHEET C-3 FOR GRADING AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS. > WATER(PRIVATE) �o�e � I � ' w _ - _. , 3 F r __ F a •FF=4o.3 2. A 20 ACCESSEASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF o 7' 11' O`� 3u ¢0 3 I N = CHULA VISTAFOR ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED SEWER LOCATED AT cD • w PAD-39.6 i 5, I 8' PVC .oto O - O I oa o' THE WEST SIDE OF PRIVATE STREET A.EASEMENT TO COMMENCE Z -^7 FIRE W a I ~ SEWER ACCESS 1� 16 - O 3' x�3` LL d I O 1- AT THE INTERSECTION OF MOSS STREET AND PRIVATE STREET A, z WATER i- z ( EASEMENT,2 t W- o f a w AND CONTINUE NORTH THROUGH PRIVATE STREET A. r _PRIVATE ST.D= N H10 IL w-� z SEEN -........ -.L ........ (PRIVATE) a �_ w W--V1_ NEW MH i a o N 3.ALL PROPOSED SEWER MAINS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF GASKETED Q m N NEW W37LH32 --- ]E 3z.2 -s"sewERPRIvnrE- PRIVATE ST.D IE 34.38 �a'z�N PVC PIPE AND SEALED MANHOLES. o o I z I Ss � ss s Ss ss ss ss-� ss-s o z a vl STORM DRAIN ' a 8"PVC SEWERJ t(PRIVATE) �3 I J 1 I I X106 LL °0�a �� a (PRIVATE) 3 a J (a 18 FF=40.3 O a ~ J �` a • " FF-38.7 PAD=39.6 a J > i, - c-a f vi o PAD-38.0 12 w u >a oF0 \ � •j�❑ • • ' • • • • • EX.FIRE HYDRANT U 3 O Z O r ....... I W z e, ..N .tDi d �a -.. • • J[J/,. TYPICAL SECTION ��o 24'PRIVATE STREET/FIRE LANE > . . 5 . O- a I p o o?a \ 0 FF=37.9 15 'FF=39.2' _ N.T.S. a vi LL �\� PAD=37.2 I PAD=38.5 ,.... 0 to V) SEWER ACCESS a � =OW 0 SEE NOTE 2 NEW Mi cp 8"SEWER PRIVATE IE 33.15 00 NEW MH �P�E \ ss ss SS W ss Ss�= SSs o ( O IE 29.67 p 5 _4'WATER PRIVATE [E 31.83 -PRIVATE ST.L v ~ EX.SEWER MH WoSF.��F W W-W-W W-W 'W W W W-•3 I.E.IN:20.27 3 o I 2 �5 DUAL 2" o .... ...... RPDA do METERS RPDA z,,, 1E 30.09�r \ 8" tl of I 1 EX 12'SEWER k - (cmoFCV,DWG llD31-0a) • j ��\ FF=37.7 RPDA FF=39.2 0 ( -I ........ EX.SEWER MH �¢ 3 L- mN �� PAD=37.0 14 DUAL 2' 13 PAD=38.5 _ c) I.E.IN:22.52 _ EX.SWR LATERAL 00� / • • DA dt u _- METERS'' ' • ''" O of ,iEX.SEWER MH i:� ,,,,,,,,,,, �� -_ / LEAN:2054 ' �� "' "'" EX.SEWER MH'-"" - W f „ n x _. �1 E%.SWRLATERAL ���� _RIM 3540 EX.12'PVC SEWER p _ - - _ .0 12 ELY I , .. Y (CITY OF CV,DWG 11031-03) SDRSD SC-01 -w -- "" - -FL 24.68 12 WLY)) `�9�.-- -_ EX.SEWER MH I.E 25.00 /j x EX SWR LATERAL FL 24.70�12"SELY)� 0] ' E%.12"PVC WATER 'W W-T W -�NJ M W yV W_ W (CITY OF CV,DWG 04071 02)� � -W W�EX.12'PVC WATER 40 2D O 4D $0 120 I.E.IN 20.31 _ 8'PVC SEWER (TO BE REMOVED)�'f, / Y E%.SEWER MH - �- -- .._ --_ _ J (CITY OF CVG04071021 '.. RIM 35.0(8X. ''12 MYE%.8"PVC SEWER�X SW FFV,AL MOSS ST. (CITY OF FERAL I E%12 PVCSEWER SCALE- 1"=40' m - 7 _fL 22.78 412 NELY)) (CITY OF N, �- ) ,y EX. WATER I.E.IN.20.35- - `i / DWG 04071-02) DWG 0407102) EX.12 PVCSEWER '`/F L� SEWER MH ""?,� / I ._- �_ �„,„„,,,,.,-', (SWEETWATER AUTHORITY,MAPBOOK#165) CONENCf BIIATERAL 1, i' ,�f 'Cl- ,. �,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, _�-,_. .. ,,,,,,�,,, � �.. Q TO E%.SEWER MH ....... .. ..,,,..,,,,, E.25.02 WOODLAWN )I....1... .. z ,,,,,, .-„.�,_ ._._... _" E%SEWERMH EX.8'VPC SEWER RIM 35.08 ! COOEADO PERMSDDwG9-2 V ��� -5 9755CIalremontMesaBlvd. FL 22.68((12"NWLY E EX.8"VCP SEWER AVE. (CIN OF CV,DWG 0407102' .........I • • Diego, FL 22.78(12"HELY) NOVEMBER 09,2020 Phonee:(858)6145000 i N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 38 of 767 FIRE AND CIRCULATION PLAN TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 'EX.FIRE HYDRANT -��. .. ,. 1 I.. I j EX.,FARE HYDRANT I I r . 1 150' II cV oPROJECT SUMMARY: FI N f RE PULL = SITE APN:618-010-26,618-010-30 8:618-010-31 o0 - — 0 0 0 J -_' TOTAL SITE AREA:7.29 ACRES EwM v=i N - -, WIC r �-i ��� r 11 Il I1 I1 Il�� IL 11 11 11 r' ` o __ F-a __- __, U a L__ 111 SEE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN(SHEET SP-1)FOR THE FOLLOWING o z >I r-= -- ull� L_ G INFORMATION: TOTAL PR OPOSED UNITS= o "PARKING REQUIREMENTSo a —FR_PULL ._. 15 o 4 `J OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ¢ w 3 LOT COVERAGE 24 _ 11 11 11 1l 11 it ll ll 11 �� _ G I {-. � I �_-_ � L__� � LEGEND: __ r-_ 0 v HANDICAP STALL(ADA) 3 0 J r > e 1 24'FRE LANE G GUEST PARKING y ' / B 1 ATE ST.- � I ►H FIRE HYDRANT ©`=_, _ O 11 11 1.,''11 11!1 Il Il < _ , r11i tiL1 r1r1 1t r1 ————PULL—— 150 FOOT FIRE PULL FIRE I G Lll LJL.,L LL L.]LL LL LL Jp C. 150'FIRE PULL I j FIRE"HAMMERHEAD"TURN F '= PRIVATE ST.J \ r-=? i.. i i i r-I� 11 1111 111 111 2 I -- >I r z Chula„,ta AUTO-TURN DATA FOR CITY OF CHULA VISTA FIRE o o Zw LADDER TRUCK AND SOLID WASTE TRUCK N Ion o (WIDTH 9'-10",TRACK 6'-10",LENGTH 41'-11") � I o oo / / INDICATES DIRECTION OF PARKING ¢ �_LGARAGE.A MINIMUM OF 24-FEET TO BE m w V)a a PROVIDED BEHIND GARAGE FACE FOR PULL w w OUT MOVEMENT. ¢ I, I ¢ J 1 G LANDS NOTE: 1 _ r , CAPEAREA 150'FIREPULL 1) FIRE ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE MARKED AS FIRE LANES IN D- < ACCORDANCE WITH CVFD STANDARDS. PRIVATE ST.K 2)REMOVABLE BOLLARDS SHALL BE PLACED NEAR THE 20-FOOT WIDE Q� EMERGENCY INGRESS/EGRESS TO MOSS STREET. r I wo + ARjV ( 3)PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS ROAD SHALL MEET H-20 LOADING a I I� �TFS FRe-per % G Z iii r r r REQUIREMENTS OR SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR A TRAFFIC INDEX 1111 1111 1!1( 1f 11 I co U u v (T.I.)OF 5. o I �1�.* �Tt�wwr;.. .�o,� \J , r-_� W m 1 1 1 1 I ; W _ H G O { F _ r r co m _- r N /jl _j 1 CD ``-� L-'' �m � � � A � � n ���� I Z I N + c G G 17 - _ 16 i1 ii1 i11 i11 i11 i1i ill i11 ii1 1111 of o J Z G 24'FIRE LANE o V)N w i o ISO'FIRE PUL—"L._�......n�.. O a OZ N O °b I F G PRIVATE ST.D \ PRIVATE ST.D— o 'Q a"o F- _ o 1g %i 1111 1i1 rn o lv{11i 11i 1111 .o.¢��o m O u1 v1 1 1 1! 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 tO g J a > Z I J a J J Jroz __J a>a = r ¢ a U 1 z O f W G 1v lyl G 12 11 Il EX.FIRE HYDRANT O Z O x4N _ —J; _ C_ ^ 1 IL LL ¢ V,)z O L a I 15 G w � OI L 1\ loo' o Q Vj !l 11 (1 ll !1!I 11 Il 11 11 11 11 I1 II Inl Il 11!1 cp I nJ 11/1 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 Illi X11111 it 3w � G 11 l l ���� I� _ "e G I ¢w G .., O G 150 FIRE PULL 0 —. I 24 o r r . ST. o G G G G G GIG G FIRE LANE PRIL i t i Of o 7 t!Il 11 11 II II I v I va 11 11 II 11 11 11 11 11 ll 1l p 14 13 of Of -- ' 150'FIRE PUL 40 20 0 40 SO 120 m ' ■ Of Y •• MOSS STREET SCALE 1"=40' m I s cnwi < sa COLORADO WOODLAWN C-G I,� P] 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. ¢ AVE NOVEMBER 09,2020 PhoneSan Diego,)6 92124 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAK(858)614-M i MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 39 of 767 'TECHNICAL SEWER STUDY REPORT FOR 676 MOSS STREET November 23, 2020 Prepared by: Moichael ■ aker I NT1EN1 0 NAL 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92124 858.614.5000 Telephone 858.614.5001 Fax Al J, 0* BOW X Project Contact: LA,41 Nod 71693 Joel E. Bowdan IIIA, PE, RCE 71693 Exp 12/31/2 Aharon Weintraub, EIT 'X 1p, 1 V 1 ,_ 1112312020 Signature Date MBI JN 167467 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 40 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Table of Contents Section1- Introduction......................................................................................................................................................1 Section 2- Project Description.................................................................................................................1 2.1 Project Location.........................................................................................................................1 2.2 Proposed Project........................................................................................................................1 2.3 Study Area .................................................................................................................................2 2.4 Proposed Points of Connection ................................................................. 3 Section3-.severer Flows................................................................................................. 5 Section 4-.sewer Pump Station...............................................................................................................7 Section 5- Hydrau�lic Analysis................................................................................................. 11 Section 6- Conclusions................................................................................................. 15 Section7-Appendices ..........................................................................................................................17' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 41 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Figure Index Figure 2-1 Project Site (Google Earth)......................................................................................................................................1 Figure2-2 Proposed Site Layout ..............................................................................................................2 Figure 4-1 Conceptual Pump Station Plan and Section ...........................................................................10 Table Index Table 3-1 Northern Collection System Sewer Generation to, Private Sewer Pump Table 3-2 Southern Collection System Sewer Generation........................................................................6 Table 3-3 Northern and Southern Collection System Sewer Generation to Moss Street Table 5-1 Moss Street Sewer Slope Calculations................................................................. 11 Table5-2 On-Site Sewer PWWF d/D......................................................................................................11 Table 5-3 Free Flow Calculations Using 2014 WWMP Sewer Hydraulic Data 12 Table 5-4 Impact of Proposed Project Flows to d/D (2050) Free Flow Calculations.................................12 Table 5-5 Sewer Hydraulic,Data (2050)from 2014 WWMP....................................................................13 Table 5-6 Impact of Proposed Project Flows to 2014 WWMP d/D(2050)...............................................13 Tables-7 Industrial Blvd Hydraulic Summary.........................................................................................14 Table 5-8 Moss St Hydraulic,Summary...................................................................................................14 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 42 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Section 1 - Introductioll This report will provide background data, hydraulic analysis and a summary of the results as part of a sewer study for the proposed 676 Moss Street project. The purpose of this study is to identify the potential offsite and onsite impacts of the proposed project on the existing public sewer systems. This sewer study will also verify the new private onsite sanitary sewer infrastructure design with a new sewer lift station. Section 2 - Project Descri"ption 2orl ti.111, 1 roject I oca The proposed project area is located within in the City of Chula Vista, California. It is located east of the San Diego Freeway (interstate 5), south of L Street, north of Moss Street, and west of Broadway. The project area, as shown in Figure 2-1, is a 6.9-acre (ac) lot located just north of Moss Street and east of Industrial Boulevard. Flguiiia e Z,111�1.11 Piroiect Sifte (Google Emi-th) rrr II a Vim,� ,, �, %%%///r�i�/ �,,,, � rr it fi r iii ri uu it IN I r. SIV uu II orthII No Scale 2.2 posed .1-')roj I ect Shopoff Realty Investments proposes development of a new townhome condominium complex on a 6.9- acre site located near the northeast intersection of Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard(County Assessor Parcel Numbers 618-010-26,618-010-31,and 618-010-32). Project frontage and site access will be,directly 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 43 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street from Moss Street. The project proposes the construction of 141 two to three-bedroom condominium units across 181 three story, 45-foot tall buildings. The project proposes a density of 22.,4 dwelling units per acre, with parking spaces, green space area, and pedestrian improvements along Moss Street. The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 2-2. This project would involve the demolition of all existing structures and the complete grading of the site. A General Plan amendment and rezone is proposed to convert the use from limited industrial to high- density residential. The existing property has been historically used for industrial purposes, specifically, industrial repair, fabrication, and salvage. It is currently occupied by five businesses. Flguir, -e Pirl�qposed Sifte 1 aYOLIt ARIZONA ST 16 L--- --------- ............................................ ....................... -—--------- ............................ Co < ne .............. ......... North .................. MOSS ST No Scalle 2.3 Study Area The study area is bounded by Moss Street to the South, L Street to the North, Industrial Boulevard to the West,and BBroadway to the East. The, existing sewer mains surrounding the study area include a 12-inch 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 44 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) on Moss Street, 15-i'nch Vitrified Clay pipe (VCP) on Industrial Boulevard and an 8-inch VCP on Arizona Street. Bisecting the project site are two (2) side-by-side 12-foot by 10-foot reinforced concrete box(RCB) storm drain culverts. Due to the double-RCB drainage culvert, the gravity collection system must be split into (Norther Collection System and a Southern Collection System. "i 2.4 Prvposed ,[)oints of Connection The proposed onsite private sanitary collection system will be comprised of two (2) 8-inch PVC gravity sewer pipe networks. The onsite sewer system will be divided into north and south halves, separated by Private Street K clue the bisecting double-RCB drainage culvert. The sanitary flow generated from the 55 units south of Private Street K will be transported to the existing 12-inch PVC sewer along Moss Street approximately 250-feet east of the intersection. Sanitary flow generated from the 86 condominium units located in the northern development was originally conceived to be conveyed to the existing 15-inch VCP sewer main along Industrial Boulevard. Hlowever, this proposed proved to be infeasible as explained in the Feasibility Study. Furthermore, Michael Baker reviewed the existing 8-inch sewer on Arizona Street that dead ends approximately 500- feet east from the north east corner of the project site. This sewer was initially investigated and determined infeasible for the northern development connection due to differences in elevation and the site sloping southwesterly. The lowest pad elevations at the northern portion of the project site are at approximately 36.0 feet. With a minimum sewer depth of cover of 6 feet, the starting sewer invert elevation at the southwestern corner of the proposed northern collection system would be 30.0 feet. Per sheet two on as-built drawing 92-315, the invert elevation at the 8-inch sewer end cap on Arizona Street is 33.0 feet. For the purpose of conservatively determining the approximate vertical fall of the proposed sewer from the start to alternative points of connection, this study assumes, an 8-inch pipe slope of 1.0- percent. At a linear pipe distance of 1,200 feet and a pipe slope of 1.0-percent from the western end of the northern project site to the Arizona Street 8-inch sewer end cap,the calculated invert elevation of the proposed sewer at the point of connection would be approximately 18.0 feet which is 15-feet below the existing sewer invert. Therefore, connecting to the existing Arizona St sewer is not a feasible alternative. Since all gravity solutions have been vetted and proven to be infeasible, the collection system north of Private Street IK will be served by a private sewer pump station which will be designed in accordance with Section 3-304 Private Pump Stations in the Subdivision Manual. Additional details of the proposed private sewer pump station are provided in Section 4 of this Technical Sewer Study Report. The proposed points of connection for the north and south sewer systems are shown in Figure 2-3. An exhibit showing the, existing public sanitary collection system in Industrial Boulevard and Moss Street along with the proposed north and south private condominium sanitary collection systems is located in Appendix A. 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 45 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 M'oss Street Figure 2-3 Mint of Connection L.ocation JFKAWTFd ---------------- ----—--------- ........... .. ..............— cc r N IN Ij RO I:j TE----- Ln IT LP I r Pill L CL CL '111"16 00-114—oe�—ly---- (D j-�11 - e e eeeee e .............. ........................ unn Lu 4 wA 38 2 LO �D .......... WW We'll, I I I In P A7m38 2 ............. k 0 PRIV TESTAm .. pml ......... pr FF=3 44 mm :2 1.3 DY, gaz "A .......... 40- Off ........................... T- L�d M�z TF en ...................... PRNTES A T,K > F,"K Rt < MilX4 iry w "4 VAD=30,2 .................//( ...........— .................. CL a- ........... 4 Liam a LL. P LJ 7............. ........PAD 30 2 CD PRIVATE 81 D ..:-"^,�'_, w, u�wd��Iwy,�..... .-W" °w .n� '... FSM....--ices- - f '6q uJ a ip V) 76' q Ll CL 2 CE ........... F- lip ------ .......... 11 .......... ......... 0- 1FF=33-9 pAr):mj Pd 3 PA D--38�2 F IN 'D LT............... ..............— ��� f '' ,.N lj� wv � 0' /Tw:irr n rc i i l)i R'Mi =377 38 P i2 J FF .................. AD=37,19 PAD=3 ............... Q QWWA laviVA ........... E Ewa mili F 4v .......... UY%12"RIVC,RVAIR, rr rc. 11 14 AlOVUVI Cl l)r CNi-l)wic,R No R u�l k� r F vo, Rill ......... ........... ....... ...........*-....W ................. ---------- E x Wrl,11k 1j,1, EX i'VIC 12-11, 71 North r I MOSS --j", W,0101'71,mil DIN 5 F OU) q1MO ST 1!11,11)1;;�1-lw[ Lf—pul-A low rw dip ------------- -------- WOO 1,111 N o Scale W.N I W11 Ff ..---. :, COLOIRADO",N) �YGI HUM —�A V,P 14,Y4 1) v AVE, 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 46,of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Section 3 - Sewer Flows Wastewater flows are developed to estimate potential sanitary flow generation within the proposed development. These flows are calculated and assessed under Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF),, Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF'), and Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) conditions. Existing and future wastewater flows for the proposed project were developed per the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan),finalized in May 2014, for the City of Chula Vista. The existing ADWF for the current land use was calculated using Table 3-2 in the Mlaster Plan which provides recommended wastewater duty factors based on the 2009-2011 water demands. The existing project site Land Code designation is I — Industrial Limited, with a wastewater generation rate of 712 gpd/acre. The project site area is 6.9 acres. Multiplying the wastewater generation rate by the project site area provides a calculated ADWF generation rate of 4,913 gpd for the current site. Proposed wastewater flows were calculated based on Table 3-3 in the Master Plan which provides multiple land uses wastewater generation rates to be used for future ADWF projections. The proposed project site land use designation will be RH-Residential High with a wastewater generation rate of 182 gallons per day per dwelling unit (gpd/DU), unit wastewater generation of 55 gallons/capita-day (gpcd), and a dwelling unit density of 22.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Using a wastewater generation rate of 182 gpd/DU from the Master Plan and multiplying by the proposed total number of dwelling units, the calculated ADWF is 25,662 gpd (0.04 cfs). Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF) represents the highest flow that will occur over one day based on an ADWF. To develop the PD,WF for the proposed development and current land use, the ADWF to PD,WF peaking factor of 1.38 was taken from Figure 3-4 of the Master Plan resulting in a calculated PD,WF of 35,414 gpm (0.055 cfs,) and 6,780 gpd, respectively. The average wet weather peaking factor calculated per Section 3.3.6 of the Master Plan is 1.85. This factor when multiplied against the PDWF results in a calculated Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF)1 for the proposed development of 65,515 gpd (0.101 cfs), and 12,543 gpd for the current land use. As discussed in Section 2.4,the new onsite sanitary sewer system will be separated into the northern and southern systems. The northern system will flow by gravity to a new private sewer pump station which will be designed in accordance with Section 3-304 Private Pump Stations in the Subdivision Manual. The southern system will flow by gravity via an onsite gravity sewer system to a point of connection to the existing 12-inch Moss Street public sewer main. Pumped flow from the private sewer pump station in the northern system will be conveyed via forcemain to the private gravity sewer in the southern system. The ADWF, IPDWF, and PWWF sewer flow calculations for the north and south collection systems are provided in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, respectively. The total ADWF, PDWF, and PWWF sewer flows of the combined northern and southern collection systems toward the Moss Street connection paint are summarized in Table 3-3. Additional details of the proposed private sewer pump station are provided in Section 4 of this Technical Sewer Study Report. 5 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 47 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Muss Street Table 11. Cijollectlmrlii i�111a n iiia- t l i IIID°° v,ll 1 - iiia )S,, f iii 1i iiia Number of Dwelling Units 86 units Sewer Demand Rate 182 gpd/DU ADWF 15,652 gpd 10.9 Spm IPDW 21,600 gpd 15.0 9PM U SOLItIllimm - iiiir, Number of Dwelling Units 55 units Sewer Demand Rate 182 gpd/DU ADWF 10,010 gpd 7.0 9PM PDWF 13,F814 Ipd 9.6 9PM pWW 25,55 1 gp'M Ul) ri r l� e iiiiiill mlid Sotj�ir'n C l lecl iii i� iim S eG e iiill mrait oi��i, to Ili' VIII s "Ibn o o"" Number of Dwelling Units 141 units Sewer Demand Rate 182 gpd/DU ACSWF 25,662 gpd 17.8 Spm PDWF 35,414 gpd 24.6 9P M ..............WW ��5 5. ................ . 6 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 48 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Section 4 - Sewer Pump Station This section discusses the proposed private sewer pump station. Figure 2-3 in Section 2 shows the approximate location of the sewer pump station. Table 3-1 in Section 3 quantified the ADWF and PWWF in the Northern Collection System as 10.9 gpm and 27.7 gpm, respectively, to the sewer pump station. Due to the tight site constraints and the relatively low ADWF and PWWF., the private sewer pump station is proposed as a submersible duplex grinder or chopper type with pumps contained in a cast-inn-place concrete wet well and valves contained in an adjacent integral cast-in-place concrete valve chamber. The pump station is planned to be located in an accessible area adjacent to west curb on Private Street A, between Private Streets E and F. As a result of the location and potential vehicular loading, the facility will require a monolithic concrete top slab with heavy-duty hinged and spring assisted lockable access hatches. A conceptual site plan, pump station plan, and sectional view of the pump station are provided in Figure 4-1 at the end of this Section 4. Preliminary calculations (see Appendix D) were prepared to determine wet well volume requirements, generate a system curve, and provide preliminary pump selections. Based on those preliminary calculations, coupled with the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Section 3-300, Article 3-304 Private Pump Stations (see Appendix Q and industry standard municipal design practice for sanitary pumping facilities,the following additional information is provided: 1. Emergency storage is calculated based on the ultimate average flow that is tributary to the pump station (refer to Subdivision Manual Section 3-300, Article 3-304). Based on an ADWF of 10.9 gpm, and an emergency storage requirement of 8 hours at average flow, an emergency storage volume of about 5,220,gallons is required. The proposed pump station wet well will be cast-in- place concrete structure with an inside plan dimension of 6-feet wide by 12-feet length with a storage height (distance from pump stop to maximum allowable storage level) of 9.7 feet. The deeper operating volume of the wet well will utilize smaller inside plan dimensions of 6-feet width by 6-feet length with a depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the larger emergency storage portion of the wet well. The submersible pumps will be located in the deeper, smaller portion of the wet well. During normal operation, the pump control levels will remain within the deeper portion of the wet well. In the event of power loss or complete pump system failure, the rising level will enter the larger (emergency) portion of the wet well. The floor of the larger portion of the wet well will be sloped at approximately 1.00-percent toward the smaller deeper wet well section to facilitate maintenance cleaning following an emergency storage event. The interior of the wet well structure will be lined with T-lock liner or similar internal protection. 2. Based on the IPWWF of 27.7 gpm, and the anticipated use of 3-inch diameter forcemain, a pump capacity of about 80-100 gpm will be, necessary. The minimum practical flow rate for a 4-inch pump with 3-inch solids handling capability is 125 gpm which is too large for this application. Therefore, a smaller chopper style submersible pump system will be utilized which allows use of smaller diameter forcemain. At 80-100 gpm design pump capacity, a nominal 3-inch diameter forcemain (acceptable for use with grinder and chopper style pumps) will have an acceptable 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 49 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street cleansing velocity of about 4.5 ft/s and result in a total dynamic head of about 25.4 feet., Preliminary pump selection based on the Xylem/Flygt FP3069 series submersible chopper pump (see Appendix E), or equal Hydromatic or ABS manufactured pump, in a duplex installation with spark-proof gu�iderail removal system is proposed for this application. Pumps will operate in a lead-standby arrangement. In this arrangement,, the lead pump (pump 1 or pump 2, depending on control alternation) will operate, while the lag or second pump will only start in the event of high level or restart from loss of power 3. . Pump motors will be explosion-proof rated, 2.7 hp, 3255 rpm,and will be suitable for operation on a 208V/3pHl/60hz or 240V/48OV/3ph/60hz electrical service. 4. An adjacent 6-feet wide by 6-feet length cast-in-place valve chamber will house the swing check and plug isolation valves for each pump discharge. Each pump discharge will be equipped with pressure gauges and sanitary style gauge isolator suitable for sewage service. 5. A monolithic, cast-in-place reinforced concrete top slab will be design for HS-20 loads and repeated vehicular traffic. The wet well and valve chamber hatches will be heavy-duty airport rated ductile iron with stainless steel hinge and spring lift assist hardware. Hatches will have waterproof gaskets and be lockable. 6. The level control system is anticipated to be float based or level transducer primary level sensors with float based secondary sensors for redundancy. Floats and/or level transducers will be wired to a microprocessor based control system. The control system will be capable of monitoring pump station operation and alarms and communicating alarms via alarm dialer or cell-based SCADA to 24/7 response personnel. 7. Pump electrical equipment, breakers, motor starters, level controller and alarm system will be installed above ground in a low profile NEMA 4 steel epoxy-coated or NEMA U stainless steel, lockable, weather-proof, and vandal-proof electrical enclosure. The enclosure will also house an automatic transfer switch. A natural gas-driven emergency generator with a hospital grade critical silencer and quiet package will also be located above grade to provide a redundant emergency power source in case of electrical utility service outage. All electrical equipment will be designed to meet, UL and NEC/CEC requirements including meeting Class 1, Division 1, Group C/D requirements. 8. The private sewer pump station will be equipped with dual forcemains for redundancy. The forcemains will be routed southerly from the pump station over the double RCB drainage culvert approximately 2910 lineal feet to the receiving manhole, on the onsite private southern collection system. From this location the combined flows from the northern and southern sanitary collection systems will flow by gravity to the point of connection in Moss Street. �Estimated capital cost for this small private sewer pump stat'ion designed to meet municipal/industrial level quality including noted redundancies, emergency storage and power, and control system with 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 50 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street dialer/SCADA capability, is about $300,000. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (including electrical utility cost) are estimated as follows: Maintenance, Operation, Cleaning, and Parts Replacement =$51,000 Annual Cost of 25-year Pump and Control Replacement =$11,8,00 Electrical Utility: 2,170 hrs*3hp*0346 kWjhp*$0.26jkW-hr =$1,,263 Subtotal Annual O&M Cost =$81,063 Contingency(10%) -$ 806 Total Annual O&M Cost =$8,,86' The total annual O&M costs above represent the anticipated cost for the first year. Total annual O&M costs in subsequent years can be expected to increase at the rate of inflation (1%to 3% per year). 9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 51 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 M'oss Street Figm-e 4-1 Concepti.41 Pump Station Nan, and Sectioll 10 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 52 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Section 5 - Hydraulic Analysis A desktop hydraulic analysis was performed for both the on-site sewer collection systems and the off-site downstream pipelines that convey flow from the project site through Chula Vista. All on-site calculated PWWF flow rates were obtained from Section 3 and used to determine the depth to diameter ratio (d/Di) for the proposed sewer discharge just before the POC to the offsite sewer system. The d/D was only calculated at these locations as they represent the points of highest flow and thus highest d/D since the pipe slopes are uniform at 1.,O-percent. Off-site public sewer analysis utilized the Master Plan to obtain flow rates in the existing sewers on Moss Street and Industrial Blvd for year 2050. As discussed in Section 2.4,the on-site sewer system will be divided into separate Northern and Southern systems. The Southern system will connect to the existing sanitary sewer in Moss Street. The Northern system will convey sanitary flows to the proposed sewer pump station which will pump flows to a gravity connection at the Southern system. The Northern and Southern system will ultimately discharge by gravity via an 8-inch sewer that will connect both systems to the proposed point of connection at Moss Street. The Sanitary Sewer Exhibit in Appendix A shows the proposed pad elevations for the development and inverts of the existing sewer on Moss St along with the proposed sewer system connection's invert elevations. To determine the available slope, the difference in elevation from the sewer invert at the furthest point for each collection system to the invert at the existing sewer POC was calculated. Table 5-1 summarizes the available sewer slope and elevations for the southern sewer system to Moss St. Uble 5-1, Moss St�ree'lt Sewe�i�-Slo�pe Proposed 8"Sewer Length 580 if Furthest Site Invert Elevation 33.2 ft Moss St IPOC Invert Elevation 22.7 ft Expected Elevation Drop 10.5 ft 0.018 ft/ft Table 5-1 identifies an available slope of 1.8 percent in the proposed on-site sewer system toward Moss Street. The d/D in the proposed on site sewer system was calculated using Bentley FlowMaster V8i. This software uses Manning's Equation to calculate the d/D based on slope,discharge fl�owrate, pipe diameter, and roughness coefficient. For this calculation,a PWWF of 45.5 gpm (0.101 cfs), pipe diameter of 8-inches, Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.013, and the respective slope calculated in Table 5-1 were used to calculate to normal depth and d/D. Based on the results shown in Table 5-2, the proposed onsite private sewer meets the gravity main design criteria in section 4.1.1 of the Master Plan. Table 5-2 iii - iii,ILe Sewelr I�[�)WWF d[l) Moss St 8" POC PWWF Discharge 0.101 cf s Moss St 8"POC Calc.Velocity 2.81 ft/s Mo/ss St,W"PIX Cale.Normal l Depth 118, inch, Lmn,ss St W1*'P0C'Ca1c.d/O 0.16 u, itless 11 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 53 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Michael Baker calculated the normal depth and resulting d/D in the public sewer mains downstream of the project site under 2050 PWWF flow rates using the hydraulic pipe characteristics and flow date from the 2014 WWMP,appendix. Pipe ID 4607 in the 2014 WWMP represents the Moss Street sewer which is planned to be upsized from 10-inch to 18-inch diameter to meet 2050 sanitary flows., Pipe ID 4608 represents the Inclustrial Boulevard sewer which is planned to be upsized from 15-inch to 18,-inch diameter to meet 2050 sanitary flows. Table 5-3 summarizes the hydraulic characteristics of the Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard sewer mains excluding the flow increase from the proposed Project. The calculated normal depth and d/D valines shown in Table 5-3 are based on free flow and assume development of a normalized flow profile within the respective sewer reach. Under 2050 PWWF conditions with planned pipeline uipsizing in place, the free flow d/D values in the Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard sewers are calculated to 0.34 and 0.58, respectively. '11"141ile 5-3 Fii�-ee Plow CacV lons Usihd�iig 20,14 WWW1?Seweir 1-1-11y&ir auilc III1)ata (2050) Calculated Calculated Replacement 2050 PWWF Normal 2050 PWWF1 Pipe ID Location Dia in Slope(ft/ft) (gpm) Depth in d/D 4607 Moss St 18 0.001 405.6 6.12 0.34 4608 Industrial Blvd 18 1 0.003 11688.5 10.44 0.58 Note:Normal depth and depth/diameter(d/D)ratios calculated above are based on free flow calculations and do,not include the influence of backwater. Table 5-4 shows the calculated incremental increase in the free flow d/D due to the addition of flow from the proposed Project. The incremental increase in d/D is calculated as 0.02 in both the Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard sewers resulting in new free flow calculated d/D1 values of 0.36 and o. o,respectively. Table 5-14,III�mIIS iact of Prqposed Pii�.oject Flows to d/D(20,50) Firee Flow Ulctila'' iii oiii lis Projected Incremental Original 2050 2050 PWWF Original 2050 New 2050 Increase in e ID Location MWIF(gpm) (gpm) PWWF d/D PWWF d/D d/D 4607 Moss St 405.6 451.1 0.34 0.36 01.02 4608 Industrial Blvd 1 17688.5 1 1,734.0 1 0.58 1 0.60 1 01.02 Note:* Depth/diameter(d/D) ratios calculated above are based on free flow calculations of the normal depth and do not include the influence of backwater. 12 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 54 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Table 5-5 summarizes the hydraulic characteristics of the Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard sewer mains as provided in the 2014 WWMP. The 2014 WWMP 2050 PWWF modeled d/D values in Table 5-5 are higher than the free flow calculated d/D values in Table 5-3. The higher modeled d/D values from the 2014 WWMP suggest that the Industrial Boulevard and Moss Street sewer mains may be influenced by a backwater induced flow profile in the downstream sewers. The cause of the backwater influence is unknown and cannot be determined without use of the original hydraulic model used in the 2014 WWMP. 1`111`1' b�le 5-5Sewer lfydrau��11c Data (20,1,150)-froill"Itil"11i 2014 WWMP Replacement 2050 PWWF 2050, PWWF Pipe ID Location Dia (in) Slope (ft/ft) (gpm) d/Di 4607 Moss St 18 0.001 405.6 0.439* 4608 Industrial Blvd 18 0.003 11,688.5 0.646* Note:* Depth/diameter(d/D) ratios listed above are directly from,the 2014 WWMP and may be influenced by backwater. In light of the foregoing modeled results from the 2014 WWMP, Michael Baker used the incremental increase in free flow d/D provided in Table 5-4 and applied the increase to the 2014, WWMP modeled d/D values from Table 5-5. Table 5-6 shows the final estimated incremental increase in d/Di due to flows from the proposed Project based on the backwater induced profile. Accordingly,the new estimated d/Di values in the Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard sewer mains are 0.45 and 0.66, respectively, based on the projected 2.050 PWWF with contribution flows from the proposed Project. The d/D values from Table 5- 6 are less than the 3/4 full sewer design criteria according to Section 3-301.2 (2) of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. TiIli le 5-6[iia ll:)act of Pii�*q�w:)ose(,] Pii�-oiect Flows to 2014 WWMP d/D (20,50) Original New Projected Projected 2050 PWWF 2050 PWWF Original 2050 New 205,0 Pipe ID Location (gpm) (gpm) PWWF d/D PWWF d/D 4607 Moss St 405.6 442.4 0.439* 0.45* 4608 Industrial Blvd 11688.5 11725.3 0.646* 0.66* Note:*The Original Depth/diameter(d/D)ratios listed above are directly from the 2014 WWMP and may be influenced by backwater. Therefore,the new 2050 d/D ratios were calculated by adding the incremental A secondary method of relating the existing and proposed flows was performed by calculating the percent increase in flows,for the 2017 and 2050 flow conditions in the Industrial Blvd and Moss St sewers. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 provide a summary of relatable, information for the comparison. The proposed project in comparison to the existing site is expected to increase,flows to 2.18-percent and 1.95-percent in the 15- inch sewer on Industrial Blvd downstream from the project site for years 2017 and 2050,respectively. Due to the pumped flow from the northern system and gravity flow from the southern system, the proposed project will increase flows,to the, 12-inch sewer in Moss Street, by 9.05-percent and 6.72-percent for 2017 and 2050 respectively. 13 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 55 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Mass Street `' b 5-7 KIvd 1--1111 rai i 11 c S u i'' i'' Pipe ID 4608 Diameter 15 in Slope 0.003 ft/ft 2017 PWWF Master Pllan Table 6-2 21P431,44+ bpd 2050 PWWD Master Plan Appendix 2 2 21722,954 gpd Current Land Use PWWF 12,543 gpd Proposed Development PWWF 65,515 gpd Flow Increase(Proposed Existing) 52,972 gpd 2017, e ce t Increase, 2 2050 Percent Increase 1195 UI�iIe 5111B Moss St 1-1 ''imu�Imillc arm Pipe ID 4602' Diameter 12 in Slope 0.011 ft/"fit 2017 PWWF Master Plan"Table 5-2 585,0+54 gpd 2050 PWWD Master Plan Appendix 2.2 787.,962 gpd Existing Development PWWF 12,543 gpd Proposed Development PWWF 65,515 gpd Flow Increase(Proposed-Existing) 52,972 gpd 2017 Percent Increase 9.0 � 2050 Percent Iricrease, 14 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 56,of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Section 6 - Conclusions Based on the discussions provided in Sections 2., 3., and 4 the following conclusions are provided: 1. Sizing—According to the Master Ilan, the minimum size for a sewer pipe is eight-inches which will be sufficient to convey the estimated PWWF within each separate north and south private onsite sewer collection systems, and the combined pumped flow from the north system with gravity flow from the south system to Moss Street based on the hydraulic analysis performed in Section 4. 2. Gravity sewer connection from the north collection system to,the City of Chula Vista public sewer in Industrial Boulevard or Arizona Street are not fea�sible. Therefore/ this development proposes a private sewer lift station that will pump flows from the north collection system to, the south gravity collection system for ultimate discharge to Moss Street. Capital costs for the construction of the private sewer pump station will be borne by the Developer. O&M costs will be initially borne by the Developer and later transferred to the HOA. (See Feasibility Report for additional information). 3. Design Considerations — The following design considerations must be followed during project design development of the sewer system: a. The project area must ensure separation both vertically and horizontally to, meet the standards for separation between potable water and sanitary sewer utilities. Horizontal separation between parallel sewer and potable water main must be 10-feet from outside of pipe to outside of pipe. Minimum vertical separation requires that the bottom of potable water mains be at least 1-foot above the top of crossing sewer mains. b. Splitting the system into two systems, north and south, will aide in creating separation between the proposed sanitary sewer system and the existing double reinforced concrete box culvert storm drain which bisects the project area. c. The northern site will require permitting and coordination with ALOE to allow crossing of the proposed sewer pump station dual forcemains over the existing ALOE double box culvert. 4. used on the comparison of 2050 original projected flows with the 2050 new projected flows,the 2050 d/D ratio increases are only incremental indicating that the Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard sewer mains,with 2050 replacement,sewer sizes in place, have capacity to support the proposed Project. 5. The project's proposed onsite sewer collection system will be designed to convey the onsite generated sewer flows to the points of connection to the City of Chula Vista public sewer system. The onsite sewer system will be designed in accordance with the requirements of the City's 15 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 57 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Subdivision Manual. A minimum pipe gradient of 1.00% is recommended for all onsite pipes to achieve self-cleansing velocities and/or minimum velocities of 2 fps or greater. 6. The Project's northern sanitary collection system will require a sewer pump station to convey sanitary flow to the southern collection system gravity sewer for ultimate discharge to the Moss Street sewer main. The proposed sewer, pump station will be designed and constructed in accordance with the requ�irements of the Subdivision Manual section 3-304 Private Pump Stations. 16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 58 of 767 Technical Sewer Study Report 676 Moss Street Section 7 - Appendices A. Sanitary Sewer Exhibit B. City of Chula Vista Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (May 2014) C. City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Section 3-300 D. Technical Study Sewer Generation and Pump Station Hydraulic Calculations E. Catalog Data for Xylem/Flygt Model FP 3069 Pumps 17 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 59 of 767 APPENDIX A SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 60 of 767 APPENDIX B - CITY OF CHULA VISTA WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXCERPTS (MAY 2014) 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 61 of 767 APPENDIX C - CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBDIVISION MANUAL SECTION 3-300 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 62 of 767 APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL STUDY SEWER GENERATION AND PUMP STATION HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 63 of 767 APPENDIX E - CATALOG DATA FOR XYLEM/FLYGT MODEL FP3069 PUMPS 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 64 of 767 C,ITY OF CHULA VISTA GUIDELINES TO 'THE, BALANCED COMMUNITIES POLICY I-)e vel..(-)pme tat Scervices 276 B-nirtl.-i. Ave.n.ue "Phone 61-�,)0)1-5047 61-9.476-531C) Septen-iber 25, 2()"12 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 65 of 767 T 1,-i i s p a g e i s i in't iintiii o iiia iiia k. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Conte�nts Introduction ................................................................................................................................. I Adoption................................................................................................................................... I Intentof Guidelines ............................................................................................................... I Guidelines & Policy................................................................................................................ I Review & Updates.................................................................................................................. I InclusionaryRequirements..................................................................................................... 2 Applicability............................................................................................................................. 2 Exemptions............................................................................................................................ 2 Variance ................................................................................................................................. 2 Calculatingthe Obligation ................................................................................................... 3 IncentiveCredit..................................................................................................................... 3 Calculating Incentive Credit................................................................................................ 3 Meetingthe Requirement......................................................................................................... 4 Standards.................................................................................................................................. 4 Location ................................................................................................................................. 4 Design .................................................................................................................................... 5 BedroomMix......................................................................................................................... 5 PublicBenefit .......................................................................................................................... 5 Determining Methods of Compliance............................................................................... 5 CoimplianceAlternatives................................................................................................... 6 On-Site................................................................................................................................... 6 Off-Site....... 6 In-Lieu Housing Fee ............................................................................................................. 7 Process......................................................................................................................................... 7 PreliminaryApplication........................................................................................................ 7 InclusionaryHousing Plan.................................................................................................... 8 Content .................................................................................................................................. 8 Enforcement.......................................................................................................................... 9 Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement............................................. 9 Content .................................................................................................................................. 9 Enforcement........................................................................................................................ 10 Recordation......................................................................................................................... 10 Determining Affordability....................................................................................................... 10 IncomeLevels........................................................................................................................ 10 Income Adjusted for Household Size.............................................................................. I I Affordability - 30% of Income......................................................................................... 11 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 67 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"VITA Calculating Affordable Rents ............................................................................................ 12 Calculating Affordable Homeownership Costs............................................................. 13 OngoingCompliance .............................................................................................................. 13 AffirmativeMarketing ........................................................................................................ 13 WaitingList............................................................................................................................ 14 Reporting................................................................................................................................ 14 Appendix Exhibit 1 -Area of Low/Moderate Income Concentration ......................................A-1 Exhibit 2 - City of Chula ' ista Income Guidelines......................................................A- Exhibit 3 - San Diego County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule...A-3 Exhibit 4 - Example Affordable Rental Rates..............................................................A-4 A Z Exhibit 5, - Example Affordable Sales Prices................................................................r-v, 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 68 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"VITA This page is intentionally blank. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 69 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Introduction Adoption The City of Chula Vista adopted a Balanced Communities Policy ("Plol icy" , commonly referred to as Inclusionary Housing, in 1981 as part of its Housing Element of the General Plan. The City Council's, purpose of the Policy is to increase the diversity of housing prices/rents throughout the community and ensure that the range, of prices/rents continues, over time. Intent of Guidelines The guidelines in this document are intended to supplement and support the Inclusionary Housing Policy of Chula Vista. They will assist the layperson in interpreting the Policy and developers early in the development process so that Residential Development projects are designed from the beginning in compliance with the requirements of the Policy. Guidelines & Policy These Guidelines should be read in conjunction with the Policy. While every effort has been made to ensure that these Guidelines are consistent with the Policy, if there is any conflict or discrepancy between these guidelines and the Policy, the Policy shall prevail. In addition, the provisions of' a Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement (or like Agreement) recorded against a property or inclusionary units shall prevail over any general requirements of the Policy. Users of these Guidelines are encouraged to seek their own legal counsel to aid in understanding the requirements of the City's Inclusionary Program. For any general questions regarding the Guidelines, you may call (619) 691-5047. Review & Updates The City will review and, to the extent necessary, update these Guidelines in conjunction with the City's review of its General Plan Housing Element and its Balanced Communities Policy, or as deemed necessary. The Development Services Director may make interim revisions, interpretations or clarifications to these Guidelines provided that he or she considers the revision, interpretation, or clarification to be minor and consistent with the purposes of the original Policy and the Guidelines. I I P ca, e 41111' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 70 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Inclusionary Requirements Applicability The Policy applies City wide to all residential development of 50 units or more, except as provided below. The requirements of these Guidelines and Policy shall not be cumulative to state or other local affordable housing requirements where those units are subject to an affordability restriction recorded against the property by the state or local agency. To the extent that state or local regulations are inconsistent with the requirements herein for the amount of the fee, length of the restriction or the level of affordability, the more restrictive shall apply. Exemptions In order to reach the Policy goal of creating a balanced community and not overburdening areas of our community with low income housing concentrations, these Guidelines define areas of the City that currently provide a large share of low income housing options. A waiver of the inclusionary requirement will be granted within the, designated census tracts defined as the "Area of Low/Moderate Income Concentration as illustrated in Exhibit 1 and defined as meeting the following criteria: 0 Median income falls below the City wide Median Income, as estimated by the San Diego Association of Governments; and/or 0 Within the Low to Moderate Income Boundary, as provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Exhibit 1 may be updated and approved periodically by the Development Services Director to, reflect current market conditions. Variance A Variance request from the affordable housing requirements may be approved in "Primarily Undeveloped Area" as identified in Exhibit 1, if specific findings can be substantiated by City Council and shall include financial and other information that the Development Services Director determines is necessary to perform an independent evaluation of the applicant's basis for the variance. Such f'indings, include: (1) Special circumstances, unique to that development, Justify granting the variance; (2) The development would not be feasible without the modification; (3) A specific and substantial financial hardship, would occur if the variance were not granted; and 2 1 P ca, e 41111' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 71 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A (4) No alternative means of compliance, are available which would be more effective in attaining the purposes of this Policy than the relief requested. Calculating the Obligation The Policy indicates, that all shall provide 10% of the total number of dwelling units as affordable to low and moderate income, households, as follows: 0 5% minimum for low income households 0 5% for moderate income households In making this calculation, any decimal fraction is, neither rounded up or clown. The Developer may either provide for one additional Affordable Unit or pay a partial in-lieu fee equal to the remaining fraction. EXAMPLE: Calculating Obligation 1. The developer proposes, a 125,-unit residential project. 2. Inclusionary Housing Obligation 125 units x 0.10 = 12.5 Inclusionary Units 6.25 units as a moderate income and 6.2,5 units as a low income Incentive Credit The City has a greater need for housing for very low and low income households. To encourage Developer's to provide for these households, the City can in effect reduce the required affordable housing obligation when the Developer opts to provide very low or low income rather than for moderate income households. Credit The Incentive credit shall be calculated as follows: 1. 2.0 unit credit for every very low income unit in lieu of a moderate income unit. 2. 1.S unit credit for every low income unit in lieu of'a moderate income unit. 3. .5 unit credit for every very low income unit in lieu of a low income unit. 3 1 P ca, e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 72 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A EXAMPLE: Calculating Incentives The developer proposes a 3010-unit residential project. Inclusionary Housing Obligation = 30 Inclusionary Units (15 moderate income & 15 low income units) Inclusionary Housing Proposed with Incentive Credit Proposes to build 20 low income units (5 more than required) (5 additional low income units x 1.5 credits = 7.5 incentive credits) Remaining moderate balance - 7.5 (15 required-7.5 credits) OR Proposes to build all low income units in lieu of moderate 15 moderate income units requ�ired/1.5 low income units = to low income units, therefore developer could fulfill obligation by building 25 low income units Meeting the Requirement ,affordable Housing often provides opportunities to a segment of the population or provide a public benefit that the market might not otherwise provide on its own. The Policy seeks to provide these opportunities while still allowing Developers to provide market driven housing options. This balance requires flexibility and standards to be set in order to meet the goals of the Policy and to ensure a variety of housing options are provided. The standards and methods of compliance to meet these goals are defined below. Standards A variety of factors are considered in planning Affordable Housing and meeting the Inclusionary Requirements defined under the Policy, such as the location of the housing, the type of housing, design and amenities. 'These factors are further defined below and set standards to meet the goals while ensuring that the obligation does snot negatively affect the community. Location Inclusionary units shall be encouraged on sites that are in proximity to or will provide access to employment opportunities, urban services, or major roads or other transportation and that are compatible with adjacent land uses. 4 1 P Zi, e 41111,' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 73 of 767 (A Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHLACITYA VISTA Desigm The design of the Inclusionary Units shall be reasonably consistent or visually compatible with the design of the total project development in terms of appearance, external building materials and finished quality. Upon application as provided herein, the City may, to the maximum extent appropriate in light of project design elements as determined by the Development Services Director, allow builders to finish out the interior of Inclusionary Units with less expensive finishes and appliances, without reducing the amenities offered. Bedroom Mix Inclusionary developments shall provide a mix of number of bedrooms in the affordable dwelling units in response to affordable housing demand priorities of City and/or proportionate to the bedroom size of the market-rate units as determined by the Development Services Director. Public Benefit The City may approve alternatives to the construction of new inclusionary units where the proposed alternative provides a more effective and feasible means of satisfying the requirements and greater public benefit. This determination shall be based on findings approved by City Council that the proposed alternative: 0 Advances the goals and objectives of the Housing Element; Achieves a balance of housing opportunities within the community; 0 Provides a preferred product type in ligiht of the housing needs of the surrounding area and need; 0 Offers opportunities to special needs populations of the community; Offers locational advantages relative to the needs of lower income households; and/or Offers greater feasibility and/or cost effectiveness than new construction. Determining Methods of Compfiance Generally, the City encourages the satisfaction of the Inclusionary Housing requirements through the construction of new residential units to increase its supply of affordable housing within the project ("on-site" for for sae developments. For rental development, a Developer, who has not received any form of City assistance, may voluntarily fulfill their obligation by any of the methods of compliance. The City recognizes that there may be a need to provide greater flexibility to developers seeking 51 P ca, e 41111,' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 74 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A to satisfy their requirement due to unique, conditions of the project and/or the varied housing needs of the community. The City may request information from a Developer in determining the feasibility of one or more, of the compliance, alternatives, including but not limited to the factors below. Compliance Alternatives A Developer may satisfy the Policy requirement by any combination of the following alternatives after consideration of the methods of compliance. These alternatives shell be reviewed in priority order for compliance with the obligation using the determining factors above. On-Site On-site inclusion of the Inclusionary Requirement is the preferred alternative to meet the inclusionary requirements. Factors to consider in meeting the on-site obligation include the locatin of the project, type and tenure of the entire project, and financing Cif the project. Off-Site Developers may choose to satisfy their requirements through a project at a different site, known as the "off-site option but not in the "Area of Low/Moderate Income Concentration This option may be accomplished solely or in conjunction with another developer, also, referred to as a combined project Such options may include, but are not limited to: Constructing new affordable units at a different site; 0 Acquiring and rehabilitating existing market rate units to affordable units; Transfer of affordable housing credits from the City or another developer; and 0 0 Provision of special needs hous ngi projects or programs (shelters, transitional housing, etc.). The City acknowledges that there may be rare instances where an over-riding public benefit of a particular project may require consideration of meetings an off-site obligation within the "Area of Low/Moderate Income Concentration". In such cases, the City Council may provide a finding that an off-site obligation may be met within this otherwise excluded area, if it provides a unique public benefit that migiht not otherwise Occur. As part of the Inclusionary Housing Plan, the Developer shall: 6 1 P ca, e 41111' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 75 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A • Identify the proposed off-site, location and the number of proposed units to be credited to its Incluse onary requirement, demonstrating that the off-site option meets the goals of the Inclusionary policy (i.e. provides a balance of housing options and/or provides a unique benefit); • Provide evidence of site control of the off-site location; and 0 Demonstrate that the proposed off-site location will be able to satisfy the requirements of the Policy. In-Lieu Housing Fee Developers may choose to satisfy any portion of their requirements through payment of an in-lieu housing fee, including a prorated in-lieu fee for partial units. This fee is approved by the City Council based upon the affordability gap, of what low/moderate income households can afford to pay for a home and the median sales price of a home in Chula Vista. The fee is regularly updated as conditions change. Developers must pay the In-Lieu Housing Fee at the time of issuance of a building permit for any part of the project. Process The Balanced Communities, Policy is implemented primarily through two documents: the Inclusionary Housing Plan and the Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement. The Inclusionary Housing Plan provides the basis for determining how the provisions of the Policy will be satisfied. The Inclusionary Housing Agreement and any deed restriction or regulatory agreement set forth the ongoing affordability and other restrictions applicable to the Inclusionary Units once they have been completed. Preliminary Application A Developer subject to the Inclusionary Housingi provisions of this Chapter and proposing a housing development pursuant to the Policy may submit a preliminary application prior to the submittal of any formal request for approval. Applicants are encouraged to schedule a pre-application conference with designated staff of the Planning, Building and/or Housing Divisions of the Development Services Department to discuss and identify potential application issues, includingi prospective incentives or concessions that may be requested. A preliminary application shall include the following information: A brief description of the proposed housing development, including the total number of units, bedroom count, and Inclusionary Units proposed; 7 1 P ca, e 41111' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A • The zoning and general plan designations and assessor parcel num�ber(s) of the project site; • A vicinity map and preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, including building footprints, driveway, parking layout, open space, recreational amenities, building eevations, existing contours and proposed grading; and • A letter identifying what specific incentives or concessions are beingi requested for the affordable units. Within 90 days of receipt of the prelim�inary application, the City shall provide to the Applicant a letter which identifies project issues of concern and the procedures for compliance with this Policy. Inclusionary Housing Plan An Inclusionary Housing Plan is submitted along with the Applicant's first application for a Discretionary Approval for a Residential Development. No Discretionary Approval shall be granted without submission of the Inclusionary Housing Plan. Content The Inclusionary Housing Plan shall contain the following information: • A brief description of the Residential Development includingi the number of Market Rate Units and Inclusionary Units proposed, and the basis for the calculation of the number of Inclusionary Units. • The unit-mix, location, structure type, and size of the Market Rate and Inclusionary Units, and whether the Residential Development is an ownership or rental project. • A floor plan depicting the location of the Inclusionary Units shall be provided. The income level of the Inclusionary Units; In the event the Developer proposes a phased project, a phasing plan that provides for the timely development of the Inclusionary Units as the Residential Development is built out. The phasing plan shall provide for development of the Inclusionary Units concurrently with the Market Rate Units. • If the Developer intends to satisfy the Inclusionary Usnit requirement by payment of an in-lieu fee, a statement to that effect, and a calculation of the total in-lieu fee payment required. • If' a conveyance of land or an off-site Inclusionary Units, alternative is proposed, information necessary to establish compliance with these Guidelines. 8 1 P ca, e 41111,' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 77 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;6TA Enforcement Approval of the, Inclusionary Housing Plan and implementation of a Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement shall be a condition of approval of any Discretionary Approval or building permit for the Residential Development. Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement Except for those cases where the requirements are satisfied by payment of an in-lieu fee or the conveyance of land to, the City, all Developers whose projects are subject to the Policy shall enter into a Balanced Communities Affordable, Housing Agreement with the City. The City's, standard form(s) of the Agreement may be obtained from the Housing Division of the Development Services Department. Content The form of the Balanced Communities Affordable Housings Agreement may vary, de endings on the manner in which the provisions are satisfied for a particular Residential Development. All Inclusionary Housing Agreements shall include, at a minimum, the following information: • The number of total units within the residential development and the Inclusionary Units proposed, with specific calculations detailing the application of any credit adjustment; • The proposed location of the Inclusionary Units; and • Schedule for production of dwelling units. If no imap is being processed, the Agreement required is a project specific agreement to include the following: 0 Indicate whether the Residential Development is an ownership or rental project; The number and size of Very Low, Low or Moderate Income Units, location of units, square-fooltage of units; Amenities and services provided, such as daycare, after school programs, transportation,job training/employment services and recreation; • The incentives if any), including the nature and amount of local public funding; 0 Provisions for resale or rental restrictions, monitoring affordability of the units; and • The determination of Income-Eligible households. Where applicable, requirements for other documents to be approved by City, such as marketing, leasing and management plans; financial assistance/loan documents; resale agreements; and monitoring and compliance plans. 9 1 P ca, e 41111' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 78 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities A Policy CHU" T Enforcement to building permit shall be issued for all or any portion of the Residential Development unless the Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement has been recorded. For those residential projects processing e map, the Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement is, executed prior to final map approval and shall be recorded upon final map recordation. Where a map is not beim processed, the Agreement is executed prier to the issuance of building permits for any units within the project. Recordation The Agreement is recorded as a covenant against the real property of the Residential Development and will ruin with the land. This Agreement should generally be recorded in the first position and not subordinated to Cather liens and encumbrances. In the case where satisfaction of the inclusionary housing requirements are being met through the development of off-site Inclusionary Units, the Agreement will be simultaneously recorded on bath the title to the property where the Gaff-site Inclusionary Units are to be developed and the Residential Development. !pon the completion of the Inclusionary Units and their occupancy by Income-Eligible, households, the Agreement shall be released from record title of the market rate Residential Development site. �Determining Affordability To amain consistent with Federal and State programs related to affordable housing, the City of' Chula Vista uses the definitions and data provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State of California to define income levels and affordability of housing. Income Levels The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides income charts that identify the annual and monthly maximum incomes for lower income households for the San Dingo County area and updates this information each year. The City of Chula vista uses the Area Median Income (AMI) for San Diego County, since HUD does not provide median income data for specific cities. These income charts are shown in Exhibit 2, ,and are available at the office of the Chula Vista Development Services Department Housing Division and on its website atww.chulavtaca. Dov curb. .01ca, 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 79 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A The City uses this income data as a basis for calculating the maximum rents and sales prices permitted under the City's Affordable Housing Programs. The City's affordability requirements refer to the following income categories, which are based on various percentages of the AMI: Income Category Percentage of Area Med*lan Income very Low 50% or less Low 50% - 80% Moderate 80% - 120% Income Adjusted for Household Mize The Area Median Income as published by HUD corresponds to the area m�edian income for a household of four. The AMI is then adjusted for household size. HUD sets the median incomes for other household sizes by applying a multiplier to the median income of a household of four. The City uses these income limits for setting the eligibil�ity of renters and buyers under its affordable housing programs. Households are considered eligible if their income does not exceed the income for their household size at the upper end of the targeted income level. EXAMPLE: Determining Income Level . Targeted Income Level = Low Income . Smith family's (household size of 3 persons) annual income = $45,000. 3. Maximum annual income for a Low Income household of 3 persons at 801% AMI = $57,850 4. Smith family is qualified as Low Income. Affordability — 30% of Income The term It affordable It may have a wide range of meaningis to the general public, but in the City's usage it has as specific meaning. The City, as well as most state and federal housing programs define affordable as housing costs that do snot generally exceed 30% of' the gross annual household income of any given income group (reference California I I I P ca, e 41111,' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 80 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"VITA Health and Safety Code Section 50 53 (b) for rental housing and 50052.5 (b) for ownership housing). EXAMPLE: Affordable Housing Costs Annual income of five person household is $66,10 . Maximum income for a five person low-income household at 80% AMI = $69,400, Maximum monthly affordable housing cost Annual income + 12 x .30 = $66,100 + 12 x .30 - $5,508 x .30 = $1,652 maximum month1v housing cost OR Annual income of five person household is $95,0010. Maximum annual income of five person moderate-income household at 120% AMI $98,400 Maximum monthly affordable housing cost Annual income + 12 x .30 = $95,000 + 12 x .30 = $7,916 x .,30 = $2,374 maximum monthly housing cost The monthly housingi cost limits and purchase price estimations given here are based on the following assumptions: ■ Appropriate household size is defined as the number of bedrooms in a unit plus oine, i.e. a one-bedroom unit is based on a 2-person household, a two-bedroom unit is based on a 3,-person household, and so on. Calculating Affordable Rents For a rental unit, total housing costs include the monthly rent payment as well as consideration for a utility allowance (reference 25 California Code of Regulations Section 6918). Information on utility allowances can be obtained from the City and is based upon the schedule adopted by the Housing Authority of the County of San Diego and approved by HUD, reference Exhibit 3,. The utility schedule varies by number of bedrooms in a unit and by the various utility combinations. Affordable trental rates are based upon a targeted income level. It is impractical to set individual maximums rents on the actual income of each household to reside within the affordable unit. 12 1 P ca, e 41111' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 81 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Estimated rental rates are provided only as rough guides, as there are several variable factors that go into calculating rental rates. The state and federal government housing progirams may make various adjustments for bedroom size and target income percentages. The examples provided in these Guidelines summarizes the most commonly used by the City for affordable rental projects, reference Exhibit 4. EXAMPLE: Affordable Rental Housing Costs 1. 3 Bedroolm apartment affordable to a low income household Affordable rent calculated at 60% AMI Maximum monthly affordable rent = $1,,138— utility allowance OR 1. 3 Bedroom apartment affordable to a moderate income household Affordable rent calculated at 110% AMI Maximum monthly affordable rent = $2,087— utility allowance Calculating Affordable Homeownership Costs For for-sale units, total housing costs include, the mortgage payment (principal and interest), homeowners association dues, taxes, imortgage insurance and any other related assessments (reference 25 California Code of Regulations Section 6920). Estimated purchase prices are provided only as rough guides, as there are several variable factors that go into calculating sales prices, reference Exhibit 5. On tai n Compliance Developers shall be responsible to have on file and provide at City request documentation showing compliance with state and local laws pertaining to affordable housing practices. These shall include but are not limited to the following items below. Affirmative Markefing Developer shall perform those affirmative marketing responsibilities set forth in 24 C.F.R. 92.351. The affirmative marketing strategy must be designed to attract buyers and renters of all majority and minority groups, iregardless of sex, handicap and familial status to assisted rental units and sales dwelling which are being marketed. The Developer shall have available at City request an Affirmative ark tinge Plan that includes the following components: 13 1 P ca, e 41111' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 82 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"VITA • Targeting: Identifying the segments of the eligible population which are least likely to apply for housing without special outreach efforts; • Outreach: An outline of an outreach program which includes special measures designed to attract those groups identified as least likely to apply and other efforts designed to attract persons from the total population; • Indicators,: Statement of the indicators to be used to measure the success of the marketing program; and • Staff Training: Demonstration of the capacity to provide training and information on fair housing laws and objectives to sales or rental staff. Developer must make, a good faith effort to conduct outreach. This requires recorded activities, and documented outreach to those individuals identified as least likely to apply, such as print and electronic advertising and Marketing housing to specific community, religious or other organizations frequented by those least likely to apply. Waiting dist The developer shall have written procedures for selection of residents and any priority system in p�lace. At the City's req�uest the, procedures and copy of the active waiting list shall be fu�rnished to the City. Report iint The Developer shall retain records and reports onsite and shall make such available to the City on irequest. This list of irecoirds and reports relating to the Project, are in addition to any documents required by other funding sources. The records and reports include, but are not limited to the foillowing: 0 Eligible Tenant information, ncludingi yearly income verifications; Housing payments charged to resident tenants, to the extent applicable; 0 On-site inspection results; Affirmative marketing records; 0 Insurance policies and notices; Equal Employment Opportunity and Fair Housing records; 0 Labor costs and records; • An audited income and expense statement and balance sheets for Developer; • An audited income and expense statement and balance sheets for the Project; A Management Plan for the calendar year in which the report is prepared showing anticipated rental income, other income, expenses, anticipated repairs and replacements to the Project, timing of such repairs and replacements, insurance imaintained on behalf of the Project, and such other smatters as City shall require, in its sole discretion; 1.41 , e 41111' 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 83 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A 0 Federal and State income tax returns for the calendar year, ending on the preceding December 31st; • Annual analysis of reserves for repair and replacement; • Annual certification and representation regarding status of all loans, encumbrances, and taxes; • Annual statement regarding condition of the Property and disclosing any known defects; • An OMB A-133 financial audit; • A report or reports, certifying compliance with the terms and provisions of the Section 3 requirements, as set forth in this Agreement and certifying compliance with the provisions of federal law as it relates to Section 3, whether or not specifically set forth herein; and, • Such other and further information and records as City and/or HUD shall request in writing from Borrower. 15 1 P ca, e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 84 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Appendix 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 85 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Ths page is irvten-tionaHy Hank. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 86,of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Exhibit 1 —Area of L,ow/Moderate Incoe Concentration ............................................................ Wool'. 7va %am Wall ........ ........... av/ 0 iceao rw 41 1 to,*W H. 4.0 S 400 E 5 LU CLO 017N ......:...... ............. 0 ......... ......... ..... .............. W M, E".............. µygw ........... 0 OL, Op 0 ........... C .II ....... ......... arr .............. ...... ............... LD ............... C V 0 ArampA CLI 0 .......... 70 0 Itz 0 CO LK iN CL "We Api Oct ............... ........... ............................. A I P (a, e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 87 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Exhibit 2 - City of Chula Vista Income Guidelines tt San,Die,go-,Ca,r1:sbad1-Szn Marcos,CA M' ropolli,ta,n Statistical Area,,,(M,,SA) 2 0 121' Hous,ehold Inenure Limits HUD Me"Ithod I i 1 900 Nxjte�:7he4b]I cwing 7inusehold inco ma,I iinitsare-ad usb--d fbr a hig,,Fcast ane-Li as Sia,,n� MarcosCA MSA 7 5,T i i 17 1,d-o Li I c.,:u,,,.'I,a t e�,d i i,j 5�!n C�'E,r n L-1 I o 7d o I a g y a U.S.,Elepartmierit c4 Hbuiisiin; and Urban Develbepment peir t he F ew-.]feral Hou!�ing ALI af 1&3,7 L Cfeiy Cad',,e Seoliccris 50,052.5 and,53G�3. Dec*rnibier'1,20-11 Effective,DL Omply-with Health ar(ciSL Extreemely ILaw IIIlllricame Very ILaw Intoine 30% 351%, 40% 5101%, HsIli iol1d S i zle, Annuiall Mo,nthly 30.,00'% Anniva111 Mlonth[y 30..0,01% Ann uiaJ Monthly 3 0.00% Anatol Mlonth[y '30.0,0101j6p lincome Inconle Moi,,,jithdy Incomie lincome, Monthly 1111come Income Monthly Inconie, Income, Mbnthl[y GNE S,T'6,S Do 51, 05 S4.22 STMDO S 1:,642 $492 $22:500 $1,875 $563 $x"5,1;553 S2,346 $7134 T'N0 S'11 9,3DO $111,608 .82 5,22,5DS1,875 $562 S25:3100 $2,14.2 $643 $32,,"11,11,11510, S2,679 W4 THR FEE 521,700 51,505 5,542 525,300 $,2,!,,1 cf,8 $632 $28'1'�tlz'o $2,4&511, $723 $35,155!, 1 $31'0 13 F L'YJ�R 524,100 $2,0015 S602 S28,1 00 $2:1,-34 2 $70x1 $3,2:1,1 DO $2,1675 $803 $x^40,150 $3:1,34 6 $1110134 F I'V"",E' 5,26,1015-0 $2171 S651 S30350 $2:529 $758 $34:3100 $2,,892 $868, $43,4010i $3,617 $111385 Six S28,10DO $2,333 S700 51,32,16 00 S5',717 $8 15 S37,250 $3,104 $9.311 $46,,6010, S3:'11(383 S 1:"1 Ell'S SEVEN 529,900 $2,492 5747 S34,850 S'1,934 $87t $39,1,81,151110 $3,321 $91:11611" $49,,801C, S4,15 0 S 1,24 5 E4 HT 531,850 $2,654 S796 537 100 $11,092 $927 $421,400 X5,33 $1,,063 $53"00101 $4,1417 $11,1,325 Low Income 60% 65,1%, 70% 801%, HsIlii okf S i zle, Annuiall Mo,nthly 30.,00'% Annijai al1 Mlonth[y 30..0,01% Ann uiiaJ Monthly 3 0.00% Anatol Mlonth[y '30.0,0101j6p lincome Inconle Moi,,,jithdy Incomie lincome, Monthly 1111come Income Monthly Inconie, Income, Mbnthl[y Q N E 55x5,750 $2,81 5843 51,36,550 S3:,046 $913 S39:,350 $3,279, $983 $45,,0010, S3:755 S 1,125 TW0 538,1600 $3,2 17 S965 54 1,3DO S3:483 $1,,045 $4 5:,,CCC $3,750 $1,,125 $51,4010, S4283 Sl,235 7HR,EE 54 5,40 $3,511' $1,085 574 7,1 D 0 0 17 $1,175 $'51110:1,6100 4,217 $]x651, $57,,850 $4,,8'x:11 $1,,x^446 F L'YJ 1 R 548,200 $4,017 $1,205 5,52200 $4 55,x51,'5$ s $4,16,',63 $1,AGS $64,250, $51,.3 5,4 $ F I VE' SE52,1 DO $4,342 $1,30 556,44 S4:7100 51,A 10 S,60:310,0 $5,10,58, S°1,.51 W,9,,4010, SE5:783 S'11:735 Six, 555"950 $4,663 $1,3981, S60,18"DO $'S'J'O�vo $11515 $5,433 $ld,33G $74,550, $6,213 $ SEVEN 559'soo $4,983 $1,495 S64,750 $1,,616 's5's&B, $1742 $T3,701C, $6,,,642 $1,,,992 �E IG HT S'63,16,50 55,5x04 $1,591 551 S50 $5746 $1,723 $74:21DO $6,183 $1,,855, $84,,85,3 S 7,,0 7 T $2121 Mbera1mi IIIIncorne 100% 111101%, 120% 1 14 0 1%, HsIlii okf S i Ze, Annu4l1 Monthly 30.,00'% Annijai alll Mlonth[y 301111100%, Ann u,',',.,aJ Monthly 3 0.00%, Anatol Mlonth[y 3 0 1.0,01 lincome Inconle Moi,,,jithdy Incomie lincome, Monthly 1111come Income Monthly Inconie, Income, Mbnthl[y GNE 555,151 $4,429' $1,328 558,45 $ :,871 $1;'46"T $5,31FT S I"5�3'5, $74,4010i $6219,D 1,555 TW0 5,60,750 $5,063 $1,5115 S66,800 $,5,1,`5,8,,7 $1"670 $7 Z!,EIZ,0 $6,10,75 $1,,8227' $85"0010, $T,083 $2,125 74-NR,EE 5,68,350 $5,696 $1,7015 5,75,150 $1,,876 $8,2:1,00,0 $6,833 $2,,053 $95"6501 $71,971 $2:1,39 11 F 1 L)U 1'F?, S75,SDO $6,325 $1,897, S83,5,DO $1161':1'95ry8 $2,,087 $'S1 1DO $7,5,92 $2,277 5,106,2551, $,8:1,854 $2:1,656 F I VE' S,82,10DO $6,833 $2,050 51'90,2DO S75,17 $2,255 S'98:40,0 $8,200 $2,,46E, S114750, S 9:5E,3 S2:,8,E,8 Six 55N8,1,50 $T,338 $2,201 51'96,9DO S8,075 $2,,422 $10,53 DO $8,1810151, $2,,642 S123,250 $1 D:27 1, S3:,081, SEVEN 594,150 x,846 $2,353 $103,5,50 $8:1,6329 $2"556 $113:1,000 $9,4 17 $2,,82`, S1,31,750, $-10:1,1379 $3:1,293 �E IG HT $1 D5,2DO sa,350 $2505 $1 10,'50 sq:'18,8 S2,756 $12D:,,3,CjO S1;0,025 $3,,007 S,140,253 $1 1,688 $3513B ,,all, is -3 9 4 ill,Nuts lnccvrr�eitu.vels 80%and,beirfiv areadjusled by a HU'D highi oast L in 6an ce- Th iis general inc om,@,iinforuuttib,n lis calcu IzAed fromi th @ U.S.Departni errt ci IHous iiin g and Urban Dewelopnient(1HUE1)wivcornie fii iuraures..Specift progiwa,%ni reqUiiirernevnts miay wary., Pr 1pzare III ffordaWe Housing. Service Illllriforinationf,,LLC Phane.(858)832-148,'D A - 2 1 P (a, 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 88 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Exhibit 3, - San Diego County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule Allowauce/s fol, U.S.Depa-114meitt�o "Hou sing OIXIB Appro-val No.2577-0169 (exp.9?`30,,,,`2,0,L2)( Utilities, an Urban,Development HUD'Hand -526,67(12;97) and Chhe'tOServices, Office of'Publk and,In,dianHousing book 7420.8, Depa rdmelfl 01'Housillg al'I'd C,Omimunitv Develo ment I.,m !p 7, E)ate(Mmiddrl, 1. p " it TY 3989 R-tiffin Rd.,San Diego CA 9,2111-1890 lity, niti-of S Sening,a,sthje Hou-4ng Authm of thie Coz nt San,Dieg Pav inen t Stamdards(101041201 11")f'or new contr"act"S"rece"t-ts., 0 BR I BR 2 BR 3,BR 4 RR 5 BR 16 ER eff:ecfi,xe 1112012 5I111116 1014 12:41, 1,764 2179 2 5,10 6 28,33 Payinent Standard for(j'041110)Use fbirRecertlImerim,uv til 904 11)3 5 12:66 18,1010 222:3 2 5,5,7 28,910 1112,012,murts Papneut Stamida,rdg(9310412010)for,rLiew co1kjtr,.vcts,,effective YfOV10-91',IW2010 651 974 1192 16!95 20,94 24107' 2721 Fair Market Rent(10!1 t2o 11) 981'14 1126 1378, 1,9 6 1) 2421 2784 3147 [1 t 0.]"S e I-vi�c e(711110 11), M onth 1Y Do I lay� Ilowances 0 BR I BR 2 BR 3,BR 4 RR 5 BR 16 ER Heatilly a. Gas,`Other 3, 4 5 16 81 9 1.0 b,. 0,11/Electric 5 7 8 10 13 15 17 C v Ocking a.Gas,/Oth ey, 2 3 31 4 5 16 b,.Oit!"Electric 3 4 5 16 & 9 1.0 Basic E I&CIrlCitv is 21 2 21 41 1'7 544 Air C'ork,11tioning I 1 1 1 Water, an Gas,/ there 16 8 10 12 16 is 20 Heating b.011,i Electritle 10 14 17 21 V 111 '15 Watey 36: 50 65 79 101 11.5 111 Sewer is 31-1 40 50 57 65 Trash Collection 21 21 :11 21 21 21 21 Ra,,n,ge/N-111CrOW21Ve 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 Re fhgef a,tcw Flat:Rale Watei(`,any f1at f ate parks.aj3,,a,rtzne,,n,LS1) 19 19 19 19 19 19 1.9 Flat Rate Se-i-vei (any flat rate pars, 19 19, 19 19 19 19 1.9 Flat Rate,Traf,511 (tany flat rate 16 16 116 116 116 116 1.16 Nlobileholne met°®P'S:=S716(1,L"I/1 7 ,1)-,FIR,:=$795(1 1/l/11) Actual Faiiifflv Allo-ivallce,,s To be ust,d by the family to compute allowance. Utility or,Sel-vice, Per,month cost Complete Belo for,the mctual utift,feasted. Heating Naine of Fmuil,y, Cooking Of her,Elecffic Ad.dres7,,ofUl"nit I.Vater Heating 'XT.a tease. 5,ewer T'm,h Collection Refrigerator Number of'aleclmoms Alf,C,ondittoming 0, unease. er, Total $ iate payme t standar - OL ize sof Unit, t,onumber f o Instruttions: C"irde actual bedro-oirl size. Circle the appropr 13 d (the lowei bedi,00iia,s on Hbitsing C'hoiee Voucher). Circle approptlate allowances fdr,all tenant paid/prloilded utilities,s,ervices andap, hamce:,s p (use allowances f6r,actual unit siztl,r2ther than the Utility allot .wee for,ti e HCAT bedroom size). Complete and total utility,costs,in the right h,and bottom section. INJobilehomes/flat Fate apartments have different utflity allowances,formeitent,,sewet,aild tr"411sh. Fair1,'7 '-Nlabet IL/OL1121011 11/011,2011 tilities Effective:0`101/2,01.2 Note- The.F Rs for unit larger than 4BRS are,calculated by,adding 15�,Lb to thie 4BR FMR for each extfa,bedfooni.. For example- the FAVIM fl of a 5B,R -tp Hecti Unit L5 1.1 tonne 1ttleflit's ,,:ire :i theFI ,4BR R,aind,flit]1' 1F for a 6RR unit 1. is 30 ninet s he 4BR FNIR.In utied intetest,Rate: 29,'�ef ve 08 2110 . A. - 3 1 P (a, e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 89 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Exhibit 4 - Example Affordable Rental Rates COUNTY oilIijdn)-- SAN DIEGO 2012gal Yr), Affor" lllll IHruirmg Costs/ReMs: AREA MEDIAN INCOME: $75q900 iric(Dini,e, RENTER OWNER (Iuse 11i"icorie Llllrnlits,"'at lbelow lila ) H*alth&,Safety Codes,: 5,um 500,52.5 IhttjD:/,,I'viww.hc1d Extrieme],Iry Low 1% 30%,[ Fotmitilla, Viery Low 501% 50% (The'se, coll I urtvsshowl how, th,e�it'axt:mum mont ly Low 1601% 70% renitand m1ax''imUnn", calcu,"Iated.) Moderate 111 Of 110% Above, typ Mote:amotints do allowances,to deduct Cloull , S Unit Max 11,11,11,01&nthly Max.,Mlorithy ma,x, Area',' "Fami,"Iy" Size R.erit CostH(DiUse,Cost Cost Median% Median Income Groq Bedroom(s) (Renters), (Owneirs) Up'pL4,r'Ljjmit InIc' Moftths,! D(Studio) $3,98.48 sarne, 300%, xj 31096 X$75,900 x fl..,71 �'12 ] Extreiiiely I lbe Iron ni, $455.40 sarne, I, 300%, X 3100v6 x$75,900 x C.,,,B /12 ] Low Imri ligedrooni,s, $512.33 same I, 30 0%, x 3096 x$7 5,90,0 x C1SII2 HIH 3 lbedrooni,s, $5,69.25 same I, ova, X 20 C)ov'6 X 1$7 5,90,0 xj 1-01) /12SII 4lig edroom,s, $,1-:,,;,'14.79 same I, 30 0/b, x 310 0% X$75,900 x 1.08, 12SII D(Studlio) SE-11,64.1 13 same I, 30 0%, x 51096 x$75,900 x fl..,7' '1SII2 I bedroom, $759.00 sarne, I X Ve,ry Low 30 0140 SIC)OV16 X$7 5,90,0 x C-8 '12SII 11"icornie IHH 2,lig edroo.m,s, $1 8 1-,,3.8 8 same I, 30 0/b, x 510 0% X$75,900 x C.,"El, 1SII2 3 beIron ni,s, $9,48.75 same I. 30 ova, X 510 Ov,6 x$7 5,90,0 x 1-0 1SII2 4 ligedrooni,s, $11,024.65 same I, 30 0%, x 50 016 X$7 5,90,C) X 1. '1SII2 D(Studi'10) 91 9 I, 30 0/b, x 60%, x$75,900 x 0.7 '1SII2 I bedroom, $910.80 6'0%,,,dbes,not amiy 3 0 0,40, X 60%, X 1375XIG x C-8 .2, 30 0/b, x 60%, x$75,900 x C.,"'El, '12 bedrooni,s, S .I3 24.6 , 5 tb-ownem, SII 3 bedroom,s, S'lbefow do6s,,),, I. 3 0 0,40, X 60%, X$7 5"90,0 x 12 Low, 4 bedrooni,s, $1,1 229.58 30 1%, x 60%, x$7 5,90,C) x 1.0,�8 '1SII2 I'J"icornie IHH D(Studilo) $929.78 30 0%, X 70%, x$7 5,90,C) x 0.7 '1SII2 I lbedroom, 70%,,db(e,,s,nutapP)Y 30 0,40, x 701/4, X$7 519,00 -8 '12 .2,bedrooni,s, 1b,r6ht'ers(60%, 1,19,5.4 3 30 11%, x 70%, x$7 5,90,0 x t'1SII2 abov''e'"dbe,p) .2 .2 4, x$7 5 900, x /'12 3 bedrooni,s, $113 'S., 5 30 ov& X 70,1/ 4lig edrooni,s, $1,434-51 30 1%, x % x$75,90,0 x 1. /'1SII2 D(Studilo) S'l 461.08 30%1, X '11 D 96 x$7 5,90,0 x C.7 /'1SII2 I bedroom, $'I�66 9.R-0 a 30",'%', x '110 11v,6 x$75"90,0, x C-8 /'12 ,t app y .21 bedrooni,s, S'l 8,78.'E��3 b (35% 30%, X '11 D Qv& x$7 5,90,0 x C.,"'El, �'1SII2 3 bedrooni,s, $,2 087.25 beltow d6ep) 30%1, X '11 D 96 X$7 5 9010 x /'12SII 71 SII Mic,clierate 4 bedrooni,s, S,2�2,54.2 3 30%, X '11 D Qv& x$7 5,90,0 x 1.0,�8 �'12 IH SII '11 D Qv& X$7 5,9 0,0 x C.71 /'12 11',icornie D(Studio) S1,704-59 35,%1, X I I bedroom, 35% $1"9 4 8.,1 0 35, X '1 1 D 96 x$7 5"90,0 x C-8 /'12SII .21 bedrooni,s, 1b,ipqtev�,,j(,j0'%,, 35,Y'%, X 11 11 C)OV6X.$7 5,90,0 x C.,9,. /12SII 3 bedrooni,$), abovedbep� $2,1435.13 35/1'XV, X, '11 D 0,d,6 x,$7 5 1,900, x /'1SII2 4 bedrooni,s, $2,0,329-94351%, X '11 D ov6 X$7 5,90,0 1. /'12SII F""31?v,'Iy,,1-3i.Ze(1-8),Adju',stniet?t.- Adj'ushnerits are, tnade so targe,ir fainifies,havehigherthconie The, 4-,tiers t?fhcome limit setves as the base, ir?calculating iricome,tart` for hou,�"ehold sizes oth,er than 4 pe,rsotis. For farridy_uedrat?gmg, flronli I to 8,0ers,011's,,t,h,e ivultipArt ers are az folk-us": Number,&Persons(below): 1 0.7 0.8 0.9, 11.01(base) 1.08, 111.1 116 1.24, 1,32, De,cimzidl Multipliers(abovie): For,households 1,,-.v,-(jerthan eptil per-soins (aff)"GCOMP,Categories),defernw?"?e income hmits folfows. Per person SPP)a&,,shnerpt above 18:,('1)rnuftipfythe four-perso'n,income ffinit b,y aig`7t-perceril (2),mvftipt�y result by t?vnber of 'serf ms r,excess ref`,enht, (3)add th,e amotint to th,e ifico.me Jim t`for eJght perso,?,is,at?d(4)rout?,d th,e re stilt to the nearest$1,00. E XA,M P L E 4 persons x 816,F P A c4 added, to 9_p yaonz 8,ggrspns+8%� F'Ad!i(,,x2'j E10 aoas IE:xtremely Low, 119,500, 1"560 2,15,750 27v3GO 2,5,T50 3120 2,18.900 "der ILovit hicomi 35,6501 2,1852 47,1100 1710-0100 47,1100 5704 52.800 Lowler,Income 55,7M,11 4460 73,6001 1 718,v 100 73,600 18920 62.500 Mlodara,te Ill comi 8 0,500,1 6440 106,2501 1 t 12v 700 106,,2501 f 2880 t t9ir 100 A - 4 1 P Cal e Zn 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 90 of 767 Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy CHU"(V;19A Exhibit 5 - Exale Affordable Sales Prices Affordable Sale,s PrIld"Ing CIty,of Chula Vista 20,12, Szr, lZA NIi VCzlian i 75JK0 lktc 7h,r vInat nczry Lirritzi arc for a�144,111 C=t wtz Ilan,i"Ilic,FrO.'ral•tvz'vg ACI d,ISS', Cakwatcd g't nz�HIM n1ct,,4xkIWy k 'A Th HAZIP 3r I q MG,I, J.Z.Zicparlmerfl,0 E7FIECMWE LicremUr n,Zn"j very,Low, Low,11ramorrwe LDw irreorr',,op-, Low Law Moderale, Woo e ra te iNlodgrate M ad e rate, ru u,1 rile liri,:ome Ill 11ricorrie n wini e, inzornie, 1 611,'13ze by N al.of 3edr1Com5i(I FWsan Per Si-6,ucm, +I j 2 Bdrm 1 BOOM 2Bdrrris 33, is 4 B-dirms 1 E3,Im'I 2 Rzimis 3,Bdrrris 4 Sil QLMiliifyir largo I,7rl,of A,7sa,Median Inccirne.,pAIAT',I forAfferdrab4p,IHOLMllri,g, fl,0111�. 70% 70% 713'�'M' 70,x, I 1 110% 110112 111110°,+ Equals Annual HOLIsehold Iii Eai,ed Upon Qualitying Feroerill,of,AK ilzc?FccLrctc,s#I 5,34, $42,,l $4 T,81 7 5 !�,2,130 57,3FC, ,$1ft.792 $75,111411 $ 23,490 $ 16,9 EqL41s HOU5ehrji,.,l lino,arm e,Based Upen .eng Flerceni crf,AMII 21,840 -3,0,A 2 3, 4,428 4,TS2 151,5W 8,202 0,'�S 7,514 Timies of Household ljo Housing Expenses 30% K51C S_T0%, 35% 315,51C 315+� 35% Equal s Ann U a I,Ddl IwEl A.,weed for,Hi'waing Experles 10,247 112.75,11 1,4,,A- 5 t5,039 17,21114 22,377 X5.299 29,,222 31,559 EqW*IS Allbwisur lzir lHauslrg ExjpuRlnses 854 I.8&3 1 1195 1,328 1,4a5 1,'54 6 2,192 2,435 2,630 II _,esEl Real E'51a,te Taxes(Annill.1,11 154;VF PLArchase,Prrce,� 1,083 1.182 1,379 1,503 Jf�77 Z,355 2.703 3,131DID 3�,240 _esEl 200 2CC 7DD 250 313,L 200 20C 250 300 _'esEl 1,330 1.230 1"K-111D 1,585 1,i.:KI2C 1,565 1.1518 51 1,5555 11,585 Less;Homje Cillwnwins,Fee 1,8100 1.800 1"SDD 21,100 2,400 1,&100 1,800 2,1DID 2,400 EqUa�ls Annill.1,11 Ddl[ars;Available for Dqbt Serwioe .5,839 ERR88 113,141 11,047 11,59"S 17,317 1'9,874 22,12.4 23,86 4 D?wided by Anill Loan 02) C1.055113 0.,H,155 C',a 55'a 0.,rlemHAZII a"D,55r5 FIL0556 E q U a I s M,,",a�a71 LI rn 5L.Clarf A r,,7 a#,ml,that C,a n Be I e d f c r 4(o rn e,P u rT.h a se la, 018 114,622 133,783, f 4!�,,7 4 5 15 3,0,wl 228,40 '2&2,1 St 2 9 1,8R.14S 3,14,833 ;`IIus Down Flaynient.-3% 3,248 3,Z4�_ 4,t 3S 4,508 4,T32 >8,1C9, 9,02.m. '1 Equa[s M,xi mum A[Iowable Purchase Price(,S,,Pe IIIFrrllxtun ole#I)i $.10 8.2166 $"1'121,167 J1.37,92-1 $150.2,53, $157,335 $235.5,25 $,270 3,05 $300,894, $324,570 Buyer's,Monthly Mbrlgage I"Yaynient-11Debt,,Seorvice,112 irna,',n'the, 7 $724 $845 $0,211l' $9619 $1.443, $"1 111,6,56, $1,844, $.1 9,as Footn,oles: I '7'h e,hfouseh old ihozorne filmils a re ad�usled fora Iii g h cosi,area&5l,per"the FerJ'jer,41 HcuE�z7l Acl,of 1937 Lind C.ibtd atip-rJ'LJS'117q�HC��,D metinroil gly,to co rip�l j H e allh ar H,.,Safery Code,Sectb ri 50006,2._,and'7 itje.,26 of IRequi11aliorrs:-wqrztkai�7(s 6920 arld"13932. 2,,R,DLjnded to the inearesi$15D. a, Arirlll,41 Loan Constarl Irs b2sied on,a 3.75%,30 11 ri-10,19age,' 4 PUrezhaPrice,lo,be adjuslield ar,.(ozirdlng le lcftil Ilmonme own,er's feeEl ml eatab"I'Shired Ibythoe,Rea,,t EEtzle,ComimusEkonelr,1fiir,,7,1ul nil IeMl Ofthe IlVan, and applicaUle program reql.flrenienittEl A 5 1 P (a, (T e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 91 of 767 Fromm. noreply(d)granicusideas.corn To: Kerr y Bic ;CriEling Hgrngndgz Subject: New eComment for City Council Meeting Date: Friday,August 21,2020 8:43:21 PM Warning: External Email SpeakUp New euIImeat for City Council Meeting 11-heresa Acerro, r eii reCcn,=(,1.int. Meeting: City (`1..ot.incfl Meeting IterTl'.- 13. 20-0352 CONS I DERA-1-10N OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM 1-1-1E PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A, 141-UN�11 CONDOMINIUM PROJECT OFF MOSS STREE,T, BETWEEN INDUS1-RIAL... BO(JI.....,EVARD AND BROADWAY A. RESOL(JI]ON OF -rl-iE CI'-1-Y COUNCII... OF T4--JE CIT"Y OF C1-----1LJ�L,.A VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATIED NEGA"TIVE DECI-ARATION AND ASSOCIATED MITIGAT]ON, MONITORING AND REP0I-'R,11NG PROGRAM IS18-001014. AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT'I"O "T'l-iE Cl-iUl-A VISTA GENERAI.... PLAN INCLUDING ASSOCIATED ""I'"'EXT, MAPSANDTABI-ES -ro REFL.Eur A I.....AND USE C."f+,-iANGE FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL... "'m RESIDENTIAI.- 1---ilG -i FOR APPROXIMATEI.-Y 6.9 ACRES AT" 676 MOSS STREE'T" B., ORDINANCE OF' "THE CIT'Y OF' CHULA VISTA APPROVING A REZONE FOR A 61.94-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 676 MOSS STREET (F''IRST READING) C. RESOLISTION 0F 'T-[-1E CITY COUNCIL.,, OF TI-1E Cl"TY OF" CHULA VIS'l-A APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP PCS1 8-0010161-0 CONSOL-IDATE A 7.29-ACRE Sll'E FROM ""I"'FIREE ('13) PARCEI....,,S INTO ONE 6.94-ACRE SITE FOR (141) MUI.-TIFAMILY RFESIDENTIA1., (JNITS, F'OR INDIVIDUAL OWNERS!-111P AT676 MOSS S'"I"REET D. RE,S0I-,--L,.J-,ri0N OF "I"HE CITY COLINCIL OF 'TI-IE (, J-1-Y OF CHULAVISTA,APPROVING D,ESIGN REVIEW PERM11" DR18-0028 1-0 CONS'T"RUC 1- 18 'T+iR,EE-,S"r0RY BUILDINGS "10TALING104,416 SQUARE FEE"T, CONSISTING OF 141 `TOWNF�iOMES ON A 6.94 ACR�E SITE 1....,0CA1"ED Al"'676 MOSS STREET, WES"T"" OF OADWAY AND EAST OF INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD E. RESOL(JTION OF I-HE CITY COUNCII.- OF THE CITY OF CHLA-A VIS1...A APPROVING A VARIANCE, IZAV1 8--0001 1-0 DEVIA FE THE FRON'T' SEl"'BACK FROM15 FO 10 FEE"T'10 ALI-OW AN EXIS'T'ING DOUBLE-BARRELED CULVER"]- T'0 REMAIN IN l"T'S ('-`0'L.JFRRENT I.-OCATION ON A 6.94-ACRE SIT'E I-OCATED AT 6176 MOSS S-TREET eCornnient:- The city council needs to riot, approve this piroposed proJect as shlown in the plans, which iueezir-ig an inappropriate nUmber of honies in'totoo sr-nall oi�f a space, with one riarrow entrance /exit for a 26' wide road part of w[-iich 284 ,trash/recycling caris wi�ll block once a Week- In the everit of an ernergency (or in inormal finrries work corTirnuting) howwill 141 vehicles, be abile 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 92 of 767 to exit quickly? Project also ignores req.,jired distances frorn property l4'ies, 4t,5 foot req.iireg d easement'for underin jpipesl, Balanced CornmUnity Policy, State Solar law, and plans buflding on a public street., F-lave AMEN.d Waste a�rid the fire departmen't s,een these plans? Where are the 5 monitorine l l irequired by UND? WViere are the three inlets? Several hiornes are next to trolley f'(:,.1nce caUsing wastefUl use of energy for AC needed to keep windows, closied becaUse of noise and vibr-ation frorn trolley and nightly freight br"ain another General Rarl, violation (15.1, lEE21, 3.17 & EET,1, efficient energy Use). This plan needs to be redone or ariother larger locatio�n fbr it floand "T'l,-ie city's exisfing horrendoLJS traffic problems in morriiirig and evenirig duririg norrnal times shows ['-iow Ljnba�anced CV is., lgi"ioring tie General Plan againill only make the situation worse., W'it�h the COVID19 cri&is goirig on -this is the worst possiNe time 'to uproot esserifialbusinesse&-soryie of whom have been 1iere for between 20 arid 30 years. K�een Abrask/es needs the rail. This is perfect location for businesses being i,.jprooted. View and Analyze,e,.Colmments erI& r'tja���,tvalc,;serA https.. anicusideas.colm, Unsubscrilbe fi.J,1,1,flre r�a�l,i�r�g s 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 93 of 767 Written Communications#113 c rr Sheree Kansas From: Tyshar Turner Sent: Tuesday,August 25,2020 9:29 AM To: Sheree Kansas Subject: FW: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] public comment picture from planning commission files needed. Attachments: Conceptual Trash Staging - 676 Moss Street jpg Public Comment—Item 13 'Tyshar Connect with us! e you nixl I CHUMVIM Sign up for our monthly Community Connection newsletter! Please note that email correspondence with the City of Chula Vista,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt From:THERESA ACERRO Sent: Monday,August 24, 2020 7:34 PM To:Tyshar Turner<tturner@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] public comment picture from planning commission files needed. Warning: Externa[ Okay you have not sent me from the planning commission packet the page Email that shows the trash situation which I wanted to submit with the following public comment: This is a disaster-282 trash containers piled up on the sides of a dead end street that is only 26 feet wide. Is this even possible for Allied Waste to pick up? What if there were some emergency on trash day? There are too many residences on too small of a lot. Also the city's policy of not requiring affordable housing in the west is foolish considering the great need. Anywhere anything is built must include affordable housing. On Monday, August 24, 2020, 03:12:22 PM PDT, Tyshar Turner<tturner aQchulavistaca.gov>wrote: Good Afternoon Ms. Acerro, Thank you for letting us know there are issues with eComment portal. We have notified our vendor, and they have suggested that we recommend our customers not utilize the Chrome internet browser for now. However with all that said I wanted to let you know that we did in fact receive the below comment from you regarding the 676 Moss Street item. Should you run into issues with eComment in the future please feel free to email your comments directly to cityclerk _chulavistaca.gov, we will ensure that your comments become part of the record of the meeting. 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 94 of 767 Written Communications#13 Acerro This is a project comment: Theresa Acerro Trk-e c4 council needs to notapprove Mia proposed project as shov;n in'the plans,which is squeezing an inappropriat.e num��r gimes into too small oT a space,viffli one narrow entrance Aexttllor a 216'",ode road part of wnKt)264 ttasNrecycling cans will N week., In;,,t*event of an emef9enc-f or In normal times work cornmuling)hgovi will 141 vehicle-5 t>e ab k-to exft quicktf-?Protect igaores require-4 distances from propertv lines,45 toot requires easement for untierground pipes-Balanceo Community Policy, Solar law.and plans Duilaing on a puDitc stree{, Have Allied'Waste anC Me rife Cear tir*nI seen Me-se ptans'?101Pere are the D `wells required by IANDM�Where ate the three inlets" Several homes are next to trr.,,1Lev fence causing wa-stell-ul use of energy for neeoed+ko keep winoows oosea becau-se of rvoiw and vioralUon from Trolley and rightly frOght train anomer General Plan V odali, EE 21,31.7&E*t-: 7.1.e7k W-tent e rve(gy use), This p4an needs to be redone or another larc ger Ir-y--ation for tt found T",.-city's existing rtOrrend-ous traffi c problerns in rooming aril e-verung Curing normal times stiovvs now unbalanced C-V Is-Igno General Pian again�ooll only make trie situation worse- Wdh the COAD-19 crisis going on term Is the worst possible LIME-10 uproot essential bu-sinese s-Some of whoM, ha-vt!,-been hefe been 20 and 30 years Keen Abras-N-les needs the rail. This is perfect tocaltion for Dusinesses ming uprooted Shouldyou have any questions or I can be of additonal assitamce, please fee free to contact me. Ms. Tyshar L. Turner Office of the City Clerk Assistant City Clerk 619.407.3574 P tt-umer@chulavistaca.go Connect with us! ------------------- n e GIMVWA 10 Sign up for our monthly Community Connection newsletter! Please note that email correspondence with the Citv of Chula Vista,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherivise exempt. 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 95 of 767 Written Communications c rr From: Tamisha Woods<twoods _.chulavistaca.gov>On Behalf Of CityClerk Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 8:14 AM To: Kerry Bigelow<KBi elow chulavistaca. ova; Tyshar Turner<tturner@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: FW: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Re: City of Chula Vista: Notice of Agenda& Remote Participation Instructions From: THERESA ACERRO Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 8:47 PM To: CityClerk<CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Re: City of Chula Vista: Notice of Agenda & Remote Participation Instructions Warning: External I spent A lot of time gettingm comment for 675 Moss down to 1 566 characters and this is Email p y what I got after submitting: I did not save a copy of it. This is totally unacceptable!! Server Error We appear to be experiencing technical difficulties. We are working to restore service as quickly as possible. If submitting a comment or request to speak you may need to re-submit your request. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience. Server Error We appear to be experiencing technical difficulties. We are working to restore service as quickly as possible. If submitting a comment or request to speak you may need to re-submit your request. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience. On Thursday, August 20, 2020, 07:53:59 PM PDT, City Clerk, City of Chula Vista cit clerk chulavistaca. ova wrote: City Council Meeting Agenda wRemote Inst-- August 25, 2020 Date: 08/20/2020 7:45 PM Dear Subscriber, Meeting Agenda: A City Council agenda has been posted to: https://chulavista.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx- PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20, AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF MAY PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW THE MEETING ON TELEVISION AND/OR ONLINE AND NOT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 96 of 767 Written Communications#13 c rr Further information regarding public participation is described in the Chula Vista City Clerk's open Meetings with Public Participation during Coro navirus/Covid-19.To view this document, please click here. HOW TO WATCH: Members of the public can watch the meeting via livestream at https://chulavista.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx, on AT&T U-verse channel 99(throughout the County), and on Cox Cable channel 24(only in Chula Vista). Recorded meetings are also aired on Wednesdays at 7 p.m. (both channels)and are archived on the City's website. HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Visit the online eComment portal for this meeting at: https.-//chulavista.granicusideas.com/meetings.The commenting period will be open shortly after the agenda is published for a particular meeting and will remain open through the meeting, as described below.All comments will be available to the public and the City Council using the eComment portal. Comments must be received prior to the time the Mayor calls for the close of the commenting period. Comments received after such time will not be considered by the City Council. If you have difficulty or are unable to submit a comment, please contact the Office of the City Clerk for assistance at cityclerk .lchulavistaca.gov or(619)691-5041. ACCESSIBILITY: Individuals with disabilities are invited to request reasonable modifications or accommodations in order to access and/or participate in a City meeting by contacting the City Clerk's office at cit,, cl�pchulavistaca.gov or(619) 691-5041 (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711)at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. Sincerely, Office of the City Clerk 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista Cit, Clerk chulavista_ca govov 1 (619)691-5041 www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/city-clerk Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all City of Chula Vista eNotifications. 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 97 of 767 Written Communications#13 Acerro Zl it 1Y FS n7a I�09 k .,a t 1� F7 .ft- ,et 19 9 a F �t 10 MOP-, LM uj .......... uj 137 UMA UA Im a� Jq A wii wMawAml. "vw .0" "K.� I- "W LA. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 98 of 767 Written Communications Springer Sheree Kansas Subject: FW: Moss St. Development Agenda item From:Jo Anne Springer Sent: Monday,August 24, 2020 8:12 PM To:Tyshar Turner<tturner chulavistaca. ova Cc:Jo Anne Springer Subject: Moss St. Development Agenda item Warning: ExternalDear M . Email s Turner: Due to the difficulties currently being experienced with the city's website, I am respectfully requesting that you forward my input regarding the Moss St. agenda item on the Aug. 25, 2020 city council meeting. Thank you. My input is as follows: I am strongly opposed to the approval of plans to build a housing development at [676] Moss St. in their present state. In addition, I believe that the approval process for any such plans not take place at a time when citizen inquiry and input are so severely hampered by the covid virus- imposed restrictions. The city cannot justify its shocking abandonment of normal building codes to the developer that are otherwise imposed on citizens, such as, for example, 45 foot wide easements, adherence to 15 foot distances from property lines, new resident solar panel requirement, or the MND requirement for monitoring wells. The overall plan will result in a nightmare of logistics of everything from traffic to garbage disposal. This plan is unacceptable in its current form, and approval of it would be a travesty of City requirements and the trust of citizens that has been placed in their elected officials. Jo Anne Springer Chula Vista resident, homeowner i 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 99 of 767 „ NONo ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE REZONE FOR. A 6.94-ACRE SITE LOCATED A.T 676 MOSS STREET w_ E S, on December 7, 2018, a duly verified application requesting approval of Rezone (PCZ18-0001) Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS18-0006, Chula Vista Tract No. 18- 0006), -000 , Major Planning Application (MPA18-0015), Design Review (DR18-0028), Var ance (ZAV 18-000 1) and Initial Studer (18-0004) were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Shopoff Realtor Investments,. LLC. (Applicant); and WHEREAS, E =AS, the area of landwhich is the subject of the application and.this Ordinance is three existing parcels located at + 76 Moss Street (Project Site); and WHEREAS, the application requests approval of an amendment to the adopted zoning map or maps established by Section 1 .18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal. Cede in order to rezone the Project Site from a Limited Industrial (ILP) Zone to Apartment Residential (R3) Zone on 6.94 acres to allow for the construction of 141-unit townhomes (Project) on the Project Site; and WHEREAS, the parcels, that are the subject matter of this Ordinance, are represented in. Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is located in western Chula Vista on Floss Street between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Project is intended to ensure that additional housing is provided in. accordance with State mandates and. the City of Chula Vista General Plan for western C"hula. Vista to promote smart growth principles by locating compact high-density housing development within an area that is well served by transit and services within walling distance thereto; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CA), and has conducted an Initial Study, IS 1 -0004. used upon the results of the Initial Study, the Director of Development Services has determined that the Project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation of a litigated Negative Declaration, IS 18-0004, and associated litigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the Planing Commission held a duly noticed public fearing on the Project and recommended that the City Council, adopt the Ordinance approving the Rezone; and WHEREAS, upon considering the information presented on the Project, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the project; and 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 100 of 767 AIVI") N „ NONo WHEREAS,, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this Project, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of these proceedings; and WHEREAS,, . E EAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within Soo feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, E =AS, duly noticed,public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula vista to approve the Proj ect. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula vista does hereby order and ordain as follows: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing and the Minutes and Resolutions resulting therefrom are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings. 11, COMPLIANCE WITH CEC A The City Council of the City of Chula Nista finds that, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, immediately prior to this action, considered and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring & Deporting Program (IS18-0OO4) on file in the City Clerk's office. 111. ACTIO The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving the amendment to rezoning the Project Site from limited Industrial (ILP) to Apartment Residential (R3), finding that it is consistent with the City of Chula vista General Plan, and that the public necessity, convenience, ,general. welfare and good planning and zoning practice support the approval and implementation. Iv. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be, invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional; by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion. shall a e deemed severable,e, an such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect ect tie validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula vista hereby declares, that it would adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 101. of 767 „ NONo of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more gather sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional. V. CONSTRUCTION The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal lave and this Ordinance shall be construed in. light of that intent. -VI. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall tale effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. VII. PUBLICATION The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by. Approved as to form by:. Tiffany Allen Glen R. Goo ins Development Services Director City Attorney 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 102 of 767 1 � LSA f PROJECT LOCATION PR`ZONp�s� I � i � X i f 1 � o i m M � r � m LOCATOR � NORTH ' PA1 84DO1 5 676 MOSS STREET PROJECT AN Imokk Aft State Clearinghouse No. 2020011149053 Final IS/MND 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 104 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 105 of 767 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction 1-8 Section 2: Responses to Written Comments 24 Listof Authors ...........................................................................................................2-1 Responses toComments............................................................................................2-1 Section3: Errata ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3~8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 107 of 767 SECTION 1 : INTRODUCTION Although not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and C Guidelines, the City of Chula Vista has evaluated the comments received on the 676 Moss Street Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/ MD). The Responses to Comments and Errata, which are included in this document, together with the Draft IS/MND, Draft IS/MND appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (M:MRP , comprise the Final I S/MND for use by the City of Chula Vista in its review and consideration of the 676 Moss Street Project. This document is organized into three sections: • Section 1—Introduction. • Section 2—Responses to Written Comments: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft IS/MND. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft ISAMD and responses thereto are included in this section. • Section 3—Errata: Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications to the Draft IS/MND, which have been incorporated using strikeout and underline text. The Final IS/MND includes the following contents: • Draft I S/MND (provided under separate cover) • Draft I S/MND appendices (provided under separate cover) • Responses to Written Comments and Errata (Sections 2 and 3 of this document) • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover) 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 108 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 109 of 767 SECTION 2: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS List of Authors A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft Initial Study/mitigated Negative Declaration(1:S/MND is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Author Author Code State Agencies None........................................................................................................................................n/a Local Agencies None........................................................................................................................................n/a Organizations None........................................................................................................................................n/a Individuals Acerro, Theresa...........................................................................................................ACERRO Colclasure, Kenn...............................................................................................COLCLASURE Moore, Greg..................................................................................................................MOORE Stacy, Robert...................................................................................................................STACK Responses to Comments Introduction In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 150881 the City of Chula Vista, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Final IS/MND(State Clearinghouse No. 2020049053)for the 676 Moss Street Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final IS/MND for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. Comment Letters and Responses The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors. 2-1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page I 10 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page I 11. of 767 A GE R R " a I e 1 of 4 From: THERESA ACERR [rnailtofthacerro ahoo.com] ,Seat: Sunday, May 03, 20,20 6:11 FSM To: Oscar Romero .Suibject: comments on MND for Moss project Warntn . External, C.om.me.n.ts....on....t.h.e...MD foar 1. Project Name* 7Moss Street Email Project 2. Project Location: 6716 Mess Street, Chula Vista, California 3. Assessor's Parcel No.: 61,8,-010,-26011, 6118-010-26021 618- 010-31001, 1 - 1 -31001, a�nd 618-0101-31200, 14. Project Applicant: She off Land Fund- Moss un -Mess Street, LLC 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700, Irvine, California 9,261,4 contact: James 0'Malley ' 49.141.7.1396 5. Date of Draft Document: April 27, 2020 61. case No: IS 18 0004 7. Date of Final Document: TB,D 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 112 of 767 ACERRO Page 21 of 4 This document is totally inadequaite smce it totally ianores the.............i'm p_ac,t..of....t.h,,-e.............R rovo.-sed..............p r,-Qj.e.ct...on....the....c.urrent....users-of...the oronerty., Itis a classic confirmation of I exactly how unfriendly the city of Chula Vista is to businesses. As wel�l as how it ignores the economic consea u�ence,s Q,f 12rnnes to the General PI �n and historic zoini I na. This is not vacant pros rt , There are 5 im.p.ortant thrivi ng....bu.ss e ------- s.......m.ost... fl whom have been here for er 20..,years in some case more, than 301--mg,ars gual�ity jobs, and services to develoDers, the Nav u blic agencies .1 Y_ _X _P and----windividuals....in ...........an.d....natil ona I ty-n One of' them Hawthorn has bought a piece of property on Hollister and is preparing to, move by August after almost 30 years in CV they will now enrich the city of San Diego. From their welbs,ilte: Cat Conin,ect Delivers Results. Otir g,oial at I-lawthome Cat is to fie/p yot,i keep your fleet running fil(e new., W(.-,, palIner w1th yot,,j to deliver the origoing servIce ar7d support,you want, when you war)t it. 14fiffi yo nnze ffie t..jt &.1e n d -Ing and trianagIng yot,jr eqt,jq)rr'ient in,7prove thie efficienc;y of yot,jr101)Sitf,. byt7`7 0 11110 t in Parts. Service. Conveinience. Hawthome Cat off ers an outstandirig and ,", depa/1177ent We.. t7ave over 01.4 aifflion Cat cerfified par s In s-tock and r(:�lad,y for pick, up., YOU cari ever) order-your part's online ffirou h ......"I',," Our fleet of 30 service trucks are, a vailiable to 9 ensure, your eqt.fipnient is ready to go when you arc:;1. 1--lawti7orne (."'atss goal is to malk,e I '# rnaintainif7 i(-:31 n t a S (n a is r-st place. ,g your eiqulpm y, as it was buying it in the fi A Solid Return. And, you can buy witti the k'nowled,ge ttiat our,equiptnent retains its value ovejiofirne. 'lY6t,j will I)e glad youpurcf7ased Cat equipment C0/77e tra.de--in or trade-t.,jp time., Hawthorne Cat,offers the best selection of quallity. al7dcustotriers can well inalit7tained Cat also pairticil,.)at,e in otj/.. ..... eqtji/.,)rne/7t, ffiey no longet need. The, other businesses here are still here even lin the face of eviction because there are no other lots, in Chula Vista liike these lots, on Mass.. All the businesses here have many workers who, are considered highly skilled like diesel 2 mechanics, tricians, hydraulic techs, fiberglass technicians, fiine wood workers, painters, upholstery, heavy equipment repair and alusinesses here are extremely 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 113 of 767 A /ACERRO Page 3 of 4 unique, and all private family owned. Hawthorne is wealthy so they q�uickl�y bought the 2 land on Hollister. CONT The storage bus,iness here Soulthwest Mobille Sura who rent and build to order steel cointailners is inl a unique, situation here because the containers, are unsightly and can't be seen stored way back on this lot. From their web pagie-, hntnt�iDsl-,//swir�"riobi -to�,"acie,,co�m/ "�Estalb��is�[iedilnl995, Southwe�st�l\Ao�bi�IeS,�to�rage is"the indLlStty leader in rnobHestorca:,ge containepi s, poftaUe offices,airid custn storage solutions. OLlr'expeitieieiced,, licxDansed,and ceftified faNicators,engineeirs, and designets aan custornize your, shippiieig colint ainet,*to meet your e%xact specifications., Rapid PlreD needs this very unique power distribution and they rent all the equipment to keep, the air clean for navy and road 1:110% construction www.mir-111111: Uom n Rapid �Prep is your total siolutions eA "th the most ighly trained sierv' I in the abras" n t provider, 'wl hi I ice personne i ivie equipme market. HighI nI ome with aggressive preventive, maintenance, and on-site raplid respilonse to service calls. Our experiencied and professional customer service and sales staff are ready to hielp you. Contact one of our Chula Vista, CA repiriesentativies today for more information on our abrasive equipment. Rapid Prep's sales and service teamI repared to assist y1ou for all your equipment and service needs,. From large scale projects, to small requests for sandbilasting abrasives or d�ust collector filtiers,,, Rapild Prep can d�el�iver. The Rapid Prep advantage • Hilighly trainied staff with over 1 1010 years of experience • 24-hiour service from start up, to demobilization I Tel: 800-553-3625 Info keenblast.,com Kleen Blast Abrasives has provided customers with quality abrasives, as well as sandblasting equipment and supplies, since 1962. Our eon Blast brand grit is dust and silica free, economical, fast cutting,i and environmentally safe. Here on our website,, htLpa;J&taanb1asLLDjmZ we hope you find all the information you need to plan your resurfacing project and the Imaterials and equipment necessary to get the job, done right. If you can't find it, please call us today and we'll�l be glad to answer your questions. San Di I el Boat Yard and San Diego Boat Electric Most crifically the boatyard is working on and needs up to niine months more to finish a $100,0 o custom yacht that can't be moved until finished. boat building, re ower, repaint est 1983 Drawings, repairs to propulsion controls and a switchboards. Electronics, and Electrical Engineering forleas Navy, Pure, Commercial, i Industrial. S'Ince 11983 Yachts ciornrniercli'all, pliea&ure, sail power repmr. Helms, 0 ngine roorns,, below d�e;cks, panells, ellectrongics and propu1sion controllsi and 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 114 of 767 ACERRO Page 4 of 4 iGreg M�oore isTop Talent dol'reet to your vessiel�., We finished hel�J Wjnstalrtwd W W aggn��imnd�Admaft�an�d 't�heA One of thern has foun�d another lot, but the others have, specialized �needs that the current location provides. 'This applicant is 3 being sued by soiryie of its investors and investigated by the government, fora poss�iiNe Ponzi sch�eme. Businesses provide jobs- In these cases higNy trained and weH paid jobs-and sales taxes to the city. More housing dernands more services from the c�Iy,i 4 which �the c,�iity can't afford to �prov�iide and imore commuter tiraffic to jobs outside of the city. The nolse from the nightly freight train and the troHey is quite �oud. I Ive off of Hu iona��y the fr6ght train wakes, ime up. There is Mso a lot of traffic congestion now on this street now because this is the preferred way to enter 1-5�, and 5 this �has not been analyzed �by the MND. The entrance/exit from the south to the north uis actuHy oin Industrial closeir to Moss than L street. Sincerely, Theresa Acerro �President, Souithwest Chula Vilsta Civic Association 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 115 of 767 Individuals Theresa. eerra (A CERR ) Response to ACERRO-1 This comment pertains to business and economic considerations. The comment does not raise any CEQA issues or question the environmental analysis, and therefore no response is necessary. This comment will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Response to A+ ".F"RRO-. This comment pertains to business considerations. The comment does not raise any CEA. issues or question the environmental analysis, and therefore no response is necessary. This comment will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in. determining whether to approve the project. Response to A+ ".F"RRO-3 This comment states that the businesses utilizing the project have specialized needs that the current location provides. This comment will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Regarding coning and industrial land uses, the Draft IS/MND includes a consistency analysis to determine the proposed project's land use and planning consistency with the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. According to this analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with and help provide additional, high-density residential units to meet the current and future housing demands in the City. The analysis also found that, consistent with General Plan Objective LUT-1 and policy LUT-4.31 the proposed project would help enhance the character of the neighborhood by creating more compatible land uses and improving the frontage of floss Street. Additionally, the existing industrial and multi-family uses would be adequately screened and buffered from the project site through fencing and landscaping, and noxious and blighted industrial uses would be removed from a residential neighborhood. No further analysis is required. Response to A+ ".F"RRO-4 The comment pertains to jobs provided by the current operations on the site.According to the Draft l:S/MND's analysis of land use and planning consistency with the City of Chula Nista Vision 2020 General plan, the proposed project would be consistent with policy UT-1.4, which is a policy designed to achieve an improved balance between jobs and housing. in City. The project consistency analysis found that the proposed project would be consistent with the policy and directly help increase the availability of housing in the City.As discussed in Fable 21, Land Use and planning Consistency with the City Chula Nista Vision 2020 General plan, of the Draft IS/MNL , the proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 30 to o jobs and add 141 dwelling units, which would not be enough to significantly alter the jobs- housing balance in the City. According to the analysis presented in Section X1, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft IS/MND,the project helps to achieve an unproved balance between jobs and housing in the City of Chula Vista, consistent with Policy L UT=1.4. Furthermore, the 2-7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 116 of 767 analysis presented in Section XI, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft IS/MNL analysis determined that the proposed project would be consistent with Policy GM 2.1, which aims to achieve and maintain a balance of land uses within the City that assures residential. development is complemented by expanded local employment opportunities, retail and commercial services, and recreation and entertainment venues; and that the City-wide mix of land uses provides fiscal balance between those that produce revenues and those that require public expenditures. The proposed project would be consistent with the goal of achieving a balance of complementing land uses for employment and residential by helping support and complement the Chula Vista Bayfront Project, which would create 6,000 permanent jobs, by providing housing near the project. Response to A C' RRO-. This comment pertains to noise from the freight train near the project site and traffic congestion, which the comment states has not been analyzed within the Draft IS/MNL . .A Transportation ImpactAnalysis, which was prepared for the project by Lnscott, Law c Greenspan, 'engineers G for the project on April 15, 2020, included ars analysis of trip generation rates from the proposed project. The Transportation Impact analysis concluded that the proposed project would have no significant transportation impacts for the purposes of CEQA, and that no vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-related mitigation measures are required. The Transportation Impact Analysis provided the basis for the conclusions made within the Draft l S/CMND. -Noise impacts were analyzed in Section XIII,pages 81 through 98, of the Draft IS/ D. The Draft IS/MNL noise analysis was based on a -Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the project to evaluate off-site and on-site noise impacts associated with the proposed project, including noise sources from the existing railroad and roadways. As a result of the analysis, mitigation ation. measures were inclined to reduce noise-related impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation pleasure (MM) N I-I would reduce traffic and railroad noise impacts to the proposed project through project design, such as the construction of a sound wall to create a barrier, as well as project review by an acoustic consultant. Implementation of MM N I-2 would reduce potential construction noise impacts. The Draft IS/MND found that the noise impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures. 2- 2021- 1-0 Agenda Packet Page 117 of 767 COLCLASURE Page 1 of 1 From: Kenn Colclasu�re i It - l l :dent: Monday, May 25, 2020 7:'18 AM To: Stan Donn; Steve Power; Oscar Romero `% Subject: 6761 Moss Street Project Warning, External Comments on theNCS for: 1., Project rye: 676, Moss ,Street Project 2. Email 1� Project Location:: 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California 3. Assessor's Parcel No. : 6,,18-010-2601, 61 o1o 6021 618,-010-3100, and 618-010-3200 4. Project Applicant: Shopoff Land Fund Moss Street, LLQ: 2 Park Plaza, Suite loo, Irvine, California 92614 Contact: James O'Malley 949.417.1396 5. Date of Draft Document:ment: April 27,. 2020 6. Case No,: IS -0004 7. Message Mayor and council members, This doicument i totally inadequate since it totally ignores the impact of the proposed project on the current users of the property. It is a classic confirmation of exactly hove unfriendly the city of Chula Vista is to businesses. As well as hove it ignores the economic consequences, of proposed changes to the General Plan and historic zoning. This is not vacant property. There are 6 important thriving businesses most of whom have been here for over 20 years in some cases more than 30 years providing high quality jobs and services to, developers, the Navy, public agencies nd individuals in our community nd nationally. In addition, will this project resolve our shortage of police coverage, traffic congestion on 1-5, and worse,e, iendinq water shortage in our region? For sure, we will see moire traffic with resident driving in north to .obs tha don't exist in Chula vista. Can we do better and consider the people who, live here rather then the builders and developers from other places? Kenn Coliclasure Chula vista 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 118 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 119 of 767 Kern Colclasare COL CLASURE Response to COLC'L `+URE-1 The comment expresses general opposition to the project due to anticipated business and economic impacts. The comment does not raise any CEQA issues or question the environmental analysis,and therefore no response is necessary.This comment will be prodded to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Response to COLC'L `+ULA-. This comment states that the project will result in impacts to police services, traffic and transportation, and hydrology/water quality. Police protection impacts were analyzed in the Section XV,pages 101 through 102,of the Draft IS/MND. The Draft IS/MND found that impacts to police services would be less than. significant. The proposed project plans would be reviewed by the City and the Chula Nista Police Department to ensure adequate safety and crime prevention measures are provided. Transportation impacts were analyzed in Section XVII, pages 105 through 110, of the Draft IS/MND. The Draft IS/MND found that the proposed project would not have adverse impacts to existing transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and would be consistent with the City of Chula vista Vision 2020 General Plan. The Draft IS/MND concluded that transportation impacts would be less than sinificant. .A Traffic Impact.Analysis prepared for the proposed project was used as the basis for the analysis and conclusion. Hydrology and water quality impacts were analyzed in Section X, pages 66 through 72, of the Draft IS/ D. San Diego County water .Authority's 2015 Urban water Management Plan (2015 UWMP), which provides water to the Sweetwater Authority who in turn provides water to the project site area. The Sweetwater Authority's 2020 water supply is anticipated to come from a combination of 75.2 percent imported water (supplied by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California)and 24.8 percent local water supply(approximately 4.1 percent of which is groundwater). The 2015 UWMP anticipates having adequate water supplies through the year 2040, with groundwater production remaining stable, groundwater recovery supplies increasing yearly, and groundwater replenishment increasing yearly. The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that it would contribute to regional water shortages in the future. The Draft IS/MND found that impacts to hydrology and water quality would be therefore less than. significant. The comment does not provide additional information that would require additional analysis of potential environmental impacts. No additional analysis is required. 2-11 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 120 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 12 1. of 767 MOORE Page 1 of 3 From: Greg Moore<seapowergreg�yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 14,2020 9:39 PM To: Mary Salas,<MSaIasC&,chu1avistaca.gov>;John McCann<jmccann(�ch-Lil.avistaca.gov>,Jill.Galvez <jmgalvez ,chu,].avistaca.gov>- Steve C. Padilla<spadilla(�chu,].avistaca.gov>-Mike Diaz <mdiaz(�chuIavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn<Sdonn.(4),chulavistaca.gov>; Steve Power<SPower(Gi)chuIavistaca.gov>.; Oscar Romero<oromeroG&chulavistaca.gov>;ecrockett(&hulavista.ca.gov;Gary Halbert <GHalbert ,chulavistaca.gov>;John Downing<johnd,(4)rapidprep.com>.; Southwest Mobile Storage <dan.iel.a(�swmobilestorage.com>;Jim Garcia<jgarcia(�hawthornecat.com>;John Herbert <jherbert(�)kleenbl.ast.com>.-debbie(( kleenblast.com..;THERESA ACERRO<thacerro(�eyah oo.com> Subject: Tennant objection and,comments for 676,moss street large commercial to residential development Warning: External Email Dear City representatives: Attached are my May 27th deadline objections and comments to this super large development as a current lot tennant who repairs the two yachts seen on page 170 in the large L shaped parcel shown on.photo. If I have to move these two yachts and tear down this yard built just to do these two yacht projects before these two boats are done, I am ruined for life. Please pass my objections along to all parties who can help postpone or cancel this development. Moving before I finish and liquidating all assets under this,time deadline might be the death of me. 11m not in,notice loop and just now hearing about getting kicked out this soon. see attached'file. Thank you,please have a wonderful day. Greg Moore Boat Yard San Diego ph-(619,)218-1018 Address: 676 moss St. Lot A Chula Vista Ca. 919 1.1. h Up://v i n boaty'ard,san d i ego.coni boat building,repower,repaint http-//www.sand,.iegoboateleclr,ic.coii,i<http.//ww\v.saiidiegoboatelect,ric.com/>est 1983 Drawings,repairs to propulsion controls and,switchboards.'Electronics and Electrical Engineering for Navy, Pleasure,Commercial, Industrial. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 12 of 767 MOORS Page 2 of 3 Greg Moore Boat Yard San Diego 67'6 Moss St Chula Vista Lot Al Ca 91911 619-218-10181.s..g..g pj)werre, �@ .c ern g� TO: rnsalasC&chulavistaca.gov,j ccanngc a vista a..g ,jmga1vezG u1 taca.g , spadillagc hulavistaca.gov, mdiazC&chulavistaca.gov, Stan Donn sdonngchulavistaca.gov, Steve Power spowerc&ch-ulavistaca.gov, Oscar Romero oroe ero,gchulavistaca.go,v, Eric Crockett ecrockettgchulavista.ca.gov Gary Halbert ghalbertG&ch-ulavistaca.gov Tennant Objection to large industrial to residentilaI deve1opment and Comirnents on the IVIIND for: 1. Project Name: 676, Moss, Street Project 2. Project Location: 676 Moss, Street, Chula Vista, California 3. Ass,essor's, Parcel No.,-. 618-010-2601, 618-010-2602,11 618-010-311001, and 618-010-32,00, 4. Project Applicant: Shopoff Land Fund-Moss Street, LLC 21 Park Plaza, Suite 7010, Irvine, California 92614 Contact: James O'Malley 949.41 ".1396 5. Date of Draft Document: April ,27, 2020 6. Case No: IS18-00047., Date of Final Document: TBD See page 170 and you will see two yachts inside an L, shaped large parcel on said 67'6 Moss St. development land. That is my business. I will be ruined and put completely out of business if I must move before finishing these two yachts. I spent everything I had and a punishing amount 2 of effort to first find a zoned for boat repair and large yachts large lot you can get to,waterfront from. is parcel is extremely rare and it will be next to impossible to finish these two yachts and move out by November. I built a very capable yacht yard that took 1.5 years and cost 200 grand just so I can restore these two boats. This is first notice I got about this development., Plus, Covid is stalling me big time. I am extremely worried I might not be able to get both yachts finished and have time to liquidate all the assets I built here., When I moved into 676 Moss, Stree I was told I could restore these yachts with no plans except to make this yacht a master piece on the only spot I could find suitable and legal to do this on. Maybe if I was lucky it would become sustainable and last 3 until I die. I was already told once to move out of previous location I had on industrial land in front of nassco, shipyard and it almost bankrupted me to, move. It took 7 months, of lost production and cost over one hundred grand to find this spot and just get here, not counting setup and facilities, we built from scratch on an empty piece of gravel. I cannot do it again. I was incredibly careful to select and get a properly zoned and approved business license so I could finish and with luck last as, Boat Yard instead of dockworker. When will these boats be done? Right about that time but we can't be rushed. Now that we have come to an almost complete stage of a five year project, moving yacht now, will damage it.., 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 123 of 767 MOORE Page 3 of 3 Talent and very limited space on a boat with all new surfaces prevent loading it up with talent that doesn't exist and pushing project faster if we want to hit oluir extremely yacht qual�ity target mark needed to be competitive, sell and pray to at least break even. We may only need a few extra months, weeks,1 impossible to say and depending on this COVI D 119 and the Boats needs which new ones pop, up every day. It 31 s, a prototype, one of a king project. I do not have a lease, I'm a verbal agireement sublease with Rapid prep. When they were blindsided by sale of property, they mentioned something to me but I have not received one 5 notice from the city of the developer as required. Please I beg of the city, if you have to kick out, disrupt or yin my case crush 5 major businesses on a working industrial lot off industrial blvd and a lot that's as rare as lakefront front property 6 along higihway 5 with 5, not 3 major businesses, here and a bunch of good jobs and services as rare and as unique as the lot itself. I'm a marine business on a lot zoned for marine repair, near the water in an industrial area with extremely high noise from trains and huge traffic back ups due to trolly out in front of this 7 development. Trolleys, freight trains, cars lined up half the block with stereos blazing, extremely high theft area and crime due to freeway and trolly less than a pitching wedge away. I'm all for a guy who wants to make money. I buiild yachts, wealthy men have fed my dreams my entire life and I can assume this seller, investor and developer are wealthy. I don't want to impede their dreams to make big money or the city's future dreams. But I begs you to consider how valuable the jobs and working land is and how much a bigi lot near the waterfront is needed for boaters everywhere not just Chula Vista (you have a huge marina nearby). 50,000, visitors a month see our website and study our services in Chula Vista after spending 22 years on Shelter 8 Island we bring yachtsmen and jobs, to your city now. I am iin my 42nd year working on yachts or navy in SD. Just a Navy Electronics tech who somehow worked his way up to building an entire yacht and having a boat yard. This yard and tools are all I have. everyone should think carefully about cramming all those units on this already crammed and jammed street off Industrial BLVD, the buffer zone between freeway and rail track noises. Any more cars trying to turn in here between Spm to bpm are in for a rude awakening. Please consider the economic impact of us beings forced out early. Please consider how rare Kleen blast and rapid preop and boat yard san Diego and Hawthorne are? The hawthorns have bigi yachts, 1''m sure they will be fine but the other 4 businesses here are extremely suited for 9 just,this property. You would be surpriis,ed about how clean and quiet boat restoration is. It 31 s a very cool and specialized talent for everyone who loves the sea. I'd stay here forever and give business to next generation if I could. If I have to move before boat is done, I wolu�ld be forced to sue the city if I was forced to waste 7 months, and another 100 grand I didn't count on. Finding a route, location, boat mover big enough to move 2, 70 ft longi 55,,000 and 75,000, pound yachts down the street and under 110 bridges and trolly lines. Its hard to get a spot reserved and cost a fortune. The timing of all this is so close to our completion., If you cant spare my head and must crush this dream industrial spot, at least give me extra time. Are supply and talent line are completely disrupted and hurting us further. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 124 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 125 of 767 Greg.Moore (MOORE) Response to MOOR-] The commenter states that the proposed project would harm his business and require hire to relocate the business. The comment does not raise any CEQA issues or question the environmental analysis,and therefore no response is necessary.This comment will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Response to MOORE-2 The comment states that the commenter chose the location for his business, a yacht and boat repair center, because of appropriate zoning and proximity to the waterfront. The comment further states that the current operations of the business cannot be completed before November. The Draft IS/MND provided an analysis of land use and planning consistency. The analysis found that the proposed residential land uses are an appropriate use for the site. The proposed land uses would provide high-density residential units to meet the current and future housing demands in the City; create a more balanced set of land uses by adding high- density housing in an area with excellent access to existing and planned civic and public facilities; and provide an effective min of land uses in the Southwest Planning Area. Furthermore, the site would be located within walling distance to public transit, public services, and amenities, including schools, parrs, bus stops, and other public facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project is not located within the Chula Nista Bayfront Master flan. area and would not conflict with or impede the City's ability to implement the plan.According to the Draft IS/MNL Section XI,Land Use and Planning,page 73, ,the Bayfront Project would create 6,000 permanent jobs and designated spaces for entertainment, retail, and open space. The high-density residential uses at 676 Moss Street would help support and complement the Bayfront project. This comment will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. No additional analysis is required. Response to M RE-3 The comment states that a combination of events, including the proposed project, COVID-1 , and previous difficulty finding a location for the business, pose a hardship on the business. Furthermore, the commenter provides details about the difficulty of securing the current location for the business and the importance of beeping this location. The commenter also states that moving the location of the business will damage his long-term project that is nearing completion. Although the comment does not raise any CEQA issues or question the environmental analysis contained within the Draft IS/MND, it will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. 2-17 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 126 of 767 Response to MOORE-4 The comment pertains to the importance of finishing the commenter's business's current project in its current location. Although the comment does not raise any CEQA issues or question the environmental analysis contained within the Draft I S/MND, it will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Response to MOORE-5 The commenter states that he is a tenant of the building and does not have a lease, but only a verbal agreement of a sublease with Rapid Prep. The commenter was not notified by the developer of the sale of the property. Although the comment does not raise any CEQA issues or questions about the environmental analysis of the Draft IS/MND, it will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Response to MOORS-6 The comment pertains to the negative effect of the proposed project on the businesses currently operating at the site.Although the comment does not raise any CEQA issues or questions about the environmental analysis of the Draft IS/MND,it will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Response to MOOR`-7 The comment states that the area is zoned for marine repair and is near the water in an industrial area with noise, traffic, and crime due to proximity to the railway and freeways. Regarding noise and traffic-related impacts,please see Response to ACERRO-6. Regarding zoning and land uses, please see Response to ACCERRO-3. Response to MOORE-8 The comment pertains to the value of the site for boating purposes. The comment further states that the site is not appropriate for residential units due to the industrial character of the site and traffic. Regarding zoning and land uses, please see Response to ACCERRO-3. Regarding noise and traffic-related impacts,please see Response to ACERRO-6. Response to MOORS-9 The comment pertains to the economic impact of the project. The Draft IS/MND determined that the project would be consistent with Policy LUT-1.6 of the Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan, which seeks to attract and maintain land uses that generate revenue for the City of Chula Vista. According to the analysis, the proposed project would significantly increase revenues from existing levels, thereby having a positive overall economic impact for the City of Chula Vista. The site currently generates roughly $48,100 in gross revenue, while the proposed project would generate roughly $302,300 in gross revenue, a six-fold increase. 2-18 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 127 of 767 The comment concerning the economic impacts to the existing businesses on the site will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Response to ICOR -1 C. The comment states that the proposed project would displace his business at an inopportune time and requests extra time to avoid disruption to business operations. Although the comment does not raise any CEQ A issues or questions about the environmental analysis of the Draft IS/MND,, it will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration. ?-1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 128 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 129 of 767 STACK Pagie 1 of 3 From: Robert Stack<rstacU@erain domcom> Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 11:05 AM To:Stan Donnn < n fthulavistac > Subject: Comment for 676 Moss,Street Project Warning: External Dear IMr. Donn, Emaill Please see attached comments for the 676 Moss Street Project. Thanks. Best regards, Rob ,Law Qf .flees Qf Robert A. Stack 4445 Eastgjite Mall, Suite 200 Sati ,Diego, CA. 92,121 s.- x.- _ ,12-2001 StacklaWfirm.com rstac I@emindom.com 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 130 of 767 STACK Page 2 of 3 ROBER'l-A. 4 44`5 /S`as gt,iue Suite 20(' Sati � � w ,I 9j7 11, 8'1 4 7 May 261.1-202f.) Sta"Ii. Donn a, City v 276Tmirth Aveni.ie C 11''u I a "V"I.sta , C A 9]910 ph"O"ne (61,91),409-5953 Re SCH Number. 2020049053 Lead A get'iwy" ChU.JaViist.ti, City C""Ity, 011" Cht"I'la Vista) "A" Doutili.ent "T"itle.- 676Mos,s, Sti-ect t Ojec, Doc LO-11-ntI[I't "I"ypC-* MN'D ,- Migated, Negati've Deckat-ation Received: 4/`1214/`))(.)`)0 PrQj ec t Appl,i ca n"t S h O"PO 1,..."an,d, -M os s S tre,et. 'L L C Presieiji,it Land Use: L,,i,a,,n,d, LJsc,ati,d Zo ill, .[Jrtiiiftedi Lndustl-ial (I-L) 'Del ar aiW, Ch Th'i S fitrti,l repi ese,li ts SOLAIIWeSt Mle S tofi-age, fn,c, wlc"I'l i S. (Ytile Of 1",704LIS1 A, curre.11:111'v 676, MOss ect',Ioca�t,,,,'i',,on,. t I IL'I'S beenioperating, J 111 C 2013. it s,t,rongI,N,,f oppiosesth,e, I Is 110t, h inesses 1 1 Iry...... pito ect. T'he Rix) ect bad, e btlsl, O'l.,el"a on th,e "ProjS 1, C e act,repo I ect ite4, htit *s bad ("o,t-the C t) (-vf "hula Vista., A, 1 111 e,�,nvironni ntal �ijl) i w( u I'd bea,r thils ouc, 'rIle Mitigat,ed N e gativ L,�*, "Dee 1 al,if.,aJ.i oi"i 'hy Fli-st CZ-11-boin Soltitions, and i,in '[11e, MIS M, Laii,d I lse and Zon'll ct,i oti and tht 1 itidl 1.]se aiid' I I a,, C . ,,.,,.jstejicy, d, e (111,11al Vista 1 ,9 SC, "kC Q_ 1:),lan (T�able 7N) ,secti,on, sotilid, self-'s,ei'ving- Visiloin 2020 Genenril 'i,sta, s A, lot of studtes,l J,Aeports. ttnie , li,dl ef7,R-,)rt "Went, itito creattt'lg,; thie City of('11-Lij'-�i V Getllercafl, plai"i and, arezi Specific Pfan, Botb �t Ge,,nteral' Pla,"in, Anwn,dtnent and a Zone Change Nvoidd, # be j.-equi-reAd", 71 s.11,ou"Id notbe chiinged cavatierly -1-br loilg,- cult te rm,he afth lo,t"the Ci ty I S, [Tportc 2 "juluisti"all, itses. I W P 1, a re s 111,�* 1,17,111fe- CAM:"ingews WOLdd 17CuS11.1t ni, t identi, I llro'ect Cla's 4iW1 I i rt wy "Itifses to the n',o',rd'i, ifildLiStrial, W0111d lemx irlidtistric,"il tuses atid trtwkstwthe vivesit, *nclusttml 'L 1 4, 1-01",1 t"It 1`)rof ect 1�S USCI,S to the,cast on, I'm],F o t"the Rroli OCT" Sil tel afi.d 1 tidust"ti al uses to the s"Ofuth fi, i I OUS10111.1 1111L11I L"Ise \VOLI]d be dellib,crately placed next, ul') r1i xks; anfd an Nvestertipimot,i,, ill rmi-d,tt',z 14 '01 !, r i 6-,'n apl,"wirent tvason., '.e. ,notbecause, tliere,,, is. 4--J"relamly,anrexistlilg es"dentilil Llsse Lndustria] rwid tn ,,.o �;ul or a eliausc, 1`0' t- residetitlai'l U% se, Page I of 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 1.31. of 767 STACK Pagie 3 of 3 S,(,'I IN'utitib c�r.-, 20200490,153 6,716M"oss Street FIrO."Ilect Page 2 40'� C&j 0 YCU, Lit U t'',he �ctrea. A,ll o,fthe ot,het At th,ree stories lij'gh.,the 1"I" NJ t 'would 'tv icte,r f6i I it are mri,1, re Wential bed 1' *i ,"", st propet-ties ''h"'Igle stor''y and, wo,uld, 'lie blocke(I fi,,-om bi'velizes ajid, views if 10 31 they wmi�ted 'toll lex, rCf pa-n,d upwa, d, c opej.,i s,,Ilace being el jHA"e.d 'is not re.,allv ope,,t,i, s,pace., it i's nimst 10 buff*c r s pace to conn,peii,,,sc-,,,,,fte tli,, bad, fior j,'t,',,sidenfial U,'Sie,, 'N, 4(,).st of th,eopen sipace ts wzristed, "fior ffical: reason. -tne propex-(, , `I'h1e, I`),rqjC,,L*t "WOUld destroy cont"I"Inult isolate lie (.DI Mail �"V,,,�Eljld.d,es,t,,r(,-)y a,i y '101, 4 t7t,tIT',Lxpans'll'Ol.li,potel),ItefH ii,aalll larid, assemblage Sweet,w'ater I.Jn,'on al Y. "rile on o f th e,, 0�tv ol"'C h tj Li Vi sta Ii a *o w ti, o ve j, th e, ars beca use ol""i ts populatt .1 1 11 IIICIII ''U"[$1, 'ls C 0 ti-I m ei"o c,t Cal uses,a,'t"id, ,,i,e poiptjt� 1,011",), stirl"Y' s rn the City Of ChIlla Vista, be,c(,It)tse o"I"Its 5 co,inmercial Lises and Sbop(:) tztid, FLi'tid-Moss Sttvo'et"4 is xx-1 i , (�I 1')1,atri., an,d STM.applyingt`o-v t.hjs mqjo�r cha.tige to t1v ClAv Chula VI's'"Uri's Gei�vir,-fl' I pec Plati, bas J on headltnes,, 1"here, has been zea w :re, ill t"11C, Stutc%, of Cal I(I)IIS p ov de 1, 111, aild, solve the hotIS1,119 Cr, Alcce,sso,ry dwel"Itrig uiii, x belen added t e, twal vj,,.xtIies,,, arid houses ISIS. ts,11,a N 101 jI*eSIId n t j)l I—I", S %ntial livrn havv been tumed into d\,velli,,tigs. Detisit: cs n 1,11 cre T, 111de y, 11,111S bee ased f(l) gir Tbere at-erati*o,,i�ial bases t'Or thes,,;e sioll"W]"011s. No SLICII ralim,',m], basis ex,ls,ts f6ji- tIIi,,,,jIS 'I,`), O'"(11.,"ClIt. 61 T'Ji-IsPro'ect, is O"t,I 1, )I cll,"iracter tr (I'le area., it, would 1, 1i. darli,age toi-esi de'titial w,id, T * "keo 11 is 'located, TI,Wdle Of a, SUperb 11,dutstr'al it "is 11c"W, to 911 L I S C S mie t 1, JIA- itid, corcick, 417 ritroad tiucks atild, al'i, a, i iviad. II shouldnatl be appioved, Slincerevlp' Jr t, vim fploo '00, Robetl,l S,ta,ck RAS/hk, ,P e, 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 132 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 133 of 767 Robert Stack(STACK) Response to STACK-] The comment consists of introductory remarks and expresses general opposition to the project due to business impacts. The comment requests preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. This comment will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. The comment continues to state that the Draft IS//ND's analysis of land use coning and the Land Use and Planning Consistency with the Chula Vista Vision 2020 General plan is inadequate. The Draft IS/MNL Section XI, Land Use and planning, Impact Question (b) provides a thorough evaluation of the proposed project's land use and planning consistency with the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan.. This analysis determined that the project would have a less than significant impact and would not conflict with any land use plan,policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Table 21, Land Use and planning Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan, in the Draft IS/MND provides a complete and detailed consistency analysis of the project with.General Plan objectives and policies. The Draft IS/MND.has been prepared in. accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and meets the standards for adequacy established by CE( A. . Response to STACK-2 The comment expresses general opposition to the proposed gone change and General flan. Amendment. The comment claims that residential land uses are not compatible with the industrial character of the project site. For information regarding zoning and land uses, please see Response to ACCERR -3. Rewponse to STACK-3 The comment states that the proposed project would be out of character for the area and would block views. Furthermore, the comment states that the open space that is proposed is not open. space, but a buffer space. The Draft ISAMD found that the proposed project would have no impact to scenic vistas or scenic resources as designated in the City of Chula Vista 2020 General plan, or to any other scenic resource including trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or a State Scenic Highway. The :Draft IS/MND also found that because the project is consistent with applicable zoning and with the City of Chula Vistas Design Guidelines, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to scenic quality. Regarding the comment related to open space,the Draft IS/MND states that approximately one third of the site (2.5 acres) would be developed) as open space. The proposed open space inclines approximately 19,636 square feet of rooftop decks for recreation, and approximately 36,864 square feet of common open space that would incline a community recreational area with barbeque counter, tot lot, and overhead structures with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant seating for social gatherings and special events. As shown in Exhibit ?-25 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 1.34 of 767 Conceptual open Space Plan of the Draft IS/MND, the total open space consists of a combination of common areas, private grounds, deeps, and rooftop deeps. Landscaped areas (45,381 square feet), which may serve as setbacks and buffers for the site, were not included in the total open space area calculations. The open spaces that are proposed would provide meaningful opportunities for recreation and social gatherings. No further analysis is required. Response to STACK-4 The comment states that the proposed project would have adverse impacts on the CTI Marine property and the Sweetwater Union High School District Maintenance Facility. The comment does not raise any questions about the environmental analysis of the Draft IS/MND. This comment will be provided to the City decision makers for their review and consideration in determining whether to approve the project. Response to STA C" -, The comment states the importance of commercial uses and infrastructure to the City of Chula Nista. The proposed project would not include a reduction of commercial uses; however, the proposed project would result in a reduction of industrial uses. The Draft ISAIND found that consistent with General Plan Policy GM 2.1, the proposed reduction in industrially designated lands would be very small (less than 0.4 percent) and would therefore not have a significant effect on the Citywide mix and balance of land uses. The Draft l:S/MND's land use and planning consistency analysis found that the proposed project would not cause significant adverse impacts to the neighboring industrial sites or the adjacent apartment complex and would notaffect the viability of adjacent industrial lands. No further analysis is required. Response to STACK-6 The comment states that there is no rational basis for the proposed project. The comment further states that the project is out of character for the area, would damage residential and commercial uses, and is inappropriately placed due to the industrial uses of the site and proximity to the railroad and roadways. The Draft IS/MND analysed several benefits of the proposed project and performed a consistency analysis to determine the proposed project's land use and planning consistency with the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan.According to this analysis,the proposed project would be consistent with and help provide additional, high-density residential units to meet the current and future housing demands in the City. Additionally, the analysis found that the proposed project would help enhance the character of the neighborhood by creating more compatible land uses and improving the frontage of floss Street. Furthermore, the proposed project would be located within walling distance to transit, public services, and amenities, including schools, parrs, public transit, and other public facilities. The project would create new residential uses at densities compatible with the adjacent uses, strengthening the balance of land uses in the immediate surroundings. The analysis also determined that the proposed project would not add an incompatible or potentially disruptive land use. The proposed project would be located across the street from a single-family neighborhood and would work to increase the integrity of the residential neighborhood by removing less compatible industrial uses and ?-2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 135 of 767 aligning residential uses on Moss Street. A complete and detailed consistency analysis is provided in Table 21 of the Draft Initial Study. No additional analysis is required. 2-27 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 136 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 137 of 767 SECTION In ERRATA Draft initial Study/Proposed Mitigated NeS/MNgative Declaration IS18-0004 ("Draft I D and associated Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 676 Moss Street Project was circulated by the City of Chula Vista ("City") for public review from April 27, 2020, through May 27, 2020. The Draft IS/MND provided a review of the 676 Moss Street Project, which is a one-lot 141-unit Townhome project located at 676 Moss Street ("project" . Per Section 15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQ A" Guidelines, comments were accepted on the circulated document for a 30-day period ending May 27, 2020, during which four comments were received. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204,the City has independently evaluated the comments and prepared written responses describing the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and adopted Resolutions recommending that the Chula Vista City Council adopt the Final IS/MND and Mitigation, and Monitoring Program and approve the project. The following are revisions and clarifications made to the Draft IS/MND since the conclusion of the public circulation period. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken ). The changes are represented in the Final IS/MND for the project. SECTION 3.1: CHANGES AS A RESULT OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS The following are revisions to the Draft IS/MND for the 676 Moss Street Project. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft IS/MND. The revisions are listed by page number. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section B. Project Description Page 2,, Parking The following text has been revised to reflect the revised number of parking spaces during construction. The Draft IS/MND stated the anticipated number of parking spaces would be 348. The correct number of parking spaces is 336. The proposed rezoning to 1 -3 requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit, for a total of 282 parking spaces. The proposed project would provide 282 garage spaces with an additional 54 66 non-garage spaces,. Therefore, the proposed project would provide 2.38 parking spaces per home equaling 336 parking spaces; 54 66 more parking spaces than required by the R-3 zoning (Exhibit 5). 3-1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 138 of 767 Initial Study, Section 111.Air Quality Page 16, Paragraph 3 The following misspelling was corrected: For the proposed project, the closest sensitive receptors are multi-family residences located directly adjacent to the project site to the east. This analysis evaluates the potential construction-related toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions, and ozone precursor. Section IV. Energy Page 36,Paragraph 2 The following misspelling was corrected: The proposed project's buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance with California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. These standards, widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. Section IV. Energy Page 40, Paragraph 4 The following acronym was corrected: California's Renewables Portfolio Standard(RPS)requires that 33 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy sources by 2020. The proposed project would be served with electricity and gas provided by IS LQ4 I n nin,"C� "QQ R,- ULIO-irid% X N-Nk4o %1WW a X%W%01kXX%1W (SDG&E). SDG&E is required to meet California's RPS. SDG&E's 2017 power mix included 44 percent eligible renewable (2 percent biomass and waste, 21 percent solar, and 21 percent wind), 39 percent natural gas, and 17 percent unspecified sources of power. SDG&E also offers an EcoChoice Mix that sources 100 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources (specifically, 100 percent solar). Section XV. Public Services, (b) Police Protection Page 101,Paragraph 5 The following correction has been made to the police department discussion. (b) Less than significant impact. The City of Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) currently provides police protection to the project site and would continue to do so in the future. The proposed project would develop 141 new dwelling units on the project site, which.would add an estimated 475 persons to the City's population, which is less than 0.2 percent of the total current population of the City. CVP"D Headquarters is located 2.3 5 miles from the proj ect site at 31 Fourth Avenue. Using an average travel 3-2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 139 of 767 speed of 25 mph, it would tale a police vehicle R. less than 6 minutes to reach. the project site from CVPD Headquarters. Section XVI . Utilities and Service Systems Foga. .15,Paragraph l Additionally,the Project Applicant would be required to pay Sewer Fees and additional Development Impact Fees in accordance with City of Chula Vista Municipal al 4 ode. SECTION 3.2: CHANGES AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER SYSTEM The proposed project that was evaluated in the Draft IS/FIND assumed that sewer service would be provided by two private sever laterals: one connecting to an existing main on Moss Street to serve the residential,units south of the two side-by-side 12-foot by 10-foot reinforced concrete box(RCB) storm drain culverts which bisect the project site,and gravity sewer lateral. connecting to an existing main on. Industrial Boulevard to serve the residential units north of the RCB storm drain culverts. The lateral connecting to Industrial Boulevard would have been installed under the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System ("MTS")" right-of-way via trenchless technology. The "trenchless" technology would have involved jack and bore installation of a sewer encasement under existing railroad tracks. Following the circulation of the Draft IS/MND by the City, it became evident that the gravity" sewer system that was proposed to serve the northern portion of the project site was not feasible because of topographic and jurisdictional constraints. The proposed sewer system was therefore redesigned to transport the sanitary flow generated from the northern portion of the site to a properly seed private pump station built per the manufacturer's recommendations and. specifications. With the revised sewer system, flows would be collected and pumped to an existing 12-inch PVC sewer along Moss Street, approximately 250 feet east of the intersection. of Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard. The proposed pump station and sewer infrastructure would be contained within the current development footprint. The electric pump station would be located underground and within the private streets to reduce noise and visual impacts. The pump's electrical. equipment would be installed above ground in a low-profile electrical enclosure. Additional details of the proposed private sewer pump station are provided in the Sewer Feasibility and Technical Report prepared by Michael Baker International, dated November 24, 2020, which is attached hereto and incorporated into the Drat IS/ MND as appendix K. Minor revisions have been made to the Draft IS/MND to ensure that the revised sewer system described above is accurately described and hilly evaluated. The following section briefly outlines the clarifications and minor changes made to the Draft IS/MND since the conclusion of the public circulation period. These revisions are explained below and represent minor, non- substantive changes that do not warrant recirculation of the Draft IS/MND. 3-3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 1.40 of 767 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section B,. Project Description Page 2, Utilities The proposed project would be served by all required public services and utilities, including electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, sewage, water, and solid waste -"C1nPQia etc. There are existing underground utilities on the project site. TA hew nAWYWL3%.A removal., F nrC%U:%1"*t 1AT0111d :M X Fuet an e Ox V%W FX IL V 4AV%.1 L7%"VV E%-F Ex"W41H iinx tlfhew nri AT ate stf t,so Pa.& tLpt AAZA11U offlifiLaet t6a VAR"t, VV XJL4jL%A %."Xi ta., se,vv ef fflaiipt to +01LARall Sew f Wastewater in the southern portion of the project site would be served by an on-site gravity sewer line connecting to the Moss Street public sewer main.As shown in Appendix K.,, wastewater on the northern portion of the project site would flow by gravity to a new wastewater system located on the westernportion of the site adjacent to Private Street Al from which wastewater would be conveyed via force main to the private gravity sewer in the southern portion of the site, where it would then connect to the ,p,ubI,i,c line in Moss Street. The proposed project would also involve the construction of an underground wastewater system within the private streets of the project site that would tie into San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) power infrastructure to pump effluent generated bv the proposed project. The wastewater system would connect to the main line on Moss Street via one connection from the Proposed-project. The wastewater system on-site would also consist of two 8-inch PVC gravity sewer pipe networks, one on the northern half of the site and one on the southern half of the site; a submersible cho,ppe,rp"m station-located a,djacent to Private Street A, a force main, to the south gavity sewer line, a force main discb and a gravily sewer connection to the Moss Street public line.Associated equipment for the wastewater system would include purnip electrical equipment,breakers,motor starters, level controlleral , an-n system, and a natural gas-driven emergency generator. A sewer Pump station would convey sanitary flow from the north collection system to the southern collection s'ystem gravily sewer for ultimate discharge to the Moss Street sewer main. Water would be served by the existing water main and a new public water main would be constructed. Stormwater runoff would flow into a proposed storm drain system and discharge into an existing double-box culvert. Table I lists the Utility Providers for the proposed project site. Section F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Page 7,Paragraph 3 The following mitigation measure has been edited: M.M GHG-1 Prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the Project Applicant shall provide for the purchase of voluntary carbon credits in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department pursuant to the following performance standards and requirements: the carbon offsets shall achieve real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable reductions as set forth in Cal. Health & Saf. Code Section 38562(d)(1); the carbon offset credits shall be retired from a carbon offset project compliant with the qppropriate California Air Resources Board-gp-proved 3-4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 141. of 767 protocol; and i-i-. one carbon offset credit shall mean the past reduction or sequestration. of one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent that is "not otherwise required" (CEQA. Guidelines Section 1.5126,.4(c)(3))�. The purchase shall be from a verified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credit broker in an amount sufficient to offset operational GHG emissions of approximately 0 metric ton (MT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year until. 2030 and 451 MTCO2e per year beginning in 2030(or a total amount estimated over the lifetime of the proposed project,which is estimated to be 1 MTC 2e). The purchase shall be verified as occurring prior to approval of occupancy permits. Copies of emission estimates and offset purchase contract(s) shall be provided to the City Development Services Department for review and approval. Initial Study, Section 111.Air Quality Page 13,Paragraph 2 The proposed project would construct 141 residential units with 2-car garages and 54 66 additional surface parking spaces. The proposed proiect would also involve the construction of an under round wastewater system that would tie into San Die,.goGa3 & Electric (SDG&E)power infrastructure to pump effluent generated by the proposed project. Construction emissions were estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model (Ca.l E od)"Version 2016.3.2. Page 14,Paragraph 2 Energy-source emissions are those associated with natural gas combustion for space and water heating and electricity consumption associated with the provosed residences and wastewater s,ystem. The three existing buildings would be removed as part of the proposed project; therefore, the existing emissions were included in the analysis baseline to estimate the net increase in emissions. Page 15, Paragraph 2 The proposed wastewater system and accompanying back-up natural. gas-fired ememyencygenerator was not included in the emissions estimates provided below due to the lack of available information at the time of the ori incl assessment. The wastewater system would generate energy-source emissions as it would connect to SDG&E electricity infrastructure and create an, estimated electricity demand of kilowatt-hours (kWh) per vear. The ne accomvanvim4 back-up izenerator is anticipated to run for maintenance p,urposes for at least 50 hours er ear. The wastewater ,s,yste,m would generate an additional 2 vehicle trips per month for maintenance employees. While these activities would generate operational emissions beyond what is displace in Table 4, they would represent an insignificant -proportion of the mass emissions generated by the Proposed-project and would not cause the proposed project to exceed SDAPCD thresholds. 3-5 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 142 of 767 Page 22, Paragraph 7 Minor sources of odors,, such as exhaust from mobile sources, are not typically associated with numerous odor complaints, but are known to have temporary and less concentrated odors. The proposed wastewater system would be entirely enclosed underground and would not be considered a source of substantial odor generation. Therefore, the proposed project's operational activities would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. Section IV. Energy Page 36,Paragraph 4 Energy consumption would also result from the operation oft e proposed wastewater system and associated natural gas-fired back,-upe,m,e,ig,enc,y generator. Operation of the wastewater system would generate an electricity demand of 3,150 kWh per year. The accompanying back-Lip generator is anticipated to run for maintenance pulposes, for at least 50 hours per year. While these activities would generate energy demand be and what is discussed above the would re resent an insignificant p,ro,po,rt-on of the total energy..........demand enerated b the ro used ro ect and would not be considered a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of enemy. Page 3 7, Paragraph 2 Operation of the pro�posed wastewater system would necessitate up to two round-trip maintenance vehicle trips per month. While these vehicle trips would generate transportation fuel demand beyond what is discussed above, they would represent an ins of the total trans,p,ortation fuel demand generated b- the proposed project. For these reasons, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Section V11. Geology and Soils Page 44, Paragraph 5, through Page 45, Paragraph .1 (e) Less than silmificant No impact. The project does not propose the use of septic tanks;however as shown in Ap,pen,d,ix K,the p,rojectwould install ap,r,i,vate wastewater system to convey wastewater from the northern portion of the site to the City sanitary sewer system connection on, Moss Street. The wastewater system would require pumps to be contained in a cast-in-place concrete wet well and valves to be contained in an Adjacent integral cast-in,-,place concrete valve chamber. Imp,1,ementation of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report recommendations pursuant to MM GEO-I would ensure that soils are capable of supporting the wastewater system infrastructure. The V "a ln,�C proposed project would connect to,the City sanitary sewer system through e�.114sotiXXX&llixxx -iL,ox vvastewatet: dislposal. .a prop sed 8-inch on-site sewer line that would connect of the northern and southern wastewater systems, to the existing sanitary sewer line in Moss Street. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have less than 3-6 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 143 of 767 significant no impact to soils, as the project does not propose the use of septic tanks,, and soils would be capable of supporting the wastewater system. Section V111. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Page 49, Paragraph 2 Indirect GG emissions associated with water consumption and solid waste disposal would also be generated by the proposed residential development 'and associated wastewater system. The three existing buildings would be removed as part of the project; therefore, existing emissions were included in the analysis baseline to estimate the net increase in emissions. Page 50-51, Table 14 Table I.: Annual Operational GHG Emissions dear 2021. Emissi*ons Emissions Source (MT CO2e) Area 63 Energy 182 Mobile 1.124,1 Waste 33 Water 51 Wastewater System I Amortized Construction 26 Total Traject Emissions' 4-,5.9 = l_J 5.9 7 Existing Emissions (262) Annual Net Project Emissions 134_1,335 Project Service Population 2 475 Service Person/Per Capita GHG Efficiency(MTCO2e/SP) 2.8 City's proposed efficiency thresholds 2020(MTCO2e/SP) 3.1 Exceed Threshold? No Note: MT CO2e=metric tons,of carbon dioxide equivalent SP=Service Person I Totals may not appear to add exactly due to rounding. 2 The project service population (residents plus employees) is the number of new residents living in the proposed development.As noted in Section 1.4,the number of new residents (475) was calculated by multiplying 141 dwelling units by 3.37 persons/dwelling unit(the average household size in Chula Vista), Source of emissions:CalEEMod Output(see Appendix A). 3-7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 144 of 767 Page 5.1, Table.15 Table 2: Annual Operational Emissions—Year 2030 Emissions Emissions Source (MT CO2e) Area 63 Energy 1,67 Mobile 961 Waste 33 Water 46 Wastewater System I Amortized Construction 26 Total Project Emissions' 472145 Existing Emissions (228) Annual Net Project Emissions, 4� 67 1.068 Page 52, Paragraph .1 Implementation of MMGHG-I would require the purchase of voluntary carbon credits by the Project Applicant in the amount of approximately 451 MT C 2 per year in 2030 through the remainder of the project's lifetime (Appendix A). Total carbon offsets required for the project's lifetime would be approximately MT C 2 (Appendix A). With the implementation of MM GHG-1, the project's GHG emissions would not exceed the City's energy efficiency threshold of significance. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Page 58, Paragraph I MM GHQ--1 Prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the Project Applicant shall provide for the purchase of voluntary carbon credits in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department pursuant to the following performance standards and requirements: i.the carbon offsets shall achieve real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable reductions as set forth in Cal. Health & Saf. Code Section 38562(d)(1); the carbon offset credits shall be retired from a carbon offset project compliant with the appropriate California Air Resources Board-gp,proved pro,toc and ii-. one carbon offset credit shall mean the past reduction or sequestration of one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent that is "not otherwise required" (CEQ Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)(3)). The purchase shall be from a verified greenhouse gas (GG) emissions credit broker in an amount sufficient to offset operational GHG emissions of approximately 0 metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent(MT CO2e) per year until. 2030 and 451 MT CO2e per year beginning in 2030 or a total amount estimated over the lifetime of the proposed project, which is estimated to be x,471 MT CO2e). The purchase shall be verified as 3-8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 145 of 767 occurring prior to approval of occupancy permits. Copies of emission estimates and offset purchase contract(s) shall be provided to the City Development Services Department for review and approval. Section XIII. Noise Page 93, Paragraph 3 The proposed project would generate noise from parking lot activities from new exterior mechanical equipment sources, such as mechanical ventilation systems on proposed multi-family residential. uses, and from. operation of the proposed projecus, wastewater system. Page 94,Paragraphs 2-4 through Page 95,Paragraph -1-2 Wastewater System overations, The ro Deed ct's wastewater s- stem would include a wastewater PUIMP111,11,11,11,and a backup generator. The wastewater system would include an underground pump that would be submerged under water. This pump would be located on Private Street A, between Private Street E and Private Street F. This location is approximately 380 feet from the nearest sensitive race for the sin,g,le fam,i residence located Street east of Colorado Avenue. Because the um would be located underground and submerged underwater, operational noise from this pump would not be perceptible above ground as measured at any outdoor active use are or sensitive receptor location in theproiect vicinity compared to background ambient noise levels. Thus, operation of the ro Deed um would not result in substantial increase in ambient noise levels as measured at any off-site receptor. Therefore, the noise produced b operation of the proposed pump would have a less than significant impact on off-site receptors. As described above, theproject would also include an timer enc backup g nerator to power the wastewater system during power outages. The proposed generator would be located qpproxi,mately 50 feet from the lift station. It is anticipated that under regular operations, the back-up generator would cycle for 30 minutes, once per month and Burin da time hours for testn ur oses. Since the noise ordinance is based on the hourleq,, this could result in a worst-case situation in which the proposed generator would be operational.50 percent of the time. Documented sound ratings for 24 kilowatts (kW) to 125 kW backup/standby generators ran. e from 60 dBA to 70 dBa L feet). The exact generator model has not been chosen; however, the proposed generator capacity would be app�roximately 25 kW and would tberefore have a sound rating less than 70 dBW..Leqat 7 meters. The proposed generator will also be housed in a sound attenuating structure.A minimum noise reduction of 10 dBA can bee acted when manufacturer su lied sound attenuatin hoes e s are utilized, compared to operational noise levels without any shielding. Therefore, reasonable worst-case operational noise levels from operation of the backup/standby 3-9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 146 of 767 generator would be a maximum of 27 dBA Lee hourly average at the nearest sensitive receptors, which are approximately o feet from the proposed generator site. Noise levels from proposed wastewater svstem and associated backup/standby generator operations would not exceed exi,,,s,t,i,n,g ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest residential receptor and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, the impact of noise produced proposed wastewater system Aerations to off-site sensitive receptors would be less than si nificant. Section XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems Page 113, Paragraph 1-2, and Page 114, Paragraph 1 The following text has been added. The proposed on-site private wastewaters stem would be comprised of two -inch. �ravitv sewer pipe networks. The on-site wastewater system would be divided into north and south halves se ,ara.ted by Private Street K where the bisecting CB storm drain culvert channel is located, as shown in Appendix K. Wastewater on the southern portion of the project site would be served by an on.-site gravity newer line connectira to the Moss Street -public sewer main. It should be noted that the wastewater system would connect at a sin 1e Dint to the main line on floss Street. wastewater on the northern portion of the project site would flow by ,gravity to a new wastewater system, which would then be conveyed via force main to the private raft sewer line in the southern portion of the site.Wastewater from both portions of the site would ultimately flow to the existin ublic sanitaKy sewer line in floss Street.The pro Deed wastewater system on the northern portion of the project site would be designed in accordance with. the Cityof Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Section.3-300 article 3-304 Private Pui� Stations. The proposed wastewater system would not affect the existimY RCB storm drain culvert channel that currently runs underneath the ro'ect site. Wastewater flows are used to estimate the proposed project's potential sanitary flow eneration. These flows are calculated and assessed under Average D�ly Weather Flow (AI WF), beak: DEE weather Flow (P wF), and Peak wet weather Flow PWWF conditions. The increase in wastewater generation would result in an incremental increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. As, shown in Tables 30-32, the proposed project would generate a total. of 25,662 gprd under ADF'W conditions, 35,414 gpd under P wF conditions, and 65,515 gpd under PWWF conditions. 3.10 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 1.47 of 767 Table : Northern Collection System Wastewater Generation Number of Dwelling Units 86 units Sewer Demand.Rate 182 d/DU ADWF 15 652 gpd PDWF" 21,600" ZVd. Pw3 960 Table 3 1.: Southern Collection System Wastewater Generation Number of Dwelling n Units 55 units Sewer Demand Rate 1$2 /DU. ADWF 10 gpd PDWF 132814 gpd Table 32: Combined.wastewater Generaflon to Moss Street Number of Dwelling Units 1.41 units Sewer Demand Rate 1$2 d/DU ADWF 62 gpd PDWF 35 414 gpd ;�$=$J The Point Larva. Wastewater Treatment Plant has an existing available capacity of 65 million gallons per day (mgd). VA,A%V A 41A%J A,A %..P A A.0 k-7 NJ "A'A'WAAL3 %.Jl V V LILL3 Ilewate _ n1afe;efIt of flie matA of w1raila6le eanaeity. ._ The addition of 1 d under the most conservative condition would re resent 0.001 percent of the 65 mgd of available capacity. Therefore, the Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant has adequate remaining capacity to serve the proposed project. Fags. .15,Paragraph l (c) Fess than significant impact. As discussed in Impact 2.17(a), the proposed project would. generate 25.,6 6 d of wastewater under ADFW conditions 35,414 d under P,DWF conditions and.651 a 1 a ,am under P`WWF conditions V% to the City of San Diego,the Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant,which serves the project site, has an additional capacity of 65 mid. Thus, the addition of 65,,515 ypd of wastewater would represent 0.00 1 percent of the available capacity of 65 m d under the worst-case scenario. Therefore, the existing wastewater treatment facilities would have adequate capacity to serve the project. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 3-11 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 1.48 of 767 Exhibit 5: Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit 5 has been updated to reflect the revised site plan. Exhibit 6: Conceptual Open Space Plan Exhibit 6 has been.updated to reflect the revised site plan. 0 Appendix A,Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information The Final IS/MND includes updates to Appendix A to reflect the additional Energy analysis related to the new wastewater system, which contains an electric pump, station. The additions to Appendix A have been made based on revised modeling that includes the change to the project since the conclusion of the public circulation period. Appendix J, General Plan Reports The Final IS/ MND includes updates to Appendix J, General Plan Reports. The reports have been updated to consider the new wastewater system. Appendix K, Sewer Feasibility and Technical Report The Final IS/ MND includes a new Appendix K, Sewer Feasibility and Technical Report prepared by Michael Baker, International. The Sewer Feasibility and Technical Report evaluates the new wastewater system's feasibility and compliance with City requirements. The report also provides an estimate of the cost of maintaining and operating the wastewater system. and the mechanism for guaranteeing such services. SECTION 3.3: REGULATORY GUIDANCE FOR THE FINAL MND CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073.5, requires that a lead agency recirculate a negative declaration "when the document must be substantially revised" after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 150�72, but prior to its adoption."A 44substantial revision" is defined as: 1. A new, avoidable significant effect is identified, and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in, order to reduce the effect to insignificance,or 2. The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance, and new measures or revisions must be required. (Section 15072[b]) CEQA Guidelines Section 15072[c] further provides that recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: 1. Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1. 3-12 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 149 of 767 2. New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. 3. Measures or conditions or project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CA, which do not create new significant environmental, effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. 4. Nev information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modification to the negative declaration. SECTION 3.4: RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED C Guidelines Section 15072[c] specifies, situations in which recirculation of a negative declaration is not required. This includes situations in which new information is added to the negative declaration "which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration." As noted below, revisions to the Draft IS/MND merely reflect typographical errors or changes which are not required by CE A, which do not create new significant environmental effects, and/or which are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. Rather, the revisions to the Draft IS/MND reflect a change to how the sanitary flow generated from the northern portion of the site will be transported and connected tothe City's sewer line. The changes tothe Draft IS1' D did not change the extent the Project was analyzed in the Draft IS/MND. Nor would it not constitute a substantial revision to the Draft IS/MND.The minor revisions contained within the Final IS/MND did not result in a new, avoidable significant effect, and no new measures or revisions are required to reduce potential effects to a less than significant level. The wastewater system would be contained within the current development footprint of the proposed project. The electric pump station would be located within the private streets to reduce noise and visual impacts. The pump's electrical equipment would be installed above ground in a low-profile electrical enclosure and screened with landscaping. While the wastewater system. would generate energy-source emissions, the additional operational emissions represent an insignificant proportion of the mass emissions generated by the proposed project and would not cause the proposed project to exceed SDAPCD thresholds. The proposed project's wastewater system would be entirely enclosed underground and would not be considered a source of substantial odor generation and impacts would remain less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project's Preliminary geotechnical Report recommendations pursuant to MM GE -1 would ensure that soils are capable of supporting the wastewater system infrastructure. With the implementation of MM GHG-1, the project's GHG emissions would not exceed the City's energy efficiency threshold of significance and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. The impact of noise produced by proposed wastewater system operations would be less than significant because existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest residential receptor would not be exceeded. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft IS/MND for public review and comment is not required. 3-13 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 150 of 767 SECTION 3.5: CONCLUSION The proposed change in the project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The neve information added to the Draft IS/MND is not significant and recirculation is not required in accordance with Section 1.5073.5(c). In conformance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines,the Draft IS/MND,technical appendices and reports,updates as referenced herein, together with the grata. comprise the Final IS/MND and are intended to serve as documents that will inform the decision-makers and the public of the environmental effects of this project. 31 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 15 1. of 767 4 Project Summary T����ll��Area:a + 4 Acres 2,2 FUT, r Total Units. 141'Homes, Pre Line 0 (97)3-Story Court Towns � Bed, �� Plan�� 1,15 I=� Bath(�'ar,ider�) (16)Plan Z 1.235 SF.2 Bed,2° Bath(Tanideml) ��L 2 SF X34 Phan Bed,2.5 Bath,Den �f3 d Plan 4: ,r 53 F,4 Bed, f i Bath,Opt.lien rrf i v6 � f (44)3-Story Row Towns 'f�pfq 2�!' D' r ....�, 1a.u° 1 n i 24 Plan : 1,838 SF 3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Glen,Opt,Bed 4 ✓r,�Fay r,l........ ......... re¢r, .: ...l......i 1_'+ _ J (20)Plan + SF 4 Bed . Bath,opt.Chen µ, ✓` �f 0 Best 20A Homes Acre 2 42 z R, r . ,&k2'0.p .''��,.e � / yam: Pa,rkingi r R. 2 Spaces.X2.8 spaces per home „` k _._ _ 141) � Spaces �� Flames 2 paces 2$_2 :.. �f'' �� w� Property Line - - 4 Guest x B° cos cos r p ° � ^^. �, �1 Spa �� Providedr 336 Spaces 2.38,spaces per home) a 1 ,� 2 Li p T_ ° Garage: 232 Spaces(64 Tandem spaces identified with'T') p". ,°.,v.. ,.,. µ f � -H ead ln. 32 Spaces9r x 9a,. PrPur �ce GtI�t true � t' ^r t if�IP t' ra !9 R 0., � Parallel- 22 Spaces( x 22 "opsh"J u lent to MTS X Open b k a r !, Requ red° 1,128 SF Total� tb4 SF per home,, �min.dimension) ........_ ...I - u E istin cullvert f 4 existing ,� Provided. 75,112 SF Taal L 533 SF per home) f t , Sil rs proposed easements � � and t Coverage.. 34.5°I of site(+1 ft41 95 SF / � v l � i7ul X1111 � Tl r`l Zoning Summary Existing � 8 1 General Plan: Limited Industrial t Proposed general Plan:High Density , ..... Existing q. Limited Industrial Precise Plan Property Lire � I (rProposed � R-3 ����a���� I�ir,,tr"�..�� � ' ���'=- Lot Area per knit: +2,143 BF per home(min.1,590 for 4-bed units)5X. , I w nor riga z x� ,u AV X31 wl a�uldurw Setbacks: rrsr�t Yard 1° r a WV Inter or Side r r� Rearu YarnE 1rd:l �, Proposed Setbacks: Front Yard:1 it 0 f d Interior Side Yardl:12° Rear Yard:1"* " J{ Planning ommIssGion Variance will be requested from P' q B41lqnk Separation: 1Qn mlnQrnum R20 RMAY X04 rye Max,Building Height. 45'and 3 Stories 5 -. xn Max,Lot Coverage: 0% 14, sne�'u div err us lor wncorAiral puqmes eCplan must @r"e mdA pa6arrenon�1�biju4cYiirm�y,aux,S firRy .1.,,. _.a„:.;,.;; .,.... ... .. . ,,... ,..... u,.Mentorrmaftn par owdV wginee F. ' r d - y cmwna ru d GiuiN am�;Ii�aen kr rreirly ali a�adfaacks andgrading ImB dlm 3 Bu7dmxgFi.a74prrmrrw�YiCChao7ge duo InChroMal dlrr9igni owVa .d---- .I ---- -------.........-_-.....----- --- -- d------------------ ---. ----------- ------------- ----- Openri p a i3 �Ypo-rr SpaM;Gd area I5 suabJ�ap 1e i;�7�wgo-duo-kr the draltxur,� - - TAW design ei the elevativm, 7 B uIlding salbacks are measured dmm pmpeay liner",Wa Hies*in,r Pnkundafilnra Iii , Source:WHA Architects,Planners,Designers,November 13,2020, F1,RSTCARBON Exhibit 5 11(............ Conce&,Aual Site P'lan 34260024 9 11/2020 1 S_conceptual_site_plan.cdr CITY OF CHULA"NISTA•676 MIOSS STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 152 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 153 of 767 ....._._ Project Summary e. Kr, „ r 11 Total Si e Area:+6.94 Acres L5612,254 SIF) %%;� ', r Lf w, _ Total Units: 141 Homes ( r (7')5-Story Court Towns ' P-5 it .---j ...,.„ ,. 6)Plan 1:_.,1,196 SIF,2' Bath Tandem C 16 Flan 1,25 SF, Sed,2.5 Bath Tandem FiRW:K ST t '4'Plan : 1,652 S S' Bath,Den -� e x,f f ( 1) len 4+1,758 SF',4 Sed, .5 Bath,Opt,lien 4{, .N - _ p,a Story Bowe Towns r R'2Q�f ;4 , i; s,; 4X1(24)Plan 5"+ X36 SF, Seed,2.5 Bath,Den,Den,.opt,Sed 4 a wr/ I 1 n Ian 2,002 SF, Bed, t .5 Bath,Opt.rt,:. Density:... 2�0..4 Homes per Acre rp 4 I ! a,fH t,sr open Space: ,, " I _ required: 71,120 SF'Total(+564 SF per home',6 mina dimension), � .,;.. 911, � `� �l,k�, arr' r2 2 Bedroom x.46,SF 12,,66 S : -(3�4)3 Bedroom x 480 SF= 16,320 SF. (7)4 Bedroom x.560 SF-' 42,000 SF % � �'�„ Provided: 75,112 SF TOM*(++ 533 SF per home') Common: 35,543SF C h 7. Private Ground +� d 46 n.Dimension) Docks. 10,26 SF 6 Min.Dimensuon3� _ / 6 Roof Decks: ,21,246 SF(6 f � inn.Dimension), r 71, k P Additional opens space areas not counted towards total:. P t ndscape,area:+46,552 SF. y, t rlw a% to round. + 1,160 SF Il * In 6'r Iw,4un.Dimension D V open spaces counted towards the total provided open space meet the Geniera,l Flans exterior land use noise compatibility threshold of 65 dB DNl..for new rp residential development. Al I j ., , � m Decks/roof Decks eliminated from pro dedo.s.due to noise QPf disqualification.Decks/roof Decks locations are shown,but not ' r'r cr ckjded in above total, s r��°�rYVATE r �p r.r 'oof Decks within 90 of the railroad centerline are excluded from them. nm;.;.. �..w a A , p e disqualification.uadisqualification.lon, Rn kr� f,, No,o."' �,��.�� ��tpt� r I��,;� r ie' en Space calculation due to hole NIS J',,ATE ST ;wil Decks within 166"and direct line of site to the railroad centerline are excluded from the Open Space calculation due' J �. t q . r x�� �� �.. �.,lmt- �� � �lW �� w+ �tUr ��I to nose die uglification. ,f it, cul fi 17, ' tf I I / f L PtR:rp,t' b 240 7 l `� r � �' 1 I ,r r i it � 1 1 1 3 i , u 0 ow f to o. itr"^bVaim is for u,xrrp�.era.ial pru&Cxasm,only, sike WOan rmisw9.Cua+menulewurd by gslnnnwrnp.huilktlnq,da7d tarar' y *yrarinw.ntr;tris code mrm[rliarara. 3base inftxrnagrveis p;er 00 engineer. 7 I , LOWen uuv e 1c verifyail settracks andgradingintcrrnaMian 5 ISuftrq�Wprnrnts n7oht change iWP to the final design aNer.rbren s le 6, open space area is su*ct tlu clvaiage due nu Vie Ilralccey desgn of the ele Acn, 7. Budldung se0ldacks are measured fim psrapaerdy tlines to pruA,Jnap it"uirnd,atlim lInes.. Source:WHA Architects,Planners,Designers,November 13,2020, FIRSTCA,RBON Exhibit 6 (I' 't� � ��,,, � ,,,J� n"111"'I, �N�r .o„u li i�: Conceptual Open Space P'lan 34260024 9 11/2020 1 6_con+ceptu l_open_space_pllan.cdr CITY OF CHULA VISTA•676 MIOS'S STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 154 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 155 of 767 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 0 1. Project Name, 676 Moss Street Project 2. Project Location: 676 Moss Street, Chula Nista, California . .Assessor's Parcel No.: 618-010-2601, 618-010-2602, 618-010-3100, and 618-010-3200 4. Project Applicant: Shopoff Land Fund-Moss Street, LLC 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700, Irvine, California 92614 Contact: James O'Malley 949.417.1396 5. Date of Draft Document: April 27, 2020 6. Case No: IS18-0004 7. Date of Final Document-, TBD A. PROJECT SETTING The 676 Moss Street Project (proposed project) is, located on approximately 6.9 acres located on the northeast corner of Industrial Boulevard and Moss Street, east of Interstate 5 (1-5) (Exhibit 1). The project site includes four parcels designated as San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Numbers (AP Ts). 618-010-2601, 618-010-2602, 618-010-3100, and 618-010-3200 (Exhibit 2). The project site currently has three buildings on-site used for a variety of light industrial uses, all of which would be demolished. The property has a City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan Land Use Designation of Limited Industrial and is zoned Limited Industrial Zone (I-L). Refer to Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4,, respectively. The project site is bounded by light industrial uses to the north; fight industrial uses and residential dwellings to the east; Moss Street and residential dwellings to the south; and light industrial uses, an at-grade rail crossing, and Industrial Boulevard to the west. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the approvals necessary to remove three existing buildings on the 6.9-acre project site to develop a residential neighborhood with a variety of housing types. Approximately, one third of the site (2.5 acres) would be developed as, open space as part of the proposed project. The components of the project are described in more detail below. Residential The proposed project would consist of a gated-residential development comprised of 141 dwelling units, including 97 3-story court townhomes and 44 3-story row townhomes. The proposed dwelling units would be 3-story, 45-foot-tall buildings and would vary from 1,175 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 156 of 767 square feet to 1,,947 square feet. Each unit would have 2- to 4-bedrooms,, and all units would have 2.5 bathrooms (Exhibit 5). The average household size in,the City of Chula Vista is 3.37 persons per dwelling unit. The proposed project is estimated to increase the population by approximately 475 people.I The estimated start of construction is approximately October 2020. Frontage The proposed project would require a variance for a front-yard setback requirement on Moss Street due to the two I 0-foot by 12-foot concrete box culverts that currently bisect the site. The proposed front-yard setback is 10 feet instead of 15 feet due to all buildings being shifted away from the culvert on both sides, thus imposing a burden that is not created by the owner. The existing right-of-way is 5 feet wider than the City of Chula Vista standard. Therefore, the resulting setback between the improved street and the proposed buildings would be consistent with the intended setback. Parking The proposed rezoning to R-3 requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit, for a total of 282 parking spaces. The proposed project would provide 282 garage spaces with an additional 66 non-garage spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would provide 2.47 parking spaces per home equaling 348 parking spaces; 66 more parking spaces than required by the R-3 zoning (Exhibit 5). Site Access Vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided via one full-access, un-signalized driveway on Moss Street, which is the existing site access point(Exhibit 5). Open Space The R-3 District requires a total of 71,,120 square feet of open space (approximately 504 square feet per dwelling unit or 1.6 acres). The proposed project would exceed this requirement by creating private open space areas, of 75,111 square feet (approximately 533 square feet per dwelling unit or 1.72 acres)(Exhibit 6).The proposed open,space includes approximately 19,,636 square feet of rooftop decks for recreation,2 and approximately 36,864 square feet of common open space that would include a community recreational area with barbeque counter,tot lot, and overhead structures with Americans with Disabilities Act (ATA.) compliant seating for social gatherings and special events (Exhibit 7). A Homeowner's Association (HOA) would maintain, the common area landscape and open space. 81 Utilities The proposed project would be served by all required public services and utilities, including electricity,natural gas,telecommunications,sewage,water,and solid waste removal,etc.There Prqject population(475)calculated by multiplying number of proposed dwelling units(141)by average household size(3.37 persons per dwelling unit). Chula Vista Municipal Code,Section 19.28.090,Open Space Requirements,allows for roof areas designed and equipped to accommodate recreational and leisure activities to be included as part of the open space requirement. 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 157 of 767 are existing underground utilities on the project site. The proposed project would construct an on-site private sewer main,in the internal private streets and that would connect the sewer main, tothe existing public sewer main. Water would be served by the existing water main and a new public water main would be constructed. Stormwater runoff would flow into a proposed storm drain system and discharge into an existing double-box culvert. Table I lists the Utility Providers for the proposed project site. Table I*- Utility Providers, utillilt�,, Ptovilder Electricity San Diego Gas&Electric Natural Gas San Diego Gas&Electric -Sewage City of Chula Vista Potable Water Sweetwater Authority Storm Drain Sweetwater Authority Solid Waste Removal Republic Services -Telephone AT&T Cable T Time Warner Cable Source:Michael Baker International.Tentative Map 2018., C. COMPLIANCE WITH I I G AND PLANS The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment from Limited Industrial (I-L) to High Residential (RH.- 18-27 dwelling units per acre), and a Zone Change from Limited Industrial (I-L) to Apartment Residential Zone (R-3). The High Residential designation is intended for multi-family units, such as apartment and condominium-type dwellings in multiple-story buildings, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 27 dwelling units per gross acre. According to the United States Census Bureau's 2013-20,17 American Community Survey 5- year Estimates, i ables DP05 and 52504, the population of the City of Chula Vista is 264,101 and the number of occupied housing units is 78,,476, for an average household size of 3.37 3 persons per dwelling unit. Therefore, population density would range from 60.6 to 90.5 persons per acre. The purpose of the R-3 zone is, to provide appropriate locations where apartment house neighborhoods of varying degrees of density may be established, maintained, and protected. The regulations of this district are designed to promote and encourage an intensively developed residential environment, with appropriate environmental amenities such as open areas, landscaping,, and off-street parking. To this, end, the regulations permit, in accordance with the respective density districts, multiple dwellings ranging from garden apartments to multi-story apartment houses, and necessary public services and activities subject to proper controls.Also permitted, subject to special control, are certain retail and service activities intended for the 3 United States Census Bureau.2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.Accessed December 23,2018. 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 158 of 767 convenience and service of the residents of the district (Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 19.28.010) D. PUBLIC COMMENTS On April 27, 2020, a Notice of Intent was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site, as well as to other interested parties. The public review period shall end on May 27, 2020. E. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project may have potential significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This MND has,been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. F. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MM AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction, of the City Development Services Department that all off-road construction equipment that will be used on the project site in excess of 50 horsepower will be equipped with engines meeting the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier IV Final off-road engine emission standards. This mitigation measure shall be included on the grading plan. MM B10-1 Construction activities that occur during the nesting season (generally March I to August 3 1) could disturb nesting sites for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and Fish and Game Code. No action is necessary if no active nests are found or if construction occurs during the non- breeding season (generally September I through February 14). Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. • To prevent impacts to MBTA-protected birds, nesting raptors, and their nests, removal of trees will be limited to only those necessary to construct the proposed project. . If any tree removal is,necessary, then it will occur outside the nesting season, between September I and February 14. If trees cannot be removed outside the nesting season, pre-construction surveys will be conducted 3 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests. . If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Construction activities shall be restricted as 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 159 of 767 necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the agencies deem disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include the establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet around an active raptor nest and a 5 -foot radius, around an active migratory bird nest) or alteration of the construction schedule. A Qualified Biologist will delineate the buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone will be maintained around the active nest sites)until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that a program related to potential archaeological, resources uncovered during construction activities on-site has been established, the program shall include that: 1. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified professional.Archaeologist approved by the City to be present and monitor all ground-disturbing activities; 2. The Archaeologist shall halt work in the immediate area in the event that archaeological resources are identified until the Archaeologist has evaluated the find and determined if the find is a"unique cultural resource" as defined in Section 2 1083 r (g) of the CEQ�A statutes; 3. The Project Applicant shall inform the City Development Services Department of the find; 4. If this determination is positive, the scientifically consequential infon-nation, shall be fully recovered by the Archaeologist; 5. The Project Applicant shall stop work in the immediate location of the find until information recovery has been completed and a report has been filed with the City; the SCIC at San Diego State University; and, appropriate Native American representatives; 6. The Project Applicant may continue outside the area oft e find; and, 7. The City Development Services Department shall ensure compliance. MM CUL-2 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the P'roj ect Applicant shall demonstrate tothe satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that a program related to any human remains that might be encountered during ground-disturbing activities on-site has,been established, the program shall include: 1. The Project Applicant shall halt work in the immediate area of the find; 2. The Project Applicant shall contact the San Diego County Coroner, City Development Services Department, and Sherriff's Department; 5 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,0 of 767 3. The Project Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the Native American, Heritage Commission, (NAHC) and the appropriate Native American representatives are contacted and that the NAHC contacts the most appropriate most likely descendant (MLD) as maybe directed by either the San Diego County Coroner, City Development Services, Department, or Sherriff's Department; 4. The City Development Services Department shall direct the treatment of the remains pursuant to Coroner and MLD recommendations. MM GE04 All recommendations included in,the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, included as Appendix D of this Draft IS/MND, shall be implemented during construction activities. MM GTO-2 The City of Chula Vista assesses and mitigates the potential impacts of private development and public facilities and infrastructure to paleontological resources pursuant tothe provisions of CEQ�A. Pursuant to Section 15065 of the CEA Guidelines, a lead agency must find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where the project has,the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California prehistory, which includes the destruction of significant paleontological resources. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-2, impacts to any previously undiscovered paleontological resources would be less, than significant. Because excavations may extend into undisturbed high sensitivity geological units, and may be greater than 10 feet below the ground surface in certain areas of the project, a Paleontological Monitor will be required. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction, of the City Development Services Department that a program related to paleontological resources potentially uncovered during ground-disturbing activities on-site has been established, the program shall include: 1. The Project Applicant shall halt work in the immediate area of the find; 2. The Project Applicant shall notify the City Development Services Department; 3. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified professional. Paleontologist approved by the City: • The Paleontologist shall assess the discovered material(s). • The Paleontologist shall prepare a survey, study or report evaluating the find. 6 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,1. of 767 • The Paleontologist's survey, study, or report shall contain a recommendation(s), if necessary, for the preservation, conservation, or relocation of the find. The Report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Development Services, Department. • The Project Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the report as approved by the City. Project development activities in the immediate area of the find will resume when copies, of the report are submitted in a manner acceptable to the City Development Services Department. A find(s) recovered should be deposited in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a letter to the City Development Services Department indicating what, if any, paleontological reports have been prepared for the project site, or a statement indicating that no material was discovered. MM GHG-I Prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the Project Applicant shall provide for the purchase of voluntary carbon, credits in a manner approved by the City Development ServicesDepartment pursuant to the following performance standards and requirements,* the carbon offsets shall achieve real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable reductions as set forth in Cal. Health & Saf. Code Section 38562(d)(1); and ii. one carbon offset credit shall mean the past reduction, or sequestration of one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent that is "not otherwise required" (CE �A Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)(3)). The purchase shall be from a verified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credit broker in an amount sufficient to offset operational GHG emissions of approximately 0 metric ton (MT) carbon, dioxide equivalent (C02e) per year until 2030 and 4501' T C e per year beginning in 2030 (or a total amount estimated over the lifetime of the proposed project, which is estimated to be 9,450 MTC 2e). The purchase shall be verified as, occurring prior to approval. of occupancy permits. Copies of emission estimates and offset purchase contract(s) shall be provided to the City Development Services Department for review and approval. MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction, of the City Development Services Department that the five groundwater monitoring wells on the project site will remain in place should additional groundwater testing be necessary. The Project Applicant will abandon the wells,when they are longer needed in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department and San, Diego County Department of Environmental Health Monitoring Well Program. 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,2 of 767 MM HAZ-2a Prior to the issuance of anygrading permit and subsequent to the demolition of on-site structures, the Project Applicant shall. conduct soil testing on,the soils the structures were on. If volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are present, soil containing elevated concentrations of VOCs shall be excavated and removed from the project site. The excavation and removal of soil to be outlined in the Soil. Management Plan (SMP) approved by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. MM HAZ-2b Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, the Project Applicant shall obtain a permit from the San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division. The permits shall provide that hydrocarbons or"other products," including asbestos and lead based paints, that might be encountered during building demolition, grading, or construction activities, are disposed of in a manner approved by the City Development Services, Department. MM HAA 3 Prior to the issuance of any site development permits (demolition, grading, building, construction), the Project Applicants enter into the County y of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP). Written Confirmation of VAP participation and compliance shall be received from San Diego County Department of Environmental Health prior to any site development activities. MM N01-1 To meet the interior noise level standard of 45 A-weighted decibel (d A) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEE,L , each of the proposed multi- family residential units shall be supplied with an alternative form of 0 0 ventilation, such as air conditioning or noise-attenuated passive ventilation systems, that would allow an occupant the option of controlling noise by keeping the windows shut (as the interior noise standard would not be met with open windows). MM N01-2 To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that: The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited. The Construction Contractor shall utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such market available technology exists. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,3 of 767 placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest residential land uses at all times during project grading and construction. • The Construction Contractor shall designate a Noise Disturbance Coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and establishment reasonable actions necessary to correct the problem. The Construction Contractor shall visibly post a telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator at the construction site. • The Construction Contractor shall limit noise producing construction activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10�:O�O p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Prior to the issuance of each certificate of occupancy, the Construction, Contractor shall demonstrate, tothe satisfaction of the City Development Services Department, compliance with Mitigation Measure (MM)NOI-2. 9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,4 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,5 of 767 I r G., AGREEMENTTO IMPLEMENT signing the n provided bel w,tl.,ie Project,Appficant and Operator stipulate that they have each re , Understood, and have, their respective cf Inp ry�saUt-11 0I'll ty to and do, agrees to, tlie maigation meas res containted herein, and will niple me t ,n 'to the .tip action of the E iroi nie tat Review Coordinator. ilL r t si '� 'lie l �� s, pro 1 � 1 r N� � ��t��r tills Mitigated Negative DIeclarationwith the C011111 Clerk shall indicate the Project A cant" and Operator's desire that the proposed pr 'ect be ,held in abeyance With.OLlt appi-oval and that the Pr yet Appl.ic nt a ��erat shall apply for ars .Enviro mental 1 ° pct I oil (EIR). Jai-ties " alley,Nke President— evelop e t API-i1 27 2020 7 Printed,Name anci Title of Project Applicant D ate-W ' 1 `127, , I` do Apt4111 a l J`eet i'licant pp Date: !! e, 41I Iryp' @N.ww"' H CONSULTATION L, IndividUals and Orgatilzations, City Of ChL11a Vist-u, aW Yhuaw,lryM" Others: kti, than r tl er , Eilar Associates I 1IC. Cody, Schaaf, Mid& Angel . I�"hall , r dek Sarah Siren.", DUdek 2Initial StUdy Teta envir n,'nie tat d terili Mation, is based on the City's Initial Study. 1:"he report reflects, the i 1.idpn,. e t jrLtd,!,jnlent of h.e Cw i t y Of C 1 1,1.1 1[t, Vista., F u t-t.il e�r i n o r .1.i ai:.o n r r d i n g, L 1 e en i ronni,ent 1 review of this ro I project is available firotil the Development Services artnet t, 276 OUrth ell,Li ,+ C11111a Vista, Ca1 .+ nis 91910. Steve Plower, I r nclP l Planner Dere,:A.prl 127, 2020 D opi-nent Services 9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 1.6 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,7 of 767 Os Es'cohdido Cleveland �.� National Suthei lc rcl Forest Lake "��, � ,nye � uuuuuuuGuuuu J ,.; Poway Wry �Project Site "a MH mmmmm mmm mmmmmmmmmmmmSan Vicente �Cleveland Reset v� SFJ" National Forest .Y El Capitan Reset Cleveland National Santee Forest . bide 11110�111 � �� � ,, lia 0 g El C , „ Cleveland Casa de, National v rr Forest Lal es„ w 0100 0 „ ........ Leon Grove ���,���� ts 00 Srin Valle „ . , a e sei „ lrrrl CrlDarla r. �4 .,P a c i i1c 01c,ean Co nado Chula Vista Lovver sOtay c � . MOI Impe ria-i ..... Project Site Ruch . .. San Diego COunty l� y 1 r � 1 o i � 0 1 t s r i �l i i oR i FI STCARBION 5 2.5 0 5 T,� -`II M�il�es b„ 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,8 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 16,9 of 767 e Y Gni G �pll� 9 U Legend Project Site d Parcels 0 1 � l , � 1 i SII y z,a q p m � n i , a� ^ afro i ii r � t f n r� s� u i / I x v ,� II Jill r' I I u 9 h u � i If r m I I O i i u i , r ,c �v A y , i n�f ` v O * o 4� f, i va , r� , rOw r� 1 FIRSTCARBON (,,-� �C"') 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 170 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 17 1. of 767 Legend Project Site General P�lan Land Use Designations CR-Commercial Retail FWY-�Freeway I-General Industrial IL-Limited Industrial MUR-Mixed Use Residential OS-Open Space PQ-Public&Quasi Public RH -Residential �High RMH -Residential Medium[High RM-Residential Medium RLM -Residential Low/Medium 11 FIRSTCARBOIN S C j 7,7�0 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 172 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 173 of 767 Legend Project Site Zone Designations General industrial Limited Industrial Limited Industrial Precise Plan Residential �High Residential Medium Residential Low-Medium Mixed Use-Residential Mixed Use-Transit�Focus Area FIRSTCARBOIN S C J 7,7�0 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 174 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 175 of 767 4 ° Project Summalryr r _�° ET 4 1 x a Total Bine Area:+6.64 Acre (+ 02,254 S�F) Total Units. Property Line y. � ����Homes, tory�Court Towns (16)Plan 1i:+1,166 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) (w'VAIm.� � (16)Plan 2:+1,255 SF,.2'Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandeml) �... �I 1. -(34)Flan 8: 1,652 SF,3 Bed,2�.5 Bath,Den r ��� � �,� �;,, i:� ��..:: a. � 44(1 Plan� 8 F 4 Bed,. �.5 Bath„Opt.Iden � � ,,,,�f l„°,15_V ( for or Towns Plan 5:+1,838 SF,8 Bed,2.5 Bath,lien,Opt.Bed 4 1,, �., (20)J Plan 6:m„2,002 SF 4 Bed .5 Bath,opt.Chen Density: 20A Homes per Acre J, s>....,. abrc f ` I Parkrngl Y 82 stew Required:P p 2 e�� Spaces(2.0 spares per home) r. 1 �/. • (14 Homes x 2. Spaces� 282 Spaces / h Line ( fy 0�`I�!rv'��kf�w�M IR 3,a u� Property A.YII 14 t LA' �4+r AO� 4 Guest x 6 paces Spaces �� h >. P�� � ,�•�,r.�-'� w a'�ided�,° "�86 Spaces 2.8sates per home Li T__, 7.; � �,, Garage: 282 Spaces(64 Tandem spares identified with'T) p, ryr v I lI rad ln; 2 Spare (” 19" rrott�ce It tib ��� u.9.. u a Parallel 22 Spaces( x 2 ) , w .o° b S a s 2° ��.�,. � �..,., � MTS I,,. r „ irc'. / _ i w... �"�t"�%� ���, 6�� „�jiJ'Y,fy,.., 'S °, ase"J � lent to t� S X� ��;r yip dip �R�v°�'� � �'`,., w / ,g,,.�.xnI�, ).1 p "i I Open Space: uire. 112 Total 4 per home m�iin 6� dimension) I _ � Pei d° 71 �SF T l+5fb SF p I - M....-.Existin cullvert f 4S existing l17 Provided:; .. , � . and.proposed easements Total L+538 SF per home)`. .. w �a��,,,.a, ,, Lot Coverage. 34.51 of site+104 J � , X1111 , Zoning t [ ing Sumlmalryr j - Existing General Plan: Limited Industrial P �,�,, __ Proposed General Plan.High Density =ry o _ . Existing Zoning I• Limited Industrial Precise Plan Property Line _ � p l r r Proposed Zoning: P- } f � ! -� Lot Area per knit: +2,148 SF per home renin.1,5f1 for 4-bed units) . ul �mid' � � fRtCtlq". �'�p,C�Vttp(➢�,".�� � _ � fix,�,��"� °_ u p pita ° w nc>" � r � p��uldu~1 Setbacks: 5 - J l Interior Side Yard:7" nc ° f_ �r 9 l-' f � I , iit��'l��r�, � � r; ,,! _.: �� ���; 4'�� yf� �P I Pear Yard.1" Proposed Setbacks: Front Yard:10"*1 ,x � L1 Interior Side Yard:12° Pear Yard:15"* :{ *"Variance will he requested from Planning CommIssion r BUIldrng Separation: 10"rninarnurm RMAY _....at 4 Max,Building Height. 45"and 3 Stories �.H5 0' Max,Lot Coverage: 56% _ 14, as plan must be Wewed by planNn, box I , p co Oral a Fem niY f � Y Iron uy 9�nr°"�'"We rnaYpa�ahreR. n bnu4cYura�y,aux9 fm ...... "'�';�., _ ....�.d_ _ �.,.�,.._._. = ....----^,,.......�,:.,.,.. .. ..,......-.�.,. .,. ..:;1°,,.�.,°..',..°. ..,,..,, u..Mentorrmaftn rowa'w in�ee M d GiuiN an�,Ilsaett kr rreirly alf sagfaa�cks andgradimBcmwnuatlmru rn�NMal deisign 5. BoI p a ISrsuab��aC I mcg duo in Clem 6. pm .!---- -_...I ---- ---- -------.........___.....----- --- -- -� L--------------------- ---. ----------- ------------- ----- do4 Yen ei the elevatim, f 7@fie due to the�YalIXIGY'� adon style. TAW 7 B uIlding walbackws are measured dmm pmpeay liner",Wa Hn e*in:,fnaundafil[rra Iii , N Source:WHA Architects,Planners,Designers,November 13,2020, F1,RSTCARBON Exhibit 5 11(............ Conce&,Aual Site P'lan 34260024 9 11/2020 1 S_conceptual_site_plan.cdr CITY OF CHULA"NISTA•676 MIOSS STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 176 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 177 of 767 ....._._ Project Summary e. Kr, „ r 11 Total Si e Area:+6.94 Acres L5612,254 SIF) %%;� ', r Lf w, _ Total Units: 141 Homes ( r (7')5-Story Court Towns ' P-5 it .---j ...,.„ ,. 6)Plan 1:_.,1,196 SIF,2' Bath Tandem C 16 Flan 1,25 SF, Sed,2.5 Bath Tandem FiRW:K ST t '4'Plan : 1,652 S S' Bath,Den -� e x,f f ( 1) len 4+1,758 SF',4 Sed, .5 Bath,Opt,lien 4{, .N - _ p,a Story Bowe Towns r R'2Q�f ;4 , i; s,; 4X1(24)Plan 5"+ X36 SF, Seed,2.5 Bath,Den,Den,.opt,Sed 4 a wr/ I 1 n Ian 2,002 SF, Bed, t .5 Bath,Opt.rt,:. Density:... 2�0..4 Homes per Acre rp 4 I ! a,fH t,sr open Space: ,, " I _ required: 71,120 SF'Total(+564 SF per home',6 mina dimension), � .,;.. 911, � `� �l,k�, arr' r2 2 Bedroom x.46,SF 12,,66 S : -(3�4)3 Bedroom x 480 SF= 16,320 SF. (7)4 Bedroom x.560 SF-' 42,000 SF % � �'�„ Provided: 75,112 SF TOM*(++ 533 SF per home') Common: 35,543SF C h 7. Private Ground +� d 46 n.Dimension) Docks. 10,26 SF 6 Min.Dimensuon3� _ / 6 Roof Decks: ,21,246 SF(6 f � inn.Dimension), r 71, k P Additional opens space areas not counted towards total:. P t ndscape,area:+46,552 SF. y, t rlw a% to round. + 1,160 SF Il * In 6'r Iw,4un.Dimension D V open spaces counted towards the total provided open space meet the Geniera,l Flans exterior land use noise compatibility threshold of 65 dB DNl..for new rp residential development. Al I j ., , � m Decks/roof Decks eliminated from pro dedo.s.due to noise QPf disqualification.Decks/roof Decks locations are shown,but not ' r'r cr ckjded in above total, s r��°�rYVATE r �p r.r 'oof Decks within 90 of the railroad centerline are excluded from them. nm;.;.. �..w a A , p e disqualification.uadisqualification.lon, Rn kr� f,, No,o."' �,��.�� ��tpt� r I��,;� r ie' en Space calculation due to hole NIS J',,ATE ST ;wil Decks within 166"and direct line of site to the railroad centerline are excluded from the Open Space calculation due' J �. t q . r x�� �� �.. �.,lmt- �� � �lW �� w+ �tUr ��I to nose die uglification. ,f it, cul fi 17, ' tf I I / f L PtR:rp,t' b 240 7 l `� r � �' 1 I ,r r i it � 1 1 1 3 i , u 0 ow f to o. itr"^bVaim is for u,xrrp�.era.ial pru&Cxasm,only, sike WOan rmisw9.Cua+menulewurd by gslnnnwrnp.huilktlnq,da7d tarar' y *yrarinw.ntr;tris code mrm[rliarara. 3base inftxrnagrveis p;er 00 engineer. 7 I , LOWen uuv e 1c verifyail settracks andgradingintcrrnaMian 5 ISuftrq�Wprnrnts n7oht change iWP to the final design aNer.rbren s le 6, open space area is su*ct tlu clvaiage due nu Vie Ilralccey desgn of the ele Acn, 7. Budldung se0ldacks are measured fim psrapaerdy tlines to pruA,Jnap it"uirnd,atlim lInes.. Source:WHA Architects,Planners,Designers,November 13,2020, FIRSTCA,RBON Exhibit 6 (I' 't� � ��,,, � ,,,J� n"111"'I, �N�r .o„u li i�: Conceptual Open Space P'lan 34260024 9 11/2020 1 6_con+ceptu l_open_space_pllan.cdr CITY OF CHULA VISTA•676 MIOS'S STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 178 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 179 of 767 LANDSCAPE,CONCEPT STATEMENT: amo. The overall iandscape concept for the Chuiia Vista project is to provide this new residential community and adjacent existing communities with an attractive walking experience while adding visual interest,social functionality and minimal 8 strain on local resources, ';V YRT, The Design Objective: -a w I A five foot wide,pedestrian walkway system,will meander through the community connecting it to Moss street S el as the proposed attractive amenities like the central shade structure,tot lot,active lawn&smaller seating nodes.These amenity areas will allow for local residents to walk their dogs,stroll,hold small social gatherings as welll as,larger group events, The use of low mahtenance and water wise plants will be incorporated and designed to be attractive,using dramatic and AWN unique succulents and grasses in mass groupings with a mix of contrasting groundclovers.The overall iandscape wlil be 4 J compliant with the City of Chula Vista's Chapter 20.12 Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. 12 LEGEND 1 Community recreational area with bbq counter,Tot lot,overhead structure with ADA comphant seating for social 4 /A 2 gatherings and special events, 2111k— 2. Proposed wall],fence and gate,per Wall&Fence Plan. 3. Enhanced vehicular entry,with,precast pavers. 4. Proposed tree,per Planting Plan. 5, Public concrete sidewalk,per Civil and City Standards. 6, 5'wide community sidewalk,natural color concrete with light broom finish&narrow trowel joints, 12 QI, 7. 4'wide residential unit entry walkways,natural c*r concrete with Hight broom finish&narrow tooted joints. A 8. Private patiolyard,homeowner maintained&installed. 8 9. Common area landscape,HOA maintained. 3; 4 f" % Natural color concrete driveway with light broom finish. t 11, Guest parking and accessibIle parking stall per City Standards 11 Public utilities,water,sewer and gas line per Civil Plans, 13. Property line, 14 14� Mailbox CBU boxes(per USPS approval). 15, City R.0.W. 1& Short term bike parking(6 bike racks to accommodate 12 bike stalls). 17� Existing box Culvert per Civil Plans. ........... 18. Community dog bag station(black in coior)�,for pet owners, ;4/,kX,'AT K 1�',"'!/11 19� Enhanced color paving atopen space/with.05 top,castfinish&sawcutjoints 4 _71/56 10 20, Proposed illuminated site plan/directory on painted precision cmu wall. Qp�n Space DI Proposed bulk trash pickup area. 21 'Entry monuments,per separate permit I submittal. 0 Xll�,Z' mimunity Recreatbrial (16 Area-.Fire-pit with 01 Ifffff"I'MINI, seating rup',ip/,//;, 17 19 6 g, 60 2 /e, I If, JFFI/ Id/1 20 '10) 3 441% MCI$$ I IR it 111 'Conceptual imagery only 2 gg/ 5 5 ""FER Community recreational area,Fire pit with seating all id I ��// A 1dddr111111 C onceptual imagery only 0114 111FPRI'l & J A 0 20' 44Y 80 Scale�V 40'.0" Source:WHA Architects,Planners,Designers,February 18,2020. FIRSTCARBO,'', N Exhibit 7' ............ "N" '111111"fl "J,C "Ai Conceptual Landscape P'lan 34260024 9 02/2020 1 7—conceptuail—�landscape_plan.cdr CITY OF CHULA VISTA*676 M�OS�S STREE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIGN 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 180 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 181. of 767 67'6 MOSS STREET PROJECT INITIAL STUDY 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 182 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 183 of 767 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Proponent Name,Address, and Contact: Shopoff Land Fund-Moss Street, LLC 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, California 92614 Contact-. James O'Malley,Vice President 949.417.1396 2. Lead Agency Name,Address, and Contact: City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Stan Donn,AICP 619.409.5953 3. Name of Proposal: 676 Moss Street Project 4. Date of Checklist.- April 27, 2020 5. Case No. IS18-0004 6. General Plan Designation: Limited Industrial (I-L) to be rezoned to High Residential. (RH). 7. Zoning Designation: Limited Industrial (I-L) to be rezoned to High Residential R.H . PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The proposed 6,76 Moss Street Project(proposed project) is located in the City of Chula Vista, in San Diego County, California. The City of Chula Vista is surrounded by National City, the City of San Diego, and unincorporated San Diego County to the north, unincorporated San Diego County to the east, the City of San Diego to the south, and the San Diego Bay to the west (Exhibit 1). The project site is located at 676 Moss Street on the northeast comer of Industrial Boulevard and Moss Street. The project site is comprised of four parcels, including Assessor's Parcel Numbers (A.PNs : 618-010-2+ 01, 6 18-010-2+ 02, 618-010-3 100, and 6 18-010-3200 (Exhibit 2). Surrounding Land Uses The site area is bounded by light industrial uses to the north; light industrial uses and residential dwellings to the east; Moss Street and residential dwellings to the south,- and light industrial, uses, an at-grade rail crossing, and Industrial Boulevard to the west. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 184 of 767 Land Use and Zoning The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment from Limited Industrial (1-L) to High Residential (RH: 18-27 dwelling units per acre), and a one Change from I-L, to Apartment Residential Zone(R-3).The RH designation is intended for multi-family units, such as apartment and condominium-type dwellings in multiple-story buildings, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 27 dwelling units per gross acre.According to the United States Census Bureau's 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates,Tables DP05 and 52504, the population of the City of Chula Vista is 264,101 and the number of occupied housing units is 78,476, for an average household size of 3.37 persons per dwelling unit.' Therefore, population density would range from 60.6 to 90.5 persons per acre. The purpose of the R-3 zone is to provide appropriate locations where apartment house neighborhoods of varying degrees of density may be established, maintained, and protected. The regulations of this district are designed to promote and encourage an intensively developed residential environment, with appropriate environmental amenities such as open areas, landscaping and off-street parking. To this end, the regulations permit, in accordance with the respective density districts, multiple dwellings ranging from garden apartments to multi- story apartment houses, and necessary public services and activities subject to proper controls. Also permitted, subject to special control, are certain retail and service activities intended for the convenience and service of the residents of the district. (Ordinance 3153 § 2 Exh. A] 2010; Ord. 1.21.2 § 1, 1969; prior code § 33.505(A)).' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS Less,than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No, Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. Aesthetics Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 11 El H b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including, 11 El H but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic building within a State Scenic Highway? c) In non-urbanized areas,substantially degrade the El existing visual character or quality of public United States Census Bureau.2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.Accessed December 23,2018. City of Chula Vista.Chula Vista Municipal Code.2019.Chapter 19.28:R-3 Apartment Residential Zone.Section 19.28.010: Purpose.Website:https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/I 9.28.Accessed February 25,2020. 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 185 of 767 Less,than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No, Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact views of the site and its surroundings` (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).If the project is in an urbanized area.,would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare F-1 F-1 H F-1 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments:- (a) No impact.According to the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020General Plan: Chula Vista has valued scenic vistas and open space that include the Otay River and Sweetwater River Valleys- Upper and Lower Otay Lakes; Sweetwater Reservoir; San Miguel/Mother Miguel Mountains; and the San Diego Bay. These open, space areas make up,the majority of the Chula Vista Greenbelt, the backbone of the City's open space and park system, which consists of a 28-mile open space system encircling theCity.3 The project site is located approximately 1.21 miles from the nearest section of the Chula Vista Greenbelt. Due to the relatively flat nature of the project site and intervening buildings and topography,the Chula Vista Greenbelt is not visible from the project site. As such, the proposed project would not have an impact on scenic views of the open space areas outlined in the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. Additionally, the City of Chula Vista has designated roadway segments within the City as scenic.According to the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan:4 Chula Vista has several designated Scenic Roadways, where views of unique natural features and roadway characteristics, including enhanced landscaping, adjoining natural slopes, or special design features make traveling a pleasant visual experience. The designated Scenic Roadways are listed below and are shown on Figure 54, Designated Scenic Roadways. 3 City of Chula Vista.City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan.Website:https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development- services/planning/general-plan.Accessed December 18,2018. 4 Ibid. 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 186 of 767 • Marina Parkway from the intersection of E Street and Interstate 5 on the north to its intersection with Bay Boulevard South of J Street • Bonita Road from Interstate 805 to Sweetwater Road Sweetwater Road from the National. City boundary east to State Route 54 • East ISI Street from.Interstate 805 to Mount Miguel.Road Proctor Valley Road from Mount .Miguel load east to Jamul. • Telegraph Cantron I oadlO�tay Lakes Road from Interstate 805 to Lower otay Labe • Olympic Parkway otay Lakes load from Bonita load to Telegraph Canyon Road The nearest City designated Scenic Roadway to the proposed project is Marina Parkway at J Street, located approximately 0.75 mile northwest.. The distance, geographic, and physical barriers make the project site not visible from this roadway. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to scenic vistas. (h) No impact. The nearest State Scenic Highway to the project site is State Route 7 (SR-75), which is approximately 2.18 miles west of the project site, across the San Diego Bay. The distance, geographic, and physical. barriers make the project site not visible from SR-75. The site is currently developed and contains several species of ornamental trees, however, none of the ornamental trees are protected resources and there are no rock outcroppings. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway.As such, there would be no impact. (c) Less than significant impact. The approximately 6.9-acre site is flat and located in an urban area. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable zoning and the City of Chula Nista Resign Guidelines.As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed project would require a zone change from I-L Zone to - rthermore, a General Flan Amendment to amend the land use designation from. I-L to High Residential would be required. Thus, rectifying any potential conflicts with applicable zoning regulations regarding scenic quality. The proposed project would be designed to match similar multi-family housing developments in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed project would be located approximately 1,000 feet east of the Chula Nista Bayfront Master plan area. Although the project is not located within the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Flan area, the project would not conflict or impede in the City's ability to implement the Chula vista Bayfront Master Flan. Because the proposed project would conform to the City of Chula Nista Design. Guidelines, and would not conflict with any applicable General. Flan policies or zoning regulations regarding scenic quality, impacts would be less than significant. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 187 of 767 I I I (d) Less than significant impact. The proposed project would introduce new lighting fixtures from the construction of 141 dwelling units,which would increase new sources of light. However, all new light fixtures for the proposed project would require City Staff approval, as outlined in the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17: Zoning, 17.28.040 Lighting Plans—Approval Required When: All lighting plans in multiple family, commercial and industrial, zones shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval prior to installation thereof. Should the City disapprove of the plans, appeal may be taken to the Planning Commission. The determination of the Commission shall be final. (Ordinance 1324 § 1, 1971; prior code § 20.35.4(Q).1 The proposed project would require City Staff to review and approve the proposed plan and associated lighting to ensure light and associated glare impacts are minimized. According to the proposed lighting plan, the project would include street light posts with lamp shields to minimize light spillage into adjacent properties. Furthermore, the lighting plan proposes the usage of high efficiency LED lights in order to maximize light and minimize electrical usage on the property. The proposed lighting plan is included as Exhibit 8.As such, impacts would be less than. significant. Mitigation Measures,,* None. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland,are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland.,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), ass on the maps prepared pursuant to the F-1 F-1 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? City of Chula Vista.Chula Vista Municipal Code.2019.Chapter 17.28:Unnecessary Lights.Section 17.28.040:Lighting Plans. Website:https-:Hchulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/I 7.28.Accessed November 5,2019. 5 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 188 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section.1 2220(g)),timberland(as defined by Public F-1 F-1 Resources Code Section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code Section 51 104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of F-1 F-1 forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments:- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)regarding the State's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).. (a) No impact. According to the Califomia Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, San Diego, 2016 map, the project site and the surrounding 6 area is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land. According to the California Department of Conservation, Urban and Built-Up Land constitutes being occupied "by structures with a building density of at least I unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a I O-acre parcel.. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures" and not farmland. As such, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agri cultural. use, and there would be no impact. California Department of Conservation.20 19.Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program:San Diego County.Website: ftp://ftp.con srv.ca.gov/pub/dl rp/F'M M P/pdf/2 01 6/s dg 16 w.pdf.Accessed November 5,2019 6 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 189 of 767 (brew No impact.According to the City of Chula Vista CVMap�p�er CbulaVista GIS online tool, the four parcels where a zoning designation I-L is proposed are not zoned for agricultural use.' Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, as the project site is not zoned as such. According to the California Department of Conservation's San Diego County Williamson Act 2013/2014 Sheet I of 2 map, the project site and the surrounding area is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land and not as Williamson Act Agricultural, Land.8 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact. (c) No impact. As outlined above in. Impact 2.2(b), the four parcels where a zoning designation I-L is proposed are not zoned for forestland, timberland, nor timberland production. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland production, and there would be no impact. (d. No impact. As outlined above in Impact 2.2(c,), the four parcels where a zoning designation I-L is proposed are not zoned for forest land, timberland, nor timberland production. Additionally, the project site is currently urbanized and built-up with light industrial uses and is zoned for industrial uses. As such,the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversation of forest land to non-forest use and there would be no impact. (e) No impact. As outlined above in Impacts 2.2(a)-2.2(d), neither the project site nor its surroundings are zoned for or currently agricultural or forest land. As such, the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural. use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use,thus there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures:, None. 7 City of Chula Vista.CV Web Mapper:ChulaVista GIs.Website:https:Hgisweb.chulavistaca.gov/cvmapper/..Ac essed February 27, 2020. California Department of Conservation.201.4.San Diego County Williamson Act 2013/2014 Sheet I of 2 map.Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/San Diego w 13 14 WA.pdf.Accessed December 7,2018. 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 190 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact .111. Air Quality Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 1:1 Z 1:1 applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1:1 Z 1:1 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial F-1 Z pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions(such as those leading F-1 F-1 Z F-1 to odors)adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Comments:- Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control, district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Information included in this section is based, in part, on project-specific air quality modeling; complete modeling out-out is provided in Appendix A. (a)Less than significant impact. The project site is located in the City of Chula Vista, in San Diego County, which is part of the San Diego Air Basin. San Diego County is designated nonattainment for State standards for I'Mio, 8-hour ozone, 1-hour ozone, andPM2.5. The area is also designated nonattainment of the federal standard for 8,-hour ozone.9 The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (San. Diego County APCD) prepares air quality plans that include projected emissions inventories and account for emission reductions strategies in order to demonstrate how the region will achieve the ambient air quality standards by the given deadlines. The applicable air quality plans for San Diego County are the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and the 8-hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Attainment Plan).11 If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan's growth projection, the project might be in conflict with the applicable air quality plans San Diego County Air Pollution Control District(San Diego County APCD).2020.Attainment Status.Website: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdc/apcd/en/air-quaIIty-pIanning/attainment-status.htm1.Accessed February 11,2020. 10 Ibid. 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 191. of 767 and may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality. The project site is currently zoned I-L, while the project proposes development of residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site and would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from I-L to R-3. Chapter 5, Land Use and Transportation,Element,of the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan, states that the floor area ratio (FAIL) for the I-L Zone ranges from 0.25 to 0.5." The existing site size is 6.9 acres, thus the maximum building square footage under the current General Plan Land Use designation would be approximately 150,282 square feet. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast estimates approximately 17.1 civilian jobs per developed emp'loyment acre.12 Therefore, the estimated number of employees for existing land use type would be 59 people." The proposed project would construct 141 residential units, and thus, is estimated to house approximately 475 people. Based on the allowale square footage under the existing zoning designation, the daily trips generated under the current land use designation buildout is estimated to be between 3 00 and 1,491 weekday trips. The proposed project, using a conservative analysis, would generate 1,12$ trips per day. 14,11 Furthermore, the annual regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of the buildout under the current General Plan Land Use designation is estimated to be between 877,488 and 1,293,042 miles,16 while the annual VMT of the proposed project is estimated to be 3,059,605 miles. Because the planned land use and the proposed land use differ and the land use intensity and associated vehicle trips differ, further analysis is required to determine if the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Further analysis is provided below. RetJonal Air Ouafitv Strateg The RAQS outlines how the San Diego, County APCD will make progress toward attainment of the ozone California Ambient Air Quality Standards(CA QS}in the San Diego Air Basin by addressing emissions of the two ozone precursors: volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NC x . Control measures identified in the RAQS regulate stationary emission sources and some area-wide emission sources,(e.g., City of Chula Vista.City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan.Table 5-4 General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning. Website:https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=9327.Accessed February 25,2020, San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAL).2013.Series 13:2050 Regional Growth Forecast.October.Website: https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?classid=12&subclassid=84&prqiectid=503&fiLiseaction=projects.detail.Accessed October 25,2019. The number of employees for the existing land use type was calculated by multiplying employment density(17.1 jobs per developed employment area)by the maximum building area(3.45 acres);the maximum building area was calculated by multiplying the existing site size(6.9 acres)by the upper end of the floor area ratio range(0.5). The Draft Transportation Impact Analysis(December 201 8)presents a daily trip volume of 1,125 prior to a 5 percent transit reduction and prior to netting out trips from existing uses. as The revised Draft Transportation Impact Analysis,which was revised October 25,2019,presents a daily trip volume of 846(prior to a 5 percent transit reduction and prior to netting out trips from existing uses).However,as a more conservative approach,the Air Quality Analysis,used the higher daily trip volume of 1,128 from the Draft Transportation Impact Analysis(December 2018). Source of existing land use VMT:CalEEMod output based on the industrial park and general light industrial land uses,maximum building area of 150,282 square feet,and trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10"Edition and the project specific Transportation Impact Analysis.Source of proposed project VMT:CalEEMod output in Appendix A. 9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 192 of 767 water heaters and architectural coatings). The RAQS emission inventories and projections include all sources of ROGs and NOx. Projections in the REQS incorporate all current control measures and projected population growth.17 The proposed project would not conflict with control measures identified in the RAQS because no new stationary sources would be constructed and the proposed project would comply with all area-wide emission source standards. 8-hour Ozone Attainrnent Plan The Attainment Plan serves as the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for San Diego County APCD to achieve the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)in the San Diego Air Basin by July 20,,2018.Zs San Diego County APCD has limited authority to regulate mobile sources of ozone pollutants; those sources are regulated by the ARB and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since San Diego County was recently reclassified as a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, additional planning and emission, control. demonstrations are necessary to comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA). These additional Moderate nonattainment area requirements include, as summarized in the Attainment Plan,a comprehensive set of stationary and mobile source control measures to achieve attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.19 San Diego County APCD has also implemented Regulation IV Rule 55 that includes source-control measures that would reduce particulate matter emissions associated with residential. wood combustion; various construction, activities including earthmoving, demolition, and grading; bulk material storage and handling; carryout and track-out removal and cleanup methods; inactive disturbed land- disturbed open areas; unpaved parking lots/staging areas-, unpaved roads; and windblown dust. The following measures are recommended to meet San, Diego County APCD Rule 55 requirements throughout all phases of construction (but are not required to reduce emissions below significance thresholds),: • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; • Track-out grates or gravel beds shall, be placed at each exit point;, • Wheel washing stations shall be placed at each exit point during muddy conditions; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District(San Diego County APCD).2016.2016 Revision of the Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego County.December.Website: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air`/"20Quality`/`20PIanning/2016"/`2ORAQS.p,df Accessed February 11,2020. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District(San Diego County APCD).2016.2008 8-hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County.December.Website:http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Alr�/`20Quality"/`20PIanning/8-Hr- 03%20Attain%20Plan-08%20Std.pdf.Accessed February 11,2020. '8 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 10 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 193 of 767 • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using PM i o efficient wet power vacuum street sweepers certified to meet current South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 requirements—the use of blowers for track-out is prohibited; and • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, covered with soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulch, or seeded. The following are ARB-recommended control measures that are not specifically identified in the San Diego County APC D Rule 55: • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations ). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points, • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications.All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The San Diego County APCD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The proposed project would comply with all required control measures and rules and regulations required by the San Diego County APCD during construction and operation. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include any special features that would disrupt or hinder implementation of the control measures. Conclusion The proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations and would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the San Diego RAQS or the SIP. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Furthermore, the proposed project incorporates applicable control measures identified in the San Diego County APC D and County of San Diego California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and would not hinder the implementation of any control measures. The impact would be less than significant. (b) Less than significant impact. In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project's contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the San Diego Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for CAAQS and NAAS. If an area is in non-attainment for a criteria pollutant, then the background concentration of that pollutant has historically exceeded 1.1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 194 of 767 the ambient air quality standard. It follows that if a project exceeds the project-level thresholds for that non-attainment pollutant, it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of that pollutant and result in a significant cumulative impact. Pr9ject-level Signil icance Thresholds, The City of Chula Vista evaluates project emissions based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has established regional significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (including dust 10 micrometers or less in diameter [PMio], and dust 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter[PM . ] . Project-related air quality impacts would be significant if any of the applicable significance thresholds, as shown in Table 1, are exceeded. Table 1: SCAQMD Regional Thresholds Criteria Pollutant Mass Dally Thresholds(lbsiday) Pollutant Construction Operation voc 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day sox 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day _C0 550,lbs/day 550 lbs/day Notes: NOx=oxides of nitrogen SOx=sulfur oxide VOCs=vollatille organic compounds CO=carbon monoxide PMlo=particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 101 micrometers or(less; PM2,5=particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance,diameter of 2.5 micrometers Source:South Coast Air Qu�allity Management District(SCAQMD).20119.SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.,April.Website: h�ttp-Hwww.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqm�d-air-quality-s,ignificance-thresholds.pdf.Accessed November 5,2019. The San Diego Air Basin has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for ozone and a State nonattainment area for ozone, PMio, and PM2.5. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is a regional pollutant formed by photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone precursors, VOCs and NOx, react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Therefore, the SCAQMD does not have a recommended ozone threshold, but it does have thresholds of significance for VOCs and NOx. Prn oject-specific Costruction, Emissions Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of VOCS,, NOx, CO, SOx, PMi,o, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities 12 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 195 of 767 including demolition, grading,building construction, architectural coating, and asphalt paving. Fugitive particulate matter (PM) dust emissions are primarily associated with earth disturbance and grading activities, and vary as a function of soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and miles traveled by construction vehicles on- and off-site. Construction-related NOx emissions are primarily generated by exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, material and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. VOC emissions are mainly generated by exhaust emissions from construction vehicles., off-gas emissions associated with architectural coatings and asphalt paving. Construction, activities would consist of the demolition of existing buildings, mass grading, building construction, asphalt paving of new parking lots, and architectural coating of the inside and outside of the buildings.The proposed project would construct 141 residential units with 2-car garages and 66 additional surface parking spaces. Construction emissions were estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod), Version 2016.3.2. Information provided by the Project Applicant at the time the Air Quality Analysis was conducted indicated that the anticipated construction start date would be in September 2019 and would last for 15 months, although the exact timing of each construction phase would be subject to change. The construction schedule used in the analysis represents a reasonable "worst-case" analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. Therefore, construction emissions would likely decrease if the construction schedule moves to later years. The proposed project would demolish three existing buildings, totaling approximately 41,560 square feet. During the grading phase, the proposed project would import 10,000 cubic yards of material and would export 15,000 cub�ic yards of material. The proposed project would be subject to San Diego County APCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit any fugitive dust(Pl"` 1 o and PM2.5) that would be generated during grading and construction activities. Rule 55 requires construction or demolition activity subject to this rule in a manner that discharges visible dust emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period.The proposed project would be subject to San Diego County APCD Rule 67.0.1, Architectural Coatings, which limits the VOC content of architectural coatings. Table 2 presents the proposed project's unmitigated maximum daily construction emissions for each construction activity. 13 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 196 of 767 Table 2: Project Construction Emissions Unmitigated. Mass Daily Emissions(poundsper day) Activity VOC NOx CO sox PWO PM2.5 Demoliti,on 3.64 37.74 22.94 0.04 2.66 1.83 Grading 3.58 60-00 23.97 0.11 6.38 3.45 Building Construction-2019 3.29 26-55 23.41 0.05 2.96 1.69 Building Construction-2020 2.96 24.15 22.53 0.05 2.78 1.52 Paving 1.62 14.11 15.05 0.02 01.88 0.73 Architectural Coating 52.47 1.78 2,.71 0.01 0.38 0.18 Maximum Daily Emissions 52.47 60.,00 23.97 0.1111 6.38 3.45 (Ibs/day) SCAQIVID Threshold 75 100 550 150, 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No INo INo No No Notes: NOx oxides of nitrogen SOx sulfur oxide VOC=volatile organic compounds CO carbon monoxide PMio particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less;PIV12,5=particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5,micrometers or less Emissions include adjustments in accordance with San Diego County APCD Rules 55 and 67.0.1. Source of emissions:FirstCarbon Solutions(FCS)2019,Appendix A. As shown above, the proposed project's maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the short-term construction emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. The cumulative impact from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. Proiect-Specific Operational Emissions Operational emissions for land use development projects are typically generated from mobile, area, and energy sources. Mobile-source emissions are those associated with automobiles that would travel to and from the project residences.Area-source emissions are those associated with landscape maintenance activities and periodic architectural coatings. Energy-source emissions are those associated with natural gas combustion for space and water heating and electricity consumption.. The three existing buildings would be removed as part of the proposed project; therefore, the existing emissions were included inthe analysis baseline to estimate the net increase in emissions. Assumptions used to estimate existing and proposed emissions were consistent with the trip generation estimates presented in Table 3 below. Table 4 presents the proposed project's maximum daily operational emissions.A conservative analysis has been provided for trip generation 14 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 197 of 767 of the proposed project, s© the project's mobile-source emissions would likely be lower than those reported below." Table 3.* Project Trip Generation Daily Trip Ends (AD` )a AM Peak-hour PM Peak-hour %of ln:Out Volume of ln:Oult Volume Land Use Size Data Volume ADT lit In Out Total ADT Split In Out Total Apartment 141 DU 6/DU 846 8% -2:8 14 54 68 9% 7:3 53 23 76 Trip Reductions Existing Site Uses Reduction b (84) - (3) (2) (5) - - (4) (4) (8) Transit Reduction(5%)C 42) (3) (4) (3) (1) (4) Subtotal Reductions (126) Net Total Project Site Trips 720 10 49 59 46 18 64 Notes: a Rate is based on SANDAG,'s(Not So)Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region,April 2002("Brief Guide")."Apartment"is the appropriate trip generation rate from the Brief Guide based on the Project's density. b Trips for the existing use calculated for a total 42 GFA rooftop area of existing buildings based on a"Storage Land Use"rates from SANDAG's(Not So)Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region,April 2002. c Transit reduction of 5 percent recommended by City of Chula Vista consistent with SANDAL Guidelines. General Note: (x)=Numbers shown in parenthesis are negative values. Table 4: Project Operational Emissions Mass Daily Emissions(pounds per day) Category voc I co sox PM10 PM2.5 Area 5.97 1.42 12.22 0.01 0.17 0.17 Energy 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.00 01.02 0.02 Mobile 1.90 7.98 22.44 0.08 6.55 139 Estimated Maximum Daily 7.90 9.67 34.77 0.09 6.74 1.98 Project Emissions Estimated Maximum Daily (1.32) (0.76) (1.90) (0.011) (0.53) (0.15) Existing Emissions Estimated Maximum Daily Net 6.58 8.90 32.817 0.,08 6.21 1.83 Emissions SCAQMD Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55 Thresholds([bs/day) Exceeding Thresholds? No No No No No No Notes: The Draft Transportation Impact Analysis(December 2018)presents a daily trip volume of 1,128'prior to a 5 percent transit reduction and prior to netting out trips from existing uses,.The Transportation Impact Analysis was revised in October 2019,while the Air Quality Analysis was completed in April 2019.The revised Draft Transportation impact Analysis(October 2019)presents a daily trip volume of 846(prior to reductions),which is lower than the estimate provided in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared in December 2018.A higher daily trip volume would,lead to higher project emissions generated by the proposed project. Therefore,reliance on the Draft Transportation Impact Analysis(December 2018)provides a conservative analysis. 15 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 198 of 767 Mass©slily Emissions pounds per day) Gatde for " VOC Ilex COsox P"WO Pu2.5 Nox=oxides of nitrogen VOC=volatile organic compounds Sox=sulfur oxide Co=carbon monoxide PMio=particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2,5=particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or Mess Source of emissions:FCS 2019,Appendix A. As shown. above, the proposed project's daily operational emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the long-term daily operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. The cumulative impact from long-term.operation of the proposed project would be Tess than significant. (e) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporate. This impact evaluates the potential for the project's construction and operational emissions to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration. Sensitive receptors are defined as those individuals who are sensitive to air pollution including children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For the proposed project, the closet sensitive receptors are multi-family residences located directly adjacent to the project site to the east. This analysis evaluates the potential construction-related toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions, and ozone precursor.. Toxic Air Pollutants—Construction Health risk significance thresholds are represented as a cancer risk to the public and a non-hazard from exposures to TACs. Cancer risks represent the probability (in terms of risk per million individuals) that an individual would contract cancer resulting from. exposure to TACs continuously over a lifetime period of several years. Construction,- related activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off=road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for grading, building construction, and other miscellaneous activities. The analysis uses the following project-specific health risk significance thresholds.The acute hazard index was not evaluated ecause the fan Diego County APCD art e SCAdQMD does not provide an applicable acute Reference Exposure Level (REL) threshold."," As noted above under section Project-level Significance Thresholds, zs. County of San:Diego.2007.Guidelines for Determining significance and Report:Fermat and Content Requirements—Air Quality. March 19. South.Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAt MD).2015.sCAQMD Air Quality significance Thresholds.March.website: http►:/ .agmd.gov/ho /rules-com lianc /cega/air-quality-analysis-handbook.Accessed December 3,2018. 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 199 of 767 project emissions were evaluated based on the quantitative emissionn thresholds established by the SCAQ DI . • Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk> = 10 in 1 million • Hazard Index (project increment) >= 1.0 A significant impact would occur if a project's impacts exceeded any of these thresholds. Estimation of Cancer Disks The California office of Environmental Health hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed Risk Assessment Guidelines for estimating cancer risks that provide adjustment factors that emphasize the increased sensitivities and susceptibility of human to exposures to TA "s.2 The recommend method for the estimation of cancer risk is shown in the equations below for the duration of the construction time period. Cancer Risk = CDPM XInhalation Exposure Factor (EQ-1) There Cancer Risk=Total individual excess cancer risk defined as the cancer risk a hypothetical individual faces if exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular source for specified exposure durations; this risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the background cancer risk to the population; cancer risk is expressed in terms of risk per million exposed individuals.. CDP l = Period average DPM air concentration calculated from the air dispersion model in µg/m Inhalation is the most important exposure pathway to impact human health from DPl'' and the inhalation exposure factor is defined as follows.- Inhalation ollows:Inhalation .Exposure Factor= CPF x EF x ED x DBR x AAF/AT (EQ-2) Where: CPF=Inhalation cancer potency factor for the TAC: 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-I for DPM Er" _ Exposure frequency: 350 day /year ELS Exposure duration (2 years of construction) AT_Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged(days) .AAF = set of age-specific adjustment factors that include age sensitivity factors AF)�,daily breathing rates(DBR), and time at home factors(TAH) z California office of Environmental.Health Hazard.Assessment(oEHHA).Air Taxies Hot Spats Program-Risk Assessment Guidelines.Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.February 2015.. 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 200 of 767 The OEH recommended values for the various cancer risk parameters shown in Equation 2 are shown in,Table 5. Table 5: Exposure Assumptions for Cancer Risk �Exposure Frequency Time at Home Daily Breathing IExposure Age Sensitivity Factor Rate(2) Duration Factors TAH(1 (DBR) �receptor Type Hours/day Days/year (Years) (ASF) (percent) (Llkg-day) Sensitive/Residential 3,d Trimester 24 350 0.25 Il 0 100 361 0-2 years 1 24 350 2 101 100 1,090 3-116 years 11 24 350 2 3 100 572 17'-30 years 24 350 2 1 100 261 Notes: (1) TAH factors recommended by the SCAQMD (2) The DDR recommended by the SCA MD are the 95th percentile rate for sensitive/residential receptors 0 to 2 years (L/kg-day)=liters per kilogram body weigiht per day Sources of'Current OEHHA Guidance: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA).2015.Air Toxics Hot Spots Program-Risk Assessment Guidelines.February.Website:https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/c�rnr/2015,guidancema�nual.pdf.Accessed November 6,20191. South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).2015.Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.'Website::http,://www.aqmd.giov/docs/default-sou�rce/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod- guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2.Accessed November 6,2019. Source:Appendix A. hstimation of Non-Cancer Hazards An evaluation of the potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures was also conducted.Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate REL. To calculate the hazard index,each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity REL. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds 1, a health hazard is presumed to exist. To quantify non-carcinogenic impacts, the hazard index approach was used. H1 = Cann/REL (EQ-,3) Where: HI= chronic hazard index, Cann = annual average concentration of TAC as derived from the air dispersion model (Vg/m3) REL — reference exposure level above which a significant impact is assumed to occur(fit glm3) For purposes of this assessment, the TAC of concern is DPM for which the O,EHHA has defined a chronic non-cancer REL for DPM of 5 micrograms per cubic meter 18 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 201. of 767 (gg/rn). The principal toxicological endpoint assumed in this assessment was through inhalation. 'Air 1"Jispersion Modelin Construction An air dispersion model is a mathematical formulation used to estimate the air quality impacts at specific locations (receptors) surrounding a source of emissions given the rate of emissions and prevailing meteorological conditions. The air dispersion model applied in this assessment was the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AER1 'M D Version 1808 1.)air dispersion model. Specifically, the AERMOD model was used to estimate levels of air emissions at sensitive receptor locations from the project's construction PMio exhaust emissions. The use of the AERMOD model provides a refined methodology for estimating construction impacts, by utilizing long-term measured, representative meteorological data for the project site, construction area, and a representative construction schedule. The air dispersion model assessment used meteorological data from the Brown Field Municipal Airport monitoring station for the years 2009-2013. Sensitive receptors were placed at locations of existing residences.All the receptors were placed within the breathing zone at zero meters above ground level." The emissions from the on-site source were represented in the AE MO model as an area source, and the emissions from the off-site source were represented as line volume source. Construction was assumed to take place on an 8-hour per day/5 days per week basis for the years 2019 and 2020. Health Risk Assessment The results of the health risk assessment prepared for the project construction, for cancer risks, and long-term chronic hazards are summarized below. Air dispersion, modeling was utilized to assess the project's potential health risks. Exhaust emissions of DPM were estimated using CaIEEMod, Version 2016.3.2. Table 6 summarizes the emission rates of unmitigated DPM (PMjo exhaust) and mitigated DPM emission rates with Tier IV Final off-road engines. Table 6: DPM Construction Emissions On-site DPM Off-site DPM Year (grams/m2-sec) (grarnslsec) Annual Construction Emissions(Unmitigated) 2019 8.29E-07 6.47'E-06 2020 5.83E-07 1.13E-05 South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.Revised July 2008. Page 15. 19 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 202 of 767 On-site DPM Off-site DPM Year (grams/rn2-sec) (grarns/sec) Annual Construction Emissions(Tier IV Mitigation) 2019 2.79E-08 6.47E-06 2020 2.18E-08 1.13E-05 Source,:CalEEMod and FCS;see Appendix A. The sensitive receptor that has the highest cancer risks during project construction, is located 75 feet from the east edge of project site,at the northwest comer of VillaMarina Apartment. As noted in Table 7, the proposed project's construction activities would result in cancer risk that exceed the significance thresholds prior to the implantation of mitigation measures. Therefore, mitigation would be required to reduce the health risk impacts during the construction phase of development. Specifically, Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1 is required to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible. MM AIR-I requires Tier TV Final engines for all on-site equipment greater than 50 horsepower to be used during construction of the project. The mitigated health risks are shown in Table 8. Table 7: Estimated Health Risks, and Hazards during Construction Unmitigated Cancer Risk Chronic Source (risk per million) Non-Cancer Hazard Index(2) Risks and Hazards at the Maximum Impacted Sensitive 93, 0.11 Receptor(MIR): Infants(') Risks and Hazards at the MIR:Ghild(l) 13 0.1 Risks and Hazards at the MIR:Adult(') 2 0.1 Significance Threshold 10 1 Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? YES No (Infants and children) Notes: (1) Maximum impacted sensitive receptor is a residence,located approximately 75 feet from the east edge of the project site,at the northwest corner of Villa Marina Apartment Community. (2) Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the,maximum annual DPM concentration as PM10 exhaust)by the IREL of g/M3. Source:AERMOD and FCS;refer to Appendix A. Table 8: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards during Construction—Tier IV Mitigated Cancer Risk Chronic Source (risk per million) Non-Cancer Hazard Index(2) Risks and Hazards at the MIR: Infants(l) 2.9 <0.01 Risks and Hazards at the MIR:Child(1) 0.4 <0.01 Risks and Hazards at the MIR:Adult(1) 0.1 <0.01 Significance Threshold 10 1 20 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 203 of 767 Cancer Risk Chronic Source (risk per million) Non-Cancer Hazard 1ndeX(2) Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No Notes: (1) Maximum impacted sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 75 feet from the east edge of the project site,at the northwest corner of Villa Marina Apartment Community. (2) Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the maximum annual DPM concentration(as PMio exhaust)by the REL of 5µj /m . Source:AERMOD and FCS;refer to Appendix A. As shown above., the proposed project's construction activities would not exceed the recommended thresholds of significance with implementation of mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Toxic Air Pollutants—Operation Common sources of TACs include distribution centers,, large gas, dispensing stations, manufacturing warehouses and high-traffic freeways. The majority of project-related trips during operations would consist of residents and visitors traveling to and from the project site,predominately in passenger vehicles. Because most passenger vehicles are gasoline-combusted(approximately 99 percent of all passenger vehicles),the proposed project would not generate significant amounts of DPM emissions during operation,. Thus,, impacts would be less than significant. Carbon Monoxide Dots ods Localized high levels of CO (CO "hotspots") are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles.A screening analysis can determine if a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site- specific CO dispersion modeling is not necessary.Although Chula Vista does not have specific guidelines or criteria, the County of San Diego has developed the screening standards for CO concentrations, as shown below:" CO "hotspots," or pockets where the CO concentration exceeds the NAAQS and/or CAAQS, have been found to occur only at signalized intersections that operate at or below level of service (LOS) E with peak-hour trips for that intersection exceeding 3,,000 trips. Therefore, any project that would place receptors within 500 feet of a signalized intersection operating at or below LOS E (peals-hour trips exceeding ,000 trips) must conduct a "botspot" analysis for CO. Likewise, projects that will cause road intersections to operate at or below a LOS E (with intersection peak-hour trips exceeding 3,000) will also have to conduct a CO "botspot" analysis. County of San Diego.March 2007.Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Fon-nat and Content Requirements—Air Quality. Website:https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/�ds/ProjectPIanning/docs/AQ-Guidelines.pdf Accessed February 25,2020. 21 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 204 of 767 None of the intersections (e.g., Industrial. Boulevard/Interstate 5 [1-5] northbound ramps) operate with volumes that would exceed 3,000 peak-hour trips. The maximum peak-hour traffic volume for the Existing Plus Project and 2025 Condition scenarios occur at Broadway/Moss Street,with 2,698 and 2,772 trips during PM peak-hour, respectively. None of the intersections has a peak-hour traffic volume that exceeds the 3,000 trips; thus, the impacts would be less than significant. The maximum peak-hour traffic volume for 2045 also occurs at Broadway/Moss Street with a traffic volume of 3,276 trips during PM peak-hour. Although the peak-hour traffic volume exceeds the 3,000 trips limit,but the Broadway/Moss Street intersection is calculated would operate at a LOS D. Therefore, the screening criteria are met, and the proposed project would not result in the potential for a CO hotspot. Impacts would be less than significant. (d) Less than significant impact. The impact of an odor is dependent on interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Odors would be generated from vehicles and construction equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the proposed project. Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and architectural coatings. Such odors are temporary and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore., the construction of the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would develop residential units that are not typical odor- generating land uses. Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste-disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. Minor sources of odors, such as exhaust from mobile sources, are not typically associated with numerous odor complaints, but are known to have temporary and less concentrated odors. Therefore., the proposed project's operational activities would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures:, MMAIR-1 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development 22 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 205 of 767 Services Department that all off-road construction equipment that will be used on the project site in excess of 50 horsepower will be equipped with engines meeting the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EISA) Tier IV Final off-road engine emission standards. This mitigation measure shall be included on the grading plain. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial,adverse effect,either directly or El z F-1 El through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or F-1 F-1 I—] z federally protected wetlands(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any z native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances El El 1:1 z protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Comments,: The following analysis is based on the Biological Resources Summary Memorandum, for the 676 Moss Street Project, Chula Vista, California,prepared by FCS on January 17, 2020.A site visit was conducted on January 2,2020,to confirm the findings and conclusions of the desktop- level analysis for the proposed project,which is discussed in detail in the Biological Resources Summary Memorandum. The memorandum is included as Appendix B of this Draft IS/MND. 23 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 206 of 767 (a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site has been developed with buildings and associated paved lots since the 1960s. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Chula Vista and is zoned for industrial uses. For these reasons, the habitat type associated with the proposed project site is identified as Urban/Developed. When the environmental analysis for the project commenced in November 2018, activities on the project site included heavy machinery rental and sales yard, storage container rental, boat repair, steel surface preparation equipment rental, and sales of specialty abrasives and sandblast media. The project site is surrounded by man-made improvements and development, including light industrial uses to the north-,light industrial uses and residential dwellings to the east; Moss Street and residential dwellings to the South; and light industrial uses, an at-grade rail crossing, and Industrial Boulevard to the west. Landscaping on-site is almost non- existent,with.two small clusters of trees, one within the northwest portion of the project site adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, and the other along the southeastern.boundary of the project site (Exhibit 9). Special-status plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur on-site or in the project vicinity were determined from a search of the California Natural, Diversity Database (CNDDB1'6 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)" Information for Planning and Consultation System (IP"aC ist of special-status species that are known to occur in the project vicinity; and professional expertise.A complete list of recorded occurrences of special-status species within 1. mile of the project site is appended to the Biological, Resources Summary Memorandum (see Attacbmet D of Appendix B). In addition, Table 9 and Table 10 identify the special-status plant and wildlife species recorded within I mile of the project site,their preferred habitat, and the potential for these species to occur on the project site. 16 California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW).2019.California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB).Accessed September 4,2019. 27 United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).2019.Information for Planning and Consultation.Websitc: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.Accessed September 4,2019. 24 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 207 of 767 Table 9: Special-status Plant Species Recorded within 1. Mile of the Proposed Project Scientific Name Status Included in Impact Common Name UUWS' CDFW2 CNPS3 Habitat D�escription4 Potential to Occur and Rationale Analysis I Ambrosia monogyra 2B.2 Perennial shrub found in chaparral or Sonoran Unlikely to Occur: ono suitable habitat is No Singlewhorl burrobrush desert scrub present within the project site. Blooming period-August—November 10-500 m. Acmispon prostratus 1 B.1 Annual herb found in coastal dunes and coastal Unlikely to Occur: ono suitable habitat or No Nuttall's acmispon scrub(sandy). suitable soils are present within the project Blooming period: March—June site. 0-10 m. Isocoma menziesii var. 1 B. Dicot shrub found in coastal scrub and Unlikely to Occur: no suitable habitat or No decumbens chaparral on sandy soils;often found in suitable soils are present within the project Decumbent goldenbush disturbed sites. site. Blooming periodl:April—November 10-1 35m. Nemacaulis denudata var. 1 B.2 Dicot annual herb found in coastal dunes. Unlikely to Occur: ono suitable habitat is No, denu,data Blooming period:April—September present within the project site. Coast woolly-heads o-100 . Stemodia durantifolia 2B.1 Perennial herb found in Unlikely to Occur: ono suitable habitat or No, Purple stemodia Sonoran desert scrub(often mesio,sandy) suitable soils are present within the project Blooming period:April—December site. 18,0-300 m. Suaeda esteroa 1B.2 Dicot perennial herb found in marshes and Unlikely to Occur: ono suitable habitat or No Estuary sea lite swamps. Prefers coastal salt marshes in clay, suitable soils are present within the project silt,and sand substrates. site. Blooming period: May—,October 0-5m. Code Designations 1 Federal Status:2020 USFWS,Listing 2 State Status:2020 CDFW Listing 3 CNPS:2020 CNPS Listing FE = Listed as,endlangered under FESA SE = Listed as endangered under CESA 1A = Plants species that presumed extinct in California. FT = Listed as,threatened under FESA ST = Listed as threatened under CESA 11113 = Plant species that are rare,threatened,or endangered in California and FC = Candidate for listing(threatened or endangered) SSC = Species of Special Concern as identified by CDFW elsewhere. under FESA CFP = Listed as fully protected under Fish and Game List 2= Plant species that are rare,threatened,or endangered in California,but more FD = Delisted in accordance with FESA Code(FCC) common elsewhere. Not federally listed CR Species identified as rare by CDFW Not State listed Blooming period:Months in parentheses are uncommon. 4 Habitat description:Habitat description adapted from CNDDB(CDFW 201 b)and CLAPS online inventory(CRPS 2015). 25 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 208 of 767 Table 1.0: Special-status Wildlife Species Recorded within 1. Mile the Proposed Project Scientific Name Status Included in Impact Common Name USFWS' CDFW2 ftbitat Description3 Potential to Occur and Rationale Analysis Invertebrates Cicindela gabbii Inhabits estuaries and mudflats along the coast of Southern Unlikely to Occur: no suitable habitat is present No Western tidal-flat beetle California.Generally is found on dark-colored mud in the within the project site. lower zone;occasionalllly found on dry saline,flats of estuaries. Cicindela latesignata Inhabits mudflats,and beaches in coastal Southern Unlikely to Occur: no suitable habitat is present No Western beach tiger beetle California. within the project site. Reptiles A,nniella stebbinsi SSC. Occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant cover. Moisture Unlikely to Occur: no suitable habitat is present No Southern California legless is essential.Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach within the,project site. lizard dunes,chaparral, pine-oak woodlands,desert scrub,sandy washes,and stream terraces.Often can be found under leaf litter, rocks,boards,driftwood,and logs. Masticophis fuliginosus SSC Inhabits scrub,coastal sand dunes,rocky arroyos,thorn Unlikely to Occur: no,suitable habitat is present No Baja California coachwhip forests, marshlands,and sandy flats. within the project site. In California,found main�ly in open areas such as grassland,shrubland,and coastalll sand dunes. Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Inhabits and scrub,rocky washes,grasslands,chaparral. Unlikely to Occur: no suitable habitat is present No California glossy snake Appears to prefer microhabitats of open areas,and areas within the project site. with soil loose enough for easy burrowing,. Chelonia mydas FT Inhabits the shallow waters of lagoons, bays,estuaries, Unlikely to Occur: no,suitable habitat is present No green turtle mangroves,eelgrass and seaweed beds. within the project site. Project site is not located Prefers areas with abundant aquatic vegetation,such as on or adjacent to beaches or the ocean pastures of sea grasses and algae,in shallow,protected water. Phrynosoma blainvillh SSC, Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in Unlikely to Occur: no suitable habitat is present No Coast horned lizard lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. within the project site. Requires open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial,and abundant supply of ants and other insects. 26 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 209 of 767 Table 10 (cont.): Special-status Wildlife Species Recorded within 1 Mile the Proposed Project Sclent1fic Name Status Included in Impact Common Name USFWS' CDFW2 Habitat Description 3 Potential to Occur and Rationale Analysis Birdls Charadrius alexandrinus FT SSC Found in sandy beaches,salt pond levees,and shores of Unl[kely to Occur: no suitable habitat is present No nivosus IVIBTA large alkali lakes.Requires sandy,gravelly,or friable soils within the project site. Western snowy plover for nesting. 1^ Pandion haliaetus FP Inhabits ocean shore,bays,freshwater lakes,and larger Low Potential to Occur: no suitable nesting No Osprey IVIBTA FGC streams. Builds,large nests in tree tops within 15 miles of a habitat is present within the project site.Species good fish-producing body of water. was observed flying overhead during the January 21 2020,site survey,. Passerculus sandwichensis SE Inhabits coastal salt marshes from Santa Barbara County Unl[kely to Occur: no suitable habitat is present No beldingl' IVIBTA south through San Diego County., within the project site. Belding's savannah sparrow Nests iin saltwort(Salicomia spp.)on and around margins of tidal flats. Rallus longirostris levipes FE SE Found in salt marshes traversed by tidal sloughs,where Uinlikely to Occur: no suitable nesting or foraging No Light-footed clapper rail FP cordgrass(Spartina spp.)and picklewe,e,d(Salicomia spp.) habitat is present within the project site. are the dominant vegetation. Requires dense vegetation growth for nesting and escape cover. Feeds on mollusks and crustaceans. Mammal., Nyctinomopis femorosaccus SSC Found in a variety of and areas in southern California;pine- Unl[kely to Occur: no suitable habitat is present No Pocketed free-tailed bat juniper woodlands,desert scrub, palm oasis,desert wash, within the project site. or desert riparian habitat. Prefers rocky areas,with high cliffs. Code Designations Federal Status:2020 USFWS Listing 2 State Status:2020 CDFW Listing ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit is a distinctive population. SE = Listed as endangered under CESA. F'E Listed as endangered under FESA. ST = Listed as threatened under CESA. FT Listed as threatened under FESA. SSC = Species of Special Concern as identified by the CDFW. FC = Candidate for Ilistin,g(threatened or endangered)under FESA. FP = Listed as fully protected under FGC. FD = Delisted in accordance with FESA. CFG = FGC=protected by FGC 3503.5 FPD = Federally Proposed to be Delisted. CR = Rare in California. M BTA = protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act — = Not State listed = Not federally listed Habitat description:Habitat description adapted from CNDDB(CDFW 2020a). 27 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 210 of 767 An FCS Biologist visited the project site on January 2, 2020,to evaluate the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on-site. Wildlife observed within,the surrounding area consists of species commonly found in an urban setting. Species observed during the FCS January 2020 site visit included, Anna's hummingbird (Caly to anna), rock dove (Columba livia), common raven (Corvus corvax), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California gull (Lacus californicus), osprey (:Pandion haliaetus), and western fence lizard(Scelopa us occidentalis). As discussed in Appendix B, Biological Resources Summary Memorandum, due to the lack of suitable habitat present on-site, the project site is unlikely to contain any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special.-status species in, local, or regionalplans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the USFWS. Despite the highly urbanized setting of the project site, there is potential for migratory birds and raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1` BTA) to utilize the few trees that are present on-site or immediately adjacent to the site for nesting. If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season(generally March 1—August 31), FCS recommends preconstruction surveys be conducted prior to construction in order to ensure that no nesting birds are adversely affected due to construction, of the proposed project, as described in MM 1310-1. With, the implementation of MM BIO-1, potential impacts to nesting its from project implementation would be reduced to a less than significant level. (b) No impact. According to the USFWS National Wetlands Mapper,28 no known riparian habitat or other locally or regionally designated sensitive natural communities exist on or adjacent to the project site. As a result, no natural ecological. communities are found on-site or in the surrounding area and no impact would occur. FCS confirmed there are no sensitive habitats found on the project site during the January 2, 2020, site visit. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural, community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (c) No impact. According to the USFWS National Wetlands Mapper, no wetlands occur on the project site;therefore,the proposed project is not anticipated to have direct or indirect impacts on State or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section. 404 of the federal Clean Water Act.29The project site is previously developed and located in an urbanized area of the City of Chula Vista, surrounded by industrial and residential development. FCS confirmed there are no wetlands on the project site during the January 2020 site visit.As such,the proposed project would have no substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands through direct removal., filling, hydrological. interruption, or other means. United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).2019.National Wetlands Inventory.Website: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.litm].Accessed December 17,2018. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.2019.National Wetlands Inventory.Website: https://www.fws.gov/wetiands/data/mapper.htmi.Accessed December 12,2019. 28 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 211. of 767 (d) No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Chula Vista and is surrounded by industrial and residential. development. There is no native habitat on the project site,nor does the project site function as part of a wildlife corridor due to its urbanized and developed condition. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere substantially with or impede (1) the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, (2) established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or(3) the use of wildlife nursery sites. No impact would occur. (e) No impact. The project site is located within a developed urban area and contains ornamental trees (Exhibit 9). The project site does not contain any protected biological resources or tree species that are considered sensitive. The City of Chula Vista has a Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, stemming from the County of San Diego's MSCP; however, the project site is not located within the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.30 Additionally, the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance; however, Chapter 15.04: Excavation, Grading, Clearing, Grubbing, and Fills, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code 3' does mention that the City of Chula Vista encourages, insofar as practical, retaining the maximum number of existing trees.As shown in Exhibit 7, the proposed project would include more trees than are currently located on the project site, including trees around the boundary of the project site and within the interior. Additionally, the proposed project would proceed through the City's plan check process, during which time the Proj ect Applicant would work with City Staff to ensure compliance with Chapter 1.5.o of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting or preserving biological resources and there would be no impact. (f) No impact. As mentioned above in Impact 2.4(e), the proposed project will not impact an adopted or approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan because the proposed project is located in an urban area.The construction and operation of the proposed project will not affect any designated San Diego County Significant Ecological Area since the proposed project is not located within an MSCP area and is not located in either the San Diego County or the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea. As such, there would be no such impacts from.the proposed project. Mith!ation Measures, MM BIo-I Construction activities that occur during the nesting season (generally March I to August 31 could disturb nesting sites for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and Fish and Game Code. No action, is City of Chula Vista.2003.City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.Website: https://www.cbulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106.Accessed November 6,2019. City of Chula Vista.2019.City of Chula Vista Municipal Code.Title 15,Buildings and Construction.Chapter 15.04:Excavation, Grading,Clearing,Grubbing and Fills.Website:https://chulavista.muni cipal.codes/CVMC/15.04.Accessed November 6,211 9. 29 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 212 of 767 necessary if no active nests are found or if construction occurs during the non- breeding season (generally September I through February 14). Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. e To prevent impacts to MBTA-protected birds, nesting raptors, and their nests, removal. of trees will be limited to only those necessary to construct the proposed project. If any tree removal is necessary, then it will occur outside the nesting season, between September I and February 14. If trees, cannot be removed outside the nesting season, pre-construction surveys will be conducted 3 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests. If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the agencies deem disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include the establishment of exclusion zones no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet around an active raptor nest and a 5o-foot radius around an active migratory bird nest) or alteration of the construction schedule. A Qualified Biologist will, delineate the buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area(ESA) fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone will be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Signifleant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the F-1 F-1 H F-1 significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the � ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains,including those ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? 30 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 213 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site,feature,place,cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,sacred place,or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,and that is: d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California El El 1:1 Z Register of Historical Resources,or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k),or e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Comments: The project site lies in an urbanized area of the City of Chula Vista. Currently and historically, the site has been used for industrial purposes; therefore, the ground surface and topsoil has been routinely disturbed by the construction and paving of the existing surfaces, existing industrial uses, and vehicular traffic. The proposed project is expected to disturb the ma J.ority of the ground surface area, (±) 6.49 acres, between 5-12 feet of depth, depending on the portion of the site. Project grading is expected to include 15,000 cubic yards of raw earthwork to be removed as these soils are not suitable for construction, and 10,,000 cubic yards of imported earthwork fill. The following analysis is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Phase I CRA) prepared by FCS on November 7, 2019, and the Historical Resources Evaluation Report prepared by GPA Consulting in January 2020. The Phase I CRA and Historical Resources Evaluation Report are included as Appendices C.I and C. of the Draft Initial Study, respectively. Environmental Evaluation Cultural Resources (a) Less than, signifleant impact. CEQ,A Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines "historic resourcesli as resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR. The criteria for eligibility are generally set by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which established the National Register of Historic Places 31 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 214 of 767 (NRHP and which recognizes properties that are significant at the national, State, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a district, site, building, structure, or object must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association relative to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture.32 In addition, unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 45 years old to be eligible. According to the Historic Resources Evaluation Report prepared for the proposed project and a review of historic aerials, there appears to be two structures within the project boundary that have reached a sufficient age to be evaluated as potential historical resources.31 Based on the review of historic aerials,Assessor's records,, and building permits, it was determined that the buildings located on the project site were completed on October 3, 1969.According to the Historic Resources Evaluation Report, these buildings on-site are not currently listed under any national, State, or local landmark or historic district programs, and were not identified during the most recent historic resources survey of the City in 2012. In addition, due to a lack of historical. significance, these buildings do not qualify for the NRHP, the CRHR, or the Chula Vista Register of Historical Resources. The recommended California Historical Resource Status,Code for the buildings is 6Z,,"ineligible for designation at the national, state, and local levels through survey evaluation." Because the existing buildings do not meet the definition of a historical resource according to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have no direct impacts on historical resources.As such, no mitigation is required or recommended. (b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources,as discussed above,or resources that constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to affect archaeological resources that fall under either of these categories. The project site has not been the subject of any previous studies, and, therefore, the cultural resource sensitivity is unknown. As previously discussed, the project site is completely developed and paved, should any archaeological resources exist on the project site, they would be beneath the paved surface. Therefore, initial ground disturbances to the project area does not require archaeological monitoring. Although the project site is currently developed, there is still the potential for buried and/or surface prehistoric and historic resources within the project site. Per Senate Bill 18 (SIS 18), a notice was sent to the appropriate Native American tribes with jurisdiction over the project site, however, no consultation was requested. Therefore, implementation of Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms,National Register Bulletin 16. 1986.United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service.September 30. HistoricAerials.com.2019.Division of NETROnline.com by Nationwide Environmental Title Research,LLC.(NETR).Website: https://www.historicaerials.com/.Accessed November 6,2019. 32 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 215 of 767 MM CUL-1. is required. MM CUL-I states that in the event that any evidence of archaeological.resources is encountered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop until a qualified Archaeologist can assess the finds and make recommendations. Any resulting reports by the qualified Archaeologist should be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University and appropriate Native American representatives as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). With inclusion of MM CUL-1, potential project impacts to any previously undiscovered archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. (c) Less than signiflcant impact with mitigation incorporated. As discussed above, there is some potential for archaeological subsurface resources to occur on the project site. Similarly, there is a possibility that human remains could be interred underneath the project site. To address this possibility, MM CUL-2 is required. With inclusion of this measure, potential, project impacts regarding inadvertent discovery of human, remains would be reduced to less than significant levels. Tr[bal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature,place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (+d No impact. On October 26, 2018, FCS sent a letter to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the proposed project. The response from the NAHC was received on December 21, 2018, and it indicated that the search of the Sacred Lands File was negative for cultural resources. A list of eight Native American tribal members who may have additional knowledge of the project area was included with the results. These tribal members were sent letters on December 26,2018, asking for any information they might have concerning cultural resources on or near the project area. As of the date of this report, no responses have been received.As such, no impacts would occur. (e)Less than significant impact. On October 26, 2018,FCS sent a letter to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites,are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the proposed project. The response from the NAHC was received on December 21, 2018, and it indicated that the search of the Sacred Lands File was negative for cultural resources. A list of eight Native American tribal members who may have additional knowledge of the project area was included with the results.These tribal members were sent letters on December 26, 2018, asking for any information they might have concerning cultural resources on or near the project area.As of the date of this report, no responses have been received.As such, impacts would be less than significant. 33 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 216 of 767 M ti ation Measures: MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that a program related to potential archaeological. resources uncovered during construction activities on-site has been. established, the program shall include that: 1. The Project Applicant shall retain aqualified professional Archaeologist approved by the City to be present and monitor all ground-disturbing activities; . The Archaeologist shall halt work in the immediate area in the event that archaeological resources are identified until the Archaeologist has evaluated the find and determined if the find is a"unique cultural resource" as defined in Section 21083.2 (g) of the CEQA statutes; . The Project Applicant shall inform the City Development Services Department of the find; . If this determination is positive, the scientifically consequential information, shall be fully recovered by the Archaeol.ogi.st; . The Project Applicants all stop work in the immediate location of the find until information recovery has been completed and a report has been filed with the City; the SCIC at San.Diego State University; and, appropriate Native American representatives; 6. The Project Applicant may continue outside the area of the find; and, 7. The City Development Services Department shall ensure compliance. MM CUL-2Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that a program related to any human remains that might be encountered during ground-disturbing activities on-site has been established, the program shall include: 1. The Project applicant shall. halt workin the immediate area of the find.; . The Project Applicant shall contact the San Diego County Coroner, City Development Services Department, and. Sherriff's Department; .. The Project Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the Native American. Heritage Commission (NAACO and the appropriate Native American representatives are contacted and that the NAHC contacts the most appropriate most likely descendant (MLD) as maybe directed by either the San.Diego County Coroner, City Development Services Department, or b 4erri ff's Department; 4. The City Development Services Department shall direct the treatment of the remains pursuant to Coroner and WILD recommendations. 34 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 217 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V1. Energy Would the project: c) Result in potentially significant environmental ❑ ® ❑ impact due to wasteful,inefficient,or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? d) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan 11 E 11 for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Comments,: (c) The County's Guidelines for Determining Significance do not explicitly address energy. Therefore,Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines was used to assess the proposed project's impacts. Appendix F does not prescribe a threshold for the determination of significance. Rather, Appendix F focuses on reducing and minimizing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary use of energy. Construction Less than significant impact. During construction, the proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources,. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consurning equipment would be used during demolition, grading, paving, and building construction. The types of equipment could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes,. Based on CalEEMod estimations within the modeling output files used to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed project,, construction-related vehicle trips would result in approximately 582,063 VMT,and consume an estimated 37,016 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined during the construction phase (Appendix 1).34 Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(2) and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel- powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. In addition, given the cost of fuel, 34 Construction VMT was calculated based on CalEEMod estimations of worker,vendor,and hauling trip days and trip length per construction phase.Fuel economy values were calculated based on output data from the Emissions Factors Model(EMFAC)database for worker,vendor,and hauling vehicle categories(ARB 2019).Complete calculations,used to estimate fuel consumption are included in Appendix 1. 35 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 218 of 767 contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction,. Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. As on-site construction activities would be restricted to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p�.m., it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be minimal. Singlewide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 12,195 kilowatt hours (kWh) during the approximately 15-month construction phase (Appendix 1). Due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Operation Less than significant impact. The operational phase of the proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Building operations for the proposed project would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, lighting, and electronics, as well as parking lot lighting. Based on CalEEMod estimations within the modeling output files used to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, building operations, including parking lot lighting, would consume approximately 605,352 kWh per year (kWh/year) of electricity, and an estimated 1,047,450 kilo-British thermal units per year(kBTU/ ea:r) of natural gas (Appendix 1). The proposed project's building would be designed and constructed in accordance with California Title 24 energy efficiency standards.These standards,widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation,. Operational energy would also be consumed during vehicle trips associated with the project. Fuel consumption would be primarily related to vehicle use by residents, employees, and visitors, associated with the proposed multi-family residential development. Based on the estimates contained in,the Cal.EEMod output files, project- related vehicle trips would result in approximately 3.06 million VMT annually; vehicle trips associated with the existing industrial land use result in approximately 0.25 million VMT annually. Operational fuel consumption of the proposed project would be an estimated 123,933 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined on an annual basis; fuel, consumption of the existing industrial land use is an estimated 9,928 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined on an annual basis (Appendix 1).31 Thus, net operational fuel 3' The value for operational VMT comes from the CalEEMod output file included in Appendix A.Average fuel economy was calculated based on output data from the EMFAC database for all vehicle categories(ARB 2019);see Appendix I for complete calculations. 36 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 219 of 767 consumption would be an estimated 114,005 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined on an annual basis."The Broadway and Moss Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) 932 bus stop is located 0.4 mile east of the project site, and the Palomar Trolley Center transit station is located 0.8 mile south of the project site, offering two nearby options for public transportation to and from the site. For these reasons, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. The City of Chula Vista further supports energy conservation,through voluntary policies, measures, and recommendations contained within the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP). General Plan, Chapter 9, Environmental Element, contains the following policies relevant to this proJect:37 E 6.7: Encourage innovative energy conservation practices and air quality improvements in new development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City's Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines or its equivalent, pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program. E 6.13: Encourage programs and infrastructure to increase the availability and usage of energy-e ffic ient vehicles, such as hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, or those that run on alternative fuels. • E, 6.B.4: Update the building code to support best practices in "green building" design, construction, and operations. • E 6.B.5: Provide fast-track permitting for projects that implement"green building" design and construction. • E, 6.B.6: Encourage or require all new building construction to incorporate green roofs and encourage conversions of existing roof space to green roofs to reduce heat island effect. • E 7.1: Promote development of regulations and building design standards that maximize energy efficiency through appropriate site and building design and through the use of energy-efficient materials, equipment, and appliances. • E 7.21: Encourage and support the local research, development, generation, and use of non-fossil fuel based renewable sources of energy, including wind and solar resources, that meet local energy needs in an environmentally sensitive manner and reduce dependence on imported energy. • E 7.3: Develop and provide pertinent information about the benefits of energy conservation and available energy conservation incentive programs to all segments of the community. • E, 7.4: Pursue and encourage the expansion of local energy conservation, energy efficiency, and related incentive programs. • E 7.5s, Pursue40% City-wide electricity supply from clean, renewale resources by 2017. 16 Net operational fuel consumption was calculated by subtracting existing fuel consumption from proposed fuel consumption. 17 City of Chula Vista.2019.City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan.Chapter 9:Environmental Element.Section 3b.Website: https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocumcnt?id=9341.Accessed November 6,2019. 37 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 220 of 767 • E, 7.6: Encourage the construction and operation of green buildings, considering such TM programs as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green, Building Rating System. • E 7.7: Support tree planting programs that will be implemented to reduce energy needs. • E 7.8: Ensure that residential and non-residential construction complies with all applicable City of Chula Vista energy efficiency measures and other green building measures that are in effect at the time of discretionary permit review and Approval or building permit issuance,whichever is applicable. In the City's CAP,the Climate Change Working Group(CCWG) selected the following measures, which were adopted by the City Council on April 1, 2008:38, Green Building Standard: Through a building code revision, require new and renovated buildings, to increase their energy efficiency and meet Statewide green building standards. • Solar and Energy Efficiency Conversion: Provide a cost-effective, streamlined mechanism for property owners to implement solar and energy efficiency upgrades and create a municipal code requiring pre-wiring for solar electric systems; Passed "solar ready" ordinance in 2009 and created PACE financing programs in 2014. The following are recommendations by the CCWG that were adopted by the City Council in R 2014.- - ES • enewable & Efficient Energy Recommendation 2. Clean nerd ources, Part A—Incorporate solar photovoltaic into all new residential and commercial buildings. • Renewable & Efficient Energy Recommendation 3: Energy Efficiency Upgrades, Part B—Facilitate more energy upgrades, in the community through incentives and permit streamlining. These voluntary measures at the City level further support the required State standards, which ensure that the proposed project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy. Operational energy impacts would be less than significant. (d) A significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Construction Less than significant impact. As described above, the proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for City of Chula Vista,September 2017.Chula Vista Climate Action Plan.Accessed February 27,2020. 38 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 22 1. of 767 temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)�(3) and 2485 lim.it idling from both on-road and off-road diesel- powered equipment. The proposed project would be required to comply with these regulations, which are enforced by the ARB. The California Title 24 energy efficiency standards establish mandatory measures for non-residential buildings, including material conservation and efficiency. The proposed project would also be required to comply with these mandatory measures. The City's local planning documents contain no policies or measures directly applicable to construction-related energy consumption. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the project would not conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant. Operation Less than s,igcif "ca nt impact. The operational phase of the proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Building operations for the proposed project would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building beating and cooling, lighting, and electronics, as wellas parking lot lighting. The California Title 24 energy efficiency standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards. These standards help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and beating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. The proposed project would be required to comply with these standards. At the local level, the City of Chula Vista has established policies, regulations, and measures to support renewable energy and energy efficiency. Chapter 20.04, Energy and Water Conservation Regulations, of the City's Municipal Code contains the following regulations applicable to the proposed project: • 20.04.030: Solar water heater pre-plumbing.All new residential units shall include at least the plumbing specifically designed to encourage the later installation of a system which utilizes solar energy as the primary means of heating domestic potable water. The purpose of this section is to facilitate the safe, cost-effective installation of residential solar water heating systems, while removing structural and regulatory barriers. No building permit shall be issued unless the plumbing required pursuant to this section and the Chula Vista Solar Water Heater Pre-Plumbing Installation Requirements are incorporated into the approved building plans." • 20.04.040: Solar photovoltaic pre-wiring.All new residential units shall include at least the electrical conduit specifically designed to encourage the later installation of a system that utilizes solar photovoltaic or other renewable energy resource as a means of generating electricity. The purpose of this section is to facilitate the safe, cost-effective installation of renewable energy systems, as residents'primary City of Chula Vista.2019.City of Chula Vista Municipal Code.Title 20,Energy and Water Conservation.Chapter 20.04:Energy and Water Conservation Regulations.Section 20.04.030:Solar Water Heater Preplumbing.Website: https:Hchulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/20.04.030.Accessed November 6,2019. 39 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 222 of 767 electricity source, while removing structural and regulatory barriers. No building permit shall be issued unless the requirements of this section and the Chula Vista Photovoltaic Pre-Wiring Installation Requirements are incorporated into the approved building plans.40 The proposed project would be required to comply with these regulations established in the City's Municipal. Code. As noted in Section 6c, the City of Chula Vista Vision. 2020 General Plan and CAP contain multiple voluntary measures supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct any of these local voluntary measures. Califomia's Renewables Portfolio Standard(RPS)requires that 33 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy sources by 2020. The proposed project would be served with electricity and gas provided by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E .4 SDG&E is,required to meet California's RPS. SDG&E's 2017 power mix included 44 percent eligible renewable (2 percent biomass and waste, 21 percent solar, and 21 percent wind), 39 percent natural gas, and 17 percent unspecified sources of power.41 SDG&E also offers an EcoChoice Mix that sources 100 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources (specifically, 100 percent solar). The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Operational energy impacts would be less than significant. Miffigafion Measures: None. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated 11 mpact Impact V11. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as, El El 1:1 z delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault`?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4,2. City of Chula Vista.2019.City of Chula Vista Municipal Code.Title 20,Energy and Water Conservation.Chapter 20.04:Energy and Water Conservation Regulations.Section 20.04.030:Solar Water Heater Preplumbing.Website: https:Hcliulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/20.04.030.Accessed November 6,2019. San Diego Gas and Electric(SDG&E).2019.Our Service Area.Website:https://webarchive.sdge.co,m/our-company/about-us/our- service-territory.Accessed November 7,2019. California Energy Commission.2018.2017 Power Content Label San Diego Gas and Electric.July.Websitc: https:Hww2.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/2017 labels/SDG and E 2017_PCL.pdf.Accessed November 7,2019. 40 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 223 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including El El Z El liquefaction? iv) Lands,lides? El El F-1 Z b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El El Z El topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, El Z 1:1 El or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18- F-1 Z I-B of the Uniforin Building Code(1994,),creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use F-1 F-1 I-] Z of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Comments:- The following analysis, is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared by LGC Valley, Inc. on, July 13, 2018. The report is included as Appendix D of the Draft Initial Study. (a)(i) No impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as "Alquist-priolo Earthquake Fault Zones," around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). According to the California Department of Conservation's California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation mapping tool and the project- specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Appendix D), the site is not located within an identified Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone." California Department of Conservation.Alquist-Priolo Faults.Website: https:Hearthquake.usgs.gov/1earn/topics/geologicmaps/apfaults.php.Accessed March 29,2019. 41 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 224 of 767 The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone is located approximately 5.25 miles northwest. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential, substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known fault. No impact would occur. (ii) Less than significant impact. Seismic ground shaking is influenced by the proximity of the site to an, earthquake fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the underlying soil composition. As described above in Impact 7(a)(i), there are no active faults known that pass through the project site. The nearest non-Alquist-Priolo active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.8 miles west of the project site. While the proposed project would construct 141 dwelling units, those dwellings would be constructed in compliance with standard grading and soil engineering practices and would be required to adhere to State and local building code standards. Given these factors, and the fact that the site is not located on an earthquake fault, the risk from ground shaking would be less than significant. viii) Less than significantpact. According to the project-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report, the potential for lurching or shallow ground rupture at the site is low as, the native soils are generally dense. Additionally, the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan,Environmental Element Figure 9-7,Geologic Hazards Map,indicates the project site is located in an area in need of a detailed geotechnical liquefaction analysis. However, the prof ect-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report outlines that a subsurface investigation found that the potential for liquefaction is not a source of concern as the water table depth.varies between 30 to 33 feet below ground surface and the type of soils on-site are less prone to liquefaction. As such, impacts from seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction,would be less than significant. (iv)No impact.The project site is flat and is not in the vicinity of slopes that would be susceptible to landslides,. Additionally, the project-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report outlines, "based on the relatively flat nature of the site and our review of the geologic literature pertinent to the site,there are no indications of landslides close to or within the limits of the site."As such, there would be no impact. is (b) Less than significant impact.mpact. The project site lies in an urbanized area of the City of Chula Vista. Currently and historically,the site has been,used for industrial purposes; therefore, the ground surface and topsoil has been routinely disturbed by the construction and paving of the existing surfaces, existing industrial uses, and vehicular traffic. The proposed project is expected to disturb the majority of the ground surface area, 6.49 acres between 5-12 feet of depth, depending on the portion of the site. Project grading is expected to include 15,000 cubic yards of raw earthwork to be removed as these soils are not suitable for construction, and 1.0,000 cubic yards of imported earthwork fill. 42 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 225 of 767 Projects that disturb one or more acres of land are required to obtain coverage under the General, Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity(Construction General Permit), issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP'P ). The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices(B P's the project would implement to control erosion and prevent the conveyance of sediments off-site. Implementation of the conditions of the Construction General Permit would reduce erosion impacts resulting from project construction to less than significant. Once construction, work is completed, the impervious surfaces and landscaping would minimize potential erosion and topsoil loss risks. As such, impacts to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Liquefaction or Collapse: As outlined above in Impact 2.7(a) iii), the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan Environmental Element Figure 9-7, Geologic Hazards Map, shows the project site as a liquefaction hazard area in need of a detailed geotechnical liquefaction analysis. The project-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report outlines that a subsurface investigation found that the potential for liquefaction is not a source of concern as the water table depth varies between 30 to 33 feet below ground surface and the type of soils on-site are less prone to liquefaction. As such, impacts from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction,would be less than significant. Landslide: As outlined above in Impact 2.7(aiv), the project site is at and is not in the vicinity of slopes that would be susceptible to landslides.Additionally, the project- specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report outlines, "based on the relatively flat nature of the site and our review of the geologic literature pertinent to the site, there are no indications of landslides close to or within the limits of the site."As such, there would be no impact. Lateral Spreading:As discussed in the response to liquefaction(see above)the site is not located in an identified liquefaction hazard area, is relatively flat, and is not in the vicinity of slopes that would be susceptible to liquefaction (e.g., slope areas that have sufficient height, slope ratio, and underlying geologic conditions that can result in liquefaction). Impacts from lateral spreading would be less than significant. Subsidence: Site preparation will include demolition of the existing buildings, and removal of on-site trash and surface pavement. Earthwork at the site is anticipated to consist of removal and realignment of the on-site sewer and storm drain lines, with the exception of the box culvert in the center of the site, which we anticipate will remain in place. Earthwork will also include remedial removals of undocumented fill below the existing buildings and in the areas of the old drainage channel, as wellas removing the top compressible layers of the young alluvial flood-plain deposits. Site grading will 43 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 226 of 767 include construction of slab-on-grade type foundations, installation of utilities, and placement of the driveways,parking spaces,and concrete flatwork around the proposed building. The earthwork on-site is required to be performed in accordance with the recommendations, in Appendix D, pursuant to MM GEO-1. The recommendations provided by the City of Chula Vista, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix D. Implementation of MM GEO-I would ensure that grading, building construction, and building materials are compliant with local, State, and federal code. In case of conflict, the recommendations in the following sections shall supersede those included as part of Appendix D. Therefore, by following the proposed project's Preliminary Geotechnical Report recommendations, as is required, impacts from subsidence would be less than significant.As such, impacts,would be less than significant. (dew Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. According to the prof ect-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report, the proposed project grading would include 15,000 cubic yards of raw earthwork to be removed and 10,000 cubic yards of import earthwork fill. The purpose of removing the 15,o00 cubic yards of raw earthwork would be to remediate site soil conditions, as existing soils are unsuitable for construction which may settle under the addition of water, surcharge of fill and/or foundation loads. The 10,000 cubic yards of soil that will be brought onto the sight would have a very low to low expansion potential. Therefore, by following the proposed project's Preliminary Geotecbnical, Report recommendations, as is required and as included as MM GEO-I, impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (e) No impact. The project does not propose the use of septic tanks. The proposed project would connect to the City sanitary sewer system through existing lines for wastewater disposal.. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact to soils, as the project does not propose the use of septic tanks. (f)Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.A significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with a project would disturb paleontological resources or geologic features that presently exist within the project site. According to the paleontological records search by staff at the San Diego Natural History Museum,44 review of published geological maps of the project site indicated that the proposed project has the potential to impact late Pleistocene-to Holocene-age young alluvial flood plan deposits, and could also impact the underlying Pleistocene- age Bay Point Formation. 4' FirstCarbon Solutions(FCS).2019.Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 676 Moss Street Project.(Appendix Q 44 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 227 of 767 The high paleontological sensitivity of the Bay Point Formation in San Diego County suggests the potentialfor construction of the proposed project to result in, impacts to paleontological resources.Any proposed excavation activities that extend deep enough to encounter previously undisturbed deposits of this geologic unit have the potential to impact the paleontological resources preserved therein, and, in this case, implementation of a complete paleontological resource mitigation. program during ground-disturbing activities is recommended. The proposed project is expected to disturb the majority of the ground surface area, approximately 6.49 acres, between 5- to 12-feet of depth. If excavations extend into undisturbed high.sensitivity geological.units,or are greater than 10 feet below the ground surface, a Paleontological Monitor will be required as described in MM GEO-2. However, if the project Construction Manager and City Development Services Department staff determines that the thickness of the low sensitivity surficial sediments underlying the project site exceeds the maximum cut depths proposed for construction of the project, paleontological mitigation is not recommended. M1*tigati*ion Measures: MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that all recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, included as Appendix D of the Draft Initial Study, shall be implemented during construction activities. MM GEO-2 The City of Chula Vista assesses and mitigates the potential, impacts of private development and public facilities and infrastructure to paleontological resources pursuant to the provisions of CEA. Pursuant to Section 15065 of the CEA Guidelines, a lead agency must find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where the project has the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California prehistory, which includes the destruction of significant paleontological resources. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-2, impacts to any previously undiscovered paleontological resources would be less than significant. Because excavations may extend into undisturbed high sensitivity geological units., and may be greater than 10 feet below the ground surface in certain areas of the project site, a Paleontological Monitor will be required. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that a program related to paleontological resources potentially uncovered during ground-disturbing activities on-site has been established, the program, shall include: 45 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 228 of 767 1. The Project Applicant shall halt work in the immediate area of the find; 2. The Project Applicant shall notify the City Development Services Department; 3. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist approved by the City: • The Paleontologist shall assess the discovered material(s). • The Paleontologist shall prepare a survey, study or report evaluating the find. • The Paleontologist's survey, study, or report shall contain a recommendation(s), if necessary, for the preservation, conservation, or relocation of the find. • The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Development Services Department. • The Project Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the report as approved by the City. • Project development activities in the immediate area of the find will resume when copies of the report are submitted in a manner acceptable to the City Department of Community Development. • A find(s) recovered should be deposited in a manner approved by the City Department of Community Development. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a letter to the City Development Services Department indicating what, if any, paleontological reports have been prepared for the project site, or a statement indicating that no material was discovered. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Signifleant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V111. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan,policy or F-1 F-1 H F-1 regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments:- (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Gases that trap beat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. There have been significant legislative and regulatory activities that directly and indirectly affect climate change and GHGs in California.The 46 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 229 of 767 primary climate change legislation in California is Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)�, the California Global. Warning Solutions Act of 2006, focusing on reducing GING emissions in California. The proposed project would generate a variety of GHG emissions during construction and operation, including several erne B 32 such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide. To describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the CO2 equivalent(CO2e)is used..The calculation.ofthe CO2 equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent reference gas, CC 2. 1For example, CH4's warara.ing potential. of 25 indicates that CH4 leas 5 times greater warming effect than. CO2 Carl amolecule-per- molecule basis. A CO2 equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its global warming potential. Neither the State of California nor the San Diego County APCD has adopted emission- based thresholds of significance for GHG emissions under CEQ . This analysis uses thresholds of significance established based on meeting the 2020 GHG targets set forth in the AFS 32 Scoping Plan. In addition, since operations would occur beyond 2020, the service population threshold of significance was adjusted to a "substantial progress" threshold that was calculated based on the SB 32 target of 40 percent bele 1990 levels and the forecasted 2030 service population.45 In the Ce ter for Biological Diversity v. Cal forma department of Fish and Wildl%fel, the California Supreme Court stated that 44resi.dential and commercial development, which are designed to accommodate long- term growth in California's population and economic activity, this fact gives rise to an argument that a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions is as inevitable as population growth. Under this vier, a significance criterion framed in terms of efficiency is superior to a simple numerical threshold because C +C A is not intended as a population control measure." Therefore, consistent with the California Supreme Court decision, this analysis uses a service population threshold to evaluate GHG emissions for the proposed project. Consistent with recommendations provided by the City of Chula 'lista, this analysis uses an efficiency threshold based on the total projected emissions for Chula vista divided by the service population (residents plus employees) in 2020 and 2030. As p Inventory,, the City's 1990 GHG provided in the 2C�12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In�entCa emissions inventory totals approximately 847,166 metric ton (MT) CO2e, and the projected 2020 emissions would be 1,138,431 MT CO2e,46 The City's service population has been estimated to be 370,126 in 020. 7 Therefore, the efficiency threshold for year 2020 is equalto the 20120 emissions divided by the City's 2020 4 Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP).Final'white Paper Beyond,2020 and Newhall:A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Flan Targets for California.website:https://www.caIifaep.org/images/climate- cbange/AEP-2016 Final_White l'aper.pdf.Accessed February 25,2020. 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory.City of Chula vista,Cory Downs.Website: https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument'?id=5471 ' San Diego Associations of Governments(sANDAG).2013.series 13:2050 Regional.Growth Forecast..October.Websitc:. https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?classid=I 2&subclass i d=84&prqjectid=503&fuseaction=projects.detai1.Accessed October 25,2019. . 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 230 of 76 service population, which results in 3.1 MT COC 2e per service population. Consistent with the goals of SB 32, the City's 2030 GHG emission goal is 50 ,300 MTC 2e4$ with an estimated service population of 389,,979 (288,978 residents plus 101,001 employees).49Therefore, the efficiency threshold for year 2030 is 1.3 MT CO2e per service population. Although construction-related GHG emissions are temporary in nature, the total amount of emissions could have a substantial, contribution to a project's total. GHG emissions. Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions,which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. Construction-related GHG emissions were modeled using the same assumptions in the Air Quality section discussed above. Table 11 presents the project's total construction-related GHG emissions and amortized construction emissions. - Construction GHG missi Eons Table I I. Emissions Construction Activity (IVITCO2e) Demolition 61 Grading 164 Building Construction-2019 63 Building Construction-2020 466 Paving 21 Architectural Coating 8 Total" 783 Amortized over 30 yearS2 26 Note: MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. 1 Figiures may not appear to add exactly due to rounding. 2 Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year life of the,project(=783/30),.The San Diego County APCD does not recommend assumptions for project lifetime lengith;therefore,a 30-year lifetime, consistent with the SCAQMD's GHG guidance,was assumed. Source:South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQM D).2008.Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas(GHG)Significance Threshold.Website:hftp://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- sou irce/ceqa/hand boo k/g,reen house-g ases-(g hg)-ceq a-si g n ificance-th res hold s/yea r-2008-2009/g hg-m eeti ng 6/gihg-meeting-6-guidance-document-discussion.pdf.Accessed August 19,2019. Source:CalEEMod Output(see Appendix A). The construction schedule used in the analysis represents a reasonable "worst-case" analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the Note:SB 32 states California plans to reduce GFIG emissions 40 percent by 2030 at the 1990 level of emissions. San Diego Associations of Governments(SANDAG).2011.Series 12:2050 Regional Growth Forecast-Historical Projection. October.Website:https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?classid=1,2&subcIassid,=84&projectid=355&fuseaction=projects.detail. Accessed October 25,2019. 48 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 231. of 767 analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements.Therefore,construction emissions would likely decrease if the construction schedule moves to later years. Following buildout of the project, long-term operational emissions would be generated from area-, energy-, and mobile-source emissions. Indirect GHG emissions associated with water consumption and solid waste disposal would also be generated by the proposed residential development.The three existing buildings would be removed as part of the project; therefore, existing emissions were included in the analysis baseline to estimate the net increase in emissions. Table 12 shows existing emissions modeled using the 2021 operational. year, and Table 13 shows existing emissions modeled using the 2030 operational year. Table 14 shows the project's annual operational emissions in year 2021 along with the amortized construction emissions. Table 13 shows the project's operational emissions in 2030 along with the amortized construction emissions. r Table 12: Existing Emissions )ear X021. Emissions Emissions Source (MT Cee) Area 0 Energy 98 Mobile 99 Waste 26 Water 39 Total Existing Emissions' 262 Note: MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 1 Totals may not appear to add exactly due to rounding. Source of emissions:CalEEMod Output(see Appendix A). 41 Table 13: Existing :Emissions Year 2030 Emissions Emissions Source (SIT Cee Area 0 Energy 89 Mobile 77 Waste 26 Water 36 Total Existing Emissions' 228 Note: M'TCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 1 Totals may not appear to add exactly due to roundingi. Source of emissions:CalEEMod Output(see Appendix A). 49 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 232 of 767 Table 14: Annual Operational G Emissions Year 2021. Emissions Emissions Source (SIT Ooze Area 63 Energy 182 Mobile 1,241 Waste, 33 Water 51 Amortized Construction 26 Total Project Emissions' ly 596 Existing Emissions (262) Annual Net Project Emissions 17334 Project Service Population 2 475 Service Person/Per Capita GHG Efficiency(MTCO2e/'SP) 2.8 City's proposed efficiency thresholds-2020{M COQ e/SP) 3-1 Exceed Threshold? No Note: MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent SP=Service Person 1 Totals may not appear to add exactly due to rounding. 2 The project service population(residents plus employees)is the number of new residents living in the proposed development.As noted in Section 1.4,1 the number of new residents (475)was calculated by multiplying 141 dwelling units by 337 persons/dwelling unit(the average household size in Chula Vista). Source of emissions:Ca[EEMod Output(see Appendix A). Table 15:Annual Operational Emissions Year 2030 Emissions Emissions Source MT 2e Area 63 Energy 167 Mobile 961 Waste 33 Water 46 Amortized Construction 26 Total Project Emissions' IY295 Existing Emissions (228) Annual Net Project Emissions 1,067 50 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 233 of 767 Table 1 (cont.):Annual Operational Emissions dear 2030 Emissions Emissions Source MT 2de Project Service Population2 475 Service Person/Per Capita GHG IEfficiency( T CO2e/SP) 2. City's proposed efficiency threslholds-2030(M Ole/ P) 1. Exceed Threshold? Yes Note: T CO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. 1 Totals may not appear to add exactly due to rounding. 2 The project service papulation(residents plus employees)is the number of new residents living in the proposed development.As noted in Section 1.4.2,the number of new residents (475)was calculated by multiplying 141 dwelling units by 3.37 persons/dwelling unit(the average household size in Chula'lista). Source of emissions:CaIIEEMod Output(see Appendix A). As shown above, the proposed project's operational emissions would not exceed the applicable threshold in the 2021 operational year; however, the project's GHG generation would exceed the applicable efficiency threshold for 2030. The project would need to reduce its GHG emissions by approximately 35 percent in the 203+ operational year to reduce the GHG emissions to a less than significant level, However, approximately 78 percent of the project's operational emissions are from mobile sources. Therefore, since there are limited options to reduce mobile-source GHG emissions at the project level, the proposed project would be required to purchase carbon offsets to help reduce the operational emissions to less than significant level. Implementation of.MM GHG-1 would require the purchase of voluntary carbon credits by the Project Applicant in the amount of approximately 450MT CC 2e per year in 2030 through the remainder of the project's lifetime (Appendix A).50 Total carbon offsets required for the project's lifetime would be approximately 9,450 MT CO2e (Appendix A .51 with the implementation of NIM GHG-1,the project's GHG emissions would not exceed the City's energy efficiency threshold of significance. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (b)Ldess than significant impact. Significance for this impact is determined by project compliance to the ARB adopted AB 32 Scoping plan and the AR adopted 2017 Climate Change Scoping P'�lan Update. As described below, the proposed project's consistency with the City of Chula vista's CAP is shown for informational purposes. ° The yearly amount of carbon offsets was calculated by multiplying the City's proposed efficiency threshold(1.30 T CO2e/SP)by ro ect's service population 475) and then subtracting this from the annual net project emissions(1,067 MT CO2e). tep .D Pp (. The total amount of carbon offsets was calculated by multiplying 450 MT dCO2e per year by 21 years,which is the remainder of the 30-year lifetime of the project after 2030.The"project life"of 34 years is consistent with the methodology used by the SCA MD GHG guidance(SCAQMD 2008). 51 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 234 of 767 Consistency with City's Climate Action Plan. The City of Chula vista adapted the CAP in September 2017. However, the CAP has not been adopted in a public process following environmental review; it is not considered a qualified GHG reduction plan.. Therefore, the proposed project's consistency with the CHOP is included only for informational purposes, and would not be used to determine significance. Table 16 identifies the measures within the CAP and the proposed project's consistency with them. Table 1. Climate Action Plan Cons stenrcyAnalys S Category Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency Waste Reduction Zero waste P'�lan Develop a Zero waste Plan to Not applicable.The proposed supplement Statewide green waste, project would not impair the abillity to recycling,and plastic bag ban efforts. the City to develop a Zero Waste (Plan. Renewable and(Energy(Efficiency Energy Education and(Enforcement Expand education targeting key Not appllicable.The proposed community segments and facilitating project would not impair the ability of energy performance disclosure. the City to expand energy education. Clean Energy Source Incorporate sonar photovoltaic into all Consistent.The proposed residential new residential and commercial land uses would be required to comply buildings on a project level basin. with the most current Title 24 and California wilding Standards Code energy efficiency standards,which would require the proposed project to be either solar ready or would include the installation of solar photovoltaic systems,depending on the permit dates. Energy Efficiency Upgrades Expand the City's cool roof Not atptplicable.The proposed standards to include ire-roofs and project would not impair the ability of western areas. the City to expand the City's cool roof standards. Energy Efficiency Upgrades Facilitate more energy upgrades in Not applicable.The proposed project the community through tax breaks, would not impair the ability of the City rebates,and more local energy to incentivize additional energy efficiency programming. upgrades in the community. Robust Urban(Forests Plant more shade trees to save !consistent.The proposed project energy,address(heat island tissues, would include shade trees on-site to and improve air quality save energy and reduce heat island issues. Smart Growth and Transportation Complete Streets and Neighborhoods Incorporate`...`Complete Streets" Not applicablle.The proposed principles into the Bicycle and project would not impair the ability of Pedestrian Master IPlans and Capital the City to incorporate"Complete Improvement Program. Streets"principles into the(Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans and Capital Improvement Program. 52 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 235 of 767 T able 1.6 (cont.): Climate Action Plan Consistency Analysis Category Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency Complete Streets and Neighborhoods Encourage higher density and Consistent.The proposed project mixed-use development in Smart would be located close to major Growth areas,especially around urban residential areas.The trolley stations and other transit proposed project would be located nodes. close to public transit and the 1-5. Transportation Demand Management Utilize bike facilities,transit Not applicable.The proposed access/passes and other project would not impair the ability of Transportation Demandl the City to use Transportation Management and congestion Demand Management and management offerings. congestion management offerings. Source:City of Chula Vista 2017 CAP. As shown above, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable measures within the City's CAP. Consistency With Seo in Plan The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple GHG emission, sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target each sector has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. It should be noted that the AB 32 Scoping Plan was developed at a Statewide level and thus many of its measures listed below are not applicable to individual projects. As shown in Table 17, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies, or the strategies have been, determined to not be applicable to the proposed project. Table 17: Scoping Plan Measures, Consistency Analysis Scoping Plan Reduction Measure Project Consistency 1. California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Not applicable.Althougih the cap-andl-trade system Initiative. Implement a broad-based California Cap-and-Trade Ihas begun,the proposed project is not one targeted by program to provide a firm limit on emissions.Link the the cap-and-trade system regulations and therefore California Cap-and-Trade program with other Western Climate this measure does not apply to the proposed project. Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market system to achieve,greater environmental and economic benefits for California.Ensure California's program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements for market-based mechanisms. 2. California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards. Not applicable.The future residents would use Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of vehicles subject to this measure.The reductions the program.Align zero-emission vehicle,alternative and associated with this measure would occur regardless renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term of the proposed project. climate change goals. 3. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and Consistent.The proposed residential land uses would appliance standards;pursue additional efficiency including Ibe required to comply with the most current Title 24 new technologies, policy,and implementation mechanisms. and California Building Standards Code energy Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all efficiency standards. retail providers of'electricity in California. 53 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 236 of 767 Table 1.7 (cont): Scoping Plan Measures Consistency Analysis Scoping Plan Reduction Measure Project ConsIstency 4. Renewable Portfolio Standard.Achieve 50 percent Not applicable.This is a Statewide measure that renewable energy mix Statewide by 2050. Renewable cannot Ibe implemented by a project applicant or lead energy sources include(but are not limited to)wind,solar, agency.Renewable energy as a percentage of SDG&E geothermal,small hydroelectric,biomass,anaerobic has achieved 43 percent in 2016,exceeding the State's digestion,and landfill gas. renewable portfolio standards mandate of 33 percent by 2020.The proposed project would purchase power that is comprised of a greater amount of renewable sources. 5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low Not applicable.This measure would occur at the Carbon Fuel Standard. Statewide level and all fuel used by the project's vehicles would comply with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 6. IRegionalll Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Not applicable.The proposed project would not be Develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for related to developing GHG emission reduction targets. passenger vehicles.This measure refers to SB 375. 7'. Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle Not applicable.The standards would be applicable to efficiency measures. the light-duty vehicles that would access the project site. 8. Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the Not applicable.The proposed project would not use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in change any maritime,rail,or intermodal facilities. goods movement,activities. 91. Million Solar Roofs,Program. Consistent.This measure is to increase solar Install 3,01010,megawatt of solar-electric capacity under throughout California,which is being done by various California's existing solar programs. electricity providers and existing solar programs.The proposed project would be constructed pursuant to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards,which would require the proposed project to be either solar ready or would include the installation of solar photovoltaic systems,depending on the permit dates. 10. Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles.Adopt medium and heavy- Not applicable.This is a Statewide measure that duty vehicle efficiency measures. cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency. 11 Industrial Emissions.Require assessment of large industrial Not applicable.The proposed project would not be a sources,to determine whether individual sources within a facility stationary source targeted by this measure. can cost-effectively reduce GHG emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-benefits.Reduce GHG emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission.Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive CH4emissions and reduce flaring at refineries. 12. High Speed Rail.Support implementation of a high-speed Not applicable.The proposed project would not rail system. preclude the implementation of this strategy. 13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building Consistent.The proposed project would comply with practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California's new the California Energy Code,and thus incorporate and existing inventory of buildings,. applicable energy efficiency features designed to reduce project energy consumption., 14. High Global Warming Potential Gases.Adopt measures to Not applicable.This measure is applicable to the high reduce high global warming potential gases. global warming potential gases that would be used by sources with large equipment(such as in commercial refrigerators)that are not part of this residential project. 15. Recycling and Waste.,Reduce CHS.emissions at landfillls. Consistent.The proposed project would utilize City of Increase waste diversion,composting,and commercial Chula Vista waste management and waste recyclling recycling.Move toward zero waste. services. 54 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 237 of 767 Table 1.7 (cont.): Scoping Plan Measures Consistency Analysi's Scoping Plan Reduction Measure Project Consistency 16. Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and Not applicable.The project site is not forested; encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy therefore,no preservation is possible. generation. 17'. Water.Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy Consistent.The proposed project would comply with sources to move and treat water. the California Energy Code and the California Updated Model Landscape Ordinance.With adherence to these regulations,the proposed project would consume energy and water in an efficient manner. 18. Agriculture. In the,near-term,encourage investment in manure Not applicable.The proposed project does not include digesters and at the five-year Scoping Plan update determine any agricultural land uses,.No grazing,feedlot,or other if the program should be made mandatory by 2020. agricultural activities that generate manure occur on- site or are proposed to be implemented by the proposed project. Source of ARB Scoping Plan Reduction Measure:California Air Resources Board(ARB)2008. Source of project Consistency or Applicability:FirstCarbon Solutions(FCS,)2019. As shown above, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable A 2 Scoping Plan measures. In addition, SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan extends the goals of AB 32 and set a 2030 goal of reducing Statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030.The 2017 Scoping Plan provides a path that will achieve California's,2030 target. As shown in Table 1,8, the 2017 Scoping Plan provides a high-level summary of the Climate Change Policies and Measures to achieve the 2030 target and discusses the proposed project's consistency with the recommended actions. is Table 1.8: Climate Change Policies and Measures with Consistency Analysi I S Recommended Action Project Consistency hplerrient SB 350 by 20 O: 1 Increase the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50 Not applicable.This is a Statewide measure that cannot be percent of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid implemented by a project applicant or lead agency. reliability. Renewable energy as a percentage of SDG&E has achieved 43 percent in 2016,exceeding the state's renewable portfolio standards mandate of 33 percent by 2020.The proposed project would purchase power that is comprised of a greater amount of renewable sources. 2. Establish annual targets for Statewide energy efficiency Consistent.The residential buildings would comply with the savings and demand reduction that will achieve a California Energy Code,and thus incorporate applicable cumulative doubling of Statewide,energy efficiency energy efficiency features designed to reduce,project savings in electricity and naturalll gas endl uses by 2030. energy consumption. 3. Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through Not applicable.This measure is specific to electricity utility the implementation of Integrated Resource Plans to companies and would not apply to the proposed project. meet required GHG emissions reduction target. The proposed project would purchase Ipower that is comprised of a greater amount of renewable sources as a result of this measure. 55 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 238 of 767 T able 1.8 (cont.). Climate Change Policies and Measures with Consistency Analysis Recommended Action I Project Consistency Irnplement Mobile Source Strategy(Cleaner Technology and Fuels): 4. At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid Not app1icable.These measures would be implemented at light-duty electric vehicles by 2025. a Statewide level and would affect any new vehicles visiting 5. At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid or serving the proposed project. light-duty electric vehicles by 2030. 6. Further increase G stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Cars regulations. 7. Medium-and heavy-duty GHG Phase 2. 8. Innovative Clean Transit:Transition to a suite of to-be- determined innovative clean transit options.Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero- emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030.Also,new natural gas buses,starting in 2018,and diesel buses,starting in 2020,meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOx standard. 9. Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOx or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 37 last mile delivery trucks in California.This measure assumes zero emission vehicles comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3-7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025, and remaining flat through 2030., 10. Further reduce VIVIT through continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Communities Strategies;forthcoming Statewide implementation of SB 743;and potential additional VIVIT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but included in the document"Potential 11 Reduction Strategies for Discussion." By 20191,adjust performance measures used to select and Not applicable.This is a Statewide measure that cannot be design transportation facilities. Harmonize project implemented by a project applicant or lead agency. In performance with emissions reductions,and increase addition,the proposed project is not a public transit facility. competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes (e.g.via guidelline documents,funding programs,project selection,etc.). By 2010,develop pricing policies to support low-GHG Not applicable.This is a Statewide measure that cannot be transportation(e.g. low-emission vehicle zones for heavy implemented by a project applicant or lead agency. -duty,road user,parking pricing,transit discounts). Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon IIntensity Not appflcabie.This is a Statewide measure,that cannot be, reduction of 18 percent. implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.The proposed projiect's vehicles would use fuel consistent with this measure. Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy Not applicable.This is a Statewide measure that cannot be by 2030: implemented by a project applicant or lead agency., 1. 40 percent reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013 levels. 2. 50 percent reduction in black carbon emissions below 2013 levels. 56 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 239 of 767 T able 1.8 (cont.). Climate Change Policies and Measures with Consistency Analysis Recommended Action Project Consistency By 2018,develo�p Integrated Natural and"working Lands Not applicable.This is a Statewide measure that cannot be Implementation Plan to secure California's land base as implemented by a project applicant or lead agency. a net carbon sink: 1. Protect land from conversion through conservation easements and other incentives. 2. Increase the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity 3. Utilize wood and agricultural products to increase the amount of carbon stored in the natural and built environments 4. Establish scenario projections to serve as the foundation for the Implementation Plan Source:California Air Resources Board(ARB).2017.California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.Chapter 5:Achieving Success. November 2017.Website:https://www.arb,.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping—plan-2017.pdf.Accessed November 91,2019. Source of project consistency or applicability:FCS 2019. As shown above, the proposed project would be consistent with the Chula Vista CAP, AB 32, and SB 32 Scoping Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM GHG-1 Prior to the occupancy of the proposed project'. the Project Applicant shall provide for the purchase of voluntary carbon credits in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department pursuant to the following performance standards and requirements: i. the carbon offsets shall achieve real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable reductions as set forth in Cal. Health & Saf. Code Section 38562(d)(1); and ii. one carbon offset credit shall mean,the past reduction or sequestration of one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent that is "not otherwise required" (CEQA Guidelines Section 1512 .4(c)(3) . The purchase shall be from a verified greenhouse gas (GHG emissions credit broker in an amount sufficient to offset operational GHG emissions of approximately 0 metric ton carbon, dioxide equivalent(MT C 02) per year until 2030 and 450 MTCO2e per year beginning in 20,30, (or a total amount estimated over the lifetime of the proposed project, which is estimated to be 9,450 NTT CO2e). The purchase shall be verified as, occurring prior to approval. of occupancy permits. Copies of emission, estimates and offset purchase contract(s) shall be provided to the City Development Services Department for review and approval. 57 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 240 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I.X. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the El H 0 El environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the El El Z El environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous El El F-1 Z or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of El Z F-1 El hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires? Comments, The following analysis is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 11 ESA) prepared by Environmental Management Strategies, Inc. (EFTS) in July 2018 and August 2018, respectively. Both the Phase I ESA and Phase 11 ESA are included as Appendix E of the Draft Initial Study. 0 (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation i*ncorporated. The proposed project involves the demolition of three existing buildings, grading of the approximately 6.49- acre project site, asphalt/concrete paving of the site, construction of the private internal circulation system, and construction of 1,41 dwelling units. 58 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 241. of 767 A Phase I ESA was prepared for the project by EMS in July 2018 and is included in Appendix E. The Phase I ESA found that the buildings on-site were constructed prior to 198o; therefore, asbestos-containing building materials and lead based paint are still likely to be present on-site. The Phase I ESA recommended a Phase 11 ESA be performed at the individual properties of the site due to the presence of Recognized Environmental, Conditions (RECS), Historical. Environmental Conditions, and Vapor Encroachment Conditions. A Phase 11 ESA was prepared by EMS on August 14, 2018, and is also included in Appendix E. A Supplemental Phase 11 ESA was also prepared by EMS on September 131 2018. The findings of the Supplemental. Phase 11 ESA do not indicate the site is unsuitable for the intended residential redevelopment, or that soil remediation is likely necessary prior to site redevelopment. However, a weak source of tetrachloroethene (PCE) may exist in soil beneath a clarifier and wash area at 676 Moss Street. It is anticipated that these structures will be removed as part of redevelopment eartbwork. Implementation of MM HAZ-I is therefore required. MM HAZ-I requires soil samples to be collected from beneath these structures after removal for testing of VOCs. If present, soil containing elevated concentrations of VOCs must be excavated and removed from the site. Removal of impacted soil, if present, would likely eliminate the low potential risk of vapor intrusion that may be caused by this source. Because the assessment of soil for contamination is dependent on, and limited by, discrete sampling at specific locations and depths, the possibility of encountering some soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons or other products during grading or construction that were not identified by previous sampling activities cannot be completely ruled out for an industrial site. Therefore, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) is required to be prepared under MM HAZ-2 to address potentially contaminated soil that may be encountered during building demolition, grading, or construction activities at the project site.The SMP would establish procedures for the identification.,detection, excavation, removal, and disposal of any impacted soil discovered during demolition and grading. Using an SMP is a BMP that facilitates a cost-effective and efficient process for the removal of impacted soil with minimal impact to site construction and development activities. The SMP would be submitted to the County Department of Environmental Health as a part of the Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) program, as stated in MM HA -3. Five groundwater monitoring wells were installed on the project site. EMS recommends these wells remain in place should additional groundwater testing be necessary. These wells will require proper abandonment once they are no longer needed.All well-heads and covers should be protected from damage during any project construction, earthwork, or paving. A permit is required to be obtained from the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Monitoring Well Program prior to abandonment under MM HAZ1. 59 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 242 of 767 Construction Hazards During construction of the residential area and related infrastructure, hazardous materials would be handled on the project site. These hazardous materials would include ,gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products used to operate and maintain construction equipment and vehicles. This handling of hazardous materials would be a temporary activity and coincide with the short-term construction phase of the proposed project. Although hazardous materials associated with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles may be stored on. the project site, it is expected that only the amounts needed would be kept on-site, and any handling of such materials will be limited in both quantities and concentrations. Removal and disposal of hazardous materials from the project site would be conducted by a permitted and licensed contractor. The site buildings were constructed prior to 1980; therefore, asbestos-containing building materials and lead based paint are still. likely to be present on-site.Any handling, transporting, use, or disposal would comply with applicable laws, policies, and programs set forth by various federal, State, and local agencies and regulations,ons, including the EPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division. Required compliance with applicable hazardous material laws and regulations would ensure that construction-related hazardous material use would not result In significant impacts. Operational Hazards During the operational phase of the project,hazardous materials may be handled on the project site. Because of the nature of the project,hazardous materials used on-site may vary,but would likely be limited to fertilizers,herbicides,pesticides, solvents, cleaning agents, and similar materials used for daily residential operations and maintenance activities. These types of materials are common and represent a lour risk to people and the environment when used as intended. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with hazardous materials would be lass than significant. b Less than significant impact.As noted above in Impact?. a),the proposed project would involve the routine uses of common low-level hazardous materials associated with. residential uses. Given the small quantities involved and the characteristics of use, the potential release of such materials is not considered a significant risk to human health or the environment.As such, impacts would be less than significant. (c) impact. The project site is not located within 0.2 mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the project site, Harborside Elementary School, is located approximately 0.2 mile south of the project site.Additionally, the proposed project, as a residential project, would not emit :hazardous emissions or handle large quantities of hazardous materials. Spills or releases of hazardous materials on the project site would remain localized and. would. Follow federal, State, and local guidelines, for clean-up.As such, there would be no impact, o 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 243 of 767 d)Less than significant with mitigation 'incorporated.The proposed project would be located on a site that is included on,a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. To evaluate whether the proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, EMS conducted Phase 1, Phase 11, and Supplemental Phase 11 ESAs on the project site(Appendix.E). The findings and subsequent recommendations of each ESA is provided below. Phase I ESA The primary purpose of a Phase I ESA is to provide a detailed investigation into historic uses of the project site and conduct a review of reasonably ascertainable regulatory agency information including contacting regulatory agencies (pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5), in order to provide direction on any additional site investigation. The findings of the Phase I ESA included RECs-. • Three diesel aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were observed on the 680 Moss Street property and are a concern for subsurface contamination. • The Hawthorne Cat equipment wash area at 680 Moss Street is a concern for subsurface contamination. The motor oil, transmission oil, and drive train oil and used oil storage area at 680 Moss Street is a concern for subsurface contamination. e Soil staining was observed at the 676 Moss Street, Boat Yard San Diego property and is a concern for subsurface contamination. • Housekeeping on the Boat Yard San, Diego property was very poor with equipment and chemicals stored haphazardly throughout the yard and is a concern for subsurface contamination. The equipment wash area and clarifier located at the 676 Moss Street, Rapid Prep property are a concern for subsurface contamination. The Phase I ESA recommended that a Phase 11 ESA be conducted to further analyze the findings. A Phase 11 ESA was conducted, as outlined below. Phase 11 ESA The primary purpose of the Phase 11 ESA was to evaluate the potential impact to soil and soil vapor at the project site from the RECs outlined above. As such, soil boring was conducted throughout the project site to collect soil and soil vapor samples (Exhibit 10). The findings of the Phase 11 ESA included the following: 61 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 244 of 767 • The concentrations of metals detected in soil at the locations and depths sampled do not appear to present a significant direct or indirect soil contact health risk to current or potential future human receptors at the project site. • Soil at certain areas of the project site contain low concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TP'H) as motor oil-range organics and lesser concentrations of diesel-range organics. The source of TPP may be from limited surface spillage at the project site or fromasphalt debris in in shallow fill. soil.beneath the project site. The concentrations of TPH detected in soil at the locations and depths sampled do not exceed the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels ( SLs) for direct soil exposure to humans at residentialsites and are not expected to present a significant direct or indirect soil, contact health risk to current or potential future human receptors at the project site. • VOCs were not detected in any of the soil samples collected by EMS as the project site. VOCs in soil matrix at the locations and depths sampled by EMS are not expected to present a significant direct or indirect soil contact health risk to current or potential, future human receptors at the Site. • Low concentrations of 22 VOCs were detected in, soil vapor samples collected at the project site. The occurrence of VOCs in soil vapor is wide-spread across the project site. The most prevalent VOCs detected in soil vapor were acetone, 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone), BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), and PCE. PCE detected in the soil vapor samples at probe locations SLF-5 and SEF-6-5 marginally exceed afuture residential soil vapor screening level (SVS ) of 460 micrograms per cubic meter([,g/m'") determined using current California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 201.1 VI Guidance and DTSC June 2018 HERO Note 3 indoor air screening levels. No other VOCs detected in soi.1 vapor exceed future residential SVSLs based on current DTSC VI guidance. • The wide-spread occurrence of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene compounds (BTEX) in soil vapor suggest releases of gasoline product have occurred in the area of the project site. This may include on-site and off-site sources. EMS did not identify a soil, source of BT X, and the distribution, of these VOCs in soil vapor did not identify a specific potential release area or"hot-spot" on-site.A gasoline underground storage tank(LAST) was removed from the northeast comer of the site; however, the concentrations of BTS,X detected in soil vapor at this location, are similar to, or lower than, other areas of the project site suggesting the removed UST was not a source of VOCs detected in soil vapor. • According to the State Water Board Geotracker online database, multiple sources of gasoline contamination to soil and groundwater are located up-gradient of the project site. Three of these release areas are located approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the project site at the intersection, of Broadway and L Street(76 Station at 898 Broadway; Shell Station at 902 Broadway and Texaco Station at 903 Broadway).According to groundwater monitoring reports prepared for these cases, 62 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 245 of 767 groundwater flows southwest from the stations,towards the project site. Groundwater beneath and down-grading of these stations has been impacted with free-phase floating gasoline product. Recent groundwater monitoring reports for these cases indicate free-phase floating product is still present on groundwater. The extents, of groundwater contamination down-gradient from these sources, and other up-gradient sources, do not appear to have been completely defined. Groundwater is located at a depth of approximately 32 feet beneath the project site. Gasoline- impacted groundwater flowing beneath the project site from up-gradient sources could be contributing to BTEX compounds detected in soil vapor. e The highest concentrations of PCE in soil vapor were detected at probe locations SLF-5 and SL - . These probes are located adjacent to an equipment wash area and three-stage clarifier at 676 Moss Street. The wash area and clarifier may have been a generally weak source for the relatively higher concentrations of PCE detected in soil vapor near this area. However, PCE, acetone and 2-butanone were detected in soil vapor across the project site suggesting other sources, including off-proj ect-site sources, likely exist that may be contributing the detection of this VOC in soil vapor. The Phase 11 ESA recommended that, while the project site is not unsuitable for a residential.development, a Supplemental Phase 11 ESA be conducted to further analyze the wide-spread occurrence of generally low concentrations of VOCs detected in soil vapor, as contaminated groundwater from up-gradient sources may be an issue. A Supplemental Phase 11 ESA was conducted, as outlined below. Supplemental Phase 11 ESS.. The primary purpose of the Supplemental Phase 11 ESA was to evaluate the potential impact to groundwater at the project site.As such, additional soil boring was conducted throughout the project site to collect soil. and soil vapor samples, as well. as the installation of groundwater wells to collect groundwater samples to test for distribution of VOCs (Exhibit 11),. The findings of the Supplemental Phase 11 ESA included the following: • The concentrations of metals detected in soil at the locations and depths sampled are not expected to present a significant direct or indirect soil contact health risk to current or potential future human receptors at the site. • Shallow soil at certain areas of the site contain low concentrations of TPH as motor oil-range organics and lesser concentrations of diesel-range organics. The source of TPH may be from limited surface spillage at the project site or from asphalt debris in shallow fill soil beneath the project site. The concentrations of TPH detected in soil at the locations and depths sampled do not exceed the San Diego RWQCB ESLs for direct soil exposure to humans at residential sites and are not expected to 63 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 246 of 767 present a significant direct or indirect soil contact health risk to current or potential future human.receptors at the project site. VOCs were not detected in any of the soil samples collected by EMS as the project site. VOCs in soil matrix at the locations and depths sampled by EMS are not expected to present a significant direct or indirect soil contact health risk to current or potential future human receptors at the project site. • Except for low concentrations of chloromethane, VOCs were not detected in groundwater samples collected from the five groundwater monitoring wells at the project site. Chloromethane is not considered a project site-related VOC or a contaminant of concern for this project site. These results demonstrate that this project site is not a source of VOC impact to groundwater and does not appear to have been impacted by potential,un-gradient, off-project-sate sources of VOC groundwater contamination. • Low concentrations of 23 VOCs were detected in soil vapor samples collected at the project site. The occurrence of VOCs in soil vapor is wide-spread across the project site. EMS did not identify a soil source of VOCs, and the distribution of these VOCs in soil vapor did not identify a specific potential release area or"hot- spot" on the project site. VOC detected in soil vapor may be from both on and off- project-site sources. • PCE detected in two soil vapor samples at two locations (SLF-5 and SLF-6) near a clarifier and equipnment wash area at 676 Moss Street marginally exceed a future residential. SV Ls 460 micrograms per cubic meter g/rn 3) determined using current DTSC 2011 VI Guidance and DTSC June 2018 HER Note 3 indoor air screening levels. These results suggest soil beneath these structures may be a weak source of the relatively higher concentrations of PCE detected in soil vapor near this area. No other VOCs detected in soil, vapor across the project site exceed future residential SVSLs based on current DTSC VI guidance. These results demonstrate the potential vapor intrusion risk to existing or future buildings from VOCs present in soil vapor beneath the project site is low. The Supplemental Phase 11 ESA recommended that mitigation needs to be incorporated in order to ensure safety of the project site for development. Implementation of MM HA -2 would ensure that there is an SMP in place that establishes procedures in the event that soils containing petroleum hydrocarbons or other products are encountered during building demolition,grading or construction activities;the SMP would establish procedures for the identification, detection, excavation, removal and disposal of any impacted soil.MM IIA -2 would ensure that,after the demolition of on-site structures, testing for VOCs be conducted on the soil,the structures were on, if VOCs are present, soil containing elevated concentrations of VOCs would be excavated and removed from the project site.; removal of impacted soil, if present, would likely eliminate the low potential risk of vapor intrusion that may be caused by this source. Additionally, the Supplemental Phase 11 ESA also recommended that the five groundwater 64 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 247 of 767 monitoring wells currently installed on the project site remain in place should additional, groundwater testing be necessary. Implementation of MM HOZ-I would require the project to retain the five groundwater monitoring wells on-site and ensure that the proper abandonment process occurs when they are no longer needed. Therefore, the proposed project pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, with implementation of MM HAA-I and HAZ-2, impacts would be less than significant. (e) No impact. The project site is neither located within an airport land use plan nor is it located within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public airport to the project site is Brown Field Municipal Airport in San Diego,approximately 5.82 miles to the southeast. Because of its distance from the airports runways, the project site is located well outside of the airport's 60 A-weighted decibel (dBA) community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contours. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels associated with public airport noise. As such, no impact would occur. (f) No impact. The City of Chula Vista does not have an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department outlines the following scenarios that require disaster preparedness: wildfire, earthquakes, flood,terrorism,and tsunami.The only scenario with an evacuation routes map is the tsunami scenario. The evacuation routes for a tsunami are along the coast and direct evacuees to hear inland. The nearest evacuation route to the project site is J Street, located approximately 0.6 mile north of the project site.Additionally, according to the tsunami evacuation map,, the project site would not be affected by a tsunami. Therefore., the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As such, there would be no impact. (g)No impact.According to the CAL FIRE California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in neither a Local Responsibility Area, nor the State Responsibility, nor Federal Responsibility Area. The proposed project would be completely surrounded by urbanized areas and/or irrigated lands and no wildlands are adjacent to the project. Additionally, the proposed project's design would be subject to compliance with the requirements in the California Building Standards Commission California Fire Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.As such, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures: MM HAA 4 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services 65 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 248 of 767 Department that the five groundwater monitoring wells on the project site will remain in place should additional groundwater testing be necessary. The Project Applicant will abandon the wells when they are longer needed in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department and San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Monitoring Well Program. MM HAZ-2a Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and subsequent to the demolition Prod of on-site structures, the Pro ect Applicant shall conduct soil testing on the soils the structures were on. If volatile organic, compounds (VOCs) are present, soil containing elevated concentrations of VOCs shall be excavated and removed from the project site. The excavation and removal, of soil to be outlined inthe Soil Management Plan (SMP) approved by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. MM HAZ-2b Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, the Project Applicant shall obtain a permit from the San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division. The permits shall provide that hydrocarbons or"other products," including asbestos and lead based paints, that might be encountered during building demolition, grading, or construction activities, are disposed of in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department. MM Hsi -3 Prior to the issuance of any site development permits (demolition, grading, building, construction), the Project Applicant shall enter into the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP). Written, Confirmation, of VAP participationand compliance shall be received from San Diego County Devartment,of Environmental Health prior to any site development activities. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste Z discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or El El Z El interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces,in a manner which would: 66 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 249 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- F-1 F-1 H F-1 or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of F-1 F-1 H F-1 surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which Z would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard,tsunami.,or seiche zones,risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a F-1 F-1 Z F-1 water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Comments:- Information and analysis for Hydrology and Water Quality impacts are based on the Priority Development Project for Water Quality Management Plan (SWAMP prepared by Michael Baker International on November 19, 2018, included in Appendix F. The topography of the project site is relatively flat with current elevations that range from 37 feet on the north- westerly side of site to 32 feet on the south-easterly side. The existing drainage flows from northeast to west towards Industrial Boulevard. The project site is currently 1.3 percent pervious and 98.7 percent impervious. Implementation would increase the percentage of pervious area to 17 percent and reduce the impervious area to 8-1 percent.The proposed project would be designed to match the existing drainage conditions on-site via surface flow and on- site drainage system. Stormwater would be directed away from the proposed project and conveyed to the existing double box culvert that runs from east to west underneath the site. There also multiple inlets(some covered while others utilized)that connect to this underground culvert that can be found on-site. (a) Less than significant impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has established regulations under the National. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)program to control direct stormwater discharges. In the City of Chula Vista, the San DiegoRWQCB administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, including construction activities. The below table outlines the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan policies and objectives that the proposed project would be consistent with. 67 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 250 of 767 Table 19: Hydrology Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan General Plan Objective/Policy Number Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency The proposed project would be consistent Ensure compliance with current federal and With the policy by integrating new stormwater�BMPs to comply with all state water quality regulations,including the NPIDES requirements and the City 11 s Policy E-2.4 implementation of applicable NPIDES Pollution Prevention Policy.The proposed requirements,and the City's Pollution project would benefit water quality by Prevention Policy. removing sources of heavy metals,oils, and chemicals on the site. The proposed project would be consistent Encourage and facilitate construction and with this policy because it would reduce', Policy E-2.5 land development techniques that minimize minimize,and treat stormwater pollution water quality impacts from urban through the use of permanent treatment development. control and temporary sediment control f% BM s. S,ource(s):Michael Baker International.2019.676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis.December 17. Michael Baker International.2019.676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Justification Report.December 17.(Appendix J). Implementation of the proposed project would require compliance with all the NPDES, requirements including the submittal and certification of plans and details showing both construction, and post-construction BMPs that are integrated into the design of the project. Additionally,Appendix F of the Draft Initial Study contains an SWQMP, that outlines construction and non-stormwater discharge, erosion control, sediment controls (fiber rolls, gravel bags) and source control (construction waste management, litter control, stockpile pollutants) BMPs, which will be required to be integrated into the design of the proposed project. The SWAMP is required to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Impacts related to water quality are considered to be less than significant with the compliance of all applicable permitting requirements. (b) Less than significant impact. According to the San Diego County Water Authority's 20,15 Urban Water Management Plan(2015 UWMP),which provides water to the Sweetwater Authority who in turn provides water to the project site area, the Sweetwater Authority's 2020 water supply is planned to come from a combination of 75.2 percent imported water (supplied by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) and 24.8 percent local water supply (approximately 4.1 percent of which is groundwater). The 2015 UWMP anticipates having adequate water supplies through the year 2040, with groundwater production remaining stable, groundwater recovery supplies increasing yearly, and groundwater replenishment increasing yearly. The project site does not serve as a primary area of groundwater recharge in its current condition. The construction of the proposed project would create less impervious area (approximately 47,045 square feet)than what is, currently on the site, as such, according the SWQMP the proposed project would include areas where stormwater will flow from impervious to pervious areas. The proposed project would comply with the conditions 68 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 25 1. of 767 set forth by the San Diego RWQCB NPIES permitting program. Additionally, the construction of stormwater facilities and the implementation of the WQMP will ensure that adverse project impacts to groundwater supplies will be less than significant. (e)(i)Less,than significant impact. The project site lies in an urbanized area of the City of Chula Vista. Currently and historically, the site has been used for industrial purposes; therefore,the ground surface has been,routinely disturbed by vehicular traffic. The proposed project is expected to disturb the majority of the ground surface area(�/ 6.49 acres between 5-12 feet of depth, depending on the portion of the site. Project grading is expected to include 15,,000 cubic yards of raw earthwork to be removed as these soils are not suitable for construction,, and I O,000 cubic yards of imported earthwork fill. Projects that disturb I or more acres of land are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Ston-nwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction. General Permit), issued by the State Water Board. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must list BMPs the proposed project would implement to control erosion and prevent the conveyance of sediments off-site. Implementation of the conditions of the Construction General Pen-nit would reduce erosion or siltation impacts resulting from project construction to less than significant.Once construction work is completed,the impervious surfaces and landscaping would minimize potential erosion and topsoil loss risks. In addition to the required permits and SWPPP, the City of Chula Vista has implemented objectives and policies, outlined within the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. The proposed project's consistency with these objectives and policies is discussed in the following table: Table Cl2 : Hydrology Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision Cl220 General Plan General Plan Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency Objective/Policy Number The proposed project would be consistent with the objective because it would have Ensure adequate and reliable water,sewer, access to adequate water and sewer Objective PFS-1 and drainage service and facilities, service.The proposed project would implement stormwater treatment and retention BMPs to appropriately handle stormwater flows. For new development,require on-site The proposed project implements this detention of stormwater flows such that, policy by proposing a combination of Policy PFS-1.4 where practical,existing downstream stormwater detention and filtration l3MPs., structures will not be overloaded.Slow runoff Drainage on the site would be improved and maximize on-site infiltration of runoff. from its current condition,which is nearly completely impervious. 69 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 252 of 767 Table 20 (cont.): Hydrology Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan General Play Policy "�e�ti�r�eP'a�� Numberer Objective or StrategyProject Consistency 1 The proposed project implements this p construction and design, policybproposingcombination of As art project assure that drainage facilities in new Policy PFS-2.2 stormwater stormwater runes incorporate development detentiontion BMPs. p � an filtration and sediment control, includingstate-of-the- Drainage on the site would be improved from its current Condition,which is nearly art technologies,where appropriate. completely impervious. Source(s):Michael l aker International.2019.070 Moss Street Generali Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis.December 17. Michael Balker International.20191.070 Mass Street General Plan Amendment Justification Report.December 17.(Appendix J). Because the proposed project would be consistent with the above policies and objectives, and the proposed project would compily with the applicable permit requirements laid out by the City of Chula Vista, impacts to soil erosion or siltation would be Less than significant. (ii)Less than significant impact.The existing drainage conveyance is urban.According to the project-specific SWAMP, the existing site drainage patterns would not be altered and no diversion of flow is proposed. All proposed on-site storm drains would connect to an existing 12-foot-wide by 10-foot-deep double culvert channel that runs underneath the project site. Three on-site inlets collect stormwater and would drain from the double culvert to be conveyed into Telegraph Canyon Creek. The stormwater would ultimately be discharged north-westerly into the San Diego Bay and into the Pacific Ocean... Additionally, the proposed project would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces.. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on or off-site, impacts would be lass than significant. (iii) Less than significant impact. According the site specific SWQMP, on-site stormwater runoff` would flow towards inlets across the site, where the stormwater would be directed towards water quality detention vaults for treatment via a storm drain. network.. The project site runoff would be directed to proposed inlets and pipes, via precise grading. Additionally, three proposed sub-grade proprietary BMPs (Bio Clean Modular wetlands System [MWS] or similar) would be included for water quality treatment.After undergoing treatment via the proposed BMPs,project site runoff would be connected to the culvert from the proposed storm drain. All proposed on-site storm. drains would connect to an existing 12-foot-wide by 10- foot-deep, double box culvert channel that runs underneath the site conveying stormwater along Telegraph Canyon Creek and ultimately discharging north-westerly into the San Diego :Bay which is linked to the Pacific ocean. Therefore, the proposed. project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional. sources of polluted runoff, impacts are less than significant. 70 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 253 of 767 (lav) No 'impact. The proposed project would be comprised of relatively flat parcels located in an urbanized area surrounded by commercial,residential,, and light industrial uses. Furthermore, the project site is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)Zone X: a zone that corresponds to areas outside of the 500-year flood or areas protected from the I 00-year flood by levees. In other words,Zone X is defined as areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood (i.e., a 500-year flood hazard area). These conditions preclude the possibility of subjecting people or structures to significant risks related to post-fire slop instability and landslides. Furthermore, the underground storm drain box culvert that transects the project site is classified as Zone A. a I 00-year flood zone, and would be considered a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). However, as outlined in the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the I 00-year flood would be contained in the underground storm drain box culvert, it is meant to operate as a flood channel. As the proposed project would not modify the underground box culvert and would allow the underground storm drain box culvert to operate in the same condition it currently does and remain in place, there would be no impact from project implementation. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration. of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. (d) Less than signifficant impact with mitigation incorporated. According to the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan, Figure 9-8: Flood and Dam Inundation. Hazards Map, the project site is not located in a dam inundation area. The nearest dam inundation area is located approximately 1.15 miles south of the prof ect site, near Otay Valley Regional Park along the Otay River, which is a dam inundation area that would flood in the event of failure from the Savage (Lower Otay) Dam. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Furthermore, the project site is not located in a flood hazard area as defined by the FEMA FIRMs (1997) as an SFHA inundated by a 1.00-year flood. A tsunami, is a sea wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, or even by a large meteor hitting the ocean.An event such as an earthquake creates a large displacement of water resulting in a rise or mounding at the ocean surface that moves away from this, center as a sea wave. Tsunamis generally affect coastal communities and low-lying (low-elevation) river valleys in the vicinity of the coast. The site is located approximately 0.7 mile east from the San Diego Bay at an elevation of approximately 29-34 feet above sea level. Buildings closest to the ocean and near sea level are most at jeopardy.According to the prod ect-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report, due to the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, and its distance from. large open bodies of water,the potential of seiches is considered to be low.Additionally, according to the City of Chula Vista Disaster Preparedness "Your tsunami evacuation 71 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 254 of 767 map,1152 the project site is not located in a Potential.Tsunami Flood Area.As such,there would be no impact from inundation by tsunami. Potential risk from mudflow (mudslide, debris flow) exists on sites where slopes are prevalent. However,the project site does not contain any significant slopes, in addition, standard grading and soil engineering practices would be required for compliance with State and local building code standards. As such, there would be no impact from inundation by tsunami.. A seiche is an earthquake or slide-induced wave that can be generated in an enclosed body of water. The nearest body of water to the project site is the San Diego Bay, located approximately 0.7 mile to the west. According to the prof ect-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Deport and City of Chula Vista Vision 0020 General. Flan., due to the elevation (29-34 feet above mean sea level) of the site with respect to sea level and its distance from large open bodies of water, the potential of seiches is considered to be low.As such, there would be no impact from inundation by seiche. "herefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential. hazards from inundation by flood hazard, seic e, or tsunami. Additionally, with implementation of MM HAZ-l and AZ- , any pollutants on-site would be removed. as part of redevelopment earthwork. Soil samples would be required to be collected from beneath the structures for testing of VOCs. if present, soil. containing elevated concentrations of VOCs would be required to be excavated and removed from the site. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (e) Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be served by the City's stormwater drainage system... Construction activities such. as grading, paving, site improvements, and typical household activity could introduce additional pollutants an sediment into water runoff and flow into nearby storm drains.As part of the project, a SWAMP was prepared in compliance with the NPDES requirements of the Clean Water Act.. The SWQN P contains proposed BMP's such as three proposed sub-grade proprietary BMPs(Bio,Glean MWS or similar)that would be included for water quality treatment. The proposed project would also include construction and non-stormwater discharge, erosion control, sediment controls (fiber rolls, gravel bags) and, source control (construction: waste management,, litter control, stockpile pollutants) BMPs, which will be required to be integrated into the design of the project.Finally,continuous use and operation of the site would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing storrnwater drains on the project site with. implementation of BMps. Therefore, impacts would be less than. significant. Mitigation Teasures: Implementation of MM AZ-l and MM HAZ2 is required. sz. City of Chula Vista..Disaster Preparedness.'website:https://www.chulav staca.gov/d partments/ r -department/e rgency- management/disaster-preparedness..Accessed March 29,2019. 72 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 255 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X1. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? El El 0 H b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to El z F-1 El a conflict with any land use plan,policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Comments,: (a)No impact.The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community of between a community and outlying area. The proposed project does not involve any such.features and would not remove any means of access or impact mobility. Furthermore,, no streets or sidewalks would be permanently closed as a result of the development of the project.; the proposed project would instead connect the community through the inclusion of sidewalks on the north side of Moss Street.As such, the proposed project would not pbysical,l,y divide an established community. Thus, there would be no impact. (b)Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.The proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment from Limited Industrial to High Density Residential and a Zone Change from I-L to R-3. The project site is bounded by residential land uses to the south and east, and light industrial uses to the north and west. The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. The southern, portion of the Chula Vista Bay-front Master Plan Area is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the project site. The Bayfront Master Plan would develop an industrial business park and an RV park across the 1-5 from the project site. Additional improvements proposed as a part of the Bayfront Master Plan would include hotels, and offices,, mixed use commercial parks, and open spaces. No features of this proposed project would conflict or interfere with the development of the Bayfront Master Plan. Furthermore,according to the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan,the following objectives and policies apply to the proposed project. The following table outlines the project's consistency with these objectives and policies. 73 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 256 of 767 41 Table 21: Land Use and Planning Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan General Plan Objective/Policy Number Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency Objective GPI-2 Provide consistency between the City of The proposed project would be inconsistent Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan and with the designated zoning of the parcel.A subsequent documents,plans, projects,and zone change application would be submitted development. concurrently with the General Plan Amendment Application.If the zone change is completed successfully,the proposed project would be consistent with this objective.The proposed project would be compatible with potential redevelopment on the nearby limited industrial property. It would be compatible with and supportive of a potential trolley station at L Street and would act as an effective transitional use between the single-family residential and higher intensity transit-focused or commercial uses along IL Street. Policy GPI-2.1 Pursue zoning in the City that is consistent The proposed project would be consistent with the land use designations of the with the pollicy because a zone change would adopted City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 be processed at,the same,time.Upon General Plan. successful processing of the General Plan Amendment and zone change,the land uses would align and be consistent with this policy. Objective LUT-1 Provide a balance of residential and non- The proposed project would be,consistent residential development throughout the City with and help provide additional, high- that achieves a vibrant development pattern, density residential units to meet the current enhances the character of the City,and and future housing demands in the,City.The meets the present and future needs of all proposed project would help enhance the residents and businesses. character of the neighborhood by creating more compatible land uses and improving the frontage of Moss Street. Policy LUT-1.2 Coordinate planning activities and resources The Ipiroposed project would be consistent to balance land uses,amenities,and civic with and create a more balanced set of land facilities in order to sustain or improve the uses by adding high-density housing in an quality of life. area with excellent access to existing and planned civic and public facilities. Policy LUT-1.4 Seek to achieve an improved balance The proposed project would be,consistent between jobs and housing in Chula Vista. with the policy and directly help increase the availability of housing in the City.The proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 30 to 40 jobs and add 1,41 dwelling units,which would not be enough to significantly alter the jobs-housing balance in the City. Policy LUT-1.,5 Endeavor to create a mixture of employment The proposed project would remove some opportunities for citizens at alll economic employment opportunities;however,the levels. broader goals of the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan are still implemented by providing an effective mix of land uses in the Southwest Planning Area. 74 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 257 of 767 Table 21 (cont.). Land. Use and Planning Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. General Plait Objective/Policy Number Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency Polllicy LUT-1.6 Attract and maintain(hand uses that generate The proposed project would be consistent revenue for the City of Chula Vista,while because it is expected to significantly increase maintaining a balance of other community revenues from existing levels.The existing needs,such as housing,jabs,open space, property generates approximately$39,300 of and public facilities. net revenue for the City each year,while the project is anticipated to generate$76,100 of net revenue a year.The site currently generates roughly$43,100 in gross irevenue, while the proposed project would generate roughly$302,300 in gross revenue,a six-fold 13 increase. Policy LUT-1.7 Provide high-quality public facilities, The proposed Iproject would be consistent services,and other amenities within close because it would be located within walking proximity to residents. distance to transit, public services,and amenities, including schools, parks,bus stops,and other public facilities. Policy LUT-1.3 Pursue higher density residential categories The proposed project would directly implement and retail demand that are not being i met this policy by providing high-density 20 within the City. dwelling units per acre),market-rate,for-sale housing in the City.Many of the nearby high- density developments arefor-rent,and this proposed project would provide an additional option for those looking for high-density living with opportunities for homeownership. Policy LUT-1.9 Provide opportunities for development of The proposed project would directly housing i that respond to diverse community implement this policy by providing a mix of needs in terms of density,size,(Vocation,and uinit types and sizes to accommodate diverse cost. housings needs in the City.The variation in the number of bedrooms,bathrooms,options, and private open space all factor into providing a range of home prices and housings choices.The City"s Housing Division has stated no affordable units are required in the development due to the high concentration of moderate to affordable housing in the area. Policy LUT-1.10 Maintain an adequate supply of land The proposed project would directly designated and zoned for residential use at implement this policy by creating new appropriate densities to meet housing residential uses at densities compatible with needs,consistent with the objective of the adjacent uses,strengthening the balance maintaining a balance of land uses. of land uses in the immediate surroundings. The I - designation represents the highest and best use of the site. Policy LUT-1.19 Evaluate land use intensities in conjunction The proposed project would be consistent with the review of any zone change and/or because there are no environmental, General Plan Amendment to permit density circulation,or other constraints.The proposed or modify intensity. (Factors to be considered project would meet and match high-density 3 Very,D.K.(2019).676Moss Street General Plan Consistency Analysis,Revised December 17,2019.1M!Iichael.Baker International. 75 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 258 of 767 Table 21 (cont.). Land. Use and Planning Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. General Plait Objective/Policy Number Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency include,but are not limited to,the maximum residential to the east and complement and intensity allowed for the applicable land use strengthen the single-family neighborhood designation in the City of Chula Vista Vision south of Moss Street.The proposed project 2020General IPlan,traffic circulation would not have any direct growth inducing patterns,environmental constraints,and effects on the neighboring industrial(properties compatibility with surrounding land uses. because the properties do not share access or utilities.The high-density residential is compatible with adjacent limited industrial uses and would not create any environmental constraints for neighboring properties. Objective LUT-4 Establish policies,standards,and The proposed project would directly procedures to minimize blighting influences implement this objective because it would and maintain the integrity of stable remove a blighted and incompatible industrial residential neighborhoods. property adjacent to residential uses.The RH/R3 designation is naturally compatible with the existing RL fR1 and H/R residential developments adjacent to the site.. Policy LUT-4.2 Protect existing,stable,single-family The proposed Iproject would be consistent neighborhoods through zoning or other because it does not add an incompatible or regulations that discourage the introduction potentially disruptive land use.The proposed of higher density residential l or other project would be located across the street incompatible or potentially disruptive land from a single-family neighborhood and would uses and/or activities. work to increase the integrity of the residential neighborhood by removing less compatible industrial uses and aligning residential l uses on Moss Street. Policy LUT-43 Require that new development,or The proposed project would be consistent redevelopment,through consideration of site with and implement this policy by creating a and building design,and appropriate more natural transition to a residential transition and edge treatments does not neighborhood by removing industrial uses. negatively affect the nature and character of The proposed project would ensure land nearby established neigihborhoods or uses on both sides of Moss Street are development.. aligned,preventing isolated and illogical uses.The frontage improvements on Moss Street would improve the nature and character of the nearby established neighborhood.The existing industrial and multi-family uses would be adequately screened and buffered from the project site through fencing and landscaping. Objective LUT'-5 Designate opportunities for mixed use areas The proposed project would be consistent with higher density housing that is near with this objective.while the project site is not shopping,jobs,and transit in appropriate within a mixed-use area,it would be located locations throughout the City. close to different shopping,transit,and other public services.The proposed project would be within o.3 mile of the MTS 92 bus route and within o.65 mile of the Palomar Street Trolley.The proposed project would be supportive of existing transit and mixed-use 76 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 259 of 767 Table 21 (cont.). Land. Use and Planning Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. General Plait bjective/Policy Number Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency areas by adding residents within walking distance.The high-dlensity housing wound be supportive of the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan South Broadway Corridor objectives and goals. Objective LUT-6 (Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible The proposed(project would be consistent. with one another. with the objective because it would not create any new and incompatible land use transitions.The proposed project would create more compatible(land uses on Moss Street by removing industrial lands and replacing it with high-density housing,which already occupies the eastern half of Moss Street.The proposed project would be compatible with the industrial use at 694 Moss Street,the single-family area south of Moss Street,and the multi-family Villa Marina Apartments to the east.The proposed project would create aligned land uses on(both slides of Moss Street between (Broadway and Industrial(Boulevard. Objective LUT-7 Appropriate transitions should be provided The proposed project would be consistent. between land uses with this policy.The proposed project would not create any new land use transitions and would minimize the inconsistency of land uses on the north sidle of Moss Street.The existing boundary from ISH to IIL would be shifted approximately boo feet west(the width of the Iproject site).Additionally,the proposed project would provide a natural transition from the single-family neighborhood to the limited industrial site north of the project site. Policy LUT-7.2 Require new or expanded uses to provide The proposed project would be consistent mitigation or buffers between existing uses with this policy because it would not cause where significant adverse impacts could significant adverse impacts to the neighboring occur. industrial sites or the adjacent apartment complex.Existing impacts that adversely affect the neighboring uses would be removed in favor of more compatible,residential uses. The proposed project would provide adequate fencing and landscaping as a buffer along the property line and would not affect the viability of adjacent industrial lands. 77 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 260 of 767 Table 21 (cont.). Land. Use and Planning Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. General Plait Objective/Policy Number Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency Objective LUT-11 Ensure that buildings and gelated site The proposed project would be consistent. improvements for public and private with this objective(because it proposes development are well-desigined and thoughtful and modern architecture that compatible with surrounding properties and would integirate well into the existing districts neighborhood.The provision of 345 parking spaces ensures the neighboring single- family homes would l not be impacted by parking,and the improved frontage would increase pedestrian accessibility and mobility for residents in the area.Sixty-four guest spaces would be provided,as well as 282 private garage spaces. Objective LUT-17 (Plan and coordinate development to be The proposed project would be consistent compatible and supportive of planned transit. with this policy.The high-density residential designation proposed for the project site is reflective of comparable land uses within 0.25 mile of the E and H Street.Trolley Stations. If an L Street Station was proposed or desirable,the proposed condominiums at 575 Floss Street would complement and strengthen the viability of the station.The high-density residential would be compatible with other potential transit-supportive uses, such as Mixed-Use Transit Focus, Urban Core Residential,and Commercial Visitor. Policy LUT-17.2 Direct higher intensity and mixed-use The proposed project would be consistent developments to areas within walking because it wound be within 0.3 mile of an distance of transit, including San Diego MTS 932 bus stop and within 0.05 mile(15- Trolley Stations along T, H,and Palomar 20 minute walk)of the IPalomar Street Streets,and new stations along future transit Station. lines,including Bus Rapid Transit. Objective LUT-35 Revitalize and protect existing stable The proposed Iproject would directly residential neighborhoods in the Southwest implement the objective by enhancing the Planning Area from adverse land use existing residential neighborhood through impacts the replacement of less compatible landl uses with more compatible land uses.The proposed General(Plan Amendment would protect the adjacent residential communities from potentially noxious uses and would directly reduce adverse land use impacts. The proposed condom�iniums would be a better neighbor to both the neighboring� industrial and the adjacent residential than the existing industrial uses. Objective LUT-36 Provide additional housing opportunities to The proposed(project would directly accommodate anticipated population needs. implement the goal of providing additional housing opportunities by creating for-s,ae,. high-density residential units in an area welll served by public transit and retail facilities. The Housing Division has stated this proposed project is not required to include 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 261. of 767 Table 21 (cont.). Land. Use and Planning Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. General Plait Objective/Policy Number Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency affordable,housing nor pay the in-lieu affordable housing fee due to the concentration of affordable housing in the area and the objective of adding higher income households. Higher density housing is needed,and the site is an excellent location for it(based on adjacency to other residential areas and its ability to act as a transitional use to industrial uses. Policy CIM 2.1 Achieve and maintain a balance of land uses The proposed project would be consistent within the City that assures residential with the goal of achieving a balance of development is complemented by expanded complementing land uses for employment local employment opportunities,retail and and residential.while the proposed project commercial services,and recreation and removes(hand uses that are potentially entertainment venues;and that the City-gide revenue generating,the proposed reduction mix of land uses provides fiscal balance in industrially designated lands would be between those that produce revenues and very small(less than 0.4 percent)and would those that require public expenditures. not have a significant effect on the Citywide mix and balance of uses.The Fiscal Impact Assessment projected the high-density residential would produce approximately 90 percent more annual positive revenue for the City than the existing industrial uses.Annual gross revenue would increase from roughly $48,000 to$302,000.Additionally,the Chula Vista Bayfront Project is proposed immediately west-northwest of the site.The Bayfront Project would create 6,000 permanent jobs and designated spaces for entertainment,retail,and open space, ensuring a balance of land uses in the Southwest Planning Area.The high-density residential at 676 boss Street would help support and complement the Bayfront Project by providing(housing. Objective CM-3 Create and preserve vital neighborhoods The proposed project would directly implement the policy by increasing the integrity of the existing residential neighborhood through creatine more compatible and consistent land uses along Moss Street.The residentiall neighborhood would be strengthened through the removal of the blighted and unsightly industrial uses.The proposed(project would act as a natural transition from the single- family residential to the limited industrial north of the site.Additionally,the frontage improvement and sidewalk construction would make the neighborhood more accessible and friendlier to pedestrians. Source:Michael IBaker International.2019.070 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis.December 17. Michael Baker International.2019.070 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Justification Report.IDecember 1l.(Appendix J). 79 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 262 of 767 Therefore, with discretionary approval from the City, the proposed project would be consistent with. surrounding land uses and impacts would be less than significant. The analysis contained in this Draft Initial Study addresses the potential conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Based on this analysis, it was determined that the proposed project would potentially have significant impacts on air quality,biological resources,cultural resources,geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials. The proposed project is located in the SCAQMD and MM All I is required to reduce emissions to below the maximum daily thresholds. MM B10-1 is required to reduce impacts to nesting birds. MM CUL-1, and MM CUL-2 are required to reduce impacts to any inadvertent culturally significant discoveries. MM GEO-I and MM GEO-2 are required to reduce impacts related to expansive soils and paleontological resources, respectively. MM GHG-I is required purchase of voluntary carbon credits by the Project Applicant. MM AZ-1, MM HAZ- 2,, and MM HAZ-3 are required to reduce the impacts of any potential hazardous materials on-site. MM NOI-I is required to reduce traffic and railroad noise impacts to the proposed project. MM NOT-2 is required to reduce the impacts of construction noise. Therefore, based on the analysis conducted in the Draft Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project was not in conflict with any adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures is requireuA. • MM AIR-I • MM Io-1. • MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 • MM GEE-I and MM GEE-2 • MM GHG-I • MM HAZ-I MM IIA -2, and MM HA - •• MM NOl-I and NOI-2 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated 11 mpact Impact X11. Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known El El F-1 Z mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? 80 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 26,3 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments,: (a) No impact. According to the California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey and the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan, Figure 9-4 MRZ-2 Area map, the project site is not located within a Mineral Resource Zone.54,55 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. As such, there would be no impact. (b)No impact.As outlined above in Impact 2.11(b),the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan, Figure 9-4 MRZ-2 Area Map, the project site is not located in a Mineral Resource Zone.56 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral, resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.As such, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X111. Noise Would the project result in: a) Cause a significant environmental impact due to El Z F-1 El a conflict with.any land use plan,policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? California Department of Conservation. 1996.California Geological Survey,Urbanization of Designated.Areas Otay Valley,Tijuana. River,and Border Highlands Resource Area.Open File Report(OFR)96-04,Plate 14.Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR-96-04.Accessed November 9,2019. City of Chula Vista.2019.City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan.Chapter 9:Environmental Element.Website: https://www.chulavistaca.gov/'home/sowdocument?id-9341.Accessed November 9,20 19. 56 Ibid. 81 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 26,4 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments,: This Noise Impact Analysis has been prepared by FCS to determine the off-site and on-site noise impacts associated with the proposed project. The noise monitoring locations, measurements,, and modeling input and output files are included in Appendix G of this Draft IS/MND. Characteristics of Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels(dB),with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. Noise is typically generated by transportation,, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in, laboratory environments.A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 dBA is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Since the human. ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all, frequencies, the dBW was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level(Ldn and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period and the Lomax is the maximum instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period. 82 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 26,5 of 767 Existin Noise Sources Thero`J ro osed project would p p p replace several industrial uses currently on the site. Surrounding the project site are commercial and industrial land uses to the north, a school bus parking lot to the northwest, multi-family residential homes to the east, single-family residential homes to the south.(across Moss Street),, and manufacturing land uses to the southwest.To the west oft e site, running in north-south directions, are railroad tracks, Industrial Boulevard, and 1-5. The existing noise levels on the project site were documented through a noise monitoring effort performed at the project site..Noise monitoring location and measurements are described in detail in Appendix G. Three short-term. noise measurements (15 minutes each) were taken on Wednesday,December 12,201 ,starting at 1:o 5 p.m. and ending at 2:3 6 p.m.,during the midday peak nese hour. The short-term measurement ST-1 was conducted at the eastern boundary of the project site, approximately 250 feet north of Moss Street, at the northern end of the carport. The resulting measurement showed that ambient noise levels at this location averaged 60.1 d A Leq.As was observed by the technician at the time of the noise measurement, the dominant noise source in the project vicinity was heavy machinery operating on the adjacent industrial site. The second short-term measurement T-2) was conducted at the southern boundary of the project site, on the southwest corner of Moss Street and Colorado Avenue. The resulting measurement showed that ambient noise levels at this location averaged 70.1 dA Lq. As was observed by the technician at the time of the noise measurement, the dominant noise sources in the project vicinity were from vehicular traffic along moss Street and railway signals. The short-term measurement ST-3) was conducted on the western boundary of the project site, adjacent to the railroad approximately 280 feet north of Moss Street. The resulting measurement showed that ambient noise levels at this location averaged 69.6 dA Leq.As was observed by the technician at the time of the noise measurement, the dominant noise sources in the project vicinity were from vehicular traffic on 1-5, Industrial. Boulevard,and moss Street,and train noise from the MTS. 'Regulatory 'rame work The project site is located within the City of Chula Nista. The City of Chula Nista addresses noise in the Noise Section of the Environmental dement of their Vision 2020 General Plan 51 and in the City of Chula Vista Municipal Codes8 city of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan The City of Chula Vista establishes Exterior Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines (shown. in Table 22) in its Vision 2020 General Flan. The land use category listed in the City's Exterior 1 City of Chula Vista.2005.City of Chula.Vista Vision 2020 General Plan.Environmental Element. december."website: https://www.chulavistaca.gov/ epartments/development-services/planning/gene al-plan.Accessed November 16,2018.. 58 City of Chula Vista,2018.Chula Vista Municipal.Code.websitc: https:// ww.codepublishin .co /C /Chula ista/ !/Chula istaNT.html.Accessed November 16,2018. 83 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 266 of 767 Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines that most closely applies to the proposed project is residential. Under this designation, 65 dBW.CNEL is generally considered to be the noise level that is compatible for this type of new land use development. Furthermore, the consistency of the proposed project with the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan policies and objectives, is shown in Table 23. Table 22: Exterior Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines Annual CNEL in Decibels Category 50 55 60 65 70 75 Land Use Residential Schools, Libraries, Daycare Facilities,Convalescent IHomes,Outdoor Use Areas,and Other Similar Uses Considered Noise Sensitive -Neighborhood Parks, Playgrounds Community Parks,Athletic Fields Offices and Professional Places of Worship(excluding outdoor use areas) Golf Course Retail and Wholesale Commercial, Restaurants, Movie Theaters .................................................. .......................................................................... Industrial, Manufacturing Table 23: Noise Consistency with the City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan General Plan Objective/Pollicy Policy 0bjective or Strategy Project Consistency �Number Objective E-21 Protect people from excessive noise This proposed project is consistent with through careful land use planning and the the objective of protecting people from incorporation of appropriate mitigation excessive noise.Though there is a railroad techniques. adjacent to the site,setbacks and a soundwall will be employed to decrease noise impacts to the proposed development.The site is not anticipated to generate any permanent and significant sources of noise that will impact the neighboring residents.The proposed roject will shield and reduce noise impacts for adjacent residential properties. Source(s):Miclhaell aker.2019.676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis.December 17. Michael Baker.2019.676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Justification Report.December 17. 84 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 26,7 of 767 'City of Chula Nista Municipal Code The City of Chula Vista establishes its noise performance standards in the noise ordinances of its Municipal Code. The City has established an exterior noise limit of 50 dBA. L q hourly average during nighttime hours,and a limit of 60 dA Leq hourly average during daytime hours for receiving multi-family residential land uses. However, the City provides an exemption to these noise standards for construction and demolition activities. In addition, the Municipal Code restricts noise producing construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 1.0:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, and :00 a.m.. to 10:00 p.m. on. Saturdays and Sundays. Impact Analyte (a) :Noise Land Use Compatibility Tess than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The City of Chula Nista establishes Exterior Land Ilse-Noise Compatibility Guidelines in the Noise Element of its General Plan. These guidelines reflect the levels of mise exposure that are generally considered to be compatible with various types of land uses.. These standards are shown previously in Table 23. For a discussion of the characteristics of noise and further information regarding the applicable noise regulatory framework, refer to the Noise impact discussion in Section XIII of this document. The land use category listed in the City's exterior Land. Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines that most closely applies to the proposed project is "Residential." Under this designation, noise environments up to 65 d A CNEL are generally considered compatible for this type of new land use development. The dominant noise�se sources in the project vicinity were from vehicular traffic on. I-5, Industrial Boulevard,and Moss Street, and train noise from the MTS. To document noise levels from these sources, an ambient noise monitoring effort was conducted and traffic noise modeling was performed. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-1.08) was used to evaluate opening year and buildout traffic noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The projected traffic noise levels along roadways adjacent to the project site were analyzed to determine compliance with the City's land use compatibility standards. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the CNL values. The traffic noise modeling input and output files are included in Appendix G of this document. Table 24 shoes a summary of the traffic noise levels for Listing,Listing Plus Project,year 2045 Without Project, and year 2045 Plus Proj ect conditions as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lana. s City of Chula Vista.2005.City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General.Flan.Environmental Element.December.Website: https://www.chulavistaca.govldepartments/development-services/planning/general-plan.Accessed November 16,2018. 85 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 268 of 767 Table 24: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary CNEL(dBA)50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Year2045 Year 2045 Plus Ekistingi Plus, Without Project 'I Ekistincl Project(OA) Project (d�BA) Roadway Segment (dBA)CNEL CNEIL (dBA)CNEL CNEL Industrial Boulevard—L Street to 1-5 interchange 65.0 65.2 66.1 66.2 Industrial Boulevard-1-5 interchange to Moss Street 65.7 65.9 69.2 69.3 Industrial Boulevard—Moss Street to Naples Street 63.0 63.1 66.2 66.2 Moss Street—industrial Boulevard to Colorado Avenue 60.0 60.0 60.4 60.4 Moss Street—Colorado Avenue to Woodlawn Avenue 59.7 59.7 60.1 60.1 1-5—north of Palornar Street 80.1 8x.1 80.6 80.6 Note: Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography,vegetative screening,fencing,buildings design,or structure screening.Rather it assumes a worst case of having a direct line of site on flat terrain. Source:FCS 2018. The highest traffic noise levels on roadway segments adjacent to the project site would occur along Industrial Boulevard under year 2045 Plus Project traffic conditions. Under these traffic conditions, projected traffic noise levels along Industrial. Boulevard between the 1-5 interchange and Moss Street, would range up to 69.3 dBA CL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Traffic noise levels from the 1-5 adjacent to the project site would range up to 80.6 dBA CNEL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel, lane. The farde of the nearest proposed residential building at the project site would be setback approximately 140 feet from the centerline of Industrial Boulevard. In addition, the project proposes construction of a minimum 6-foot high soundwall along the entire western border of the project site. At this distance and with. shielding provided by the soundwall, traffic noise levels from traffic on 1-5 and Industrial Boulevard would range up to approximately 55 dBA CNEL at the ground floor facade of the nearest proposed residential building. However, second and third floor faqades and balconies on this closest building unit would still have a direct line of sight to the roadway, and would be exposed to traffic noise levels ranging up to 61 dBA CNEL. The MTS railroad line is also located west of the project site between Industrial Boulevard and the project site. The faade of the nearest proposed residential building at the project site would be setback approximately 55 feet from the centerline nearest through-travel of the railroad track. In order to provide a conservative estimate of the potential railroad noise impacts to the proposed project, the CREATE railroad noise model was used.60'The model assumed a maximum of eight light rail train passings per 60 HMMH,Inc.,,2006.CREATE Noise Model Based on Federal Transit Administration(FTA)General Transit Noise Assessment, Developed for the Chicago CREATE Project. 86 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 26,9 of 767 hour during the day, and one freight train passing per hour every night. This is a conservative estimate, because, based on available data, there are typically only four freight train passings total per night. The modeling assumed trains traveling an average of 40 miles per hour (mph), with no shielding or barriers assumed. The modeling input/output data is provided in Appendix G of this document.The modeling results show that these modeled train activities would result in an average 67 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest faqade on the project site, without shielding. The methodology of the FTA for calculating locomotive warning horn noise levelS61 was also used to calculate potential. impacts from the freight train hom, use on their approach to the Moss Street at-grade crossing. The modeling input/output files are provided in Appendix G of this document. The calculations assumed up to four freight train passings per night, The results show that the calculated train horn noise levels are 74.7 dBA CNEL as measured 50 feet from the railroad tracks, or 73.9 dBA CNEL at the nearest faqade of the proposed project, with no reduction for shielding. It should be noted that the project proposes to construct a 6-foot-high soundwall. along the entire western border of the project site. This would effectively block the line of sight from roadway noise sources and the first floor (ground level) of the proposed residential units, resulting in a minimum 6 dBA reduction in traffic noise levels. However, because part of the noise source from trains, is above the train tracks (engine noise, rail-car rattling noise, etc.) this wall would be expected to result in only a 5 dBA reduction in railroad noise levels as measured at the first floor level of the proposed residential units. The combined traffic and railroad noise levels as measured at the nearest upper floor fagades (second floors and above) and at the nearest ground floor facade, are summarized in Table 25 below. Table 25: Combined Traffic and Railroad Noise Model Results Summary Calculated CNEL(dBA)as Calculated CNEL(dBA)as Measured at the Nearest Measured at the Nearest Roadway/Railway Segment Upper Floor Faqade Ground Floor Faqade Industrial Boulevardl-1-5 interchange to Moss Street 61.3 55.3 1-5—north of Palomar Street 64.1 58.1 MTS and Freigiht-line Railroad Activity 67.0 62.0 Freight-line Railroad Horn Noise 73.9 68.9 Combined Traffic and Railroad Noise Levels 75.2 70.1 Source:FCS 2019. Federal Transit Administration(FTA).2018.Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,September. 87 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 270 of 767 Irl Based on these results,the nearest ground-floor facades would be exposed to combined mobile source noise levels ranging up to 70.1 dBA CNEL. These calculated combined traffic and railroad noise levels are in excess of the City's exterior land use compatibility standard of 65 dBA CNEL. At a distance of 11 o feet from the railroad centerline, these noise levels would attenuate to below 65 dBA CNEL as measured at ground-floor areas. Therefore, effective mitigation. must be incorporated into the project for all ground level faqades within 1.1 o feet of the railroad tracks to ensure that the interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL is achieved and maintained. Based on the EFTA's Protective Noise Levels, with a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction in accordance with building code requirements for multi-family residential developments would provide 25 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows closed and 15 dBA or more with windows open. With windows open, the interior noise levels of the proposed units nearest to and facing the railroad line would not meet the State's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for indoor sleeping areas (70.1 dBA-15 dBA — 55.1 dBA). Even inclusion of alternate ventilation systems such as mechanical air conditioning which would allow windows to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, would not sufficiently reduce traffic and railroad noise levels to meet the interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL (70.1 dBA-25 dBA — 45.1 dB,A). Therefore, pgraded wall and window assemblies would be required for all ground floor faqades that face the railroad and that are located within 1.1 o feet of the railroad tracks. The combined wall and window assembly should be upgraded from standard building code requirements to have a minimum Standard Transmission Class (STC) rating of 28-STC. This will provide sufficient noise reduction,with an adequate margin of safety,to ensure the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard is maintained (70.1 dBA-28 dBA = 42.1 dBA). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall have a professional acoustic consultant review the final design plans to provide assurance to City staff that the design would provide the required STC rating. Second and third floor fagades of the closest building (Building I shown on Exhibit 12) with direct line of sight to the railroad tracks would be exposed to combined traffic and railroad noise levels ranging up to 75.2 dBA CNEL. These calculated unshielded combined traffic and railroad noise levels are in excess of the City's exterior land use compatibility standard of 65 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest proposed fagade of the residential units. At a distance of 180 feet from the railroad centerline, these unshielded noise levels would attenuate to below 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, effective mitigation must be incorporated into the project for all upper level faqades with a direct line of sight to and located within 180 feet of the railroad tracks (Buildings 1, 2, and 3 shown on Exhibit 12) to ensure that the interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL is achieved and maintained. Based on the EPA's Protective Noise Levels, with a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction in accordance with building code requirements for multi-family residential developments would provide 25 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows closed and 1.5 dBA or more with windows open. With windows open, the interior noise levels of the proposed units 88 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 271. of 767 nearest to and facing the railroad line would not meet the State's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for indoor sleeping areas (75.2 dBA-1 5 dBA 0.2 dBA). Even inclusion of alternate ventilation systems such as mechanical air conditioning which would allow windows to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, would not sufficiently reduce traffic and railroad noise levels, to meet the interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL (75.2 dBA-25 dBA= 50�.2 dBA). Therefore, upgraded wall and window assemblies would be required for all upper facades(second floor and above) that have a direct line of sight of the railroad tracks and that are located within 180 feet of the railroad tracks.The combined wall and window assembly should be upgraded from standard building code requirements to have a minimum STC rating of 33-STC.This will provide sufficient noise reduction, with an adequate margin of safety, to ensure the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard is maintained(75.2 dBA-33 dBA=42.2 dBA). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall have a professional acoustic consultant review the final,design plans to provide assurance to City staff that the design would provide the required STC rating. Therefore, implementation of MM NOI-I is required to ensure the project would not conflict with the City's adopted Exterior Land Use-Noise Compatibility Guidelines and policy and would reduce combined traffic and railroad noise impacts to the proposed project to be less than. significant. It should also be noted, as shown in Exhibit 12, proposed rooftop deck areas nearest to the railroad would be exposed to combined mobile source noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL. The shielding provided by the proposed parapet wall that would block a direct line of sight to the outdoor use areas of these rooftop decks would reduce the combined mobile source noise levels to 69 dBA CNEL at the nearest rooftop deck. Combined mobile source noise levels would attenuate to below 65 dBA CNEL for rooftop decks located more than 90 feet from the railroad tracks. However, as indicated in the discussion above, implementation of MM NOT-1. would ensure that the interior noise level standard is met in all proposed residential units. Finally, as is also shown in Exhibit 12, proposed ground-floor outdoor use areas nearest to the railroad would be exposed to combined mobile source noise levels ranging up to 70 dBA CNEL,exceeding the City's exterior land use compatibility standard of 65 dBA CNEL.At a distance of 1.1 o feet from. the railroad centerline, these noise levels would attenuate to below. 65 dBA CNEL as measured at ground-floor outdoor use areas. As shown in Exhibit 12, these impacted areas have been excluded from the project's open space calculations. However, all outdoor use areas located more than 11,0 feet from the railroad centerline would experience combined traffic noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL, meeting the City's exterior land use compatibility standard.In addition,all proposed courtyard areas and courtyard-facing patios and balconies within 11 o feet of the railroad centerline would be shielded by the proposed structures and would experience combined traffic noise levels of less than 65 dBA CNEL, also meeting the City's exterior land use compatibility standard. Therefore, as shown in Exhibit 12, the calculated open space 89 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 272 of 767 areas that would meet the City's,exterior noise standard totals 76,434 square feet(more than 542 square feet per home). The City's minimum requirement is 504 square feet per home. Thus, the project provides more than the City's minimum required noise-protected outdoor use area and no mitigation is, required for the attenuation of exterior noise impacts at outdoor use areas. (b) Short Term Construction Impacts Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A significant impact would occur if construction activities would result in generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that would result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction. activities. Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during site preparation and project construction. The first type would result from the increase in traffic flow on local streets, associated with the transport of workers,equipment,and materials,to and from the project site. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site.Because workers and construction equipment would use existing routes,noise from passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle-generated noise on these local roadways. Typically, a doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT)hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dA in traffic noise levels-, which, as discussed in the characteristics of nose discussion above, ') is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Project-related construction trips would not be expected to double the hourly traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. For these reasons, short-term intermittent noise from trucks would be minor when averaged over an hour or longer intervals. Therefore, short- term constiruction-related noise impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would not exceed applicable significance thresholds and would be less than significant. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during construction on the project site. Construction noise levels are rarely steady in nature and, often, fluctuate depending on the type and number of equipment being used at any given time. In addition, there could be times where large equipment is not operating and noise would be at or near normal ambient levels. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and its own noise characteristics.These various,sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and,therefore,the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, 90 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 273 of 767 similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading activities, tend to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery and compacting equipment, such as bulldozers, draglines, backhoes, front loaders, roller compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve I or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of front-end loaders, excavators, haul trucks, water trucks, concrete mixer trucks, and pickup trucks. The maximum noise level generated by each concrete mixing truck is assumed to be 85 dBA max at 50 feet from this equipment." Each front-end loader would also generate 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by excavators is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Each doubling of sound sources with equal. strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. A conservative reasonable assumption is that this equipment would operate simultaneously and continuously over at least a 1-hour period in the vicinity of the closest existing residential receptors, but would move linearly over the project site as they perform their earth moving operations, spending a relatively short amount of time adjacent to any one receptor. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmaxat a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. The acoustical center reference is used because construction equipment must operate at some distance from one another on a project site, and the combined noise level as measured at a point equidistant from the sources (acoustic center) would be the worst-case maximum. noise level.. These operations would be expected to result in a reasonable worst-case hourly average of 86 dBA Leqat a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the proposed project site are multi-family residences located directly east of the project site. The closest residence would be located approximately 11 o feet from the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment would potentially operate at the project site. At this distance, worst-case construction noise levels could range up to approximately 83 dBA Lmax, intermittently, and could have an hourly average of up to 79 dBA Leq, at the fagade of the nearest multi-family residential home. The next closest noise-sensitive receptors to the proposed project site are single-family residences located directly south of the project site. The closest residence would be Federal Highway Administration(FHWA).2006.Highway Construction Noise Handbook.August. 91 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 274 of 767 located approximately 130 feet from the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple pieces of heavy construction,equipment would potentially operate at the project site. At this distance, worst-case construction noise levels could range up to approximately 82 dBA Lmax, intermittently, and could have an hourly average of up to 78 dA.Lei, at the faqade of the nearest single-family residential home. Although there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing an intermittent noise nuisance, the effect of construction activities on longer-term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small but could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors. Limiting construction activities to the daytime hours would reduce the effects of noise levels produced by these activities on longer-term(hourly or daily) ambient noise levels, and would reduce potential impacts that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbances, at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, noise producing construction activities shall be restricted to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Restricting construction activities to these stated time- periods, as well as, implementing the best management noise reduction techniques and practices outlined in,MM NOI-2,would ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that would result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, with implementation of MM NON-2, temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant. operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts Less than significant impact. .A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources,at the proposed project site would result in a substantial permanent increase in, ambient noise levels in, excess of any of the noise performance thresholds established in the City's Municipal Code. As noted in the characteristics of noise discussion, audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. A change of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, an increase of greater than 3 dBA above existing ambient noise levels would be considered a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The City has established an exterior noise limit of 50 dB Leqhourly average during nighttime hours, and a nose limit of 60 dB Leq hourly average during daytime hours, for receiving multi-family residential land uses. However, the City notes that if the existing ambient noise levelexceeds these standards, the ambient noise level, shall be considered the standard. 92 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 275 of 767 The proposed project would generate noise from parking lot activities and from new exterior mechanical equipment sources, such, as mechanical ventilation systems on proposed multi-family residential uses. Parkinj!Lot Activiffi*es Parking lot activities include vehicles cruising at slow speeds, doors shutting, or cars starting, would generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. A conversation between two persons at a distance of 3 to 5 feet apart would generate a noise level of 60 dBA Leqat 5 feet,or approximately 40 dBA Leqas measured at 50 feet. The closest noise-sensitive receptor to the proposed parking areas at the project site is a single-family residence located along Moss Street east of Colorado Avenue. This residence is located approximately 130 feet from the acoustic center of the nearest proposed parking area on the project site. At this distance, parking lot activity would result in intermittent noise levels ranging up to 62 dBA Lmax at the property line of the nearest residence. The existing measured ambient noise level at the nearest residential receptor is documented by the short-term noise measurement ST-2 to range up to 70.1 dBA Leq, with maximum noise levels of 92.3 dBA Lmax. Therefore, parking lot noise levels would not exceed existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest residential receptor,and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, the impact of noise produced by project-related parking lot activities to off-site sensitive receptors,would be less than significant. Mechanical Equipment Overaflons At the time of preparation of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to proposed mechanical ventilation systems for the proposed project; therefore, a reference noise level for typical mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from typical residential mechanical ventilation equipment are anticipated to range up to approximately 60 dBA Lee at a distance of 25 feet. Proposed mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 70 feet from the nearest off-site noise-sensitive receptor, which are the multi-family residential homes located east of the project site. Additionally, the proposed 6-foot high soundwall around the project site will block the line of site between mechanical ventilation noise and the nearest residential receptor, providing a minimum 6 dBA of noise shielding attenuation. At this distance and with the attenuation provided by shielding, noise generated by mechanical ventilation, equipment would be reduced to below dBA L at the nearest multi-family residential receptor. These noise levels would not exceed the City's nighttime noise performance threshold of 45 Leq at the property line of the nearest existing noise- sensitive land use. In addition, the existing measured ambient noise level. at the nearest residential receptor is documented by the short-term noise measurement ST-I averaged 60.1 dBA Leq. Therefore,noise levels from proposed mechanical ventilation equipment operations would not exceed existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest residential.receptor,and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.Therefore,the impact of noise produced by proposed 93 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 276 of 767 mechanical ventilation equipment operations to off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Operation al/Mo bile Source Noise Impacts Less than significant impact. . significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial.increase in,traffic noise levels compared with traffic noise levels existing without the project. As noted in the characteristics of noise discussion, audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments.A change of 5 dBW is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, an increase of greater than 3 dBA above existing traffic noise levels would be considered a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels. The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate opening year and buildout traffic noise conditions in the project vicinity. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the CNEL values. The traffic noise modeling input and output files are included in Appendix G of this document. Table 26 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for Existing, Existing Plus Project, year 2045 Without Project, and year 2045 Plus Project conditions as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Table 26: Trafri,c Noise Model Results Summary CNE (dBA)50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increase Year2045 Year2045 over Year Increase Without Plus 2045 Existing over Project Project Without Existing Plus Project Existing (dBA) (dBA) Project Roadway Segment (dBA)CNEL (dBA)CNEL (dBA)CNEL CNEL CNE L (dBA)CNEL Industrial Boulevard-L Street to 65.0 65.2 0.2 66.1 66.2 0.1 1-5 interchange, Industrial(Boulevard-1-5 65.7 65.9 0.2 69.2 69.3 0.1 interchange to Moss Street Industrial Boulevard-Moss 63.0 63.1 0.1 66.2 66.2 0.0 Street to Naples Street Moss Street-Industrial 60.0 60.0 0.0 60.4 60.4 0.0 Boulevard to Colorado Avenue Moss Street-Colorado Avenue 59.7 59.7 0.0 60.1 60.1 0.0 to Woodlawn Avenue 1-5-north of Palomar Street 80.1 80.1 0.0 80.6 80.6 0.0 Note: Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography,vegetative screening,fencing,building design,or structure screening.Rather it assumes a worst case of having a direct line of site on flat terrain. Source:FCS 2019. 94 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 277 of 767 The highest traffic noise level increase with project implementation would occur along Industrial Boulevard between L Street and Moss Street under Existing Plus Project conditions. Along this roadway segment, the proposed project would result in an increase of 0.2 dBA. This increase is below a 3 d increase that would be considered a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels compared with traffic noise levels that would exist without the project. Therefore, project-related traffic noise impacts on existing traffic noise levels in the project vicinity would be less than significant. (c)Less than significant impact.A significant impact would occur if the project would generate groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels in excess of established standards. The City of Chula Vista has not adopted criteria for groundborne vibration impacts. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis,the FTXs vibration impact criteria are utilized. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual." Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects such as the shaking of a building can be notable. When assessing annoyance from groundbome vibration, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms velocity in units of decibels of I micro-inch per second. To distinguish these vibration levels referenced in decibels from noise levels referenced in decibels, the unit is written as '(-VdB," In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundbome vibration, include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. However, construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). For purposes of this analysis, project related impacts are expressed in terms of PPV. Short-term Construction Vibration Irrnpacts Of the variety of equipment that would be used during construction, large vibratory rollers would produce the greatest groundbome vibration. levels. Impact equipment such as pile drivers is not expected to be used during construction of this project. Large vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.201 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment. The nearest off-site structures to the project site construction footprint are the Villa Marina Apartments located east of the project site. This nearest off-site structure you be located approximately 60 feet from the nearest construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.054 in/sec PPV from operation of the Federal Transit Administration(FTA).2018.Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.September. 95 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 278 of 767 types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is well below the FTA's Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV for buildings of non-engineered timber and masonry. Therefore, the impact of groundborne vibration levels on off-site receptors would be less than significant. +0 'Operational Vibration Impacts The proposed project does not include any permanent noise sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. Existing sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity include railroad activity along the San Diego & Imperial Valley Railroad, located approximately 50 feet west of the fa�ade of the closest proposed multi-family residential building at the project site. According to the FTXs vibration impact assessment guidelines, the groundborne vibration impact criteria for residential land uses exposed to frequent (defined to be greater than 70) daily by-pass rail events is 72 VdB. The FTXs generalized ground surface vibration equation is as follows: Lv— 92.28 + 14.81 log(D)-14.17log(D)2 + 1.65Log(D)3 Where Lv is the velocity level, (fid }, and D is the distance in feet. The nearest facade is 55 feet from the railroad tracks. The above formula is for trains traveling at 50 mph, so the FTA adjustment for trains traveling at 40 mph is "-1.9." The FTA guidelines provide a further adjustment of"-5.0" for coupling to a building foundation for wood frame structures.64 Utilizing the FTXs vibration impact screening methodology, the calculated vibration level at 55 feet from the rail line for the projected rail by-pass events (including freight train passings), with trains traveling up to 40 mph, would be 70.4 VdB. Therefore, projected groundborne vibration levels from rail activity adjacent to the project site would be less than the FTXs vibration impact screening criteria of 72 Vd13 as measured at the nearest proposed aha e. Therefore, the impact of groundborne vibration levels from rail activity on proposed on-site receptors would be less than significant. (d) No impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Brown Field Municipal Airport, which is located more than 5.9 miles southeast of the project site. Because of its distance from the airport's runways, the project site is located well outside of the airport's 60 dBA CNEL noise contours. No private airstrips are located within 2 miles of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose persons residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels associated with private airstripor public airport noise. No impacts would occur. See FTA reference pages in Appendix G,with annotated calculations for the project shown. 96 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 279 of 767 Miti ation Measures: M NOI-1 To reduce potential interior noise impacts,the P"roj ect Applicant shall. demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that:. • Each of the proposed multi-family residential units shall be supplied with an alternative form of ventilation, such as air conditioning or noise- attenuated passive ventilation systems, that would allow an occupant the option of controlling noise by keeping the windows shut (as the interior noise standard would not be met with open windows). • The Developer shall provide upgraded wall and window assemblies for all ground floor facades that directly face and that are located within 11 o feet of the railroad tracks. The combined wall and window assembly shall be upgraded from standard building code requirements to have a minimum Standard Transmission Class (STC) rating of 2 -STS'. • The Developer shall provide upgraded wall and window assemblies for all upper faades (second floor and above) that have a direct line of sight of the railroad tracks and that are located within 1.80 feet of the railroad tracks. The combined wall and window assembly shall be upgraded from. standard building code requirements to have a minimum Standard Transmission Mass (STC) rating. of -STC . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall have a professional acoustic consultant review the final, design:plans to provide assurance to City staff that the design: would provide the required STC rating. MM NOI-2 To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that: • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited. • The Construction Contractor shall utilize `quiet"models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such market available technology exists. • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest residential land uses at all times during,project grading and construction. 97 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 280 of 767 • The Construction Contractor shall designate a Noise Disturbance Coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and establishment reasonable actions necessary to correct the problem. The Construction Contractor shall visibly post a telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator at the construction site. • The Construction Contractor shall limit noise producing construction activities to the hours,between 7.-00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Prior to the issuance of each certificate of occupancy, the Construction Contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department, compliance with MM N01-2. Condition of Approval COQ.N01-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit a noise analysis to the City Development Services Department demonstrating that there are no impacts to surrounding properties from HVAC equipment. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Signlflcant No Issues: Impact Incorporated 11 mpact Impact XIV.Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned,population growth El El z El in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments,: (a) Less, than significant impact. The project proposes a residential development, consisting of 141 dwelling units, 97 3-story court townhomes and 44 3-story row townhomes. The City of Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan outlines objectives and policies related to the expansion and maintenance of adequate housing within the City. Consistency with these policies and objectives is outlined in the table below: 98 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 28 1. of 767 Table 27: General Plan Consistency General Plan Policy Objective or Strategy Project Consistency Objective/Policy Number Objective H-1 Enforce maintenance of safe and decent The proposed project would directly implement housing,enhance the quality of existing the objective by enhancing the character of the housing,and maintain the integrity of existing residential neighborhood.The residential neighborhoods. proposed project would increase the integrity of the neighborhood as residential by creating consistent land uses along Moss Street and removing noxious and blighted industrial uses from a residential neighborhood. Policy H-5.2 Support efforts to increase homeownership The proposed project would directly support rates,particularly in the Nlorthwe,st and efforts to increase homeownership rates as a Southwest Planning areas,meeting or means to build wealth and stabilize existing exceeding the regional average as a means residential neighborhoods by offering for-sale to build individual wealth and stabilize housing in the Southwest Planning Area. existing residential neighborhoods. Policy E-6.1 Encourage compact development featuring a The proposed project would directly implement mix of uses that locate,residential areas this policy through its location in a walkable within reasonable walking distance to jobs,, and transit accessible neighborhood of the services,and transit. City.The project site would have easy access to bus stops serviced by the MTS,932 Line (0-25 mile away)as well as the Palomar and H Street MTS,Trolley Stations(0.65 mile and 1 mile away, respectively). Additionally,lit is within walking distance of the South Broadway mixed-use area and other retail locations(0.25 to 0.5 mile). Source(s):Michael Baker International.2019.676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis.December 17'. Michael Baker International.2019.676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Justification Report.December 17.(Appendix J). According to the United States Census Bureau's 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Tables DP05 and S2504, the population of the City of Chula Vista is 264.10 1, and the number of occupied housing units is 78,476, for an average household size of 3.37 persons per dwelling unit.61 Therefore, as the proposed project would develop 141 dwellimy, units, the proposed project would increase the City of Chula Vista's population by 475,; less than 0.2 percent of the City's current population. As the proposed project would increase the City's population by less than .2 percent, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area directly despite proposing new homes. Additionally, according to SANDAG, the anticipated population growth by 2020 is 267,418.16 Thus, the increase in the population as a result of the implementation of the project is within the SANDBAG anticipated population growth. United States Census Bureau.2018.QuickFacts Chula Vista City,California.July 1.Website: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/chulavistacitycalifomia.Accessed November 7,2019. San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG).2011.Fast Facts Chula Vista.October.Website: https://www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and other data/demographics/fastfacts/chul.htm.Accessed November 7,2019. 99 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 282 of 767 While the proposed project would include an interior circulation system of roads and sidewalks, as well as associated residential infrastructure improvements(includin1g,but not limited to electric, water, and sever infrastructure), the improvements would be private in nature and only used by the proposedproject's residents. As the proposed project's infrastructure improvements would be private in nature, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in an area indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure. Lastly, while the proposed project includes the addition of a public sidewalk on the north side of Moss Street, where there currently is not a sidewalk, a sidewalk is not expected to induce a substantial unplanned increase in population. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (b) No impact. There are no existin.g dwelling units on the project site. Therefore, no existing people or housing would be displaced by the development of the proposed project.As such, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: None. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than. Significant Mitigation significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact impact XV. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a Fire protection? b) Police protection` El El z El c Schools` El El z El d) Parrs? e) other public facilities` El El z El Comments: Would the pro project result �n substantial adverse ca imp provision acts associate ��t the of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in. order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response ties or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (a) Less than significant impact. The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) currently provides fire protection to the project site and would continue to do so in the 100 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 283 of 767 future. The proposed project would develop 141 new dwelling units on the project site, which would add an estimated 475 persons to the City's population,, which is less than 0.2 percent of the total current population of the City. CVFD Station No. 5 is located 1.3 miles from the project site at 391 Oxford Street. Using an average travel speed of 25 mph, it would take a fire engine less, than 3 minutes and 7 seconds to reach the project site from CVFD Station No. 5. According to the City of Chula Vista 2017 Growth Management Oversight Commission(GMOC) Recommendations/Implementing Actions Summary, the CVFD response time threshold standard is to respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in at least 80 percent of the cases." Currently, CVFD Station No. 5 is meeting the threshold, with 85 percent of all calls responded to within, 7 minutes. Given the proposed project's proximity to CVFD Station No. 5, the proposed project would be able to be served within the existing threshold standard without compromising response times, and impacts to service times would be less than significant. The proposed project's design would be subject to compliance with the requirements in the California Building Standards Commission California Fire Code. The proposed project plans would be reviewed and approved by City Staff including CVFD Staff, which. would ensure adequate emergency access, fire hydrant availability, and compliance with all applicable codes and standards. Furthermore, Policy PFS,-6.1 within the City's General Plan, requires new development and redevelopment projects to demonstrate adequate access,for fire and police vehicles. Compliance with the City's permit process and Municipal Code requirements would ensure that project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services. (b)Less than significant impact. The City of Chula Vista Police Department(CVPD) currently provides police protection to the project site and would continue to do so in the future. The proposed project would develop 141 new dwelling units on the project site, which would add an estimated 475 persons to the City's population, which is less than 0.2 percent of the total current population of the City. CVPD Headquarters is located 2.35, miles, from the project site at 315 Fourth Avenue. Using an average travel speed of 25 mph, it would take a fire engine less 6 minutes to reach the project site from CVPD Headquarters. According to the GMOC Recommendations/Implementing Actions Summary, the CVPD response time threshold standard is two-fold: (1) respond to at least 81 percent of Priority I calls within 7 minutes 30 seconds and maintain an, average response time of 6 minutes or less; and (2) respond to all Priority 2 calls within 12 minutes or less. Currently, neither threshold is being met, with Priority I calls missing the standard by City of Chula Vista.Growth Management Oversight Commission.2017.Website:https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/city- clerk/boards-commissions/boards-commissions-list/grth-management-oversight-commission.Accessed March 29,2019. 101 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 284 of 767 31 seconds, and Priority 2 calls missing the standard by I minute and 50 seconds. The City has recommended the City Manager to support the CVF1D in implementing their 2014 Strategic Plan to increase staffing levels and purchase new equipment in order to improve response times. Included in the City of Chula Vista's Strategic Plan is Initiative 4.3.2 to restore and enhance public safety service capacity.The Strategic Plan recognizes that response time thresholds have not met GMOC standards. This is largely due to staffing issues, which have degraded the CVPD's capacity to provide quality public safety support. As a result, the City has engaged a consultant to thoroughly examine police staffing. The consultant's study was delivered in,April. 2012 and the City Council adopted a police budget based partly on its findings and recommendations. As such, hiring efforts are currently underway and will be continually monitored.68, The proposed project plans would be reviewed and approved by the City and the CVPD, which would ensure adequate safety and crime prevention measures are provided. Compliance with the City's discretionary review process would ensure that project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to police services. c) Less than significant impact. The City of Chula Vista is served by the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD).. The proposed project would develop 141 new dwelling units on the project site which would add an estimated 475 persons to the Cit 'S population, which is less I y than 0.2 percent of the total current population of the City. Using a standard student generation rate from the CVESD School Facilities, Needs Analysis of 0.3141. student/mul,ti.-family dwelling unit, the proposed project would add 54 students to the CVESD and S,UHSD.69 According to the GMOC Recommendations/Implementing Actions Summary, the threshold standard for potential impacts to schools would be whether or not the school districts can accommodate the population increase from the City's annual 5-year residential growth forecast. Both school districts reported to the GMOC that with current and ongoing improvements to schools in both districts, school facilities would be able to accommodate additional students, from population increases. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally,impacts to schools would be offset through payment of fees in accordance with City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17.11: School Facilities Dedication and Fees, with the total fee amounts to be determined by City Staff. As such, by providing fee payments, as required by the City,impacts would be less than significant. City of Chula Vista,2019' .Strategic Plan.Website:https://Www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocu,ment?id=251 0.Accessed November 7,2019. Chula Vista Elementary School District(CVESD).2010.Special District Financing&Administration.School Facilities,Needs Analysis.June.Website:http://schools,.cvesd.org/district/district/Documents/Business'/f 20Services�/�20and°/�2OSupport�/�`20 (Lisa%20Brannen)/School�/�2OFacilitics�/�2ONccds�/�2OAnalysis�/�20(2010).pdf.Accessed November 7,2019. 102 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 285 of 767 (d) Less than significant impact. The proposed project would develop 141 new dwelling units on the project site, which would add an estimated 475 persons to the City's population, which is less than 0.2 percent of the total current population of the City. This would yield a nominal increase in demand for recreational facilities; however, additional parkland would be required to be consistent with the City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, to account for future park usage at build out inventory. Section 17.10.040 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code requires a parkland dedication of 341 square feet per unit or I acre per 128 units.70 Therefore, the proposed project would generate parkland obligations and would be required to dedicate 1.103 acres of parkland through the payment of a park facility fee in accordance to the Chula Vista Park Land Development Ordinance, Chapter 17.1,0.070 of the City's Municipal Code.71 As such,by providing fee payments, as required by the City, impacts would be less than significant. According to the GMOC Recommendations Implementing Actions Summary, the City's threshold for providing park facilities is to provide 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. Currently, the City does not meet that threshold, falling short by 0.22 acre per 1,000 residents. However, one of the funding sources for parks includes City Fees and parkland obligations for new developments such as those outlined in Chapter 17.10; Parklands and Public Facilities of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, which the Project Applicant would provide payment for, as required. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (e) Less than significant impact. The proposed project would develop 141 new dwelling units on the project site, which would add an estimated 475 persons to the City's population, which is less than 0.2 percent of the total current population of the City. This would be expected to yield an increase in demand for libraries and other public facilities.Additional development fees,as determined by the City of Chula Vista, such as development impacts fees (Chapter 3.56: Development Impact Fees in Western Chula Vista), would be paid by the Project Applicant to pay a fair-share for potential impacts from the proposed project. As such, by providing fee payment, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None. 71 City of Chula Vista.2014.City of Chula Vista Municipal Code.Title 17,Environmental Quality.Chapter 17.10:Parklands and Public Facilities.Section 17.10.040.Area to be Dedicated—Required When—Amounts for Certain Uses.Website: https:Hchulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/1,7.10.040.Accessed,November 7,2019. 71 City of Chula Vista.2014.City of Chula Vista Municipal Code.Title 17,Environmental Quality.Chapter 1.7..1 0:Parklands and Public Facilities.Section 17.10.070:In-lieu Fees for Land Dedication and/or Park Development Improvements.Website: https:Hchulavista.mu,nicipal.codes/CVMC/17.1 0.070.Accessed November 7,2019. 103 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 286 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV1.Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing El El z El neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments:- (a) Less than significant impact. As discussed above in Impact 2.15(d , the proposed project would develop 141 new dwelling units on the project site. The proposed project would provide approximately 75,111 square feet of open space, or 533 square feet per unit, including approximately 36,8,64 square feet of common open space area, which would include a community recreational area with barbeque counter,tot lot,and overhead structure with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant seating for social gatherings and special, events. The development of 141 new dwelling units would add an estimated 475 persons to the City's population. This would yield a nominal increase in the demand for recreational facilities;however, additional parkland would be required to be consistent with the City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Masterplan to account for future park usage at build out inventory. Section 17.10.040 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code requires a parkland dedication of 341 square feet per unit or I acre per 128 units.71 Therefore, the proposed project would generate parkland obligations and would be required to dedicate 1.103 acres of parkland through the payment of a park facility fee in accordance to the Chula Vista Park Land Development Ordinance, Chapter 17.10.070 of the City's Municipal .71 As such, fee payments, as required by the City, impacts would be Code by providing less than significant. (b) Less than significant impact. As outlined above in Impact 2.15(a), the proposed project would include private and common, openspace for residents. The proposed project would provide approximately 75,111 square feet of open space,or 533 square feet per unit, including approximately 36,864 square feet of common open space area,which would include a community recreational area with a barbeque counter, tot lot, and overhead structure with ADA compliant seating for social, gatherings and special. City of Chula Vista.2014.City of Chula Vista Municipal Code.Title 17,Environmental Quality.Chapter 17.10:Parklands and Public Facilities.Section 17.10.040.Area to be Dedicated—Required When—Amounts for Certain Uses.Website: https:Hchulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/1,7.10.040.Accessed:November 7,2019 City of Chula Vista.2014.City of Chula Vista Municipal Code.Title 17,Environmental Quality.Chapter 1.7.10:Parklands and Public Facilities.Section 17.10.070:In-lieu Fees for Land Dedication and/or Park Development Improvements.Website: https:Hchulavista.mu,nicipal.codes/CVMC/17.10.070.Accessed:November 7,2019. 104 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 287 of 767 events. These facilities would only be available to residents of the proposed project and would be maintained through private funds to ensure no adverse physicaleffect on,the environment.As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVIL Transportation Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan,ordinance or policy of the circulation system, including transit.,roadway,bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision(b,)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? El El Z El Comments- A TI A Report was prepared by LLCM on April 15, 2020, to assess project-related impacts (Appendix H).11 The purpose of the TIA was to identify potential traffic-related impacts associated with the proposed project. (a) Less than significant impact. The City Chula Vista vision 2o20 General Plan outlines multiple objectives and policies that aim to reduce traffic and promote the use of an organized and balanced transportation system within the City. The following objectives and policies are outlined within the City Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan, and are pertinent to the proposed development. Project consistency with these objectives and policies is analyzed in the table below: 74 Linscott,Law&Greenspan,Engineers('LLG).2020.Transportation Impact Analysis 676 Moss Street.April 15. 105 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 288 of 767 'i le 28: Transportation Consistency with the City Chula Vista Vision 20201 General Plan General Flan �� �w'�e�cti�re� �lio �ub�+�r Policy Objective�r Strategy Project������steno Objective LUT-18 Reduce traffic demand through The proposed project would be consistent with this Transportation Demand Management objective because it would be located within strategies,increased use of transit, walking distance to many public facilities,transit bicycles,walking,and other trip stops,and commercial areas.The proposed project reduction measures. would improve the frontage along i Moss Street and add a sidewalk,which would help encourage pedestrian travel throughout the neighborhood.The proposed project would be roughly a -minute walk or 2-minute bicycle ride to the MTS 932 bus stop and an 13-minute walk ors-minute bicycle ride to the Palomar Street trolley station. Objective LUIT- 3 Promote the use of a balanced) The proposed project would directly implement the transportation system that maximizes objective by improving pedestrian mobility on Moss safe and non-pollutliing alternatives for Street.The proposed project would l be located mobility within walking distance to retail,transit,and public facilities. Policy LUJT'-23.1 (Encourage the use of bicycles and The proposed project would implement the policy walking i as alternatives to driving by by creating high-density housing that would be providing safe routes. accessible to transit, retail,and public facilities.The proposed project would connect the sidewalk on Moss Street,which would increase pedestrian access and safety for residents in the neighborhood. Source:Michael Baker International.2019.676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis.December 17. Michael Baker International.2019.676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Justification Deport.December 17.(Appendix J). Existin Street Network Moss Street is a 2-lane road with residential and industrial uses and is classified as a Class III Collector west of Broadway on the City of Chula Nista Circulation. Flan. Between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway, curb, gutter, and sidewalks are generally provided. I-5 is a north-south oriented freeway that extends from the U.S.-Mexico border to the U.S.-Canada border. In the project vicinity, 1-5 consists of four mixed-flow travel lanes in each direction. 1-5 has an interchange at Palomar Street. It also has interchanges at Street and Main Street to the north and south of Palomar Street, respectively. The I- 5 northbound ramps at L Street connect directly to Industrial Boulevard north of Palomar Street,while the southbound ramps connect directly to Bay Boulevard.A high- occupancy ig -occupancy vehicle (HoV) lane was recently added to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp at L Street/In ustr a.l Boulevard.. Industrial Boulevard is a 2-lane north-south roadway running parallel to and on the west side of the railroad tracks. It is generally undivided except for the segment between Palomar Street and. Ada Street where a median divider is provided. It is 106 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 289 of 767 classified as a Class 11 Collector in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. On-street parking is not allowed on both sides north of Palomar Street and south of Ada Street. Between Palomar Street and Ada Street, on-street parking is allowed on the west side but not on the east side. Sidewalks are generally provided on the both sides. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. The west side of Industrial Boulevard between Palomar Street and Moss Street is generally fronted by motorhomes. South.of Palomar Street, the west side of Industrial Boulevard has low- to medium-density residential areas. Broadway is classified as a 4-lane Major Road to the south of L Street in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. It is currently built as a 4-lane Major Road in the project vicinity. Curb, gutter and sidewalks are provided. Curbside parking is permitted. Bay Boulevard is a 2-lane road with commercial uses and is classified as a Class 11 Collector on the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. Between L Street and Palomar Street, curb, gutter and sidewalks are generally provided on the east side. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of Bay Boulevard between L Street and Palomar Street. L Street is a 4-lane, east-west roadway with two-way left turn medians between Bay Boulevard and Broadway. It is classified as a 4-lane Gateway Street between Bay Boulevard and Broadway in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides. Sidewalks are provided on both sides. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Existint!Bicycle Network Class 2 Bicycle Lanes are currently provided on both sides of Industrial Boulevard between the 1-5 northbound ramp intersection and Ada Street; on both sides of Bay Boulevard within the project vicinity. Existing Pedestrian Conditions Pedestrian sidewalks are generally provided on both sides of Moss Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway, on both sides of Industrial Boulevard between Moss Street and Palomar Street, and on the west side of Industrial Boulevard between Moss Street and L Street. Palomar Street Grade Separation Pr A Project Study Report was prepared by SANDAG, in conjunction with the City of Chula Vista, to grade separate the Palomar Street dual-track crossing of the Blue Line Light Rail Trolley (LRT) at Industrial Street. The LRT is operated by the MTS. The dual tracks are also used by freight trains. This proposed grade separation would: Provide significant safety enhancements. 107 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 290 of 767 • Reduce vehicular delays, and congestion. • Increase multi-modal mobility. The Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard at-grade intersection would be eliminated and grade separated as,part of the Palomar Street Grade Separation project. The Palomar Street Grade Separation project would also reconfigure the Oxford Street Connector to eliminate its direct connection to Palomar Street and connect instead to the existing Palomar Village Driveway,thereby combining the Oxford Street Connector traffic with the Palomar Village Driveway traffic. The Palmar Street Grade Separation project would add wider sidewalks for pedestrians, provide direct access to the Trolley Station via ramps, stairs, and provide a pedestrian pathway across the new bridge. The following pedestrian facilities would mitigate any potential pedestrian circulation impacts due to grade separating Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard: • Pedestrian, sidewalks would be provided on both sides of the Industrial Boulevard bridge and Palomar Street underpass. The sidewalks along the underpass will be elevated from the underpass street level to provide lower grades for the sidewalks and separation from vehicular traffic. • Pedestrian stairs would be constructed to connect both sides of the Palomar Street underpass to the east side of the Trolley and Freight Tracks bridge. • Pedestrian sidewalks would connect both sides of Palomar Street inthe vicinity of Trenton Avenue to the west side of the Industrial Boulevard bridge. • A pedestrian pathway on the east side of the Trolley and Freight Tracks bridge would connect the Trolley Station to the reconfigured Oxford Street Connector.A pedestrian ramp would connect the pathway from the bridge to the reconfigured connector. • A pedestrian sidewalk would be constructed on the west/south side of the reconfigured Oxford Street Connector. The Build Alternative would also add Class 2 Bicycle Lanes along Palomar Street within the project footprint and maintain existing Class 2 Bicycle Lanes, along Industrial Boulevard. Another City of Chula Vista project would add Class 2 Bicycle Lanes(at-grade)along Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway., in addition to pedestrian signal upgrades to three traffic signals on Palomar Street: Transit Center Place (Murrell Drive), Plaza Entrance (Shopping Center Driveway) and Broadway. The Palomar Grade Separation project would restore the Class 2 Bicycle Lanes on the below-grade segment of Palomar Street within the project footprint. (fir} Less than significant impact. The TIA analyzed the potential transportation impacts due to the project on vehicle miles, traveled (VMT) to satisfy the CEQA Guidelines, which utilize VMT as a measure of effectiveness. The project site is located approximately I mile north of 108 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 291. of 767 the Palomar Street Transit Center, and 0.2 mile west of Broadway, which is, a commercial corridor identified as a "high quality transit corridor" (HQTC) in the City's VNIT screening map. The project is located within the "Residential Projects" category, and OPR allows a screening map to be the basis of the VMT impact evaluation.As a residential project,the VMT is evaluated in terms of"VMT per capita." The project VMT per capita is obtained from the screening map, and then,compared to VNIT thresholds established by the City to deten-nine the significance of the project's impacts. Given that the City of Chula Vista has not yet adopted VMT thresholds, the OP,R Advisory describes the analysis for the following circumstance, which was used for the project's VMT analysis: e Residential Projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as, Regional VMT per capita or as City VMT per capita. Thus,for this analysis,the minimum threshold of significance for determination of the project's transportation impact is 15 percent or less of the regional VMT per capita. Any reduction in comparative VMT more than 15 percent is considered not significant. Prior to any detailed project specific VMT modeling, OPR allows for the use of a"map-based screening" to identify if a project would result in a less than significant impact. The City of Chula Vista's screening map was utilized for the project. This map provides VMT' per capita for census tracts throughout the City. VMT per capita is generally considered an efficiency metric representing land use mixture and density, transit availability and other considerations that may affect traffic generation and/or trip distance. In general, higher density and mix of land uses with access to mobility options are expected to generate lower VMT. The City of Chula Vista's,VMT Screening Tool is found online at: bttp://cvgi,s.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.btmi?id=fOdO5a4aO 14841 d588bb668 91500b34d 75 This screening map allows for a search by address of properties within the City of Chula Vista. The data presented in the screening map includes: • Census Tract • VMT per capita • Percent of regional mean • Residents • Description of VNIT results 7' The data represented on this map follows the CCPR guidance and displays VMT efficient areas that are 85 percent or less of the SANDAG regional average.The data shown is based on the SANDAG Activity Based Model#I (ABM 1)for the base year of the model(2012).Chula Vista is currently developing guidance for determining transportation impacts within Chula Vista and these maps may change to align with City specific guidance. 109 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 292 of 767 The VMT per capita at the project site is 10.80 miles, which is 61.36 percent of the regional average (17.60 miles). The result is that the project is greater than the 15 percent reduction over regional VMT per capita significance threshold. Table 29 presents a summary of the screening map data. Table 29: Project VMT Findings—City of Chula Vista Screening Tool 676 Moss Significance Street Threshold(85%of Project Transportation Regional Baseline VIVIT Regional Average VMT per Impact.?(Over Scenario per capita VMT per capita) capita Threshold Resident VMT per capita 17-60 14-96 10-80 No Source:City of Chula Vista VMT Screening Tool(February 2020). Based on the screening map review and the project's location in a high efficiency area and the resultant 10.80 VMT per capita, the project is 61.36 percent of the regional average VMT per capita, which is below the 85 percent minimum threshold of significance. As an urban infill development, the project is consistent with the legislative intent of SB 743. (c) Less than significant impact. Final project site plans would be subject to City review and approval., which would ensure that project driveway intersections and internal circulation are safe,with adequate sight distance,driveway widths and stop signs where necessary for entering and exiting the site. This would prevent any impacts due to a geometric design feature. The project site is surrounded by commercial/industrial and residential uses and would not create hazards due to incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant. (d) Less than significant impact. Access tothe project site would be provided via a single unsignalized driveway on Moss Street, located approximately 300 feet east of Industrial Boulevard. The project access driveway would be on the northern side of Moss Street and Colorado Street intersection. The project access driveway design (width, grade, slope, and vertical clearance) shall be provided to the City and/or Fire Authority for review and approval. As part of the review process,the local City Traffic Engineer would be required to be consulted for minimum width and parking restrictions to ensure compliance with minimum standard requirements for adequate access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 110 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 293 of 767 M ti ationMeasures: None. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated. Impact Impact XV111. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,electric power,natural gas,or telecommunications facilities,the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve El El z El the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of Mate or local F-1 F-1 z F-1 standards,or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure,or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal,state,and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comments:- The oni en s:The following analysis is based on the Priority Development Project SWAMP prepared by Michael Baler International on November 19, 2018, included in Appendix F. (a), Less than significant impact. The proposed project would result in the construction of 141 single-family dwelling units.The increase in wastewater generation would result in an incremental increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities.according to the Sweetwater Authority 2015 UWMP,the projected water demands are based on an: assumed average water demand of 105 gallons per capita per day((PCD). As previously discussed in Section 2.14,the proposed project is anticipated to accommodate 475 residents. Thus, the proposed project would require 49,875 gallons of water a day. On an annual basis, this equates to 55.85 acre-feet. The UWMP indicates that annual,water supplies are anticipated to range from.22,488-acre- feet to 26,218 acre-feet between 2020 and 2040. Thus, a"worst-case"water demand of '' RMC water and Environment.2016.Sweetwater Authority 2015 Urban water Management Plan.June 27.Website: https:/www.sweetwater.org/C3ocu entCenter/View/84/2+ 1 -[..rban-Water-Mana ement-Plan-PDF.Accessed November 7,2019. 111. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 294 of 767 55.85 acre-feet would represent less than O�.I percent of the project water supply totals forecasted under all water year scenarios between 2020 and 2040. Therefore, adequate water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing and planned supplies. The increase in wastewater generation would result in an incremental increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. As discussed in. Impact 2.17(a),the proposed project would generate 28,,309 gallons of effluent on a daily basis. The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plan has an existing available capacity of 65 million gallons per day (mgd). Thus, the addition of 28,309 gallons of wastewater per day would represent less than 0.1 percent of the 65 mgd of available capacity. Therefore,the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plan has adequate remaining capacity to serve the proposed project. The project's wastewater would be carried off-site through connections with existing sewer system lines surrounding the project site. Additionally,the Project Applicant would be required to pay Sewer Fees and additional. Development Impact Fees in accordance with City of Chula Vista Municipal Code As such, impacts related to relocation or expansion of existing water or wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. As previously mentioned, all proposed on-site storm drains would connect to an existing 12-foot-wide by I 0-foot-deep double culvert channel that runs underneath the project site. As such, the proposed project would not result in the construction or relocation of stormwater drainage facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, the project would connect to existing facilities for electric power and natural gas through SDG&E. Telecommunications for the project would be served by existing facilities through AT&T. Therefore,the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment storm drainage, electric power, natural as, or telecommunications. Impacts 1 9 would be less than significant. 0 (b)Less than significant impact.According to the Sweetwater Authority's 2015 UWMP, the per capita usage of water in Western.Chula Vista is 105 gallons per day,as the proposed project would add 475 people to the population, the proposed project would require 49,875 gallons of water a day. On an annual.basis,this equates to 55.85 acre-feet.77(Note that these figures do not"net out"existing water use and,thus,overstate the actual increase in consumption.)The UWMP indicates that annual water supplies are anticipated to range from 22,488-acre-feet to 26,218-acre-feet between 2020 and 2040. Thus, a ``worst-case" water demand of 55.85-acre-feet would represent less than 0.1 percent of the project water supply totals forecasted under all water year scenarios between 2020 and 2040. Calculation:49,875 gallons per day/325,851 gallons in an acre foot—0.1 3 acre-feet x 365 days a year—55.845 acre-feet/year 112 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 295 of 767 Accordingly,adequate water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing and planned supplies. Impacts would be less than significant. (c)Less than significant impact.As discussed in Impact 2.17(a),the proposed project would generate 28,309 gallons of effluent on a daily basis. According to the City of San Diego, the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, which serves the project site, has an additional capacity of 65 mgd. Thus, the addition of 28,309 gallons of wastewater per day would represent less than o.1 percent of the available capacity of 65 mgd. Therefore, the existing wastewater treatment facilities would have adequate capacity to serve the project.As such, impacts would be less than significant. (d) Less than significant impact. According to the City of Chula Vista's Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Manual, multi-family complexes, with bedrooms per unit of 2 to 4 bedrooms, generate 0.4 cubic yards of solid waste per unit per week. The proposed project would develop 141 single-family dwelling units. As such, implementation of the proposed project would generate 2,932.8 cubic yards of solid waste on an annual basis.7'According to the City of Chula Vista, the City is served by the Otay Landfill. According to the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan 5-Year Review Report 2017, approved on January 2018, solid waste from the City of Chula Vista is landfilled at the Otay Landfill (Closure Date 2030) after the closure of the Otaffy Landfill, the project site area will be served by the Sycamore Landfill (Closure Date: 2054, with plans to extend the date of closure through expansion). The two landfills have 1.3 1.1 million cubic yards of remaining capacity. Therefore, there is more than adequate landfill capacity in the region to serve the City of Chula Vista's disposal needs for the foreseeable future.The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant. (e) Less than signiflcant impact. In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (ATS 939), in order to "reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible." AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy: Source Reduction,Recycling,Composting, Transformation, and Disposal. The law also required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan and each city prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element(SRRE)by July 1, 199 1.The SRRE is required to identify how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory State waste diversion goal of 50 percent by the year 2000. The Act mandated that California's 450 jurisdictions (cities, counties, and regional waste management compacts) implement waste management programs aimed at a 25 percent diversion rate by 1995 and a 50 percent diversion rate by 2000. If the 50 percent goal was not met by the end of 2000,the jurisdiction,was required to submit Calculation: 141 single-family dwelling units x 0.4 cubic yards x 52 weeks a year—2,932.8 cubic yards/year. 113 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 296 of 767 a petition for a goal extension to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Ca,lRecycle . SB 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all, solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. SB 1016 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. The Bill repealed the State Water Board's 2-year process, requiring instead that the Board make a finding whether each jurisdiction was in compliance with the Act's diversion requirements for calendar year 2006 and to determine compliance for the 2007 calendar year and beyond, based on the jurisdiction's change in its per capita disposal rate. The Board is required to review a jurisdiction's compliance with those diversion requirements in accordance with a specified schedule, which is conditioned upon the Board finding that the jurisdiction complies with those requirements or has implemented its SRRE and household hazardous waste element. The Bill requires the Board to issue an order of compliance if the Board finds that the jurisdiction.has failed to make a good faith effort to implement its SRRE or its household hazardous waste element, pursuant to a specified procedure. The per capita disposal rate is a jurisdiction-specific index, which is used as one of several "factors" in. determining a jurisdiction's compliance with the intent of AB 939, and allows CalRecycle and jurisdictions to set their primary focus on successful implementation of diversion programs. Meeting the disposal rate targets is not necessarily an indication of compliance. CalRecycle reports that the City of Chula Vista's Disposal Rate Targets for Reporting Year 2017 are 5.3 pounds per day per resident and 22.8 pounds per day per employee. The proposed project is expected to be serviced by Republic Services. Any changes in locations for trash carts and bulky pickup, sufficient clearance, and appropriate routing for trucks would be coordinated by the City and Republic Services. Participation in the City's recycling programs during project construction and operation, including CalRecycle's requirements, would ensure that the project would not conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. In addition,the proposed project would comply with the City of Chula Vista's Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Manual. Furthermore, the proposed project would meet or exceed standards set forth in California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 C.ALGreen). Additionally, please refer also to the discussion in Impact 17(f). As such, impacts would be less than significant. 114 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 297 of 767 Mitigation Measures: None. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIX.WI*ldflre If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency 1:1 1:1 1:1 Z response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope,prevailing winds,and other 1:1 1:1 1:1 Z factors,exacerbate wildfire risks,and thereby expose project occupants to,pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure(such as roads,fuel breaks,emergency water sources,power lines or other utilities)that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, Z including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,as a result of runoff,post-fire slope instability,or drainage changes? Comments- (a)No impact.According to the CAL FIRE California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, the project site is, not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in neither a Local Responsibility Area, nor the State Responsibility, nor Federal Responsibility Area.79The City of Chula Vista does not have an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.However,the City of Chula Vista Fire Department outlines the following scenarios that require disaster preparedness: wildfire, earthquakes, flood, terrorism, and tsunami. The only scenario withan evacuation routes map is the tsunami scenario. The evacuation routes for a tsunami are along the coast and direct evacuees to hear inland.The nearest evacuation route to the project site is J Street,located approximately 0.6 mile north of the project site.Additionally, according to the tsunami evacuation map,the project site would not be affected by a tsunami. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.As such, there would be no impact. (b) No impact. According to the CAL FIRE California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in neither a Local, 71 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection(CAL FIRE).California Important Farmland Finder.Website: https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRPfCIFFI.Accessed February 27,2020. 115 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 298 of 767 Responsibility Area, nor the State Responsibility, nor Federal Responsibility Area. Urban levels of fire protection would be provided to the project area. In, addition, the project would adhere to building codes and any conditions included through review by the fire department. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire and there would be no impact. (c) No impact. According to the CAL FIRE California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in neither a Local Responsibility Area, nor the State Responsibility,nor Federal Responsibility Area. The proposed project would demolish the existing light industrial, use buildings to develop a new multi-family housing community. The proposed residential uses would not include any features that would have the potential to exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The proposed project would provide access with,adjoining uses and suitable access for emergency vehicles. The project area will include a fire lane compliant with Fire Department requirements for adequate access.Emergency access to the site would be maintained during construction.As such, there would be no impact. (d)No impact.According the CAL FIRE California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in neither a Local Responsibility Area,nor the State Responsibility,nor Federal Responsibility Area. The proposed project is comprised of relatively flat parcels located in an urbanized area surrounded by commercial., residentialand light industrial,uses. The FEMA FIRM No. 06073021 52F. Furthermore, the project site is located in Zone X,* a zone that corresponds to areas outside of the 500-year flood or areas protected from the I 00-year flood by levees. In other words, Zone X is defined as areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood (i.e., a Soo-year flood hazard area). These conditions preclude the possibility of subjecting people or structures to significant risks related to post-fire slop instability and landslides. Furthermore, the underground storm drain box culvert that transects the project site is classified as Zone A, a I 00-year flood zone, and would be considered a Severe Fire Hazard Area.However,as outlined in the FIRM Map,the 100- year flood would be contained in the underground storm drain box culvert, it is meant to operate as a flood channel. As the proposed project does not propose to modify the underground box culvert and would allow the underground storm drain box culvert to operate in the same condition it currently does and remain in place, there would be no impact from project implementation. Therefore, the proposed project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, exposing people or structures to risks including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides.As such, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures: None. 116 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 299 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XX. Thresholds Will.the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? a. Library The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF)of additional library space,over the June 30i 2000 GSF total.,in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout.The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,00 population.Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. b. Police i. Emergency Response:Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 8%of "Priority One"emergency calls within seven (7)minutes and maintain an average response time to all"Priority One"'emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. ii. Respond to 57%of"Priority Two"urgent calls El El Z El within seven(7)minutes and maintain an average response time to all"Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or less. c. Fire and Emergency Medical El El Z El 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(measured annually). d. Traffic F-1 F-1 Z F-1 The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS)"C"or better,with the exception that Level of Service(LOS)"U"may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west of I- 805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS.No intersection may reach LOS"E"or"F" during the average weekday peak our. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. e) Parks and Recreation Areas F-1 F-1 Z F-1 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities/1,00 population east of 1-805. 117 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 300 of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s)and City Engineering Standards. g) Sewer F-1 F-1 Z F-1 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s)and City Engineering Standards. h) Water El El Z El The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,treatment,and transmission facilities,are constructed concurrently with.planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments, Refer to discussions above. Mitigation: one. 118 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 301. of 767 Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XXI.Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to El Z 1:1 El substantially degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually Z ❑ limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Comments,: (a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.With implementation of MM 1310-1, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal. community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Implementation of MM BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds from project implementation to a less than significant level. With implementation of MM CUL-I and MM CUL-2 the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 would ensure that the historical integrity of important examples of major periods of California history are preserved. (b) Less than, signiflcant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project could result in potentially significant project-level impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, GI-IG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, land use and planning, and noise. However, MM AIR- 1 11 MM 1310-1,1 MM CUL_I I MM CUL-2, MM GEO-I I MM GE -2, MM GHG-I I MM 119 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 302 of 767 HAZ-I, MM HAZ-2. MM HAZ-3, MM-NOI-1, and NOI-2 shall be implemented as part of the proposed project. These mitigation measures will, amongst other things, reduce impacts to nesting birds,reduce impacts to any inadvertent culturally significant discoveries, reduce impacts to expansive soils and paleontological resources, require the purchase of voluntary carbon credits by the Project Applicant, remove potential hazardous material, release from past projects, and reduce noise impacts from the proposed project. The mitigation measures would reduce each impact to a level of less than significant. All other impacts of the proposed project were determined either to have no impact or to be less than, significant without the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts of other current or probable future impacts. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future development projects,would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. (c) Less than significant impact. All potential impacts of the proposed project have been identified. Compliance with applicable existing laws and regulations and implementation of recommended mitigation (and improvement) measures would ensure that the project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM AIR-I I MM 1310-1, MM CUL-1,1 MM CUL-2, MM GEE-I i MM GEE-2,, MM GHG-I I MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM HA -3, MM-NOI-I, and NOI-2. 120 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 303 of 767 X II PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES Project mitigation measures are indicated above. XXIII AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATIONMEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Project ,Applicants and/or perator s stipulate that they have each read, understood, and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction. of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below shall indicate the Project.Applicants and/or Operators desire that the proposed project be held in abeyance without approval. James O'Malley, Vice President—Development ate: ShopoffLand Fund.-Moss Street, LLC 121 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 304 of 767 XXIV ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or"Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. ® Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources Z Air Quality Z Biological Resources Z Cultural and'Tribal Cultural ® Energy If Z Geology/Soils Z Greenhouse Gas Emissions Z Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/Water Quality Z Land Use/Planning El Mineral Resources • Noise E:1 (Population/Housing El (Public Services F-1 Recreation [] Transportation El Utilities/Services Systems F-1 Wildfire Z Mandatory Findings,of Significance XXV Determinaflon: On the basis of this initial evaluation: F-1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Z I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will,be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1),has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. F-1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects (a),have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and (bhave been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EI R or NEGATIVE DECLARATION., including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. City of Chula Vista Date 122 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 305 of 767 XXVI List of Preparers FirstCarbon Solutions 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 Phone: 714.508.41.00 Fax: 714.508.4110 ProjectDirector.........................................................................................................Kerri Tuttle ProjectManager..........................................................................................................Cecilia So Environmental,Analyst.........................................................................................Kevin Bolland Environmental Analyst........................................................................................Brittany Hagen Environmental Analyst.r.........................r.r.r.r..........................................................Eric Soycher Senior Air Quality Manager....................................................................................... George Lu Air Quality Scientist .........................................................................................Kimber Johnson SeniorEditor............................................................................................................Susie Harris GIS/Graphics.................................................................................................Karl McCracken Reprographics.......................................................................................................Octavio Perez Technical Subconsultants Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG Traffic and Transportation Specialists 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: 858.300.8800 Fax: 858.300.8810 E nviro n mental Management Strategies, Inc. (EMS), Hazards and Hazardous Materials Specialists 8 Goodyear, Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949.679.9500 Fax: 949. 79.9501. LGC Valley, Inc., Geotechnical Specialists 28532 Constellation Road Valencia, CA 91355 Phone: 661.702.8474 123 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 306 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 307 of 767 Os Es'cohdido Cleveland �.� National Suthei lc rcl Forest Lake "��, � ,nye � uuuuuuuGuuuu J ,.; Poway Wry �Project Site "a MH mmmmm mmm mmmmmmmmmmmmSan Vicente �Cleveland Reset v� SFJ" National Forest .Y El Capitan Reset Cleveland National Santee Forest . bide 11110�111 � �� � ,, lia 0 g El C , „ Cleveland Casa de, National v rr Forest Lal es„ w 0100 0 „ ........ Leon Grove ���,���� ts 00 Srin Valle „ . , a e sei „ lrrrl CrlDarla r. �4 .,P a c i i1c 01c,ean Co nado Chula Vista Lovver sOtay c � . MOI Impe ria-i ..... Project Site Ruch . .. San Diego COunty l� y 1 r � 1 o i � 0 1 t s r i �l i i oR i FI STCARBION 5 2.5 0 5 T,� -`II M�il�es b„ 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 308 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 309 of 767 e Y Gni G �pll� 9 U Legend Project Site d Parcels 0 1 � l , � 1 i SII y z,a q p m � n i , a� ^ afro i ii r � t f n r� s� u i / I x v ,� II Jill r' I I u 9 h u � i If r m I I O i i u i , r ,c �v A y , i n�f ` v O * o 4� f, i va , r� , rOw r� 1 FIRSTCARBON (,,-� �C"') 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 310 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 311. of 767 Legend Project Site General P�lan Land Use Designations CR-Commercial Retail FWY-�Freeway I-General Industrial IL-Limited Industrial MUR-Mixed Use Residential OS-Open Space PQ-Public&Quasi Public RH -Residential �High RMH -Residential Medium[High RM-Residential Medium RLM -Residential Low/Medium 11 FIRSTCARBOIN S C j 7,7�0 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 312 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 313 of 767 Legend Project Site Zone Designations General industrial Limited Industrial Limited Industrial Precise Plan Residential �High Residential Medium Residential Low-Medium Mixed Use-Residential Mixed Use-Transit�Focus Area FIRSTCARBOIN S C J 7,7�0 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 314 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 315 of 767 4 ° Project Summalryr r _�° ET 4 1 x a Total Bine Area:+6.64 Acre (+ 02,254 S�F) Total Units. Property Line y. � ����Homes, tory�Court Towns (16)Plan 1i:+1,166 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) (w'VAIm.� � (16)Plan 2:+1,255 SF,.2'Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandeml) �... �I 1. -(34)Flan 8: 1,652 SF,3 Bed,2�.5 Bath,Den r ��� � �,� �;,, i:� ��..:: a. � 44(1 Plan� 8 F 4 Bed,. �.5 Bath„Opt.Iden � � ,,,,�f l„°,15_V ( for or Towns Plan 5:+1,838 SF,8 Bed,2.5 Bath,lien,Opt.Bed 4 1,, �., (20)J Plan 6:m„2,002 SF 4 Bed .5 Bath,opt.Chen Density: 20A Homes per Acre J, s>....,. abrc f ` I Parkrngl Y 82 stew Required:P p 2 e�� Spaces(2.0 spares per home) r. 1 �/. • (14 Homes x 2. Spaces� 282 Spaces / h Line ( fy 0�`I�!rv'��kf�w�M IR 3,a u� Property A.YII 14 t LA' �4+r AO� 4 Guest x 6 paces Spaces �� h >. P�� � ,�•�,r.�-'� w a'�ided�,° "�86 Spaces 2.8sates per home Li T__, 7.; � �,, Garage: 282 Spaces(64 Tandem spares identified with'T) p, ryr v I lI rad ln; 2 Spare (” 19" rrott�ce It tib ��� u.9.. u a Parallel 22 Spaces( x 2 ) , w .o° b S a s 2° ��.�,. � �..,., � MTS I,,. r „ irc'. / _ i w... �"�t"�%� ���, 6�� „�jiJ'Y,fy,.., 'S °, ase"J � lent to t� S X� ��;r yip dip �R�v°�'� � �'`,., w / ,g,,.�.xnI�, ).1 p "i I Open Space: uire. 112 Total 4 per home m�iin 6� dimension) I _ � Pei d° 71 �SF T l+5fb SF p I - M....-.Existin cullvert f 4S existing l17 Provided:; .. , � . and.proposed easements Total L+538 SF per home)`. .. w �a��,,,.a, ,, Lot Coverage. 34.51 of site+104 J � , X1111 , Zoning t [ ing Sumlmalryr j - Existing General Plan: Limited Industrial P �,�,, __ Proposed General Plan.High Density =ry o _ . Existing Zoning I• Limited Industrial Precise Plan Property Line _ � p l r r Proposed Zoning: P- } f � ! -� Lot Area per knit: +2,148 SF per home renin.1,5f1 for 4-bed units) . ul �mid' � � fRtCtlq". �'�p,C�Vttp(➢�,".�� � _ � fix,�,��"� °_ u p pita ° w nc>" � r � p��uldu~1 Setbacks: 5 - J l Interior Side Yard:7" nc ° f_ �r 9 l-' f � I , iit��'l��r�, � � r; ,,! _.: �� ���; 4'�� yf� �P I Pear Yard.1" Proposed Setbacks: Front Yard:10"*1 ,x � L1 Interior Side Yard:12° Pear Yard:15"* :{ *"Variance will he requested from Planning CommIssion r BUIldrng Separation: 10"rninarnurm RMAY _....at 4 Max,Building Height. 45"and 3 Stories �.H5 0' Max,Lot Coverage: 56% _ 14, as plan must be Wewed by planNn, box I , p co Oral a Fem niY f � Y Iron uy 9�nr°"�'"We rnaYpa�ahreR. n bnu4cYura�y,aux9 fm ...... "'�';�., _ ....�.d_ _ �.,.�,.._._. = ....----^,,.......�,:.,.,.. .. ..,......-.�.,. .,. ..:;1°,,.�.,°..',..°. ..,,..,, u..Mentorrmaftn rowa'w in�ee M d GiuiN an�,Ilsaett kr rreirly alf sagfaa�cks andgradimBcmwnuatlmru rn�NMal deisign 5. BoI p a ISrsuab��aC I mcg duo in Clem 6. pm .!---- -_...I ---- ---- -------.........___.....----- --- -- -� L--------------------- ---. ----------- ------------- ----- do4 Yen ei the elevatim, f 7@fie due to the�YalIXIGY'� adon style. TAW 7 B uIlding walbackws are measured dmm pmpeay liner",Wa Hn e*in:,fnaundafil[rra Iii , N Source:WHA Architects,Planners,Designers,November 13,2020, F1,RSTCARBON Exhibit 5 11(............ Conce&,Aual Site P'lan 34260024 9 11/2020 1 S_conceptual_site_plan.cdr CITY OF CHULA"NISTA•676 MIOSS STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 316 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 317 of 767 ....._._ Project Summary e. Kr, „ r 11 Total Si e Area:+6.94 Acres L5612,254 SIF) %%;� ', r Lf w, _ Total Units: 141 Homes ( r (7')5-Story Court Towns ' P-5 it .---j ...,.„ ,. 6)Plan 1:_.,1,196 SIF,2' Bath Tandem C 16 Flan 1,25 SF, Sed,2.5 Bath Tandem FiRW:K ST t '4'Plan : 1,652 S S' Bath,Den -� e x,f f ( 1) len 4+1,758 SF',4 Sed, .5 Bath,Opt,lien 4{, .N - _ p,a Story Bowe Towns r R'2Q�f ;4 , i; s,; 4X1(24)Plan 5"+ X36 SF, Seed,2.5 Bath,Den,Den,.opt,Sed 4 a wr/ I 1 n Ian 2,002 SF, Bed, t .5 Bath,Opt.rt,:. Density:... 2�0..4 Homes per Acre rp 4 I ! a,fH t,sr open Space: ,, " I _ required: 71,120 SF'Total(+564 SF per home',6 mina dimension), � .,;.. 911, � `� �l,k�, arr' r2 2 Bedroom x.46,SF 12,,66 S : -(3�4)3 Bedroom x 480 SF= 16,320 SF. (7)4 Bedroom x.560 SF-' 42,000 SF % � �'�„ Provided: 75,112 SF TOM*(++ 533 SF per home') Common: 35,543SF C h 7. Private Ground +� d 46 n.Dimension) Docks. 10,26 SF 6 Min.Dimensuon3� _ / 6 Roof Decks: ,21,246 SF(6 f � inn.Dimension), r 71, k P Additional opens space areas not counted towards total:. P t ndscape,area:+46,552 SF. y, t rlw a% to round. + 1,160 SF Il * In 6'r Iw,4un.Dimension D V open spaces counted towards the total provided open space meet the Geniera,l Flans exterior land use noise compatibility threshold of 65 dB DNl..for new rp residential development. Al I j ., , � m Decks/roof Decks eliminated from pro dedo.s.due to noise QPf disqualification.Decks/roof Decks locations are shown,but not ' r'r cr ckjded in above total, s r��°�rYVATE r �p r.r 'oof Decks within 90 of the railroad centerline are excluded from them. nm;.;.. �..w a A , p e disqualification.uadisqualification.lon, Rn kr� f,, No,o."' �,��.�� ��tpt� r I��,;� r ie' en Space calculation due to hole NIS J',,ATE ST ;wil Decks within 166"and direct line of site to the railroad centerline are excluded from the Open Space calculation due' J �. t q . r x�� �� �.. �.,lmt- �� � �lW �� w+ �tUr ��I to nose die uglification. ,f it, cul fi 17, ' tf I I / f L PtR:rp,t' b 240 7 l `� r � �' 1 I ,r r i it � 1 1 1 3 i , u 0 ow f to o. itr"^bVaim is for u,xrrp�.era.ial pru&Cxasm,only, sike WOan rmisw9.Cua+menulewurd by gslnnnwrnp.huilktlnq,da7d tarar' y *yrarinw.ntr;tris code mrm[rliarara. 3base inftxrnagrveis p;er 00 engineer. 7 I , LOWen uuv e 1c verifyail settracks andgradingintcrrnaMian 5 ISuftrq�Wprnrnts n7oht change iWP to the final design aNer.rbren s le 6, open space area is su*ct tlu clvaiage due nu Vie Ilralccey desgn of the ele Acn, 7. Budldung se0ldacks are measured fim psrapaerdy tlines to pruA,Jnap it"uirnd,atlim lInes.. Source:WHA Architects,Planners,Designers,November 13,2020, FIRSTCA,RBON Exhibit 6 (I' 't� � ��,,, � ,,,J� n"111"'I, �N�r .o„u li i�: Conceptual Open Space P'lan 34260024 9 11/2020 1 6_con+ceptu l_open_space_pllan.cdr CITY OF CHULA VISTA•676 MIOS'S STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 318 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 319 of 767 LANDSCAPE,CONCEPT STATEMENT: amo. The overall iandscape concept for the Chuiia Vista project is to provide this new residential community and adjacent existing communities with an attractive walking experience while adding visual interest,social functionality and minimal 8 strain on local resources, ';V YRT, The Design Objective: -a w I A five foot wide,pedestrian walkway system,will meander through the community connecting it to Moss street S el as the proposed attractive amenities like the central shade structure,tot lot,active lawn&smaller seating nodes.These amenity areas will allow for local residents to walk their dogs,stroll,hold small social gatherings as welll as,larger group events, The use of low mahtenance and water wise plants will be incorporated and designed to be attractive,using dramatic and AWN unique succulents and grasses in mass groupings with a mix of contrasting groundclovers.The overall iandscape wlil be 4 J compliant with the City of Chula Vista's Chapter 20.12 Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. 12 LEGEND 1 Community recreational area with bbq counter,Tot lot,overhead structure with ADA comphant seating for social 4 /A 2 gatherings and special events, 2111k— 2. Proposed wall],fence and gate,per Wall&Fence Plan. 3. Enhanced vehicular entry,with,precast pavers. 4. Proposed tree,per Planting Plan. 5, Public concrete sidewalk,per Civil and City Standards. 6, 5'wide community sidewalk,natural color concrete with light broom finish&narrow trowel joints, 12 QI, 7. 4'wide residential unit entry walkways,natural c*r concrete with Hight broom finish&narrow tooted joints. A 8. Private patiolyard,homeowner maintained&installed. 8 9. Common area landscape,HOA maintained. 3; 4 f" % Natural color concrete driveway with light broom finish. t 11, Guest parking and accessibIle parking stall per City Standards 11 Public utilities,water,sewer and gas line per Civil Plans, 13. Property line, 14 14� Mailbox CBU boxes(per USPS approval). 15, City R.0.W. 1& Short term bike parking(6 bike racks to accommodate 12 bike stalls). 17� Existing box Culvert per Civil Plans. ........... 18. Community dog bag station(black in coior)�,for pet owners, ;4/,kX,'AT K 1�',"'!/11 19� Enhanced color paving atopen space/with.05 top,castfinish&sawcutjoints 4 _71/56 10 20, Proposed illuminated site plan/directory on painted precision cmu wall. Qp�n Space DI Proposed bulk trash pickup area. 21 'Entry monuments,per separate permit I submittal. 0 Xll�,Z' mimunity Recreatbrial (16 Area-.Fire-pit with 01 Ifffff"I'MINI, seating rup',ip/,//;, 17 19 6 g, 60 2 /e, I If, JFFI/ Id/1 20 '10) 3 441% MCI$$ I IR it 111 'Conceptual imagery only 2 gg/ 5 5 ""FER Community recreational area,Fire pit with seating all id I ��// A 1dddr111111 C onceptual imagery only 0114 111FPRI'l & J A 0 20' 44Y 80 Scale�V 40'.0" Source:WHA Architects,Planners,Designers,February 18,2020. FIRSTCARBO,'', N Exhibit 7' ............ "N" '111111"fl "J,C "Ai Conceptual Landscape P'lan 34260024 9 02/2020 1 7—conceptuail—�landscape_plan.cdr CITY OF CHULA VISTA*676 M�OS�S STREE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIGN 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 320 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 32 1. of 767 'V�Vi( LIGHTING SCHEDULE f ( SYMML._.._.._ MZWbl 'n 7h rtF P D s 3 F�°q�'_.... ___ ......�.._...._ l d°M _ .. Wnwt I� _ P � rt ufu'nC i d"+!;,"'u w .. �M, � .., .,re Modem set I*�.P d9larrip shields to urYu irni fight'8�wft ift aidV� Cast�lnaPrwdatatDH(�adom),Pa9a„fl rt 5Ptst taadat Per i FKar;.Fi Dark Brom.9 bra &/,P/0 0////, Il 1nV 'dmanrrrr^Per Ftp..Frnd.,Per F3ac,Fag,,Pair Bec.N. � F W,de StnxWiie Downlight.Kkhler ra mlel#I6017AU U F ,rrorr * CastAlan baarnam Textured A,ratadtaxad 8mve,Suilme Buonrtad dr d ... / r% t amp;o,...h q�5,26 Wt 7t,w V�ma White i P '� �,�„� 'TmaawB�lgt�t.'ta -KGtI"iltprallall VI�. 11K-flw� 4'dd ///% rrrrrrrrrrrrr ;; � ) I VD,"a 3 t tB 27 K.Waxna White t Lamp:VD, Cast aEra�rmapiaB,1'aurgana�ad mall ,<�ta � WaH,Aa b d y _ t�ah VLO 12V LED P"Vanabta t„urew T La rp:LED „ Kindler aaiaadO#IWR75 AZT.1,.V,Tuanus6sarrri 3 Fl Umvol4ile Vani li sWl in ROA buldling cab t where tea„ 113 Castkwini T+sauirad kdibdkM Brome.Wail r 75 Fxtaa#Edam GP''b Outtat 6 r6 h To,ha rxroa9Vlraled aatth Ftardatazal IFm#tln , U Fxtrzdar Grada.„F'xrarUar Grade,,Per Maanaraat. � l3wnnoraurrx atnxKs tau is,aranuuus " �Z y µ NOTES: 1, 3b Lighting&Landscape QVghtfttlrlg�Nartidscape up-lights,path 111ghtsftVlCards,etc,),proposed herearnu to a rtmr^ u--.+a„Ow h rvm.. Na rw wv.�evr. a,orr�a. X: CaC u atstt with Electrical N In Ilrelr in future cartshrucdiictDocumentphase.photometric'Nalmto off,,,,r,r.:ka iara��;. ✓m�,:,^;�,^�,r,r�%-< nrrrc�,imOrr2t aa�airvrv;. r..:,,,,, � beraV�,tflrlt aiu uri,jai✓hrm rw�im wmrvrrw,,,e. ,r,,,,,a:.a,i,e:;, ,.,�va,,,.:„ ,,,,,:. `.,,µ, % �,, ,> ,,,.. nw., 01141 t Nf�NderD�Ni4iN� pTeer Vrdtre crd trl tn QiG l' J#gdittg standards. r4,m,A), rm uc AJN site lighting to Ihave shied covers to minimize light spillage into neighb(ming properties. 3 , oa. w �q e „ o # , a iy �r 41, > # J lfi/ r.. < r t df d r1 9, ... W „ 9 N „ .eeee,..e�e,,.eee„a,,.eeee,,. l � �,# moa'✓ �y iv 5 , N � mr, POu im,..... r1”, Off P , r , t t t t �. T,�; t „, �., I' a. . �I P � r� t � � 11� fd 'Conceptual llrrti(provided herein are conceptual and suNect to chainge) et r tt ft 'onoephaat Images(provWed herein are a r pax sr r e concapWal r�mm erg Source:Studio Pad Landscape Architecture,February 191,2020.. FIIRSTCA,RBON Exxhibit8m' �r�w�'" Project Lighlti ung P'I n 34260024*02/2020 1 8_profect_light ng_plan.cdr CITY OF CHULA VISTA*676 MIO STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 322 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 323 of 767 M,/pkm- , X 44 w� A IV, "Or7i N eel !NI/ Legend IJ All 0 '40 A Project Site 0, Ornamental Trees "W Urban Developed A6 "g/'z,,m//, T. qy All 51 WON raf Few- 011 V g f V(1/1", kwfngs�, 40 41 M, "NA 'erg, �,�40"", 110 1 I VA/0 IV"k ov/s/o0i"o/ IV f 10) 40 OP "j/)/oo�4o FIR PJ f) PF"i'16"', j W"' 001/1 41 '1, 0i I "I WIN, M I Nol a,/ Op A I (I W, 41,................ T iM!i R "ell isl �"/"11/� �7, jj o Ir 111111�))IN.......... 1110 /Jonell FIN g R, WIMA IM )f A it, F _76 All M, N/f/g, AN �k 'q, "Al M J M, VJ /V ib'd 16 T, A X A MINE Kal;rV, Th"AgNpip IM I,10- oP p, e xt, 11 4, a w A Pot oo(m iz N", FIRSTCARBON Adp%L 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 324 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 325 of 767 / r l+ v " „ � r , �l!V1V�1 (,Ill�nitlu / 1100 ei/ U3t�� ! w + i;-, ii �; fi i /� i Idil .:.,..{ ullllllllllll mm Ill:.i IIII I � 1 �/ o ' N, uuuuuuu VIII IIII r 1AMR y r � f 1 ,uuuuuuu,"'u uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu IIII 119 V fli,' I " ru � 4N mr',➢rj d@,"�,1 r I � r� �G1�'V,�� iJi�, f " + � f ri I aM'yl r r / l F.. Ill; II :tr u r. r � IIf F UI III , r + , 11 !, JiYi Ir„ I , + IIII Iglu I uuu Y ul I uu �, uuuu , m uuuuuuuuuuuu f I u�� uuu ,I w . ii I II r i u I W s i + / r "f' / lllllll�u°°,IIIIVVVVVV I�� IIII I i� �� Map Key Approximate Scale IIII .IIIIIIIIIIII��Y „ j N rut f / I ,"„ iuumillllV ill r lm.Soil andf Soil Va,p0r5ar'niPh1,-t9 Location 0l 0, . ft,Sold)�"nd Sohl Vail r S��ml Ilirn l,Mocati n �., N j. rialInta Source_ II �r�c�l� At, r Source:Environmental Management Strategies,Inc.,August 2018. FIRSTCARBON ............ , Exhibit 10 ......... hI 11 EA S1 Soil nI d Soil Vapor Samplint-T, Las t i �rel 34260024•01/2020 1 10_Plhase II_ESA_Soil_Soil_vapor_sampling_loc.cdr CITY OF CHULA"NISTA*676 MOSS STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 326 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 327 of 767 r' ar .I Yil i. „ r r i e e. wnr�v� 1bfiC7�l�l�r aioirublv.; %/ i0NY,Y'Wllli� I / ��;�N1JD➢�y/r I�;,3 411�/ ���X� t " V r ova �IAY!IS, I Iir r� II p j v, F Dov lei f 1 ,, i 0 r f r Vii, f N vw�omv,��vv�i �r rr2 i m , � r r SLF6 10 I, f` 61761 IVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVI I r / EES,I ' L I J• ullllullllllll .:, „� I I. I�fi uuu a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� IIIIIIII ICI +u�� ��� I. uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu N I� uuuu rr p 7. ������II IIIIIIII i V I� I'Gi Ilf V uul I r, ul i I ry„ l ,i Map Ke ft,,5 NII arld oil Vapol,san',spljirlL'O'c-'atJoin ApproximateScabs 15 Vit, ill and'50111 Vapor Sarnpl inf g Location 160 ft. 40 c,GrI �uir,Md aaer" o-nN;<rl � r� �I N I„, ,�tr� ,,SoiI Vapor Probe,,s Sit in,, _-,1 2and Source:Environmental Management Strategies,Inc.,August 2018. Exhibit 11 FIIRSTCARBON ,m "T Su&-%plernental Phase 11 ESA t j'l SoiMpor, I n Groundwater SLocations 34260024 9 01/2020 1 11_supp_Phalse II_ESA_Sohl_Soil_valpor_groundwater sampling_Iloc.cdlr CITY OF CNULA"NISTA*676 MOSS STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 328 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 329 of 767 1.10,01 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contour for Ground Floor Areas(with Shiielldiingl -90,011 Project Summary t 1 I r r �J 1 rrr Totalcl SiteArea: 94 Acres 4 F 1,(�,,,'•xaa„6, ,,�,.'r1�er1r,.�,�'j.,,r�.'I.f',,�,,,r,1`,�.,�,,i✓./,tri,l,�.l„,�,���rI,.;�,;`.,,�„,�t,�,V.;W��,r;l;,✓Fh�f1Jd�,I'�-E'p�a,r°d�i'^�',.,:�,�,r��,�i(IRIINYIS � Vi,yNI `M -`� i n ,.. .. mes ..= ITotal�� na%Un//l”/"w 1�Hb (917�� )3-S t'ro' pCourt6 X �.... Towns (P-4 ` 2jo, ..........1 1 flan 1 1, S F „ _s . ,_A 5 Bath(Tandem) ..i'r. (1 ) l .+1,,2 S=„ , e Bath t b(T an d �em ) 41, 1)114,: 1,7SF,4 Bed, ” Bath,opt.Den� 1 � , i � , )3-Storye Tens .5 Bathen opt .Bed e dl 4 flan ;+ ,' ,4 Bed, Bath,oft.gen Density: 0A Hames per dere, Open SpRequired- 11 Total+ per min. ensu (2) Bedroom 400 SS= 12,800 SI (34)3 Bedroom x 480 SF_ 16,320 SF Bedroomlw . 42,000 SF Provide: 76X434 SF Ton +542 S r hnirne Common- +36,864 SF loll= Private Ground: SMin.Dimension) � fi ,, H10 V t�ks19 F Min.Dimension) � Roof Decks: + 1q'�S ( Min.Dimension) jAdditional open space era towards total: Landscape Area: w �%/ ats Gr�lrd: + 11� F is than "Nur. mnaror 5.2 7 l �n�a� counted t�ar� the total providedopen space ,,," .1 meet the General Plan exterior land use/noise compatibility threshold of b d�CVL for new residential development. Decks/Roof Decks eliminated h provided e.s,due to mise disqualification.Decks/Roof s locations are shown but n io t included to above total. eet Cees within cf the railroad eenteirNNna are excluded N �"m�the en Space ealeaNatian die to noise disqualification.n . Decks within 1 and direct line of site t the railroad centerine are excluded trete the Open Space calculation due 40 tdisqualification.noise VCombined Trafficd Railroad Noise Lever dBA CNEL at Upper Floors To Num,har and at Ground Floor Bottom NuImp or at Nearest Facade to Railroad,. ALI 0 20 40 80 65 dBA NEL Noise Contour 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contour for Upper Floor Facades with for Rooftop Decks Lina of Sight to,railroad(no Shielding Source: HA Architects,Planners,Designers, arch 26,2020. Exhibit 1 FIRSTCARBO,'', N 2 Combined Mobile Source � ise Contours�� _ ............ I N ........34260024 9 04/2020 1 12_combined_mobile_ource_noise_contours.cdr CITY OF CHULA"NISTA•676 MOSS STREET INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE aECLARATIGIN 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 330 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 3 3 1. of 767 676 MOSS STREET PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Lead Agency City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 November 2020 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 332 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 333 of 767 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREFACE, Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 require a Lead Agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program whenever it adopts a mitigated negative declaration, in conjunction with a project approval.. The purpose of the mitigation monitoring or reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the 676 Moss Street Project in Chula Vista, CA concluded that the implementation of the project could result in potentially significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project or are required as a condition of project approval that reduce these potential impacts to less than significant level. The purpose of this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP is to document how and when the mitigation measures adopted by the lead agency are implemented, and to document that potential environmental impacts are reduced to less than significant levels as identified in the D. This document does not discuss those subjects, that the MND analysis demonstrates,would result in less than significant impacts and for which no mitigation was proposed or necessary. 676 Moss Street Pr 'ect ................................-........... November 2020 IMMRP-3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 334 of 767 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 335 of 767 MITIGA'TI'ON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Time Fra ae,for Veri teation Frequenc Time Frame of Mitigation, to Monitoring, During Reporting, Date of Date of 1" tigation Ateasures Planning Pre Const. Const. Post Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification Air Quality MM ATR-1: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit,the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City X X City of Chula Building Department that all off-road construction equipment that will be used on the project site in excess of 50 horsepower will be Vista Building equipped with engines meeting the United States Environmental Protection.Agency(EPA)Tier IV Final off-road engine emission Department standards.This mitigation measure shall be included on the grading plan. Biological Resources MM 13I0-1: Construction activities that occur during the nesting season(generally March 1 to August 31)could disturb nesting sites for birds X X City of Chula protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)and.Fish and Game Code.No action is necessary if no active nests are found or if Vista construction occurs during the non-breeding season(generally September 1 through February 14). Development Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant Services level. Department • To prevent impacts to MBTA-protected birds,nesting raptors,and their nests,removal of trees will be limited to only those necessary to construct the proposed project. • if any tree removal is necessary,then it will occur outside the nesting season,between September 1 and February 14.If trees cannot be removed outside the nesting season,pre-construction surveys will be conducted 3 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests. • If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys,the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW)(as appropriate)shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the agencies deem disturbance potential to be minimal.Restrictions may include the establishment of exclusion zones(no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet around an active raptor nest and a 50-foot radius around an active migratory bird nest)or alteration of the construction schedule. • A Qualified Biologist will delineate the buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area(ESA)fencing,pin flags,and or yellow caution tape.The buffer zone will be maintained around the active nest sites)until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources MM CLL-1 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit,the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City X X City of Chula Development Services Department that a program related to potential archaeological resources uncovered during construction activities Vista on-site has been established,the program shall include that: Development Services 1. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified professional Archaeologist approved by the City to be present and monitor all Department ground-disturbing activities; 2. The Archaeologist shall halt work in the immediate area in the event that archaeological resources are identified until the Archaeologist has evaluated the find and determined if the find is a"unique cultural resource"as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the CEQA statutes; 3. The Project Applicant shall inform the City Development Services Department of the find; 4. If this determination is positive,the scientifically consequential information shall be fully recovered by the Archaeologist; 5. The Project Applicant shall stop work in the immediate location of the find until information recovery has been completed and a report has been filed with the City;the South Coastal Information Center(SCLC)at San Diego State University;and,appropriate Native American representatives; 6. The Project Applicant may continue outside the area of the find;and, 7. The City Development Services Department shall ensure compliance. 676 Moss Street Project November 2020 MMRP-5 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 336 of 767 MITIGA'TI'ON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Time Frame for' Verificati©n Frequency Time Frame of Mita ation to Monitoring During Reporting Date of J)ate of MitigationMeasiures Planning Pre-Const. Const. Pest Const. Age c Monitor heport �ompletiorx Verificatican MM CUL-2: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit,the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City X X City of Chula Development Services Department that a program related to any human remains that might be encountered during ground-disturbing Vista activities on-site has been established,the program shall include: Development 1.The Project Applicant shall halt work in the immediate area of the find; Services 2.The Project Applicant shall contact the San Diego County Coroner,City Development Services Department,and Sherriff's Department; Department 3.The Project Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)and the appropriate Native American representatives are contacted and that the NAHC contacts the most appropriate most likely descendant(MLD)as maybe directed by either the San Diego County Coroner,City Development Services Department,or Sherriff s Department; 4.The City Development Services Department shall direct the treatment of the remains pursuant to Coroner and MLD recommendations. Geology and Sails MM GEO-1: All recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report,included as Appendix D of this Draft IS/MND,shall be X X City of Chula implemented during construction activities. Vista Development Services Department MM GEO-2: The City of Chula Vista assesses and mitigates the potential impacts of private development and public facilities and infrastructure to X X City of Chula paleontological resources pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.Pursuant to Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines,a lead agency must Vista find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where the project has the potential to eliminate important examples Development of the major periods of California prehistory,which includes the destruction of significant paleontological resources. Services Department With the implementation of Mitigation Measure(MM)GEO-2,impacts to any previously undiscovered paleontological resources would be less than significant. Because excavations may extend into undisturbed high sensitivity geological units,and may be greater than 10 feet below the ground surface in certain areas of the project,a Paleontological Monitor will be required. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit,the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department that a program related to paleontological resources potentially uncovered during ground-disturbing activities on-site has been established,the program shall include: 1. The Project Applicant shall halt work in the immediate area of the find; 2. The Project Applicant shall notify the City Development Services Department; 3. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified professional Paleontologist approved by the City: • The Paleontologist shall assess the discovered material(s). • The Paleontologist shall prepare a survey,study or report evaluating the find. • The Paleontologist's survey,study,or report shall contain a recommendation(s),if necessary,for the preservation, conservation,or relocation of the find. • The Report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Development Services Department. • The Project Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the report as approved by the City. • Project development activities in the immediate area of the fired will resume when copies of the report are submitted in a manner acceptable to the City Development Services Department. • A find(s)recovered should be deposited in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department. Prior to the issuance of any building permit,the Project Applicant shall submit a letter to the City Development Services Department indicating what,if any,paleontological reports have been prepared for the project site,or a statement indicating that no material was 676 Moss Street Project November 2020 MMRP-6 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 337 of 767 MITIGA'TI'ON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Time Frame for Verification Frequency Time Frame of Mitigation to Monitoring During Reporting Date of Date of MitigationMeasures Planning Pre-Const. Const. Post Const. Age c Monitor heport �ompletiorx Verification discovered. Greenhouse Gas Emissions MM GHG-1 Prior to the occupancy of the proposed project,the Project Applicant shall provide for the purchase of voluntary carbon credits in a X City of Chula manner approved by the City Development Services Department pursuant to the fallowing performance standards and requirements:the Vista carbon offsets shall achieve real,permanent,quantifiable,verifiable,and enforceable reductions as set forth in Cal.Health&Saf.Code Development Section 38562(d)(1);and ii.one carbon offset credit shall mean the past reduction or sequestration of one metric ton of carbon dioxide Services equivalent that is"not otherwise required"(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)(3)).The purchase shall be from a verified greenhouse Department gas(GHG)emissions credit broker in an amount sufficient to offset operational GHG emissions of approximately 0 metric ton(MT) carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e)per year until 2030 and 451 NIT CO2e per year beginning in 2030(or a total amount estimated over the lifetime of the proposed project,which is estimated to be 9,471 NIT CO2e).The purchase shall be verified as occurring prior to approval of occupancy permits.Copies of emission estimates and offset purchase contract(s)shall be provided to the City Development Services Department for review and approval. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit,the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City X City of Chula Development Services Department that the five groundwater monitoring wells on the project site will remain in place should additional Vista groundwater testing be necessary.The Project Applicant will abandon the wells when they are longer needed in a manner approved by Development the City Development Services Department and San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Monitoring Well Program. Services Department MM HAZ-2a:Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and subsequent to the demolition of on-site structures,the Project Applicant shall conduct X San Diego soil testing on the soils the structures were on.If volatile organic compounds(VOCs)are present,soil containing elevated County concentrations of VOCs shall be excavated and removed from the project site.The excavation and removal of soil to be outlined in the Department of Soil Management Plan(SMP)approved by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. Environmental Health MM HAZ-2b:Prior to issuance of any demolition permit,the Project Applicant shall obtain a permit from the San Diego County Hazardous Materials X X San Diego Division.The permits shall provide that hydrocarbons or"other products"that might be encountered during building demolition, County grading,or construction activities,are disposed of in a manner approved by the City Development Services Department. Hazardous Materials Division MM HAZ 3: Prior to the issuance of any site development permits(demolition,grading,building,construction),the Project Applicant shall enter into X County of San the County of San.Diego Department of Environmental.Health Voluntary Assistance Program(VAP).Written Confirmation of VAP Diego participation and compliance shall be received from San Diego County Department of Environmental Health prior to any site Department of development activities. Environmental Health VAP Noise MM N01-1 To meet the interior noise Level standard of 45 A-weighted decibel(dBA)Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL),each of the X X City of Chula proposed multi-family residential units shall be supplied with an alternative farm of ventilation,such as air conditioning or Vista noise-attenuated passive ventilation systems,that would allow an occupant the option of controlling noise by keeping the windows Development shut(as the interior noise standard would not be met with open windows). Services Department MM N01-2 To reduce potential construction noise impacts,the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Development X X City of Chula Services Department that: Vista Development The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with Services 676 Moss Street Project November 2020 MMRP-7 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 338 of 767 MITIGA'TI'ON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Time Frame for' Verificati©n Frequency Time Frame of Mita ation to Monitoring During Reporting Date of J)atc of Mitigationea ores Planning Pre-Const. Const. Pest Const. Age c Monitor heport completion Verifiicatican mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Department • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines(i.e.,idling in excess of 5 minutes)is prohibited. • The Construction Contractor shall utilize"quiet"models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such market available technology exists. • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest residential land uses at all times during project grading and construction. • The Construction Contractor shall designate a Noise Disturbance Coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise.The Noise Disturbance Coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints(starting too early,bad muffler,etc.)and establishment reasonable actions necessary to correct the problem.The Construction Contractor shall visibly post a telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator at the construction site.. • The Construction Contractor shall limit noise producing construction activities to the hours between 7.00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,and between 8:00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m.on Saturday and Sunday. Prior to the issuance of each certificate of occupancy,the Construction Contractor shall demonstrate,to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department,compliance with Mitigation Measure(MM)N01-2. 676 Moss Street Project November 2020 MMRP-8 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 339 of 767 676 Moss Street—Proposed General Plan Amendments Chula Vista Planning, Commission Agenda Statement 6/24/2020 676 Moss Street Proposed General Plan Amendments zozi-oi-os Agenda Packet Page 340 of 767 676 Moss Street—Proposed General Plan Amendments TABLE OF CONTENTS A. JUSTIFICATION REPORT B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONTENT C. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN D. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS ANALYSIS 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 341. of 767 676 Moss Street—Proposed General Plan Amendments 676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Development Plan, Tentative Map General Plan Amendment JReport Prepared for: SLF— Moss Street, LLC Contact.- James O'Malley 949-417-1396 JOMalley@shopoff.com Preparers MEMORIES!'';'' I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92124 858.614.5000 www.mbakerintl.com Contact: Dan Wery, AICP, LEED AP 1N 167467 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 342 of 767 676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Development Plan, Tentative Map General Plan Amendment JReport Prepared for: SLF- Moss Street, LLC Contact: James O'Malley 949-417-1396 JOMaII e y@shopoff.com Preparers IN I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92124 858.614.5000 www.mbakerintl.com Contact: Dan Wery, AICP, LEED AP JN 167467 11/29/2018 Revised 4/29/2019 Revised 04/14/2020 Revised 051/22/2020 Revised 10/30/2020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 343 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 EXI�STIN�G SITE CONDITIONS 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 2 LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS 3 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................................4 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 5, INFRASTRUCTURE 5, PUBLIC BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................6 GENERAL PLAN 7 HousingElement ......................................................................................................................... 7 Land Use and Transportation Element ....................................................................................... 7 Environment................................................................................................................................ 8 Economic Development.............................................................................................................. 8 GrowthManagement..............a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a+a6 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a w•..w•..w•..w•..w•..w•..w•..a 9 PublicFacilities............................................................................................................................ 9 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 10 INTER N ATIONAL Page i 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 344 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report SLF— Moss Street, LLC, proposes an amendment to the City of Chula Vista's General Plan (General Plan) to re-designate a 7-acre site from Limited Industrial (IL)to High Residential (RH)and concurrently rezone from ILP to R-3 to allow a new 141-unit townhome condominium development.The project site is located at 676 Moss Street(site)within the Harborside neighborhood of the City of Chula Vista (City).The site lies, within the Southwest Planning Area and Montgomery Subarea, as defined in the General Plan (Section 8.2).The project will bring in-demand, high-density housing to southwest Chula Vista.The project is more compatible with, complements, and strengthens the neighboring residential developments by removing a noxious industrial use from an otherwise residential street. Additionally, the Residential High General Plan designation is compatible with the existing Limited Industrial designations to the north and west, as well as any potential redevelopment on the neighboring site. The project represents best land use planning practices by creating an alignment of uses on both sides of Moss Street between Colorado and Industrial. The proximity to other high-density housing, regional transit options, commercial businesses, and public facilities creates the opportunity to develop a pedestrian-friendly,transit-accessible housing project that aligns with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The property has been historically used for industrial purposes, specifically, industrial repair, fabrication, and salvage. It is currently occupied by five businesses with an estimated 30 to 40 employees. The site is currently subject to a Limited Industrial Precise Plan.The precise plan would no longer apply to the site after the General Plan Amendment and zone change. The site is near the corner of Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard in the City of Chula Vista with an area of approximately 6.9 acres. County Assessor's Parcel Nlumbers (APNs) 6,18-0101-26, -31, and -32 will be affected by the amendment and rezone. Currently,the site is used by multiple ind�uistrial businesses for fabrication, repair,and salvage work.There are four permanent, structures currently on the site: three warehouses and one metal canopy. These structures were constructed during the 1960s; no significant investment has occurred on the site for decades. The site is approximately 650 feet east of Interstate 5 (1-5) and directly north of a single-family home neighborhood, designated as low density (RLM) in the General Plan. It is bordered by industrial facilities to the north and southwest, designated as IL in the General Plan. A mobile home park, designated as medium density(RIVI) in the General Plan, is about 550 feet to the southwest,across Industrial Boulevard. Directly west is one small industrial building and rail tracks, designated as IL and Open Space (OS), respectively, in the General Plan. Farther north is a large residential block, consisting of high density(RH , RLM, and RM properties. Directly to the east are high-density residential apartments and a lightly used INTER N ATIONAL Pagel 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 345 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report parking facility for the Sweetwater Union High School District. Farther east is a mixed-use commercial corridor(MUR), part of the South Broadway Corridor District. Direct access to the site is currently provided on the north side of Moss Street. Regional access is provided by 1-5 via the Industrial Boulevard exit to the west and Interstate 805 via the L Street exit to the east. Public transit access is provided by the Palomar Street trolley station approximately 0.65 miles to the south and H Street station approximately 1.3 miles to the north. A bus stop on Broadway and Moss (0.3 miles from the site)is served by MTS 932,which provides north-south service and connections to different trolley stations.Current pedestrian access to the site is limited,as there is no sidewalk along the frontage. The Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan (CVPMP) specifically calls for the construction of sidewalk along Moss Street in front of the site (CVPIV1P, p. 159). The site contains a double-barrel 10-foot by 12-foot box culvert which bisects the site (Telegraph Canyon). The site also contains a short rail spur easement which will be relinquished prior to construction. The site is entirely developed and consists of almost completely disturbed land cover. Existing vegetation is limited to a few small trees along the eastern edge and some minor scrub vegetation along the rail spur. There are no natural watercourses or other features on the site. MIN MINION=001i; Qi i:991 i The project proposes an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation of the project site from Limited Industrial (IL) to High Density Residential (RH).The project also proposes to rezone the site from Limited Industrial Precise Plan (ILP) to High Density Residential (R-3). The new land use would be limited exclusively to a muilti-family condominium complex. Eighteen townhouse and courtyard-style buildings with 141 residential units would be constructed, achieving a density of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac),. The desired development schedule is: Date Action 6/2020 Entitlement Approval 8/2020 Final Engineering Approval 9/2021 Construction Start 9/2022 Occupancy The following applications associated with the project are being filed concurrently with the General Plan Amendment application. N IRezone Application (ILP to R-3) Variance—for a front yard setback on Moss Street ■ Design Review Preliminary Environmental Review ■ Tentative Map INTER N ATIONAL Paget 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 346 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report Changes to the General Plan land use designation are proposed to allow the development of a multi-family community. The proposed development will provide much-needed for-sale, high-density housing for individuals and families in southwest Chula vista, a market that is currently underserved.The project will improve the pedestrian streetscape in front of the site on Moss Street, resulting in a friendlier, more walkable neighborhood. The site is near other multi-family housing developments, commercial businesses, and two trolley stops. The project will complement the adjacent apartment complex and single-family neighborhood and complete a logical continuum of residential land uses while preserving industrial uses west of Colorado Avenue, as specifically called for in the General Plan. In addition, the project will provide a logical land use transition and buffer from the low/medium-density single-family residential south of Moss Street to the limited industrial north of the project site. The project does not result in any isolated residential uses and creates a continuous high-density residential neighborhood on Moss Street between Broadway and Colorado Avenue. Given the site's subregional location,the land use conversion is,logical and consistent with the Southwest Area Plan in the General Plan. The adjacent industrial land will remain continuous along Industrial Boulevard west of Colorado Avenue, and no illogical or isolated uses are proposed. No other industrial lands are proposed to be converted or changed as,a part of the project. In addition to improving neighborhood character and existing land use compatibilities,the proposed high- density housing is compatible with any potential future uses on adjacent properties as well as a new trolley station at L Street and Industrial Boulevard.The project would complement and be supportive of transit- focused mixed-use, urban core residential, and commercial visitor redevelopment along L Street., Furthermore,the project would act as an ideal transition from single-family homes to any potential high- intensity development along L Street.The site is designed to not preclude future redevelopment. The proposed density of this project is 20.1 du/ac, consistent with the 3 to 28 clu/ac of the surrounding residential developments. This meets SAND AG and IVITS, minimum density metrics needed to support a trolley station. The project will increase the density of the area by 20 du/ac, as there are currently no residential units on the site. No other areas will requiire amendments or zone changes to accommodate the project. The project, neither induces nor discourages redevelopment or conversion of adjacent industrial lands. Regardless of whether long-term redevelopment occurs along L Street, the townhome condominiums represent the highest and best use for the site through their high compatibility and by acting as a good neighbor to all surrounding properties. INTER N ATIONAL Page 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 347 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report wl;;1 WIN 1; 1:1 MIN MEN i i The project will provide much-needed high-density housing for a variety of family sizes. These new residents will provide a labor base for growing businesses in the City. Property value and public services costs will increase significantly with the proposed development. The project is anticipated to generate approximately$311,000 in net revenue over a 20-year timeframe, replacing a use that currently creates a net deficit of approximately $29,000 over the same time period'. Additionally, the development will pay over $1.35 million in park fees that would not otherwise be contri'buted. The project will result in the loss of 7 acres of industrial land and fewer than 40 jobs from the 2 existing operations at the property. Investigations into nearby industrial vacancies show there is available industrially zoned space that may absorb the uses on-site. The existing operations and jobs may not necessarily be lost as they can be relocated to other sites nearby in Chula Vista. The jobs-housing balance will be minimally affected by the proposed condominiums. The project may result in a loss of 0.05 percent of jobs in the City. The project would result in a 0.16 percent increase in housing units, resulting in a 0.2 percent shift in the jobs-housing balance, assuming the jobs do not relocate to other facilities within the City.3 The site is fully disturbed and is an active industrial use. IIt contains few, if any, biological resources as it is almost completely disturbed. There are no known natural watercourses or visual corridors located on- site. The value of neighboring properties will benefit from the replacement of industrial equipment and outdoor operations with context-sensitive modern architecture and more compatible land uses. Hazardous materials may have been stored on-site by past operators. Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental assessments were performed by Environmental Management Strategies, Inc., and are included in this submittal. Low levels of metals, hydrocarbons,and VOCs were detected,, but the risk of health threats and building intrusion was determined to be low. No site remediation is recommended or required. During construction, proper sediment and erosion control and pollution best management practices will be used to prevent pollutant transport from the site. 1. Based on the 676 Moss Street Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Kosmont Companies,April 2020. 2.There were up to,37 full-time employees on the site in January 2020. Hawthorne Equipment Rental plans to move its operations and 14 employees roughly 500 feet east to the former amusement center site on Industrial Boulevard. 3. Based on the SANDAG Regional Growth forecast of 82,146 civilian jobs and 88,186 housing units in Chula Vista in 2020. INTER N ATIONAL Page 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 348 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report The site is approximately 600 feet away from 1-5 and is adjacent to the railroad. It is approximately 1,,000 feet away from MSCP subarea 237.The project will not impact MSCP-designated lands. lli The project proposes 141 units in 18 townhouse- and courtyard-style buildings, and include 32 two- bedroom units and 109 three-bedroom units. Approximately 75 of the three-bedroom units would have the opportunity to add a fourth bedroom.The site would provide housing for approximately 355 people.4 Additionally,the project will provide high-quality, high-density,for-sale housing in southwest Chula Vista, a market that', is currently underserved. The units will be available in a variety of types and sizes, which will result in different price points and target markets. Prices will be affected by the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, private open spaces(such as roof decks), unit location,and other options such as materials and fixtures. Prices are projected to start under the FHA Mortgage Limit,allowing for a down payment of 3.5 percent.The City Housing Division has stated this project is allowed a waiver for the inclusionary requirement because the project is located in a census tract defined as an "Area ofLow/Moderate Income Concentration."The project is not subject to any local or state density bonuses. MIN iffil=11 M11; No off-site improvements to the existing infrastructure are needed to support the project. The onsite wastewater utilities will include a subterranean private pump system to serve approximately 86 units or 61 percent of the project, all north of the Telegraph Canyon Channel box culvert drainage facility. The Project will construct one private eight-inch sewer lateral connecting to existing public utilities on Moss Street. The Sweetwater Authority provides water service to the existing buildings and would provide service for the new condominiums as well. Sewer service is provided by the City. Water for the site will connect to an existing water main on Moss Street. Electricity is provided by San Diego, Gas & Electric, which would provide power for the site after construction. Solid waste removal is provided by Republic Services. The site was designed to facilitate easy removal of waste by service vehicles, and the planned trash enclosures will ensure litter and waste are not transported around or from the site. An existing double-barrel 10-foot by 12-foot box-culvert bisects the site. It will be unaffected by the proposed development, as a 5-foot minimum setback is provided from it to each building. Drainage will flow down gentle slopes, away from the center of the site,, into bioretention basins and proprietary stormwater management best management practices. 4. Based on the City's density rate for RH land uses of 2.52 persons per dwelling. INTER N ATIONAL Pages 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 349 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report Harborside Elementary School is approximately 0.25 miles south of the site and is, approximately a 5- minute walk.Chula Vista High School is approximately 1-mile northeast of the site and is,within 25 minutes of walking distance. The site is between two trolley stations that provide regional public transit access. The Palomar Street station is approximately 0.65 miles south on Industrial Boulevard, and the H Street station is, approximately 1.3 miles north on Industrial Boulevard. These distances translate to approximately a 14- minute walk and -minute bicycle ride to Palomar, or a 35-minute walk and 10-minute bicycle ride to H Street. Blue Line trolleys run every 7.5 minutes during peahours,every 15 minutes during off-peak hours, and every 30 minutes during late night service (9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.). while the site is just outside the preferred 0.5-mile distance from the Palomar,Street station,it has a high degree of pedestrian accessibility to transportation options. The site is approximately 0.3 miles away(a 6-minute walk)from the Broadway and Moss bus stops,which are serviced by the MTS 932 line. MTS 932 runs seven days a week, with headways ranging from 15 minutes to an hour. In the future, it is possible an L Street trolley station will be constructed.The condominiums would provide appropriate density for development within a 0.25-mile radius of a trolley station. The project would neither require nor preclude the construction of an L Street station, and it provides the ability for future connections to L Street and Arizona Street. The project proposes the creation of 141 residential units to help meet t'he need for increased housing accessibility and ownership in the Southwest Planning Area. The project will replace existing, blighted industrial facilities and operations with structures and uses that are more compatible with the adjacent to residential land uses. The residential development and improvements will create a more cohesive community character along Moss Street, and frontage improvements will ensure the neighborhood becomes more wal�kale, friendly, and accessible for all residents. The new units will strengthen a neighborhood well serviced by transit and will provide potential customers to local businesses,. The density is similar to the neighboring high-density apartment complex and higher than the neighboring low-density residential to the south. The condominiuims will provide an excellent and natural transition from the single-family homes to more intensive industrial uses along L Street. Finally, the project will generate significant net revenue for the City over a 20-year time frame. Page 6 INTER N ATIONAL 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 350 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report 1p IMMI; The following summarizes how the project is consistent with the objectives,goals,and policies designated in each element of the General Plan.A full consistency analysis is submitted separately. Housing This project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. It directly works toward the goal of providing more homeownership opportunities in the City and the Southwest Planning Area.Specifically, it encourages the provision of a wide range of housing choices(Objective H5)and aligns with Policy H 5.2.1 to increase homeownership rates within the Southwest Planning Area by providing high-density, for-sale dwelling units. With an assortment of'two-to four-bedroom units, different levels of private open space, and other options,the development would provide housing for a range of family sizes.The project would preserve existing neighborhoods and remove potentially nuisance l businesses currently adjacent to residential developments.This, in turn, would unify and strengthen community character and the image for the neighborhood on (Moss Street (Housing Theme 1). Land Use and 111"Transplortatilon This project would help accomplish the goals and themes of the Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Element. Theproject's access to m�i'xed-use commercial areas and regi'ona�l transit hu�bs positions it to provide improved mobility for residents, by creating a safe, balanced, and walkable community (Goal LUT 6.1). The project proposes a mix of unit types and sizes, which provides the development the ability to "respond to diverse community needs in terms of density,size, location, and costt' (Policy LUT 1.91).The LUT Element also calls for the City to "pursue higher density residential categories and retail demand that are not, being met within the City" ((Policy LUiT 1.8). The proposed project directly helps the, City meet its goal by adding for-sale, high-density units in southwest Chula Vista,in an area recognized as a high-quality transit corridor.. The project also meets the policies and goals of the Southwest Planning Area. The project complements and enhances the value of existing residential neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area by reducing "adverse land use impacts" created by the industrial businesses currently operating on the site (Objective (LUT 35). By providing for-sale housing, the project helps accommodate anticipated population growth (Objective LUT 36). The project is consistent with Policy LUT 42.5, which states uses "west of Colorado Street" should be designated as Light Industrial.The project site is east of Colorado Avenue.The adjoining property west of Colorado Avenue is proposed to remain Light Industrial.As a whole,the project directly implements the policies and objectives in the LUT Element by increasing land use compatibilities, stabilizing a residential neighborhood, and complementing and strengthening the mixed-use residential in the South Broadway District. INTER N ATIONAL Page 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 3 5 1. of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report Environment The project is consistent with the policies listed in the Environmental Element of the General Plan. The project will remove potentially harmful industrial uses and convert the land into a transit-accessible, high- density residential facility. The project will comply with local, state, and federal environmental requirements regarding habitat preservation and s,tormwater runoff management.The project proposes, several stormwater treatment and retention best management practices to comply with the San Diego IVIS4 Permit (Policy E 2.3 to E 2.5). The project is consistent with Chula Vista's III SCP Subarea Plan (Policy E 1.1) and, therefore, no biological resources will be affected. Replacement of the existing industrial operations will eliminate potential sources of airborne contaminants, noise, and other potentially noxious activities adjacent to existing residential communities. Economic Development The project is generally consistent with the broad goals and policies laid out in the Economic Development Element. It helps the City follow Policy ED 2.3 to pursue a "diverse supply of housing types and costs" by providing a mix of two-to four-bedroom units with different floor areas, private open space, and options for sale. It also provides moderate-high income, for-sale housing in the Southwest Planning Area, which currently has limited options for this market. The Fiscal Impact Analysis shows the project would replace a use that creates a net deficit with one that creates a net benefit. The project provides a significant capital investment into an underutilized and underinvested site,which benefits the neighborhood and City as a whole. While the project would not,directly encourage the preservation and expansion of existing industrial uses in areas designated as industrial (Policy ED 1.3),,the 7-acre area proposed to be converted represents less than 0.4 percent of the total limited industrial lands (7/1,885 acres)15 and does not adversely affect the vitality of the remaining industrial land uses or operations. Rather, it provides a clear and more logical transition between the industrial uses and residential neighborhood. This project would not directly create any permanent jobs, but it would provide much-needed housing in support of regional job growth. It is also projected to support approximately 600 construction jobs during development and provide new, modern housing in support of the projected 2,000 new jobs in the, IBayfront Development Project. A detailed Employment Lands Analysis conducted by Kosmont Companies found the projected demand for industrial lands in 20,50 is approximately 888 acres, which is far exceeded by the currently designated lands of approximately 2,145 aces. The 7-acre conversion would not substantially affect the City's potential for industrial development or employment capacity. The property's zoning does not allow office uses, so the proposed rezone would have no effect on the City's capacity for office centered employment uses. 5.City of Chula Vista General Plan,Table 5-6,accessed May 202o. 6. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/residents/chula-vista-bayfront INTER N ATIONAL Page 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 352 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report Growth Management The project',does not conflict with the policies or objectives listed in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. Crucially,this project achieves Goal GIV11 3,to "Create and preserve vital neighborhoods" by paying for its proportional share, of infrastructure and by creating a vibrant and varied neighborhood with a diversity of housing types. The suirrouind�ing land uses include high-density apartments, mixed-use residential-commercial, low-density detached homes, medium-density detached homes, and medium- high density mobile homes. This project would introduce another type of housing, market-rate condominiums., to better support the diversity of housing needs in southwest Chula Vista. The project does not directly induce or facilitate any growth or conversion on adjacent industrial lands, and no land use changes are needed on adjacent properties to accommodate the project. If, however,the industrial land on the same block was eventually converted, the loss of industrial lands would account for approximately 2 percent of the City's total designated limited industrial lands (37/1 ,885 acres). It would represent a loss of roughly 8 percent of the industrial lands in the Industrial Boulevard Corridor, which contains approximately 470 acres of industrial lands.'The project does not propose any land use conversions on adjacent properties. If adjacent lands were converted to different uses, the condominiums would have a high degree of compatibility with any potential uses. Public Facilities This project does not conflict with the policies or objectives listed in the Public Facilities Element. Rather, the project is a good example of smart growth that invests in higher-density residential developments in areas of existing infrastructure and capacity. It will provide adequate utility service to each structure and will not, add a significant burden to the water or sewer districts. The, project will not require the construction of new fire or police stations.The project is designed so there is adequate access and turning radii for the largest fire vehicles (Policy PFS 6.1), and a new fire-loop will be added to provide adequate water pressure for the complex (Policy PFS 6.2)1. The project proposes a comprehensive drainage and stormwater management plan, with different bioretention and proprietary best management practices to retain and treat stormwater flows on-site,aligning with NPDES requirements and General Plan policies. Additionally,the site is located within walking distance to schools and parks, providing residents with easy access to public facilities. As a condition of the project, the rail spur on-site will be removed. Currently, only one business utilizes the spur, and the spur is not accessible to adjacent properties.The removal of the spur will not affect the industrial viability of the adjacent properties.The spur is not a public facility. 7.See Industrial Land Analysis,,Appendix A, Exhibit 6 INTER N ATIONAL Page 9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 353 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map General Plan Amendment Justification Report 1111iffigamm: i; i; Mon: WIN WIN11 Iffil IN IN I The project will increase the quality of life of Chula Vista residents by creating a stronger, more logical, and unified residential neighborhood with a clearer transition between residential and industrial uses, a consistent land use frontage,and a more attractive and pedestrian-friendly streetscape along Moss,Street. The project will increase housing availability for a variety of incomes and family sizes and grant the opportunity for Chula Vista residents to plant deep roots in the community through homeownership.The project works to accomplish the broad goals and policies laid out in the General Plan through the creation of compatible land uses, establishment of high-density housing on transit-accessible sites, and provision of street improvements in an area identified as deficient by City staff. The project represents the most compatible use for all existing and potential future uses and does not induce or preclude redevelopment of the nearby industrial lands. The condominium complex is thoughtfully designed to match the neighborhood's context, and will result in an increased sense of place and community for residents, and neighbors., INTER N ATIONAL Page 10 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 354 of 767 676 Moss Street Proposed General Plan Amendments 676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Development Plan, Tentative Map Proposed General Plan Amendment: Changes to Text,"Fables, and Graphics Prepared for: SLF- Moss Street, LLC Contact:James O'Malley 949-417-1396 JOMalley@shopoff.com Preparers I N TE R N AT 1 01 N A L 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd San Diego,, CA 92124 858.614.5000 www.mbakerintl.com Contact: Dan Wery, AICP, LEE,D AP JN 167467 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 355 of 767 676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Development Plan, Tentative Man Proposed General Plan Amendment: Changes to Text,Tables, and Graphics Prepared for: SLF— Moss Street, LLC Contact.- James O'Malley 949-417-1396 JOMalley@shopoff.com Preparers I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92124 858.614.5000 www.mbakerintl.com Contact: Dan Wery, AICP, LEED AP 1N 167467 11/29/2018 Revised 5/15/2020 Revised 5/26/2020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 356 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Changes to Text,,Tables,and Graphics TABLE OF' CONTENTS PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMEN DM 1 LUSTFigure, 5-12: Existing ...........................................................................................................2 LUTFigure, 5-12: Proposed ........................................................................................................3 LUT Table 5-5 Redlined Changes................................................................................................4 LUT Table 5-6 Redlined Changes................................................................................................5 LUT Table 5-7 Redlined Changes................................................................................................6 LU�T Figure 5-22: Existing ...........................................................................................................7 LU�T Figure 5-22: Proposed ........................................................................................................8 Housing Element, Table B-1 Redlined Changes .........................................................................9 INTER N ATIONAL Page! 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 357 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Changes to Text,,Tables,and Graphics The table below summarizes the amendments required by the 676 Moss Street project for applicable tables and figures in the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The following pages show the existing and proposed figures and the specific redlined changes to the tables. Text,Table, or Figure Title Page Amendment Required LUT General Plan Land Use LUT-45 Change the land use designation for the site. figure 5-12 Diagram 5 LUT Chula Vista Projected LUT- 4 Cha nge th e projected population for the Table 5-5 Population in 2030 Southwest Planning Area. Changet e Project Population for the Total. LUT General Plan Land Use LUT_5b 16 Change the number of acres designated for high Tables-6 Distribution in 2030 density residential inthe Southwest Planning (Acreages) Area and total. Change the number of acres designated for limited industrial in the Southwest Planning Area and total. LUT General Plan Land Use in LUT-57 Change the 2030 Aces for High Density Table 5-7 2030 Residential and Limited Industrial. Change the 2030 High Density Residential Dwelling Units. Change the 210,30 Total Dwelling Units. LUT South Broadway Diistrict a�p LUiT-152 Add"Res.High"along Moss Street on the site's Figure 5-22 location. HOUSING General Plan Residential AB-4 Increase acreage of High Density Residential Table B-1 Land Use Designations Unfits by 7. 1 1 1 LUT: .and Use and Transportation Element;HOUSING:Housing Element INTER N ATIONAL Page 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 358 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,Site Development Plan,,Tentative Map Changes to Text,,Tables,and Graphics LUTW Figure 5-12-01 Mx it,S it nh']6iiiltuir'i W1' 9 T RAS mrnaN ?7 f CiL�o Lq'SLi a D.I.c+,�o 1Y I li ro 1�0' II IIS Lni San Y$jdo Mjkwiajn� 4A ........... A Thlu FY 0 f Fir")'�f i a�fica 11 C couiltv Ofsan 1L?pC20 N 011 OCSail DiCiM N— F N.M., -4. YA. rcz-Ch.ft PlIzi.;F V. Han W Kira- I'v jr,"..'1 2C.Tix-!Mm ....... LI.tW11 IL--1-1 w4n=U x P L LAND USE PUBLIC FACILITIES CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPFN SPAC11',PARKiJ,,A. EENTIAL A i c, COMMERCIii MIXEI)USE INOUSTRIAL PUBLIC.-'QUASITUBLIC SPECIAL PLAN AREAS HS High Srhmi Hinire-(Ptimmillwy Perk "' I-riiii or Wliir.ki 'MMMM)" t".qjq'•j'rfr�.r(qL Lane) Lori F ro fL-,j c;r id&Ofty-, 4Y.LA U�u Rusitli,�,,,[dI jjjj�Mffl I iiriituz�Tmijkj'Aridl IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ea5mm Urbi CE!r7i!r IMS Addle Sidical Fuwre*Nuyhb�vlyyx Pn'k (7'ur 3 LwO Al G I ii�i-rIlviliurr -�-F, aimmurJul R,'�uil 111111111111111111111�1i W11 Lj�lp�(Oym fl'o M G urcru I I I Tj�Jju I NNI 5NIQ = F'q ripm�"A-�'v 701001 Fukurt-i5divul� 1�1 mp.Artefial IS Lanp) I CMViii,7tc' CGH-17HUELIJ V�jb_ Tia%l rocw Ar-ina kgwiral juml Pf'.i 'j 17 Oth�i km-ds CC(lvir I.jntF,., Mq:,ar Sircet�G Lonn.) ciTy or E L6urr,40 wgTi Giii FS Fuz�SW I un SyEteri AjjxL& Garry as�nmnt 16 Lan-) M P1 r�".k I in in C3 Urr-s-V Stljlr Pima L LiLm-aiy a'rICRII P�iri Ewundury 5dLuwiLjv 51wel-',�Lli;) CHUIAVISTA N IIIIIIIIIIII PUDI L&Q.m j,Ki fA c: TS I rnrimr /",V�'11-wri-or Sircm Man AFxinal(4 Lana', wui_�- FTS FuLu rr 71rdirdL ...... Cnni bruliii(4 i-Aniiii GENERAL PLAN[)IAGRA^,� D Aiit'3 S A.Xv r,A 0 lOr QG,b 5 0 Y. —----- bnewintmir,hnnrninniod-2 12,4 Li Figure 5-12 Paige LUT-45 cflU1"1L_wA"V*MA INTER N ATIONAL Page 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 359 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,,Site Development Plan,,Tentative Map Changes to Text,,Tables,and Graphics LU T Figure 5-12: F)roposed General Ilan Land Use Diagram vWk, nn Mipel mukullaill Oyu .ra,72-Ir Ctly of Sull DicuoqW. C{WuvlYNp of So.Ill fxlwrluv IRM Ll % lwvk Sz IIS I ra )A22 AIM %all yslidn)14(juallaiIrl ll." Chy L11,111711el-ki Beadl , Cutully or Sill Dirk)) N ff (,Kv Illtikjn FA,q:r vw N., P.Mill QIW;I C Id,, "A -14 mune A L LA'r4f)USE Il SPACT,.PARKS,& PUBLIC CIRCULATION SYS7EM E RF5lDl[N7TAA. d LOU i�; COMIRCIN, ALKI-D J5F P011,6TRIN PUM TIC,If QUA&F-PUBt.I C SPECIAL PAN AREAS M 1101 UI ll II�,, MI`04,1 J1,R1, 111II U 11:kj Ind I L'� CiR4,41 spnu� Rw rPAN!'11 111110 E�*tLrfj urbjrj CUfIL�,.r HS Kddllz&-tviol rulrwt-Nv,�Orjvl NO Npil(7 oi 5 111 lown,Cemer Atp_.HE� G a. v....,.3 6 'If"WIP CK;rTull kv,.Al 1=WIll lh.,(��wynnl INIIIIII G�,.nfzxil M.ustito, �R�4�o rR,I I RIF MIS Il PHITM AfTiHIE,(Ph.211P) I C Ricial I car n I a i v gA rrjr Tra[�Ri Fouis Area Rm5giriniM ThOgi dojy Par k 11111111111111�ol9ql Sirmol!pw,4�lv�.C–) To�m� CC Civic C�Itlu A tj R 1,5 N-I�f,I, Rtw(K CRY OF E ME Hich ll-]$ w Parks&Hirivnninin, Stu&Ann) FS Frt,,9-'alievi Rl caaalrq.11var aIJ,22r.kil Lane� CHUIA VISTA Wo j &QtMljl lklblk- I, I 1111div /NV Coll I Houndnily 0��Qnlr�Sd ad(4 Lane N = �10.17A TS Framil SLAmniStip ,^qor Rj,,, WOMMI Urtiml Art"nol(1111 IFFS I Trlfirp�ol_Stljkjuw�'�.up ........ Cwirnaidpl HuJavar�l(4 Lam) GENIFIRA AAA DIA'GRMi D Arzqiarad fai 0I Space(11%) Ell RMflfehfWW�,,-P,M Figure 5-12 Page LI-JT-45 CHOI INTER N ATIONAL Page 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 36,0 of 767 676 Moss Street_General Plan Amendment, Proposed General (Plan Amendment: Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Changes to Text,Tables,and Graphics LUI Table 5-5 Redlined Changes Chula TRANSPORTATION ista LAND USE AND v1s]011, CHAPTFR 5202,0 University StudyArea This I.Jniversity StUdy Area iis led to,four (.,)CUs,areas,that are lbc atecl on the sJe of tIlic futturc; arlid SLJr1`0LJ['1(.,hn�j [)ro[.)er1J(.,,s iri the EzIst Are.,zi Plan,ar'i(l iuX'1lL1d(� t r1iV(,...t Ji. ._,Zr�1rl[)LI ; U. II veI-Slit "iIIIIIagle;the qIiir)riIaI [�"—dlhnoIlr: II�Lirh'I��a nid tlae- Eca ttmi (Jrl��an �.�7in�t��ir. ll�u� l��taiir.)Os:�r:A ", the, [1rlid r r�s Ity StI,,..xl rea i to(Iev l(lq)�::a co,orcliiirate(l stral.,eqy to ackiress thl e.irr9uplod'an' r.l atk.)r is[i ll ps olou s A rl wig cl ri el.r], n[a�r�n u': the, c( I(A,u 1 a r)(i C1r::,11,1 r1ru,"I rl int is�,,iccess x"jcl vitality oftjj�CL Dtri ctm J-hIs U.0 a N(Au ea l�s ftitther d s t i e c] i n 11 1,J F S e cti o r, 1.1 01.,5. 1 . Prl01 e sted Pq u lt i u aPr j e to Land Use m�.�it� �t��N�7 �� ���,. r.���,r�.� ��� 4.10.1 Projected Popul�atioln �.. �. � u r u I t�wq Arte) N l ., a�ur 1 atr a 1 o i t,I b���rt) ��.�f At 40: �� a�u I�,� r� t ��appro r-ru�t� ,rear iricr(7as(. of al)out NIX()1"Wrli(), r�r,th(! 2004 etirnaf.lM of 2223W�w�W The Plamrdng Area also incl(,,i�cles III����i.iri auti&t-ile 20,014corporate bouiI licizq: T11�1 reflects,al-11()V(-[['a I airr mf�iI�,l`MAh rite of alxn,iut 2.7 l..eircent(),ver the nete-ar . The.,City's arinuial g r(y,)wth rzite over,the F-1 tt (Tl-c Z c).pit u v , 1.1,er �:nt nolt it-idulcl r�ci the anu exatic)II of t e�ire�Ni�t �t��1 Mionta or-IelCo rI'l I'll('11r)ity in 1985,which incWl(le(l approxii-nately 216,000 residents. fable 5W5, 11-11a""'""i turaI1'rofeic,t l in 2,0 0„ Irat-Io ,shill the CLIFIVIlt CSt Irlalted ai-Wd r,rr tt�r r r l u�1Ill rtiur ru fear r rrlVista °iry ll aliuiin Area. A(lb"tio�nal Iau tr�rilre��r����i��tir�ru ('',ro ti.0 inforitn a Bion an (,-f(),und in CIti apter 3,Section, lir ;ta IZI Vista iiira P(.!r [--)e,rti!w- TE - C 11,1111113 L'A VISTA FROJEt.CTED POPULATION IN 2030 Planning Area Year 2004* Year 2030 Bayfront 0 478610 au.,rtht 5'31560 72,765 721J401. Northwest 5116993O891�090. East n cr orated area) 981710 K 7 East(unincorpotated area) 1,31100 25111937 w1, '1" L 22213' 0 14101,91018 401 1�184 Source-Year 2004 popnhation estiniate derived froixt State DOF Dara. 1.2004 es-bina,le for the City of Clauki Vista and 2000 Census:for unincorporated area. Year 20301 opral-ati n estiloate derived r si ag,year 2.01tt Cesu and, tact: :SOF factors Jan- 1.m 201:'s lestiauaaaaw for theCity of �hulaa Vi ta'I,. "East,t a nincorr�aal d��ar,,,,o"�"includes the w t,",aat!r and Eaast Otaay P,,a rola P'lannin Subareas,,with r i,ost of"the growth occurring in thc East Otay Ranch Phan,ning Subarc.a. P .]e H....al 5 iiity�,A t:fILAa,Vista(�Wa erc,al Hart I TERNATIiOiNAL Page 2021-0,1-0,5 Agendas Packet Page 361. of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative IMap Changes to Text,,Tables, and Graphics 10 Lu r' 'Table 5-6 dIned Changes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Chula ve ista LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT V, -IAPTFR 5 S1 0,111, C1 202,0 TABLE 5-6 GENERAL PLAN LAND SSE DISTRIBI JTION IN 203,01(ACREAGES) Total East General Plan Land Use General Bay- North- South- East Chula Unincorp. Uninco.rp. Designation, Plan front west, 'West vista Siweet- Otay Area Subareas water Rarich area Subarea RESIDENTIAL Lo w, 61,977 64 1,560 2t453' 2,900 Lovv Mediam &010 1,354 .1.4011. 4,7337 211 Miedhim 1.i11 1,87 288 11025 32 72 Medium High 665 1.43 113 312 91 ,Higli 53.2 124 246 4-.544 1,48 Urbf-In Core 84 84 Bayfront High 14 14 COM-MERCIAL Rctail 826 115 202 477 32 Visitor 1.48 135 1 1 2 Professional&Adn'fin. 160 13 1 7 67 12 MIXED USE Mixed Use Residetitial 93 1,74 919 611 510 Mixicid Use Coinvivricial. 135 25 37 58 15 Mixed Use 1"ransit to Area 139 I-NDlj-,STRIA.L Limited Industrial 1,878+7M05, 62 116 377 494 1.1107 216 RegiotV1,11.Tccluiology P,,,trk, 95 85 t ncril Industri,,11 175 175 IL.1C,QUASI PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE Publ,ic/Quas i-Ptib lie 2,9 01 55 225 321 1,88() 381 39 Perks and Recreation '978, 74 73 106 606 88 31 OLvn Space 7,305 1001 215 617 3,578. 1,101 1,6194. Oplen Space Presen,'e, [61,926 362 Is 917 4t 5'82 1,997 9,870 Opeti Space—Active Riecreadoo 3 7"S 8- 44 323 Wal,er 2,672 1., 98 9 1.11 SPECIAL PLANNING ARXA Easlern Urbaii Center 266 2166 Resoft 230 230 Tom,n Center 85 85, OTHERIL 1 4,606 '991 866 8219 21,343 408 61 TOTAL ACRES 38.1692 2,62101 3.9914 4,815 2:1.'9,07 6�8,20 1 6 i,-',niie Unincorporated poition of the Niorthmst Planning Area(87 sum es of Residential Lc^)is includied in the Unincorporated SweetmtelStibarea,cdiumn only. 2-Streets,fteeways�,iu bility roght-of-ways .Je H-IT-56, (-.Jily 01(11L,1ai\,`isle(lienercid Hart ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... INTER N ATIONAL Pages 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 36,2 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,,Site Development Plan,Tentative IMap Changes to Text,,Tables, and Graphics Lu r' 'Table 5-7 Redlined Cha�nges ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... LAND USE AND TAT TIO ELEMENT CHAPTFR 5 TABLE 5-7 GENER.AL.PLA.,N LAND,USE IN 2030 General Plan Land Use Designation 203,01 Acres 2030,Dwelling"13nits RESIDENTIAL Low 6,977 8,232 1 ow Medlull) 8.010 41,286 Medinin 1,604 16,1 5�9 Mediuin.High J 0 6:5 10,314 High 15,,523 +**,-4* 1.4ban Core 84 3.830 iyfront High 14 1.5010 Rmil COMMERCIAL 82�6 Visitor 148 Professional&Adnd.n160, MIXED USE Mixlcd Use RcsidenG111 933 17,6 3 9 Mixed Use Cou'unercial 135 ................................................ Mixed Use Tt�,msit Focus Ate,�i 122 3.782 INDUSTRIAL Liniitcd Indtistrial 1,878 479" Regional Teclffiology Park 85 (icneral hidtorial 175 PUBLIC,QUASI,PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE Pub fic/Quasi-Public 2w1901 114-11is and Recte-Id"01"), 978 open,spa-ce 7.31013 Open Space lescive 16.926, Q- gat Aclive,Rosro'(1filon. 3,75 Watel- 2,672 SPECIAL PLANN[NG AREA Eastern Urbati Center 2616, 4.,90,5 Resort 230 Towl'i Center 85 1.929 01THER 4.0)6, "I"01" .1..ACRES 518,692 '12,5,01 9 9 +24X959 Streets,fi-eevy-ays,utility i,g ht-cf-ways (3W iC 45M Page L1.7-57 cHutA ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... INTER N ATIONAL Page 6 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 36,3 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Changes to Text,,Tables,and Graphics LUT Figure 5-22: Ex"isting ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ChulaI1 jA ve Southwest Flanning Area. ista V, ision South �Broadway District 21020 Vuuuuuuum it m, umommu uupmlllll iii Ilii L ice, L St. MOSS S. . ............ J L Naples St. Oxford S . Palomar St. 0;#60 plop. 47, LEGEND EMS'FliQTRAI�SJ STAT,I0(',J XXXX,'V==FLITURE TRA��JST ROIFFE AREAS C 4ANC3 L,Atl[)UEiE No,rro SCALE,' L Friigure 5-22 gage L(A-152 ("iiy Of(JILda�AISIA Gercral Plar ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. INTER N ATIONAL Pagel 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 36,4 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Changes to Text,,Tables,and Graphics LU T Figure 5-22:0 Propos,eId ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Chula I1 jA ve Southwest Flanning Aria. ista Souter �Broadway District ct 21020 Ameilidmen'llit L ice, L St. LIJ MOSS S. Ll. ............ Naples St. Oxford St. Palomar St. 0,;#60 plop. LEGEND EMS'FliQTRAI�SJ STATIO(I'NI XXXXIP=FUTURE TRA��JST ROIFFE AREAS C 4ANC3 L,Atl[)U,.3E N o'r r o 8 CA L F,' L JI- Figure 5-22 gage L(A-152 ("iiy Of("VILda�AISIA Gercral Plar ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. INTER N ATIONAL Page 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 36,5 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Proposed General Plan Amendment: Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Changes to Text,,Tables,and Graphics I Hous n ig Eternent, Table B-1 Redt"ned Changes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... HOUSING ELEMENT PPEN 'IX B Table B-1 GENERAL PLAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNXIONS Pg�lg nation ............. Ded 2 Ll n, ................................................................................................Ac,re a g e Den Ra in e Low Residentia I Singlefatnily detached d�vc Wings on large rural,cs,talc type 16"T7.2 01 to 3 units,per Iota acre Low-Mcidium SingV�faniily detached dwellinig,units on rnediurn sized IIots 812,00 11 k�6,units per Res id e n fia I acre Single-family detachicd hornes on smaller lotszcrodotdirlie 6.1 to 11 units,per Mediurn Residentizrl hornes,patio homes,arid atlac[icd urilts,such as du�p�lcxcs, 1,204 acre towrihornics,and aiobilc homes Mediurn High NA I I ti fa inily,units such as townihornes,garden apor"I'Me rits a r�i d 11,1 to 18 u In its Res id e n tia I 711obile hornes 134 PC r acrIC11 MUlti-fanlily'Units,such,as apartniIents and condorn in iiu mAypic 18.1'to 27 units High,Residential d\,vellings in multi-slury buildings 44--i_ per acre, Urban Core NA ILI I ti fa Ini nil d1we 111 i n ig,u rii its i n a In u r ba n e n v iro n rn e nit 84 27.1 to 60 units Residential WC,W), I per acre Mixed.-Use Multi-farnily res,id cnlial,retail shops,financial,business and 7 27 to,40 units,per, Res ide intia I(LICS,F-1)11 pe rso,na I services,resta u ra nts,c We r1a in ment and office 72� acre 0, 0 rtu ni itle s Mixed Use Transit n s it 27 to,,40 units,per FocusArea(UCSP)' High intensity mixed ricsidentiI officic and retail macs 1,�2 acre '7 M,ediurn-fligh to Urban Core residential,,anety,o d a varif 2.P to 40 units,per Eastern Urban Center integrated mixed Use,COMIMC1111cial,,cultural,p,ublic,and office 240 acre, uses May include hotels,resort-oriented cornmicrcial services, 27 to,40 units,per Resort restaurant and retail shops,cWtural and recreational uses73 acre conference centers and rrnancntt residences 2 7 t(,), 1 40 unit,per Town Center 169 a c I,(,, Wes: Mix CA,11�es k,fllowed"J"holl/onlfl,im"I verfi(xll devtdo[x-ilelrd 111d"I ley,�dl irl deve.cjj)rl len 1�dedkdlId k)les'de.nHill II rxil�s A'mutein ("hit'da Visla; Flain I clil(I INInSI,)O51,11,11on[lerine.ill According to the CieneraI Plan's Land I Jse and Tran,sportation Element, a to ail of 1U 11,11 l")8 .............................................................................. dwelling units are anticipated wifl,iin the fit lanning areas. 'Rie Department of Finance WOO reports that '1'J 5 units have been developed as of Jzmtiary 20,05. Page ABACItyof(-Iiit,il(i"lista Geiier,�,I Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... INTER N ATIONAL Page 9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 36,6 of 767 676 Moss Street—Proposed General Plan Amendments 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Preparedfor: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Applicant: SLF — Moss Street, LLC, Contact: James O'Malley 949-417-1396 JOMaI ley@shopoff.com Prepared by: I N TE R NA1' 10 N AL 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92124 www.mbakerintl.com Contact: Dino Serafini (619) 218-9578 JN 167467 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 367 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California PublicFacilities Finance Plan Prepared for: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Applicant: SLF — Moss Street, LLC Contact: James O'Malley 949-417-1396 JOMalley@shopoff.,com Prepared by: 1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 9755 Clai'remont Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92124 www.mbakerintl.com Contact: Dino Serafini (619) 218-9578 JN 167467 April 2020 Revised May 2020 Revised October 2020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 368 of 767 ,rf.0 a I his page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing purposes. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 36,9 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENT'S EXECUTIVE 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Threshold Standards........................................................................................................1 1.3 The Project.......................................................................................................................2 1.4 Public Facilities Finance Plan Boundaries.........................................................................2 2.0 TRANSPORTATION 2.1 GMOC Threshold Standard ..............................................................................................4 2.2 GMOC Level of Service Standards for Arterial Roads.......................................................4 2.3 Project Processing Requirements ....................................................................................5 2.4 Transportation Impact Analysis and Methodology..........................................................5 2.5 Operational Improvements..............................................................................................6 3.0 POLICE FACILITIES ..........................................................................................................8 3.1 Service Analysis................................................................................................................8 3.2 Threshold Standard..........................................................................................................8 3.3 Project Processing Requirements ....................................................................................9 3.4 Adequacy Analysis ...........................................................................................................9 3.5 Financing Police Facilities.................................................................................................9 4.0 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES .................................................................. 10 4.1 Servicer nalysis..............................................................................................................10 4.2 Threshold Standard........................................................................................................10 4.3 Project Processing Requirements ..................................................................................10 4.4 Adequacy Analysis .........................................................................................................10 4.5 Financing Fire Service Facilities......................................................................................11 5.0 PARK DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENTS 12 5.1 Service Analysis................................................................................................ ....12 5.2 Threshold Standard................................................................................................... ....12 5.3 Existing Conditions............................................................................................... ....12 5.4 Project Park Requirements ............................................................................................12 5.5 Financing Park Facilities.................................................................................................13, 6.0 PUBLIC FACILITIES 14, 6.1 Civic Center, Corporation Yard, Recreation, and Administration ...................................14 6.2 Libraries .........................................................................................................................14 6.3 Financing Public Facilities...............................................................................................15 INTER N ATIONAL Page! 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 370 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Table of Contents Public Facilities Finance Plan 7.0 SEWER FACILITIES 16 7.1 Service Analysis..............................................................................................................16 7.2 Threshold Standard........................................................................................................16 7.3 Existing and Proposed Conditions.................................. ....16 7.4 Financing Sewer Facilities ..............................................................................................17 8.0 WATER FACILITIES osl*oosl*oosl*oosl*oo01*0601*0601*0601*060,*0601*0601*0601*0601*0601*0601*060,*oos�*oos�*oos�*oos�*oos�*oos�*oos�*oos�*oos�*oos�*o 18 8.1 Service Analysis..............................................................................................................18 8.2 Threshold Standards......................................................................................................18 8.3 Existing and Proposed Conditions..................................................................................18 8.4 Water Capacity Charges.................................................................................................19 9.0 DRAINAGE FACILITIES................................................................................................... 20 9.1 Service Analysis..............................................................................................................20 9.2 Threshold Standards......................................................................................................20 9.3 Existing and Proposed Conditions..................................................................................20 10.01 AIR QUALITY AND CIL,IMATE PROTECTION 21 10.1 Service Analysis...........................................................................................................2 1 10.2 Threshold Standards...................................................................................................21 10.3 Adequacy Analysis ......................................................................................................22 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of'Estimated City-imposed Development Impact Fee Revenues from the Project........4 Table 2.1 GIVIOC Level of Service (LOS) Definitions......................................................................................4 Table 2.2Western Area Transportation Development Impact Fee Schedule..............................................6 Table 2.3 Traffic Signal Impact Fee Schedule................................................................................................7' Table 3.1 Project Public Facilities Fees for Police .........................................................................................9 Table 4.1 Current and Planned Fire Station Facilities in Project's Vicinity.................................................11 Table 4.2 Public Facilities Fees for Fire/FINIS Facilities................................................................................11 Table 5.1 Q,uim�by Act Parkland Requirements...........................................................................................12 Table 5.2 Parkland Dedication Requirements used on Parkland Dedication Ordinance Standards.........13 Table 5.3 Park Development Component Fees (Development In-Lieu Component Only).........................13 Table 5.4 Park Acquisition Component Fees (Acqluisition In-Lieu Component Only).................................13 Table 6.1 Current Library Facilities .............................................................................................................14 Table 6.2 PF IF for Civic Center), Library, Corporation Yard,. Recreation and Administration....................15 Table7.1 Sewer Capacity Charge................................................................................................................17 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit2.1: Project Location .........................................................................................................................3 INTER N ATIONAL Page ii 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 371. of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS A APCD ..................Air Pollution Control District 131 BMP....................Best Management Practice CFS......................Calls for Service CIP......................Capital Improvement Program City.....................City of Chula Vista CO2.....................Carbon Dioxide CVFD...................Chula Vista Fire Department CVMC .................Chula Vista Municipal Code CVPD ..................Chula Vista Police Department DIF......................Development Impact Fee EDU ....................Equivalent Dwelling Unit EMS....................Emergency Medical Services GME....................Growth Management Element GMOC.................Growth Management Oversight Commission GmP ...................Growth Management Plan HCM ...................Highway Capacity Manual 1S/ ND...............Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LOS.....................Level of Service INTER N ATIONAL Page iii 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 372 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Acronyms and Abbreviations Public Facilities Finance Plan M Metro.................Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority mgd ...................Million Gallons per Day MWD..................Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OPP.....................California Governor's Office of Planning and Research PAD.....................Parkland Acquisition and Development PDO....................Parkland Dedication Ordinance PFDIF..................Public Facilities Development Impact Fee PFFP....................Public Facilities Finance Plan (Project................676 Moss Street Project SANDAL .............San Diego Association of Governments SWA....................Sweetwater Authority SWQMP..............Stormwater Quality Management Plan TIA......................Traffic Impact Analysis TMP....................Traffic Monitoring Program VIVIT....................Vehicle Miles Traveled WTDIIF.................Western Area Transportation Development Impact Fee WWTP................wastewater Treatment Plant, INTER N ATIONAL Page iv 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 373 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Executive Summary 12 WIN, 1 im hdillh 1111 11111111 OVERVIEW This Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) addresses the public facility needs associated with the 676 Moss Street Project (Project).The Project is described in the Project's City Submittal dated November 6, 2019, by William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. (dba WHA).The PUP also describes the various responsibilities of the Project developer to provide the needed public faIcilities. Growth Management Program This PUP is prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Growth Management Program (GMP). The purpose of the GMP is to implement the City's General Plan and establish a mechanism which helps ensure development does not occur unless facilities, and improvements are available to support that development.The GMP does this by: ■ Identifying all facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate the land uses specified in the General Plan, ■ Indicating where and when facilities fall short of the threshold level of service standards established for each facility type, and ■ Identifying the means by which additional facilities are to be provided. The GMP is implemented through the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMoC) process.The GMOC monitors the impact of development on the City's ability to provide services. The thresholds monitored by the GMOC are as follows: • Traffic 0 Parks and Recreation Water • Police ■ Schools Drainage IN Fire and Emergency ■ Libraries Air Quality and Climate Medical Services ■ Sewer Protection This PUP is based on the Project information found in the City Submittal. The PUP analyzes the existing demand on facilities based on the demand from existing development and the specific facility demand of the Project. The PFFP also considers those development, projects in the region with various entitlements from 2019 through 2,021. Facility Thresholdsr Facil�ity thresholds are indicators of the capacity of facilities or services to meet increasing demands from new development while remaining in compliance with the GMP threshold standards established for each facility or service topic.'When the established thresholds for a specific facility or service are projected to be reached or exceeded, based on the analysis of the Project's development, the PFFP identifies those facilities necessary for continued compliance with the GMP and, where appropriate, outlines conditions 1.Also found in section 19.091.040 of Chapter 191.09,Growth Management,of the Chulla Vista Municipal Code. INTER N ATIONAL Page ES-1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 374 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Executive Summary PuWic Facilities Finance Plan of approval applied to Project entitlements. The GMP requires the development 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. Subsequent Project changes may require an amendment to this PFFD. Perforrnance of Thr eshold-DrIvepi ti iiia Typically, as an applicant receives each succeeding development approval, the applicant must perform a series of required actions intended to ensure facilities will be provided concurrently with need. Failure to perform any required action will curtail a project's development approvals. The typical actions are listed below. Tentative Map • Subdivision approval conditioned upon assurance of facility funding • Subdivision approval conditioned upon payment of fees, or the dedication, reservation, or zoning of land for identified facilities • Subdivision approval conditioned upon construction of certain facility improvements Building Permit 0 Impact fees paid as required Role, of the PFFP in thel Entitlement Process The critical link between the City's quality of life threshold standards and development entitlement is the PUP, including the following information,where applicable: • An inventory of present and future requirements for each facility based on GMP threshold standards ® A summary of estimated facilities costs • A facility phasing schedule establishing the timing for installation or provision of facilities • A financing plan identifying the method of funding for each facility required • A fiscal impact report ® A report on Project consistency with the requirements and conclusions of the GMP General Cht.da Vista,Mirficipal Code PFFP Proidsions Appli"cable to the Proj*ect • Section 19.091.080 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) provides that no tentative subdivision map shall be approved, or deemed to be approved, without an approved PFFD. Furthermore, "[n]o final map shall be approved until all the conditions of the PFFD, the water conservation plan and the air quality improvement plan have been met, or the project applicant has provided adequate, security to the city that said plans will be implemented." (CVMC Section 19.0 9.0 8 0.E) • INo development shall occur in a PUP area if the demand for any public facilities, infrastructure and services exceeds capacity and it is not feasible to increase capacity prior to completion of development unless the means, schedule, and financing for increasing the capacity are Page ES-2 I N T E R IN 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 375 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Executive Summary established through the execution of a binding agreement providing for installation and maintenance of such facilities or improvements in advance of the City's phasing schedule. (CVMC Section 19.09.080.1-1), • The CVMC provides that, if the City Manager determines facilities or improvements within a PFFP are inadequate to accommodate any further development within that area, the City Manager shall immediately report the deficiency to the City Council. If the City Council determines such events or changed circumstances adversely affect the health,safety,or welfare of Chula Vista,the City may require amendment, modification, suspension, or termination of an approved PFFP. • The PFFP shall be implemented in accordance with CVMC Section 19.09.120. Future amendments shall be in accordance with CVMC Section 19.09.130 and shall incorporate newly acquired data, to add conditions and update standards as determined necessary by the City through the required monitoring program. PFFP Applicability and Compliance This PUP applies to all future projects within Project boundaries. Future projects will be reviewed for consistency with the Project's submittals, this PP, and the, Project Initial Study/Mitigated (Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Future projects determined to be inconsistent with the above will require additional environmental review and may require amendments to the Project submittails, the PFFP, and the IS/MND.The following also apply to the PFFP: • This PUP analyzes the maximum allowable, development potential for planning purposes only. The approval of this plan does not guarantee specific development densities., • Approval of this PUP is contingent upon approval of the amendments to the General Plan. PUBLIC FACILITY AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT The project does not propose to construct any offsite public improvements and will not be phased. All public improvements(road frontage)will provided by the developer will be constructed concurrently with the project. Table 1, Summary of Estimated City-Imposed Development Impact Fee Revenues from the Project, identifies and summarizes the various, projected development impact fee (DIF) revenues associated with Project development (an "X" indicates the development within this land use pays the applicable City impact fee). Transportation Improvements The Transportation Impact Analysis (TTI ) for the Project (LL&G Engineers, April 2,0, 202,0), identifies improvements that would be required in connection with Project development.As a project exaction,the developer must complete all roadway frontage improvements as required for subdivision access. The project is required to pay both a transportation Development Impact Fee and a traffic signal fee. INTER N ATIONAL Page ES-3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 376 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Executive Summary Public Facilities Finance Plan Wastewater, Water,,and'Drainage The developer will construct on-site sewer, drainage, and water facilities. Off-site connections, if needed to support the proposed development, are also the responsibility of the developer. Schools The Project's 141 residential units will generate approximately 29 elementary school students, 9 middle school students, and 13 high school students. The, Project is in the Chula Vista Elementary School Diistrict and the Sweetwater Union High School District.The developer must satisfy its obligations to mitigate the Project's impacts on school facilities as required by state law. Other Public Facilities The Project will trigger DIFs for libraries, police services, fire, services, the Civic Center, the Corporation Yard,and other City public facilities.These facilities will be funded, in part,from revenues generated from the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF). The projected DIF revenues (including Western Area Transportation Development Impact Fees [WTDIF], traffic signal fees, and the PFDIF) at Project buildout are identified in Table 1. TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CITY-IMPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT,FEIE REVENUES FROM THE PROJECT Maximus Required Potential Previous RTCIP RAS Fee Category Currenit Project Fees Use Creditsab Allocation JotatNeffees, Western Transportation �378,444-00 (--268�,763-40 �357,174-15 �357,174-15 Development Impact Fee Traffic signal Feesc X34,313-76 512,330.24 d 521(,983-52 Public Facilities DIF $1,490,229.00 X76,205-71 $_ $1,414,023.29 Parkland Acquisition Fee X522,687-00 �522,687-00 Parkland Development Fee $839,232.00 $_ X839,232.00 Sewer Capacity Fee �433,529.88 X3,658-48 X429,871-40 Sewer Admin Fee:Residential �V70-00 5- 51(1170-00 Sewer Admin Fee:Non�-Residential $_ $6,6o.00 Total 153,699,605.641 360,957.831 $357,174-15�� 3586,141.36 Fees are based on,the City's Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,Form 5509,revised October 20,2oi9.Fees are subject to change as the ordinance is amended by the City Council from time to time,unless stated otherwise in a separate development agreement.This estimate is preliminary and is subject to change with changes in assumptions. a) This is the maximum potential use credit,which does not account for the minimum transportation impact fee required to be collected by SANDAL.Previous use verified by reviewing rent roll data from applicant.Using historical aerial photos,the City determined that existing buildings have occupied the site since at least 1978. b) SANDAG IS TranNet Ordinance requires$2,533.15 to be collected per dwelling unit to fund the RTCIP Regional Arterial system network. The required fee for RTCIP RAS is$357,174.15(i.e.,141 MFDUs X$2,533.15/unit).The maximum potential previous use credit is capped to ensure that the full amount of RTCIP is collected.The RTCIP rate will be indexed to$2,583.82 per unit on July 1,2020. c) Chula Vista citywide Traffic Signal Fee,applied as a cost per each trip generated by the project(6 trips per unit). d) Facilities funded by Public Facilities Development Impact Fee(PFDIF). Page ES-4 I N T E R 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 377 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Introduction ff M Ills 11111110111 oil 111i Purpose The purpose of all PFFPs in Chula Vista is to implement the City's Growth Management Program (GMP)l and to meet the General Plan goals and objectives,specifically those of the Growth Management Element. The GMP ensures development occurs only when the necessary public facilities and services exist or are provided concurrently with the demands of new development.The GMP requires a PFFP be prepared for every new development project that, requires either a sectional planning area plan or tentative map a p p nova I. The PFFP is intended to be a dynamic,flexible document.The goal of the PFFP is to ensure adequate levels of service are achieved for all public facilities impacted by a project. It is understood assumed growth projections and related public facility needs are subject to a number of external falctors, such as the state of the economy or the City's future land use approval decisions. It is also understood funding sources specified herein may change due to financing programs available in the future or, requirements of either state or federal law. Cost estimates contained herein are intended for illustrative purpose only;the actual costs of such improvements will vary over time. These cost changes are not considered revisions to the PFFP and may be handled administratively. 1.2 Threshold Standards Threshold standards are used to identify when new or upgraded public facilities are needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Development approvals will not be made unless compliance with these standards can be met. The threshold standards have been prepared to guarantee public facilities or infrastructure improvements will keep pace with the demands of growth. The threshold standards fall into three general categories: ■ Performance standard: A performance standard measuring overall level of service is established for police,fire and emergency medical services, sewers, drainage facilities, and traffic. ■ Ratio.- A ratio of facilities to population is established for park and recreation facilities and for libraries. ■ Qualitative standard: A qualitative standard is established for schools, water, air quality and c,limate protection, and fiscal impacts. The qualitative standard pertains to some services that are provided by agencies outside of the City schools by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District, water service by either of two independent water districts (Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority), and the Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority, which has an agreement with the City of Chula Vista to treat its wastewater. 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 qluality and climate change impacts within the region, and the City's overall fiscal health. INTER N ATIONAL Pagel 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 378 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Introduction Pink Facilities Finance Plan 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 quality of life objectives would be met at the time of General Plan buildout during a 20- to 25-year period. 2) Certain standards are used in the evaluation of individual development projects to determine the possible project impacts and to apply appropriate conditions and requirements to mitigate those impacts. 3) All of the standards are monitored by the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) on an annual basis to ensure cumulative impacts of new growth do not result in a deterioration of quality of life, as measured by these standards. 1.3 The Project The Project is in southwestern Chula Vista, approximately 2.5 miles south of downtown Chula Vista and 11 miles south of downtown San Diego.The Project is located on a 6.9-acre parcel just east of Interstate 5 on Moss Street, between L Street and Naples Street. 1A Public Facilities Finance Plan Bounidartes The boundaries of the PUP are the area of the City west of Interstate 805. The boundaries are based on the, impact created by the Project on the existing and future need for facilities. The boundaries will correlate the proposed development Project with existing and future development proposed for the area of impact so as to provide for the economically efficient and timely installation of both on- and off-site facilities and improvements required by the development. In establishing the boundaries for the PUP, the City is guided by the following considerations: • Service areas, drainage, sewer basins, and pressure zones,that serve the project • Extent to which facilities or improvements are in place or available • Ownership of property 0 Project impact on public facilities relationships, especially the impact on the City's planned major circulation network • Special district service territories • Approved fire, drainage, sewer, or other facilities or improvement master plans The PFFP for the Project addresses public facilities within the PUP boundaries; however, the PUP also addresses certain facilities, (streets, drainage,sewer, police,fire, schools, etc.) impacted beyond the PUP boundaries. Page 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 379 of 767 676 Moss,Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Introduction ExHIBIT2.1.-PROJECT LOCATION r o r, ti. a. i e c ,'� ei- NationalCit. Bonita a c A b,.. j ,:' ce a, n.. C hula, vis taa Fr 01 "ect Site ... .......r a f � Source:Initial Study Miti ated Negative Declaration for 676 Moss Street INTER NATIION;AIIL Page 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 380 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Transportation Public Facilities Finance Plan =IMP- I! Call I I V111 I I illillw"011 I L I 111111111M 2.1 GMOC Threshold Standard This section of the PUP summarizes level of service (LOS) standards, by which the City's arterial roads are to operate.The threshold standards are set by CVMC 19.09.040.G.3. • Arterial Level of Service for Nonurban Streets. 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, except that during peak hours LOS "U"'can, occurfor no more than two hours per day. • Level of Service for Urban Streets,. TMP roadway segments classified as urban streets in the Land Use and Transportation Element of the City's General Plan shall maintain LOS "'U"or better, except that during peak hours LOS "T""can occur for no more than two,hours per day. 2.2 GMOC Level of Service Standards for Arterial Roads, The following are notes to the GMOC threshold standards for arterial roads found in CVMC Chapter 19.09.040.G.4.There are no GMOC standards for local residential streets. a. Arterial Segment. LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations. b. 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. c. Circulation improvements, should be implemented prior to the anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards. d. The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in Chapter 11 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed by the City's Traffic Engineer. e. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the following table: TABLE 2.1 G'�MOC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS Level of Average Travel Speed(mph) Service 45 mph base free-flow speed 40 mph base free)-flow speed 310 mph base free-flow speed A >36 >32 >24 B >30 >27 >20 C >23 >20 >15 �D >18 >16 >12 E >14 >12 >9 �F <14 <12 <9 Source:Transportation Research Board,Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition Exhibit 18-1(2oi6) Page 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 3 8 1. of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Transportation 2.3 Project Process*n,g Requirements The GMP requires the PFFD address the following issues for traffic facilities per Appendix C of the City's Growth Management Program Implementation Manual (C MC 19.09.090): ■ Identify on-site and off-site impacts and improvements by phase of development; and ■ Provide cost estimates for improvements. 2-4 Transportation Impaict Analysis and Methodology 67'6 Moss Street Vehicle Miles Traveled Analyst's The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (LLGJ, April 20, 2020) assesses Project-related traffic impacts through analysis of the project's impacts on vehicle miles,traveled (VMT)l.The,analysis was based on the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)Technical Advisory(December 2018). The OPR Technical Advisory suggests significance, thresholds based on VMT per resident for residential projects and VMT per employee for employment projects. For both metrics, a project whose VMT is 85 percent or lower than the citywide or regional average is presumed to have less than significant transportation impacts. The Technical Advisory also suggests various project screening procedures/ whereby certain projects may be presumed to have, less than significant transportation impacts based on their circumstances without requiring detailed VMT analysis.This screening ng process is described below. Map-Based Screening The OPR allows for "map-based screening" to determine whether or not a project ect can be presumed to have less than significant transportation impacts without requiring ring detailed modeling or analysis.The City published a screening map identifying VMT per capita for locations around the City. The VMT estimate was developed by the San Diego,Association of Governments (SANDAL) and accounts for VMT per capita considering surrounding land uses, population density,transit infrastructure, and other factors. The City's,WT map indicates the Project would have a projected VMT per capita of 10.80, which represents 61.36 percent of the regional VMT average. Since this is below 85 percent of the regional average,the Project is screened from detailed VMT analysis and its impacts are presumed to be less than significant.Therefore, the Project would not have a significant impact on VMT in the City, and no mitigation for VMT is required. 6'76 Moss Street Local Mobility Analysis Prior to conducting the VMT analysis in support of the IS/MND, LL G conducted a detailed Local Mobility Analysis, dated April 20, 2020, which analyzed the potential Project effects on the LOS of local streets.As indicated in Section 2.3 of this PFFD and CVMC 19.09.040.G, projects that substantially affect the LOS on urban roads and arterials identified in the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan are required to provide cost estimates for improvements. The Project is directly adjacent to Moss Street, a Class III Collector, and Industrial Boulevard, a Class, 11 Collector. Moss Street and Industrial Boulevard are not subject to the LOS requirements of the Growth Management Ordinance. The San Diego Association of Governments' Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the Son Diego Region (April 2002) provides trip generation rates. The Project trip generation uses the trip rates INTER N ATIONAL Page 5 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 382 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Transportation Public Facilities Finance Plan for apartment use. The Project is calculated to generate approximately 720 average daily trips with 59 total AM p,eak-hour trips(10 inbound and 49 outbound) and 64 total PM p,eak-hour trips (46 inbound and 18 outbound). LLG analyzed the effects of the project under existing plus project conditions, 2025 plus project conditions, and 20,45 plus project conditions., Substantial project-specific effects are those effects for which the addition of project trips result in an identifiable degradation in LOS on Circulation Element intersection�s, triggering the need for specific project-related improvement strategies.Substantial cumulative effects are those in which the project trips contribute to a poor LOS, at a level that falls below the project-specific effect threshold. The Local Mobility Analysis concludes the Project has no substantial Project-speci'fic effects on urban streets or other Circulation Element roads. The, Project does contribute to cumulative effects on local, non-circulation element roadways that,are not subject,to the GMOC pursuant to CVMC, 19.09.040.G.The WTDIF and Traffic Signal Fees were established to address cumulative Project effects. The Project will be required to pay over$379,000 for these fees. 2.5 Operational Improvements Direct The project would not have direct impacts o�n intersections or daily street segments in the Existing Year, Year 2025, or Horizon Year(2045) conditions.Therefore, no direct impact mitigations are required. Cumulative The project would contribute to substantial cumulative effects at intersections and daily street,segments in the Existing Year, Year 2025, and Horizon Year(2045) conditions. Because the intersections and street segments, however,are not identified in the Circulation Element as urban streets or arterials,or identified in the City's Traffic Monitoring Program, they are not subject to the thresholds of CVMC 191.09.040.G.,3, and are not, therefore, required to be accounted for in the PFFP. These cumulative effects will be alleviated by payments of the WTDIF and Traffic Signal Fees totaling over $379,000. These fees, may be used to make spec,ific improvements to segments, intersections, and signals, or may be used in support of larger projects, su�ch as the Palomar Street Grade separation. The Local Mobility Analysis identifies specif'ic projects that may be used to mitigate these cumulative effects. Westem Area Transportation Development Impaa Fee, The Project i's within the bounclaries of the WTDIF and�, as such, is subject to payment of a�ppropria�te fees. The developer's total fee obligation is based on the WTDIF rates in effect at the time of payment. Table 2.2 presents the current,WTDIF fee schedule.The,fee schedule may change from time to time as the City updates the WTDIF program or approves cost escalation factors as provided in the program. TABLE, 2,2 WESTERN AREA TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Land Use Classification Typical Land Use Density WTDIF Rate Residential(Low) 0-61 dwelling units per gross acre �4,474 per�DU Residential(Medium), 61.1�-2o,dwelling units per gross acre �3579 per DU Residential(High) >20 dwelling units pier gross acre �2,684 per DU source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 2019. Page 6 1 N T E R�N A'T 1 0 N A,L 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 383 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Transportation Based on the current fee schedule and the Project housing density of 20.4 units per acre, a rate of$2,1684 per,unit results in a total WTDIF amount of$378,444. Traffic Signal Impact Fee The Project would be required to pay the citywide Traffic Signal Fee based on expected trip generation. TABLE 23 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPACT FEE SCH�EDU�LE Land Use Classification Daily Trip Generation Rate Units Signal Fee Rate Apartment 6 trips per dwelling unit 141 X40-56 per Trip Source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 2019. The rate is $40-56 per trip, and the signal fee is calculated using an estimated rate of 6 trips per unit, leading to an estimated 846 average daily trips for the 141 units. The signal impact fee would be $34,313.76. INTER N ATIONAL Page 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 384 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Police Facilities Pink Facilities Finance Plan 111110 1111111114 mil I A I 3.1 Service Analysis The Chula Vista Police Department (C PD) provides municipal law enforcement services in the City. The purpose of the threshold standards is to maintain or improve the current level of police services throughout the City by ensuring that adequate levels of staff and equipment are provided. The original GMMC police threshold standards were adopted in 1987 and were subsequently revised, most recently in 2015. 3.2 Threshold Standard Threshold standards for police apply to response times to calls for service (CFS) of two priority levels.The threshold standards adopted in 2015 (and still in effect for the 2019 GMOC report) for Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls are as follows (CVIV11C 19.09.04O.A.3): • Priority 1- Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the city within 7 minutes, 30 seconds and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 emergency calls of 6 minutes or less(measured annually). o (Editor's Note: Emergency calls are calls, about life-threatening situations, felony in progress, probability of injury (crime or accident), robbery or panic alarms, or 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.) 0 Priority 2-Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to all Priority 2 urgent calls throughout the city within 12 minutes. o (Editor's Note: Urgent calk are regarding misdemeanor in progress, possibility of injury, or serious non-routine calls (domestic violence or other disturbances with potential for violence). Response: Immediate response by one or more officers from clear units or those on interruptible activities (traffic calls, field interviews, etc.).) • (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.") The adopted modifications involve the following changes in calculating and reporting response times: 0 Calculating response time from the time the call was received in the Communications Center to the time that the first unit arrived on scene, or the "received-to-arrive"rrive"time. 0 Elimination of the normalization adjustments of response times for CFS from the Eastern Territories,which was used to account for geographic and land use conditions that tend to extend response times relative to times in the older areas of the city. N Include false burglary alarms CFS in Priority 2 calculation. N Increase the average response time threshold for Priority 1 CFS to 6 minutes. Page 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 385 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Police Facilities ■ Increase the average response time threshold for Priority 2 SFS to 12 minutes. 3.3 Project, Process*ng Requirements The GMP requires the PFFD to address the following issues for police services: • Services reviewed must be consistent with the proposed phasing of the development project. • The project must be able to demonstrate conformance with the, Master Plan for the Chula Vista Civic Center (May 8, 19890, as the Master Plan relates to police facilities, as amended, unless stated otherwise in a development agreement. s, 34 Adequacy Analysis According to the Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report, neither the,Police Priority 1 nor the Police Priority 2 threshold standard was met. The report explained that, a total of 73.72 percent of the Priority 1 calls were responded to within 7 minutes 30 seconds, which was 6.28 percent short of the if"81 percent" threshold standard, and the average response time was six minutes and twelve seconds, which missed the, ``six minutes" threshold standard by twelve seconds. The Priority 2 average response time was 17 minutes 27'seconds,which exceeded the"12-minute average"threshold standard by five minutes and 27 seconds. The Police Department reported that they were not properly staffed to meet the threshold standards,and that they continue to work with the City Manager's office to improve staffing levels. To add more sworn officers to the department,, the GMOC recommended that the City implement the Police Department's Long-Term Staffing Plan, as presented to City Council in October 2019. They also recommended that the City's successful drone program be expanded into eastern Chula Vista. Inadequate staffing levels is a potential area of concern; however, this PFFD addresses facility threshold issues, not police department operations. As such, the cumulative mitigation measure for the Project's impacts on police facilities is payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF). Pursuant to state law, proceeds of the PFDIF may not be used for staffing or operations. The fee revenues may, however, be applied to capital improvements that serve to enhance operations and enable efficiencies that might mitigate staffing shortfalls to some extent. Financing Piolicle Facilities 3,5 t The PFDIF was last comprehensively updated by the Chula Vista City Council in November 2006. The PFDIF is adjusted approximately every October 1 pursuant to Ordinance 3050. The police component of the fee is shown in Table 3.1. The Project's final IPFDIIF obligation will be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time of payment. At the current fee rate, the Project police fee obligation at Project buildout is $293,139. TABLE 3.1 PROJECT PUBLIC FACILiTlEs FEES FOR POLICE Land Use Units Police PFID[F Rate Total Multi-Family 141 $2 $2,919 0179 per dwelling unit 3, 3 Source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 2019. Actual fee may be different and will be determined by the City at the time of payment.The PFDIF is subject to change as it is amended from time to time.Changes in the number of dwelling units or the amount of commercial acreage may affect the estimated fee. INTER N ATIONAL Page 9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 386 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Fire and Emergency Medical Services Public Facilities Finance Plan 14 0 4.1 Service Analysis The Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) provides fire and emergency medical services (EMS). American Medical Response provides EMS on a contract basis. 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 is to maintain and improve the current level of fire protection and EMS in the City.The City Council adopted a Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan (January 28, 2014) which recommended locations, staffing levels, and equipment for proposed new stations. 4.2 Threshold Standard CVMC Section 19.019.040.13.4 states that the threshold standard for fire and emergency medical services is: ■ Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within,seven minutes in at least 80 percent of the cases(measured annually). Note.-For growth tPonager-rient,purposes,response tir-ne includes dispatch, turnout ond travel time to the building or Sitie address. 43 Plroj�ect Processing Requirements The City, at its sole discretion, unless stated otherwise in a development agreement, determines when a new fire station is required to achieve threshold service levels, meet specific project guidelines, or maintain general operational needs of the CVFD. The requirement to pay public facility impact fees for construction of fire stations to serve new development projects is the responsibility of the developers of said projects. For any given project., construction and equipping of a specific fire station may be a direct impact requiring mitigation, depending on the extent of the impact. A project that would cause response times to exceed threshold standards may be obligated to construct a station or dedicate land.The City may require the developer to enter,into an agreement that guarantees the completion of the obligations. 4.4 Adequacy Analysis The CVFD currently serves the Project area.Table 4.1 lists the C,VFD stations closest to the Project site. Page 10 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 387 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Fire and Emergency Medical Services TABLE 4A CURRENT AND PLANNED FIRE STATION FACILITIES IN PROJECT'S VICINITY Statio�ns Location Zip Code Equipment 'Staffing Assigne�d On Duty No.1 447 F Street 911910 Engine 51/Truck 51;Battalion 5,1 24 8 Current No.2 80 East J Street 9119,10 Engine 52/Reserve 52 9 3 No.5 391 Oxford Street 91911 Engine 55/Reserve 53 9 3 No.9 266 E.Oneida Street 9119,11 Engine 59 9 3 Planned No.11a Bayf roint:Bay Blvd.&J Street Bayf ront Engine/Truck TBD TBD a. Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment Revised Draft EIR SCH#2005o81077(Station ii). The Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report stated that Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) complied with the growth management threshold standard of responding to calls within 7 minutes, 80 percent of the time;the City's nine fire stations combined responded within 7 minutes, 82 percent of the time. Table 4 in the Fire and EMS questionnaire (Appendix B of the annual report) indicates that the response times for each of the four existing fire stations within the project's facility, noted in the table above, complied with the threshold standard. CVFD Station 5, which is closest in proximity to the Project, responded within 7 minutes 86.3 percent of the time. Given the Project's proximity to CVFD Station 5, the CVFD would be able to serve the Project within the existing threshold standard without compromising response times;therefore, Project impacts to service times would be less than significant. The Project's design is subject to compliance with the requirements in the California Building Standards Commission California Fire Code. Project plans are reviewed and approved by CVFD staff, which would verify adequate emergency access,fire hydrant availability, and compliance with all applicable codes and standards. Compliance with the City's permit process and Municipal Code requirements would ensure Project implementation would result in a less than significant,impact to fire protection services. Finaric"ing Fire Service Facilities 4.5 1 The PFDIF was last comprehensively updated by the Chula Vista City Council in November 2006. The PFDIF is adjusted approximately every October 1 pursuant to Ordinance 3050. The, Project is, subject to payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time of payment. At the current fee rate, the Project's fire fee obligation at Project buildout is$163,842. TABLE,4,,2 PUBLIC FACILITIES FIEES, FOR FIRE/EMS FACILITIES Land Use Units Fire PFDIF Rate Total Multi-Family 141 $IJ 62 per dwelling unit $163,842 Source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October2 0 1'9. INTER N ATIONAL Page 11 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 388 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Park Dedication and Improvements Public Facilities Finance Plan 0 5.1 Service Analysis The City provides public park and recreational facilities and Iprograms through the Public Works and Community Services departments, which are responsible for the acquisition, development, and maintenance of parkland.All park development plans are reviewed by City staff and the park master plans are presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review. The Commission then makes recommendations to the City Council. 5.2 Threshold Standard Per Section 19.09.040.D.3 of the CVMC, the threshold standard is: Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. 53 Existing Condittons The existing and future parks are depicted in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the City's General Plan,and as updated in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, last revised November 13,2018. The plan provides guidance for planning, siting, and implementation of neighborhood and community parks. 5.4 Project Park Requtrements The Project will generate an estimated residential population of 368 west of 1-805. Because the Project is west of 1-8051, the growth management threshold standard requiring three acres of parkland per 1,000, residents east of 1-805 is not applicable. However, per the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) (CVMC 17.10.040), the Project is required to dedicate three acres, per 1,000 residents, as shown in Table 5.1.The standard is based on California Government Code Section 66477, also known as the Quimby Act, which allows a city to reqluire, by ordinance, the dedication of land or payment of fees for park or recreational purposes or a combination of both. TABLE 5.1, QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS Residential Population Standard Parkland Acres,Required 368 3 acres per 1,000 residents 1.104 Source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 2019 All new development in Chula Vista is subject to the requirements in the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) in CVMC Chapter 17.10, The PDO establishes fees for parkland acquisition and development (PAD fees), sets standards for dedication, and establishes criteria for acceptance of parks and open space. Fees vary depending on the type of dwelling unit proposed. The PDO specifies a square footage of land area to be dedicated for each type. The Project's 141 units are high-clensity multi-family units, which require 341 square feet of parkland per unit; the dedication obligation is calculated in Table 5.,2.The PDO method is a slightly different approach to calculating the park acreage obligation than the Quimby Act requirement in Table 5.1. Page 12 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 389 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Park Dedication and Improvements TABLE 5.2 PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS BASED ON PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE STANDARDS Dwelling Unit Type Land Dedication per Unit Park Dedication Requirement for 141 units Multi-Family 341 sq.ft. 1.104 acres Source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 2019 oto 5.5 Financing Park Facilt tes CVIVIC Chapter 17.10,as amended,unless stated otherwise in a parks or development agreement,,governs the,financing of parkland and improvements. Included as part of the regulations are PAD fees established for the purpose of providing neighborhood and community parks. The PDO, requires fees be paid to the City prior to alpproval of a final subdivision map, or in the case of a residential development that is not required to submit a subdivision of land, at the time of the final building permit application. Table 5.3 identifies the fees calcul�alted for the development component of the PAD fees (alpplicable citywide),while Table 5.4 identifies the fees calculated for the parkland acquisition component of the PAD fees (applicable to areas west of Interstate 805)1. These fees are, estimates only; actual fees will be based on PAD fee rates in effect at the time of payment and are dependent on the actual numbers of residential units filed on the subdivision of lands. Fees are also subject to change by the City Council. The development in-lieu fees may be used by the City to construct public parks or to satisfy the Project's full parkland obligation. T'ABLE 5.3 PARK DEVELOPM ENT'COM PON ENT FEES (DEVELOPMENT IN-LIEU COMPONENT ONLY) Land Use Units Development Component of PAD Fees Calculated Fee Multi-Family 141 $5,95,2 per dwelling unit $839,232 Source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 2019. TABLE, 5A PARK ACQUISITION COMPONENT FEES (AcQuISITION IN-L,IEU COMPONENT ONLY) Land Use Units West Area Acquisition Component of PAD Fees Calculated Fee Multi-Family 141 $3,707 per dwelling unit $522,687' Source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 2019. INTER N ATIONAL Page 13 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 390 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Public Facilities Finance Plan This section pertains to Civic Center, library, Corporation Yard, and administration which, together with police, fire, and recreation facilities (which are discussed separately above)., comprise the facility components of the PFDIF. 6.1 Civic Centerill, Corporation Yard, Recreation, and Administration There are no adopted threshold standards for Civic Center, Corporation Yard, recreation or administration; therefore, no adequacy or service analysis is required. 6.2 Libraries, Service Analysis The City provides library services in three locations: 1) the Chula Vista Civic Center Library at Fourth Avenue and F Street; 2) the South Chula Vista Library at Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue; and 3) the Otay Ranch Town Center in eastern Chula Vista. Threshold Standard Section 19.09040,.C.4 of the CVMC states that the threshold standard is,the following: 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 residen tS.2 Existing Conditions Table 6.1 lists the current libraries serving the City. used on Chula Vista's 2019 population of 274,644 (according to the estimate by the California Department of Finance), the current service ratio is approximately 350 square feet per 1,,000 residents. TABLE, 6,1 CURRENT, LIBRARY FACILITIES Current Libraries Square Footage Civic Center Branch 57,000 South Chula Vista Branch 37,000 Otay Ranch Town Center Branch 3,412 Total Existing Square Feet 97,412 Source:2019 GMOC Report 2.The GIVICIC threshold of 500 gross square feet(GSF)per 1,000 residents is stated in CVMC Section 19.09.040.C.Construction of library space is to be phased such that the City does not fall below this threshold. However,the Chula Vista PFDIF program uses a `'service standard" of 600 GSF aper 1,000, which is the target or desired standard to be achieved at buildout of the City. The Library Strategic Vision Plan recommends a range of 500 to 700 GSF. Page 14 1 N T E R�N 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 391. of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Public Facilities Adequacy Analysts The Fiscal Year 2019 GI 'IOC Annual Report stated that the threshold standard had not been met for 16 consecutive years,and that the current gross library floor area service ratio was 350 square feet per 1,000 residents., 150 square feet per 1,000 residents below the threshold standard.The ratio is projected to fall to 330 square feet per 1,000 residents in FY 2021 if planned branch library facilities are not constructed. Based on the Project's projected population of 368, the Project will generate a demand for 178 gross square feet of additional library space. If not mitigated, this demand will contribute incrementally to the projected library services deficit. Payment of the PFDIF library component provides the required mitigation to allow the City to acquire land and construct and equip branch library facilities to serve this and other projects in this area. J 61.3 Ananding Public Facilities The City Council last updated the PFDIF on October 20, 2019.The PFDIF amount is adjusted approximately every October 1 pursuant to Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City Council on November 7, 20016.The PFDIIF amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. The Project is subject to the payment of the PFDIF at the rates in effect at the time of payment.Table 6.2 shows the Project's fee obligation at Project buildout for public facility components(except for police and fire protection, discussed separately above) using the current fee rate. 'TABLE, 61.2 PFIDIF FOR CIVIC CENITER,, LIBRARY, CORPORATION YARD, RECREATION AND ADMINISTRATION Land Use Units Facility Rate per Unit Total Fee Civic Center028 �3, W6,948 Library �IF837 �259,017 Multi-Family 141 Corporation Yard X414 �58,374 Recreation $1,395 $19,611695 Administration 5654 5920,214 Total $1,033,248 Source:Form 5509,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 201'9. INTER N ATIONAL Page 15 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 392 of 767 676 Moss Street,,Chula Vista,California Sewer Facilities Public Facilities Finance Plan ION 11 1 11 MR 11 11 11 IN 11 1 1111111111111 7.1 Service Analysis, The City currently purchases capacity for wastewater treatment through the Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (Metro) system. Chula Vista oversees the construction,, maintenance, and operation of the sewer collection facilities. The City Engineer is responsible for reviewing proposed developments and ensuring the necessary sewer facilities are provided with each development project. The sewer threshold standard was developed to maintain adequate, sanitary sewer collection and disposal systems for Chula Vista. Individual projects are required to provide necessary improvements consistent with the Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan, dated May 2014, and to comply with all City engineering standards. The project proposes to, convey wastewater toan existing sewer main in Moss Street with a private, on- site wastewater system.The City is snot responsible for any ongoing operations or maintenance costs associated with the on-site system., 7.2 Tlhreshoild Standa�rd The growth mai na ge me nt threshold sta nda rd for sewer per Section 19.09.040.E.3 of t he CVM C is: 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 Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority or other means sufficient to meet the projected needs of development. Once a year, Chula Vista provides Metr03 with the City's annual 12- to, 18-month residential growth forecast, requesting an evaluation of Metro's ability to accommodate the forecasted growth, and confirmation that the development projections are within the City's,purchased capacity rights. The information provided to the GM' OC muist include the following: • Amount of current capacity now used or committed • Ability of affected facilities to absorbforecast growth • Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities • Other relevant information 3. The Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority operates the Metropolitan Sewerage Sub-System, which treats the wastewater genie rated by 16 cities and districts in the region,,including the City of Chu I a Vista.The Metro service area comprises 450 square miles with a population of over 2.2 million, Page 16 1 N T E R N A T 1 01 N A L 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 393 of 767 676 Moss Street,,Chula Vista,California Public Faci'li'ties Finance Plan Sewer Facilities, 7.3 Existing and Proposed Conditions The City will provide sanitary sewer service for the Project. The City operates and maintains its own sanitary collection system, which connects to the Metro wastewater treatment system. All wastewater generated within the Project will be conveyed to City sewer mains that discharge into the Metro sewer interceptor.The wastewater is ultimately treated bythe Cityof San Diego at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant("' V\/T`P . The City is allocated approximately 20.9 million gallons per day (mgd) of capacity in the Metro W\A/TP, including about 4 mgd in reserve capacity rights. The City's buildout flow is estimated at 201.76 mgd according to information provided by the City Engineer to the GMOC for their Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report, indicating that there is currently adequate capacity rights to serve the sewer demands of this Project. Pl3S&J (now Atkins) prepared a supporting study for the Village 8 West and Village 9 Program EIR4 analyzing treatment plant capacity relative to land uses in the adopted 2005 General Plan. The study includes the increased densities of Village 8 West and Village 9, as well as the potential increased flows from the Bayfront Development Project.The study indicates the total future treatment capacity required in the cumulative condition may be as high as 32.5 mgd, leaving the City 11.6 mgd more than its present allocation. The Project's 141 multi-family units will generate approximately 25,662 gpd based on 182 gallons per day per dwelling units. Theoretically,there is regional sewer treatment caparity available,for purchase.The City, however,does not wish to buy more capacitythan is needed to meet projected demands.The City will either purchase capacityas needed or suspendthe issuance of building permits until the needed capacityis acquired. 7.4 Financing Sewer Facilities To, finance the City's, purchase of additional treatment capacity from Metro when needed to accommodate future demand, project developers are required to pay the Sewer Capacity Charge, as estimated in Table 7.1, prior to final inspection. Table 7.1 summarizes the estimated Sewer Capacity Charge for the Project.The fee shown is as currently adapted and is subject to change by the CityCouncil. Sewer Caparity Charges are adjusted annuallyon October L. Notwithstanding payment of the fee, development may not occur without adequate sewer capacity as determined by the City Engineer. Building permits will not be issued if the City Engineer has determined that adequate sewer capacity does not exist. All development must comply with the CVMC,, specifically Sections 19.09.040.E.3 and 13.14-030. TABLE7.1SEWER CAPACITY CHARGE Land Use Units ED,U Factor 'Total EDU Sewer Capacity Rate Calculated Charge Multi-Family 141 0.79 111-39 �3,8,92 per EDU $433,530 Source:Form 55o9,Development Checklist for Municipal Code Requirements,October 2019. EDU is Equivalent Dwelling Unit 4.Salt Creek Interceptor Technical Sewer Study for the South Otay Ranch (Village 8 West and Village 9), October 2010. 5.City of Chula Vista Master Fee Schedule,Bulletin 12-100. 1 N T E R N A T 1 0 NAL Page 17 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 394 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Water Facilities Public Facilities Finance Plan 8.1 Service Analysis The Sweetwater Authority (SWA) has existing facilities in the vicinity of the Project site and will provide potable water service for the Project. 8.2 Threshold Standards The Project developer is required to meet the growth management threshold standards and provide all facilities needed to serve the Project as required by the SWA. The growth management threshold standards for water facilities are as follows (CVMC 19.09.040,.C.3): 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 County Water Authority,the Sweetwater Authority and the Ota�y Municipal Water District with the City's annual five-year residential growth forecast and request that they provide an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth. IReplies should address the following: i. Water availability to the City, considering both short-and long-term perspectives. ii. Identify current and projected demand,and the amount of current capacity,including storage capacity, now used or committed. iii. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. iv. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. V. Other relevant information the district(s) desire to communicate to the City and the Growth Management Oversight Commission (G'MOC). 8. to ,3 Existing and Proposed Conditions The water supply planning documents of SWA, the San Diego County Water Authority, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) identify the water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the Project, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary to develop these supplies. The 2015,S ,/A Urban Water Management Plan states annual water supplies available to SIVA are anticipated to range from 22,488 acre-feet to 26,218 acre-feet between 2020 and 2040. The Project's annual potable water demand is estimated at 55.85 acre-feet, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the water supply totals forecast under all water year scenarios between 2020 and 2040. Page 18 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 395 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan Water Facilities 8.4 Water Capacity Charges In conjunction with its Capital Improvement Program (CIP),the SWA facilitates design and construction of facilities and collects an appropriate share of the cost from project developers, through collection of capacity fees charged to water meter purchases. Capital improvement projects typically include supply sources, pumping facilities, operational storage,, terminal storage, and transmission mains. The capacity charge as of July 1, 2018, is$5,778, which is, payable to the SWA. INTER N ATIONAL Page 19 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 396 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Drainage Facilities Public Facilities Finance Pllan N 011i lip OM I I I r, i M 1 1111 0 1 11 1111� I I I � I 9.1 Service Analysis The City Public Works Department is respons,ible for ensuring safe and efficient stormwater drainage systems are provided concurrently with development to protect the residents and properties within the City. City staff is required to review individual projects to ensure improvements are consistent with the City's drainage master plan and that the projects comply with all City engineering drainage standards. 91.2 Threshold Standards The growth management threshold standards for drainage facilities are as follows (CVM C 19.09.040.F.3): 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. 9 1 Ote .3 Existing a�n�d Proposed Coridt tons The Project area currently drains to an existing 12-foot-wide by 10-foot-deep double culvert that runs underneath the site. The Project's Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWAMP)outlines construction and non-stormwater discharge,erosion control,sediment controls(fiber rolls,gravel bags),source controls(construction waste management, litter control, stockpile pollutants), and best management practices (BMPs),, which will be required to be integrated into Project design. The SWQMP is required to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. According to the draft SWQMP, on-site stormwater runoff would flow toward existing storm drain inlets across the site, where the stormwater would be directed toward water quality detention vaults for treatment. Additionally, three proposed sub-grade proprietary BMPs (Bio Clean Modular Wetlands System) or equivalent would be included for water quality treatment. All stormwater BMPs and onsite storm drains and pipes would be privately maintained and are not public facilities. After undergoing treatment via the proposed BMPs, Project site runoff would be connected to the existing culvert. All on-site improvements and connections to existing drainage facilities will be provided by the Project developer. Page 20 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 397 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Public Facilities Finance Plan 10.0 Air Quality and climate protection ..................................................... 10.1 Service Analysis The City is responsible for protecting air quality in accordance with applicable federall state, and regional air quality regulations and programs. One of the objectives stated in the Growth Management Element (GME) of the City's General Plan is to be proactive in planning to meet federal and state air quality standards,and this objective,is incorporated into the element's action program. The Growth Management ordinance adopted by the, City Council requires air quality improvement plans (AQIPs) for major development projects (50 residential units or commercial/industrial projects with equivalent air quality impacts) (CVMC Section 19.09.080.13 The ACIP is to include an assessment of how a project has been designed to reduce emissions, and identification of mitigation measures. The City Council adopted the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Reduction Plan on November 14, 2000. The plain included implementing measures regarding transportation and energy-efficient land use planning and building construction measures for new development. In this plan, it was recognized the City's efforts to reduce Coe emissions from new development are directly related to energy conservation and air quality efforts. As a result, the City initiated a pilot study to identify and evaluate the relative effectiveness and costs of applying various design and energy conservation features in new development projects. The original CO2, Reduction Plan was revised to incorporate new climate mitigation (2008) and adaptation (2011) measures to strengthen the City's climate action efforts and to facilitate numerous community co benefits such as utility savings, better air quality, reduced traffic congestion, local economic,development, and improved quality of life. 10.2 Threshold Standards The growth management threshold standard is as follows (CVMC 19.09.o5O.A.3): 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. The City also provides the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) with a copy of its annual residential growth forecast,and the APCD reports on overall regional and local air quality conditions,t'he status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the regional air quality strategy and related federal and state programs, and the effect of those efforts/programs on the City and local planning and development activities., INTER N ATIONAL Page 21 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 398 of 767 676 Moss Street, Chula Vista, California Air Quality and climate protection Pink Facilities Finance Pllan 10.3 Adequacy Analysis The air quality and greenhouse emissions analysis conducted for the Project identifies construction- related and operational emissions. The analysis determined that, without mitigation, the Project would result in significant construction-related impacts. Therefore, prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit,the Project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Building Department that all off-road construction equipment to be used on the Project site in excess of 50 horsepower will be equipped with engines that meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier IV Final off-road engine emission standards. The analysis did not identify any significant operational impacts. Page 22 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 399 of 767 676 Moss Street Proposed General Plan Amendments m m MOSS E E�,T E�� I E�� TI �L���� SUMMARY OF CITY" NET' FISCAL, I ACT, E L C, ,,HU,L,A VISTACA III repared Florr: SLF111-Moss Street, LLCIII Plrelpai-ecl Bly: A j k s 1,,mill"(,) ,Ko,,,,s,Ml0NlTl COMIPANIIIIS, 1601 N., Sileptilvelcla Blvd.#382 Maiihattlan Beach, CA9026,116 Teleplliion�e: (4,24) 29"T-10"70 April 201,201, 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 410 of 767 MOSS STREET RESIDENTIAL SUMMARY OF CITY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL CHULA V/STA, CA Prepared For: SLF-Moss Street, LLC Prepared By: kosmon Companies KOSMONT COMPANIES 1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #382 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (424) 297-1070 www.kosmont.com April 2020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 401 of 767 Table o�f Contents 1.0 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................4 1.1 Background & Purpose .............. ......... ................4 1.2 City Net Fiscal Impact Model ...................................................................................4 1.3 Project Description.............................................................................................. 5 1.4 Summary of Findings - Proposed Project—,..............................................................5 1.5 Summary of Findings - Existing Industrial...... .............................. 6 1.6 Summary of Findings - Expected Industrial .....,..... ..................................................7 2.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................8, 2.1 Background & Purpose ............... ....... ........................................9 2.2 City's Fiscal Impact Model.......... .............. 9 2.3 Proposed Project........................................................ ................................9 2.4 Existing Industrial.................................................................. .................................9 2.5 Expected Industrial....... ................................. .............. 101 2.6 Project Location .............. ............................ .....12 3.0 Adjustments to Fiscal Model.........................................I........ .. .....i.......i...................15 3.1 Property Tax - Growth in Assessed Valuation ........................................................15 3.2 Property Tax- Tax Rate.....,..................................................................................�..18 3.3 Real Property Transfer Tax.......................................... ..........................................19 3.4 Cumulative Adjustments—..... ................................. ................................�-20 3.5 Additional Adjustments...,..... ............................................................................20 4.0 Fiscal and Economic Impacts ...............................................................................woomm.21 4.1 Summary of Findings - Proposed Project-,..... ......................................................21 4.2 Summary of Findings - Existing Industrial.... ....... ......................22 4.3 Summary of Findings - Expected Industrial ............................................... ......23 5.0 Appendices......i.......i................I.....I.-,.....I......................................................................................24 Appendix A: Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Mode,l for Proposed Project......................25 Appendix B: Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Model for Existing Industrial Use ..,.............�45 Appendix C: Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Model for Expected Industrial Use............65 Appendix D: Recent Industrial Sales Comparables ....................... ................85, T pilions, ro i,f, n,aNsies P r( Ii 1 'l o 15', "9, ,s,ixf rel",itz,ril, l i ailwaj�exa,i;nple15 hp;re,in Fry -movor fulum Rroj,cir: pro,fe.xma,,0-aM mee df-citawl.L I Q 11,1,1�a, artaikysa a,�rp-vo.ociii,ons, orily.. Aclwal,ro�3LA,s-(,mayr,ditfor fil unn Inexi,",io Ir-w .0 kos'11161111`11111� H 1 (4,Z14,), it 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 412 of 767 Index of Tables Table 1 Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Proposed Project ................................................... 6 Table 2: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Existing Industrial & Proposed Project ................... 7 Table 3: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Expected Industrial & Proposed Project........ 8 Tabile 4: Industrial Condominium Residual Land Value ........................... 1 Tabile 5: NAR Information on Tenure in Previous Home (6 Year Median for Townhomes) ........16 Table 6: Assessed Valuation with 3.5% Yr/Yr Growth & 8 Year Turnover Adjustment.,...............17 Table 7: Property Tax Rate Adjustment .....................................................................................18 Tabile 8: Real Property Transfer Tax Adjustment.....,.............................................. 19 Tabile 9: Cumulative Adjustments to Fiscal Model...... ............................ 2 0 Table 10: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Proposed Project .................................................21 Table 11: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Existing Industrial & Proposed Project ................22 Tabile 12: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Expected Industrial & Proposed Project..............23 Index of r Figure 1: Map of San Diego Region & City of Chula Vista........................... 12 Figure 2: Map of Chula Vista Area & Site........................................................................................13 Figure 3: Aerial Site Map... .......................................... ...........................14 Figure 4: San Diego / Chula Vista Home Prices (1/1987 7/20191 - 3.77% Compounded)........16 Figure 5: San Diego / Chula Vista Home Prices (8/2009 7/20191 - 4.96% Compounded)........17 11S I 111111 E liq L 3 2021W*W*A1aQJFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 403 of 767 1 .0 Executive Su ary 1.1 Background & Purpose SILF-Moss Street, LLC ("Shopoff") is currently pursuing entitlements to facilitate the development of a residential community ("Project") on an approximately 6.9-acre site ("Site"), at the northeast corner of the intersection of Industrial Boulevard and Moss Street in Chula Vista, California ("Gity"). In order to assist the City"s, evaluation of the proposed Project, the City requested that Shopoff provide a summary of the City's inet fiscal impact model that estimates the fiscal impacts of the proposed Project to the City. Shopoff retained Kosmont Companies ('Xosmont"),to prepare this summary ("Analysis"). In general: Kosmont utilized the City)I s fiscal impact model to prepare this Analysis. • Kosmont evaluated three potential scenarios for the Site: • Proposed Project - Reuse of the Site with the Proposed Project • Existing Industrial - Continued use of the Site as-is • Expected Industrial - Continued use of the Site as-is with an increase in assessed value through a sale of the Site Kosmont made adjustments to the City's fiscal model to account for property turnover and reassessment of property taxes upon turnover/ resale that will occur within the Project. The adjusted fiscal model estimates that the Project will be revenue positive during 17 of the first 20 years of Project operation,. • From year 10 on, the Project will be revenue positive for the, City, and net positive revenues are projected to grow annually. • Municipal revenues from the, Project will support the cost of providing municipal service's to it, and generate net new fiscal revenues of over$300,000 over the first 20 of operation. • The existing industrial use on the Property is revenue negative for the City. 1.2 City Net Fiscal Impact Model This Analysis summarizes outputs from a fiscal impact model prepared for the City by a third party ("Fiscal Model"'). While Kosmont regularly prepares fiscal impact models, and evaluates net fiscal impacts derived therefrom, the Fiscal Model summarized herein was not prepared by Kosmont. A separate analysis of the, estimated net fiscal impacts, as well as overall economic benefits as estimated by Koismont utilizingi Kosmont's fiscal model was prepared and is separately available. Based on Kosmont's review of the City's Fiscal Model utilized herein, itis Kosmont's conclusion that there are, a number of elements of the Fiscal Model that likely understate potential City revenues, and overstate potential City expenditures associated with the proposed Project. Two of these elements -the calculation of property tax revenue and real property transfer tax revenue are addressed herein. The balance of elements that are expected to warrant modification are not addressed herein as Kosmont's access to underlying calculations within the Fiscal Model was 11 S I 111111 E liq L 4 202AY*W*AYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 404 of 767 restricted, and Kosmont could only evaluate outputs from the Fiscal Model. Kosmont's,conclusion that modification is likely warranted pis based on potentially incongruous outputs from the Fiscal Model. Given access to the underlying calculations utilized in the Fiscal Model, Kosmont could provide additional analysis and commentary. 11.3 Project Description The Site is currently utilized for a variety of industrial uses including heavy eq�uipment rentals, shipping container repair and storage, and sandblasting material and equipment suppliers. The proposed Project would redevelop the Site with approximately 141 attached residential dwelling units ranging in size from approximately 1,175 to 1,950 square feet. The total value of the Project is estimated to be approximately $77 million. 1.4 Summary of Findings - Proposed Project Based on the unmodified Fiscal Model, the Project is estimated to generate between approximately ($17,000) to $30,000 per year in net City municipal revenues during the first 20, years of Project operation. used on the Fiscal Model with the minor adjustments discussed in detail herein, the Project is estimated to,generate between approximately($4,000)to$71,000 per year in net City municipal revenues in the first 20 years of Project operation, generating a cumulative total of approximately $3001,0100 in net municipal revenues over the same period. Additional details follow in Table 1 below, and all assumptions can be found in Appendix A: Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Model for Project. 11 S I 111111 E liq L 5 202AY*W*RYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 405 of 767 Table 1: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Proposed Project Net Fiscal l evenuea in Adjusted Cumulative Unmodified Net Fiscal Net Fiscal Year Fiscal Model Revenues Revenues 1 $ 293711 $ 70,935 $ '70393 2 203,182 19,'756 o, 1 133914 147348 1053039 83924 10,425 1153464 5 33628 61487 II 2 1 3 951 (1,810) 21777 124,728 7 (7,636) (851) 123,877 8 (131206) (3,660) 120,217 (1219�42) (43) 120,174 'l 0, (12,586) 22952 123112+ 'l'l (1217'5 1) 5,565 128, 91 1 2 (12,91391) ,1297 136,988 113 (137,151) 11,152 1483 140 4 (13,6006) 13,918 '1623058 'l 5 (1 41097) 16,811 1783869 'l 1 41 1 7 1 ,839 198,709 ' 71 (15,1 '11) 23,006 2211,71 4 'l (151762) 26,317 2483032 119, (169391) 291780 2773812 20 (1 79060) 33,395 3113 207 Source: City's Fiscal Model, Kosmont (2020) 1.5 Summary of Findings - Existing Industrial This Analysis includes an evaluation of the existing industrial (`Existing Industrial") uses on the Site. Eased on the Fiscal Model, the Existing Industrial use on the Property is revenue negative for the city, and projected to be revenue negative in every year of the period evaluated. A summary of estimated net city revenues under the Existing Industrial use follows in Table 2 below; a comparison with estimated revenues generated by the proposed Project is also included for reference. All assumptions can be found in Appendix E: Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Model for Existing Industrial Use. 11 I 111111 E liq L 6 2021 Ya' " ck TY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 406 of7 7 Table 2: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Existing Industrial & Proposed Project Rrqposed Existing Industrial Pry�ecIL Net Fiscal Revenues in Unmodified Adjusted ,Adj usted Fiscal Net Fiscal Net Fiscal Year Model Revenues Revenues 1 (183), $ (158) $ 701935 2 (545) (519) 191756 (774' (747) 141348 4 (9601), (933) 101425 (1,158) (1,130) 6,487 (1,1362), (1,334) 2,5777 7 (1,1583), (1,554) (851) (1 1793), (1 376"4) (31660) 91 ( ,1777), (1 3747) (43) 'l 0 (1,x"591), (13729) 2,952 'l'l (1,x"591), (1,728) 5,565 112 1 1759), (1 3727) 8,297 'l (1,11 1 (1,729) 11,152 14 (1,5771 '(1$738) 13191 15 (1,)1783)1 (1,x"49) 161811 'l (1,)1796)1 (1 1762) 19,839 17 {1,8101) (1,775) 23,006 1 (1,1826), (1 1790) 26,317 191 (1,1844), (1,808 " 291780 201 (1,863) (1,820) 333395 Cumulative Total $ (29,24'7) $ 311,2017 Source: City's Fiscal Model, Kosmont (2020) 1.6 Summary of Findings - Expected Industria An evaluation of the continued existing industrial uses on the Site but with an adjustment to assessed valuation through a sale of the Site (`Expected Industrial") is also, included herein. Absent the proposed Project, given the existing improvements on the Site, and the existing revenues generated therefrom, it is expected that the current market value of the Site, as-is, makes industrial redevelopment on the Site financially infeasible,. Thin, absent the proposed Project, the most likely outcome for the Site is continued use of the existing improvements. Eased on the City's Fiscal Model, given an increase in taxable assessed valuation through a sale, the Expected Industrial scenario would be moderately revenue positive for the city. A summary of estimated net city revenues under the Expected Industrial use as a result of a step up in assessed. 11 I 111111 E liq L 7 2021 Ya' " ck TY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 407 off"767 valuation through a sale follows in Table 3 below; a comparison with estimated revenues generated by the proposed Project is, also included for reference. All assumptions can be, found in Appendix C: Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Model for Expected Industrial Use. Table 3: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Expected Industrial & Proposed Project Proposed Expected Industrial Project Net Fiscal �Revenues in Unmodified Ad i usted A di usted Fiscal Net Fiscal Net Fiscal Year Model Revenues Revenues 1 $ '7,1227' $ i 0'Y 847 $ 7th,935 2 '7,1013 '7,1059 19,1756 3, 61936 &1983 14,1348 14 6,904 &1952 10,11425 5 6,863 &1912 6,487 6 6,819 61869 21777 17 6,762 61813 (851) 8 6,719 &)771 (3,+8+80} 91 6,905 &)958 (43) 110 7,0977',1 5 1 2,952 1111 7,274 7,329 5,565 112 7,454 '7 1 510 8297 113 7,636T1693 111,152 114 '7,181 4 '7,1872 13,1918 115, '7,1994 &1054 16,1811 116 8,17'7' 8238 19,1839 117 &1362 &11424 23,1006 118 8549 8512 26,1317 119 8739 &1804 29,1780 20 &1931 &)997 33,305 Cumulative Total $ 1543849 $ 31132017 The analyses, projections,assn ins, rates of re m, and any examples presented herein are for,illustrative purposes ani'are not a guarantee ofactual and/or future resullits, Pr 'ect pr,o for and tax anatysies are projections oJ only.-Actual results may differ materfally from those,expressed in this,anal"YSIS1.1 1110oss S 1111111 E Iq L 8 202AY*W*RYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 408 of 767 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Background Purpose Shopoff is currently pursuing entitlements to facilitate the development of a residential community on an approximately 6.9-acre Site in Chula' ista, California. In order to assist the City's evaluation of the proposed Project, the City requested that Shopoff provide a summary of the city's s, net fiscal impact model that estimates the fiscal impacts of the, proposed Project to the City. Shopoff retained Kosmont to prepare this Analysis. 2.2 C"Ilty's �F"Iscal Impact �Model The Analysis herein is based on a fiscal impact model developed on behalf of, and for the City by a third party, and is snot based Kosmont)I s, own fiscal impact model. The city's, Fiscal Model estimates fiscal impacts based on land use (i.e. single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, office, hotel), employee count (i.e. commercial, industrial, office, or hotel land uses), dwelling unit count (i.e. single family residential or multi-family residential land uses) and assessed value of the, scenario. All other assumptions within the City's, Fiscal Model are constrained and not subject to modification,. Complete printouts, of the City's model for the scenarios evaluated herein are included in the appendices. 2.3 Proposed Project The proposed Project would redevelop the Site with approximately 141 residential dwelling units ranging in size from approximately 1,175 to 1,950 square feet. Units range from two to four bedrooms and all have two car garages. All units are three stories in height, approximately 50 have rooftop decks, and units, are in a total of 18 three, four,, five, and six plea row townhome buildings. The development also includes a central community green with BBQ, tot lot, seating, and shade structure amenities. The total assessed value of the Project upon completion and sale to individual homeowners is estimated to initially be approximately $77 million. 2.4 Existing Industrial The approximately 6.91-acre Site is currently developed with several buildings totaling approximately 37,000 square feet. The Site is currently utilized for a variety of industrial uses including heavy equipment rentals, shipping container repair and storage,, and sandblasting material and equipment suppliers. As of the 2019 tax year the Site and improvements thereon had an assessed value of $3,946,185, and this value was utilized in the City's Fiscal Model. Finally,, for the purposes of evaluation iiin the City's Fiscal Model, it was assumed that the existing businesses on the Site support 38 employees. 11 S I 111111 E liq L 9 202AY*W*RYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 409 of 767 2.5 Expected Industrial Kosmont evaluated the potential market value of the Site with the existing improvements. Kosmont also evaluated the local industrial real estate market and concluded that redevelopment of the Site with industrial condominiums represents the highest and best use of the Site that conforms with the current zoning for the Site. Kosmont then evaluated the supportable residual land value of the Site for redevelopment with industrial condominiums. Based on this evaluation, itis, Kosmont's, conclusion the existing improvements, yield amore value than redevelopment of the Site with industrial condominiums could support. As such, Kosmont expects that absent the proposed Project, the Site would likely sell to an investor or investor / user that would elect to maintain the existing improvements on the Site, and the revenues generated therefrom. Additional discussion follows below. Economic Value of Site & Existing Improvements Based on rent roll and profit and loss statements reviewed by Kosmont, the buildings and lot area that comprise the Site are leased to four tenants that generate approximately $4501,0100 to $475,000 in net annual income (EE ITDA). CBRE Research's U.S. Cap Rate Survey for the Second Half 2019 (Advance Review) for Class C value-add properties (generally the lowest quality and riskiest investment) in the San Diego market provides market capitalization rates, of 7.0% to 8.0% for this product type. Given the Site I s, inet annual income, and a 7.0% to 8.0% capitalization rate, the expected value of the Site and improvements, as-is, would range from $576257000 ($4507000 / .08) to $6,1785,714 ($4757000 / .07). Given the Site's existing 37,0001 square feet of improvements, this is equal to approximately $152 to $183 per square foot of building area. It should be noted that the existing tenants also utilize the surface/ lot area of the Site, for their operations, and thus likely ascribe value, not only to the buildings on the Site, but a I so th e I of a rea. Note.- If an in vector considered the property to be superior to a Class C value- add property, and ascribed a lower capitalization rate, it would serve to increase the value of the Site and existing Improvements. Residual Land Value of Site Redeveloped with Industrial Condominiums A review of recent industrial property sales in the area indicated that highest value per square foot of industrial building area was achieved by industrial condominium product (generally $200 to $205 per square foot, please see Appendix D: Recent Industrial Sales Comparables). This product type is reasonably similar in construction cost to other industrial product but has a demonstrated ability to command a premium in sales price versus other industrial product. To evaluate the supportable residual land value for industrial condominiums Kosmont evaluated estimated construction costs, and potential net sales revenues from such product. Details of this evaluation follow in Table 4 below. For reference, this analysis was used on an analogous development located at 3513 — 3523 Main Street in the City. 11 S I 111111 E liq L 10 202AY*W*AYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 410 of 767 Table 4: industrial Condominium Residual Land Value Development Cost - Law Site work $ 16.00 /SF 801,000 SF $ 418161000 Vertical Improvements 80.oo /S F 1203400 SF 93632,000 Soft Costs 25% of'Total $ 19,2 4,000 LS 438163000 Total Development. Cost - Logy $19,264,+000 Development Coat - High Site work $ 20.00 /SF 801,000 SF $ 6,020,000 Vertical Improvements 90.00 /s F 120,400 SF 1018361000 Soft Costs 30°% of Total $ 247080,000 LS 7,224,000 Total Development Coat - High $ Residual Land Value - Low Revenue (Low) $ 200.00 /SF 1203400 sl $241080)0001 Less: Development Cost (High) 200.00 /SF 120,400 SF (241018011000) Less: Required Profit High 12"°1"0 of sales $ 24,080,000 LS (21889,6001) Residual Land Value - low $ (2,889,600) Residual Land Value -I High Revenue High $ 225.00 /SF 1203400 SF $2710190)10001 Less: Development Cost (Low) 180.00 /SF 120,400 SF (1 932641000) Less: Required Profit (Low) 10°1' of sales $ 27,0901,000 Ls (2,70930 Residual Land Value - High $ 5,117,000 In summary, it was assumed that the 8.91 acre site could yield an FAIL.of 0.40, or 120,400 square feet of building area, the estimated cost of construction would range from approximately $19.3 to $24.1 million, and support a residual land value of approximately negative $2.g million to, $8.1 million, with the higher end based on a potentially aggressive sales price of$225 per square foot. Thus, based on this analysis, redevelopment of the site is expected to yield a maximum supportable value of approximately $8.1 million, while the economic value of the Site with the existing improvements, as-is,1 is estimated to support a value of,approximately$8.8 to$6.8 million. Based on this analysis it is Kosmont's conclusion that absent the proposed Project, the site would likely be sold at a value of approximately$8..8 to$7.g million, and the existing i uses would continue on the site for the foreseeable future. Given these conclusions, in the Expected Industrial scenario Kosmont utilized an assessed value of $7.o million, and the same estimated employee count as in the Existing Industrial scenario of 88 employees. VIII "° w " VIII'°°°°IIIIII°°°°° IIIIII 111111 T Illlh°°°°°'111111 IIIIII IIIIII VIII VIII lull°°°°'IIIIII VIII 11 2021 )(a 'JFc1( TY NET FISCAL IMPACT" MODEL Page 41.1. of 767 0 2.6 Project Location A map illustrating the location of the City within the San Diego County region follows in Figure 1 a map illustrating the location of the Site within the City follows in Figure 2, and an aerial map of the Site and surrounding neighborhood is provided in Figure 3. �Figure 1: Map of San Diego Region & City of Chula Vista %1, k V/1 "Ithi 40/0 1107F 1/0 OF %Z` AA/01,11 --lP *111,11 00,000," 4 J/ V, P t �,7, // do /St W/ V, boa'r 00 M Uhalfw Ad: k "Mi 10 J IV, ol A Sp 6fi fogo arro; an 04r;0) 0 Vitts d l "ikq,Smj ,Ilk //e y cool 11,0140 -10, k POP kl, Ara J/1yr 00 x v// bV, V V/ 'S t 1000%ItIffl _01; "M e, ff) wgf#000 or M/ W A, 4/01P W/ V, &I ?0/4 S/Antio, ell Of', Xffs6 1%ffv, jJ 11111001)"N"Oft I lV� bN"%h(qmff1yx(f,1,V I I/ A 'Ah�fff f/e/701/10 Vl A, W V J?o/ 2/1 t "Ik, V /W A/ V 01/01 4 C -%% All A nllf R� Y )fAfi, off'o, Vi I /"O� " I Okm fraP¢tilxrvm (/01, '0'11,"A 0,4011"00 05*000 If +1 XIS wi/ 1:01")1 .nil...... .................... ,/Arl, Source: ESRI (2020) 11WOSS 12 202AY*VWYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 412 of 767 Figure 2: Map of Chula Vista Area & Site 0 000/1111 ';//fr,,/y r u Pmi/ 1 !r /IJ,' rI rJoll F Iegf i / 101 00 '110919 /0 c., , I' � /i r,r 9; >:g 1, l %0%//11///II/l%Gl`II VIB)Yigv ' ilK d ,L Film aovv"S ,,, /r,k i e)l it i/ii/ia0/%I/, '40b"',f�i��r�'v"Ar F10 // /1 Dr r, /J H, �%� Jif ��,r.„ri'a rrrwf,z /9fi lig, c �' I rfYGi ' 9 'Fi;,, baa r /7(///O� /„'. ������f/j„ j it r /P " i 'aro, /�'ri' / a, ;r, 1 " f , gill / rk ti f jlo %..'r r A ii auf f, 1 r ti r,/ 9%G/, lrie°N N, m0iii/ 5i i,/yr aPr r r a, r 1 rs m �� iv Kurcmwu /�' yr A 12 My Zf Ip r� 31 eb^° w r Soma g w,ems!///„ ja %i%l!% �� � f f O , 'fi / / !/ 'G///r/i //G/!„ // a ai /aer,, „ / /i/! / yD i/r(�Ik(// / // /s 9%p��r i 0, Y/%/llJ%%.fir//%J111,rr����rllll� /0/f% 1ff(l"///I%/ /' P➢Y Matamoros !iII b it% / Ply ,do, j ” viii% ar FraicerI /rfjII�Mu rol l mAt ”" JUS 11A r''.mi ldr�. ���"///ai/%///1/l1Uil1ltl9ip////%//%/�9/rr,,,; /�//;. /���f,➢Nine i,,/�,r�' Source: ESR1 (2020) li SII" S I 111111 E liq L 1 2021 Ya' " ck TY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 413 of7 7 Figure 3: Aerial Site Map I If d n oI o. � c y �p w* I 1i fwN.wr;�,ww,llii... r �,n.!n l�N✓ ', / f(... �Wrw6 j v' ww Q y 4 I, J, i b y y�ry� 1 1v � m Source: F,SRI (2020) Il I 111111 E Iq L 1 2021 Ya' " ck TY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 414 of7 7 3mO Adjust ents to Fiscal Model Based on Kosmont's, review of the City's Fiscal Model utilized herein, itis, Kosmont'i s, conclusion that there are a number of elements of the Fiscal Model that likely understate potential City revenues, and overstate potential City expenditures associated with the proposed Project. Two of these elements -the calculation of property tax revenue and real property transfer tax revenue are addressed herein. 3.1 Property Tax - Growth 'in Assessed Valuation The Fiscal Model assumes that property tax growth associated with the Project will be equal to 2.0% per year based on statutory limits pursuant to Proposition 13. However,the Project includes multiple townhomes, each of which will be,resold at varying points in time, that will trigger property tax reassessments based on market values at the time of each sale. As a result of this unit turnover, while aggregate assessed value may Lag market value, property tax revenue growth is expected to generally track market value growth. The duration ("tenure") of the iinitiial buyer holding period serves to drive the lag between assessed value and market value (i.e. if the original buyer resells in year six versus year seven), and the rate of turnover (i.e,. how many dwelling units are resold in a given year) determines how closely assessed values track market values. Information on typical homeowner tenure from the National Association of Realtors@ ("NAR)") 2018 Profile of Home Buyers and sellers suggests a median tenure of six years for townhome owners. Available information on historic home price growth in San Diego, and Chula Vista markets suggests an average compound annual growth rate in home prices of 3.77% between roughly 1987 and 2019, and 4.96% between roughly 2009 and 2019. Note.- Each growth rate is based on growth from the first peak in the data set to most recent trough in the data set to provide a conservative (low) value on available datasets. Time horizons were based on data available and were not tailored by Kosmont. Summary illustrations of information reviewed by Kosmoint follow in Table, 5, Figure 4,, and F'igure 5 below. 11 S I 111111 E liq L 15 2021W*W*RYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 415 of 767 'Table 5: NAR Information on Tenure in Previous Home (6,Year Median for Townhomes) III�III III 1~lea r Wer I ci s Is, 139/1,�.,, T, I F11,94191XP ............................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................ I G, 4.tc,S 12 K), 8 9�1.111 1 11 1,11,1�`, 1 4,9�,,, 11 ............................................................ ................................................................................................................................... ( lur)7 yoars 8% 8 11(1 110% 9% ................................................. .......... Bi ab 10 bye(z"!ars 12% 6% 5% 21% w 13% 12"" 11% 91;1i"r, Tl '15 yc ars "17% 1 W 17'% 1711� 2391 16% 111 16 to 20 years 111111A�, 2 8% 11 IX, 1 11 1�1,11�^1 .21 years cir-nore '16 6`�As 1 10% 9 5% 1 B% 12% 18% M e d i E,,,j n 9 7 5 6 10 9 11 Source: Exhibit 6-23 frorn NAR 2018 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers Fliglure 14-. San Diego 1 Chula Vista Home Prices (1/19871— 7/2019 - 3.77% Compounded) $6001f000 300 $500�000 250 $400T000 40 200 $3,001T000 150 $200YO00 1,100 $100V000 50 $10 11-1 0 0 0 N CO) VT 10 1,,-1 'v- I# I 'OL I �L I IN a I I I I 1 11 r-L U Ity of'ChulaVista($,,812009,to date) Z!I I ow H oin el PrIll ce [ndex mmmmCas-e-Shiller San Diego Index e-po.-w e Cassel-Shillin Ttendline(3.7 1% Compounded) 11woss IR111111 I 111111 E Iq L 16 2024ORWYAUQUY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 416 of 767 Figure : San Diego Chula Vista Horne Prices (812009 - 7/2019 -4.916,% Compounded) $600f000 p $500T000 %'bio ,w,. 250 066*11 $3100?0001 150 $2001T000 100 $ fid I ii 50 In IO Ln Lo QD t%. Is. C � u L _ summ Zillow Home Price Index-City of clujlia'Vista ====Case,-Shiiier San Diegio Index, Eased on information reviewed and summarized above, Kosmont analyzed the potential growth in assessed valuation "AN" and property tax revenue associated with the Project based on an annual average market home price growth rate of 3.501% (versus 3.77% and 4.96% in the charts above), a median tenure of eight years (versus six in the NAR data), and the assumption that it will take eight years for the rate of unit turnover stabilize. The results of this analysis follow in Table 6 below. Table 6: Assessed Valuation with 15% Yr/Yr Growth & 8 Year Turnover Adjustment Dwelling AN w/o Yir "'r Yr/Yr Amit AN w/ Yr1Yr AN % of Year Turnover Growth Market Value Growth Turnover Turnover Growth IMlarket 1 $77,035,350 9.0% 77,035,350 9.0% 01.0% 777038,38+9 9.+90% 100.0% 2 78,5761057 2.0% 7911731,887 3.5% 1.6% 787 x94,112 2.02% 98.6% 89,1471878 2.0% 8218227193 3.5% 3.1% 891249,291 2.+99% 97.2% 4 817891839 2.0% 88,419,479 3.5% 47% 827+91+8,868 2.21% 96.0% 5 83,3881849 2.0% 8813997838 3.5% 6.3% 83,9 `9,29+9 2.38% 95.0% 8 88,9831281 2.0% 9114937839 3.5% 7.8% 861182,86+9 2.60% 94.2% 7 86,7541316 2.0% 94116967114 3.5% 9.4% 881620,467 2.86% 93.6% 8 88,4891492 2.0% 98,910,478 3.5% 10.9% 91,434,244 3.18% 93.3% 9 99,289119+9 2.0% 19114407845 3.5% 12.5% 941634,442 3.50% 93.3% 10 92,9641374 2.0% 1941991,27'8 3.8°x© 12.5% 97,946,+848 3.50% 93.3% 11 93,9051662 2.0% 1981+8881969 3.5% 12.8° 101,374,780 3.50% 93.3% 12 98,7831,775 2.0% 112146,9127''8 3.5% 12.5% 1041922,897 3.50% 93.3°1 13 97,+9991481 2.0% 1161498,x'913 3.5% 12.8°1 1081595,199 3.50% 93.3% 14 99,+8531449 2.0% 129147919912 3.8'°1 12.5% 1121396,)031 3.50% 93.3°1 is 191,646x808 2.0% 124169616919 3.5% 12.5% 1181329,892 3.50% 93.3% 16 1031+879,438 2.0% 1291,06,1,084 3.5% 12.5% 12+914+911438 3.50% 93.3% 117 108,7,83,027 2.0% 1331878,221 3.8°1 12.5% 1241018,488 3.80% 93.3% 18 107")868a088 2.0% 13812831489 3.5% 12.5% 128,9 `7",031 3.50% 93.3% 19 110,020,400 2.0% 143,,092,330 3.5% 12.5% 13314911227 3.80% 93.3% 20 112,225,959, 2.0% 148,1 1010,,562 3.5% 12.5% 13811031420 3.50% 93.3% Source: Kosmont (2020) I I 111111 E Iq L 17 2021 1a' " ck TY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 417 of7 7 3,2 Property Tax - Tax Rate The Fiscal Model assumes that the City receives 16.11% of the base 1.0% property tax rate. Pursuant to discus&ions, with the San Diego County Assessor's Office the City would receive 16.174602% of the base 1.0% for the tax rate area within which the Project resides. The difference yields a marginal increase in property tax revenue to the City (initially approximately $500 per year, and increasing thereafter). The results of this analysis follow in Table 7 below. Table 7: Property Tax Rate Adjustment Property Tax 'in Adjusted AN w/ Fiscall Model Property Tax Year Turnover 06.1111% f 1 (118.17% o, Uifference 11 $7'7')0355350 124,1104 $ 124,1602 $ 4918 2 7'8)59~14,112 '1 26,1615 127,1123 5,08 3 80240520111 '1291,1267' '129,1785 5,18, 4 82)0,165565 132,129 '132,1659 530 5 83)9170529,01 '135,1276 '135,1819 542 6 867,15218166 138792 139,349 557 7 88762011467 142768 143,340 573 8 9114341244 147 1 301 147',891 591 9 94)6341442 152,456 153,067 811 10, 97)91461648 157 11 792 158,425 633 11 101,3741,780 163,315 163,970 655 12 104)92218917 1 6�9�)031 169,709 678 13 10859151119191 174,947 175,1648 '7012 114 112)39161031 181,070 181,796 '726, 15 116)3295892 '187,11407 188,159 '75,2 16 120)40,15438 '1913,1967 194,745 778 117 124)6155488, 200,756 201,1561 805 18 128)9775013,1 20T1782 2081615 833 19, 133,491,227 215,054 215,,917 862 201 1387,1631420 222,581 223,11474 893 Source: San Diego County Assessor's Office, Kosmont (2020) 11 S I 111111 E liq L 18 202AY*W*AYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 418 of 767 3 Real Property Transfer Tax The Fiscal Model appears to underestimate the amount of revenue the City will receive,from real property transfer taxes. Each time Project units are resold the City will receive transfer taxes equal to $0.55 per$1,00O in unit value (0.055% or 0.00055). This is in addition to the estimated $42,000 in transfer tax revenue the City will receive associated with the initial sale of the townhomes. A summary of the estimated transfer tax revenues the City will receive from the Project follows in Table 8 below. Table 8: Real Property Transfer Tax Adjustment Real Property Real Transfer Tax Dwelling (Real IProperty in Fiscal Yr/Yr Yr/Yr Unit Property Transfer'Tax Year IModel Growth IMarlket Value Growth Turnover Sales Volume Transfer Tax Adjustment 11 $ 1,,643 0.0% $77,035,350 0.0% 0.0% $ 77,035,350 $ 42,369 $ 40,726 2 1,648 01.3% 79,731,587 3.5% 1.6% 1,245,806 685 (962) 3 1,6'52 0.3% 82,522,193 3.5'% 3.1% 2,578,819 1,418 (233) 4 1,660 0.5% 85,410,470 3.5% 4.7% 4)003)616 2,202 542 5 1,664 0.2% 88,3919,836 3.5% 6.3% 5,524,990 3,039 1,375 6 1,672 0.5% 9111493,830 3,.5'% 7.8% 7',,14'7,955 3,931 2,259 '7 1,677 01.2% 914,696,114 3.5% 9,4% 8,877,761 4,883, 3,206 8 1,6'85 01.5% 98,010,478 3.5% 10.9% 101,7191,896 5,896 4,211 91 1,735 3'.0% 101,440,845 3.5'% 12.5% 12,680,106 6,974 5,239 110 1,789' 3.1% 104,991,275 3.5% 12.5% 13,123,909 '7,1218 5,430 11 1,843 3.0% 108,665,969 3.5% 12.5% 13,583,2461 7,471 5,628 12 1,897 2.9% 1121469,278 3.5'% 12.5% 14,058,660 7'.,'7'32 5,836 113 1,955 11% 116,405,703 3.5% 12.5% 14,,550,1713 8,003, 6,048 14 2,0113 3.0% 120,479,9012 3.5% 12.5% 15,059,988 8,283 6,270 15 2,071 2.9% 124,696,699 3.5'% 12.5% 15,587,087 8,5'73 6,502 16 21,133 3.0% 129,06'1,084 3.5% 12.5% 16',132,635' 8,873 6,740 17 2,1200, 11% 133,578,221 3.5% 12.5% 16,697,278 9,184 6,984 118 2,266 3.0% 138,253,459 3.5'% 12.5% 17J1281,682 9,505 7;239 119 2,,332 2.9% 143,092,330 3.5% 12.5% 17,886,541 9,838 7,505 20 2,403 3.0% 148,100,562 3.5% 12.5% 18,512,570, 10,182 7,779 Source: City's Fiscal Model, Kosmont (2020) 11S I E lq L 19 2021 Y*W*AYaQJFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 419 of 767 3.4 Cumulative Adjustments A summary of the cumulative impact of the adjustments discussed above 'pis provided in Table 9 below. Table 9: Cumulative Adjustments to Fiscal Model Rrop'Tax IN et IFiscal PropertyTax Revenue w/ (Real Revenuesin Revenuein Turnover& IPiropeirty Property Adjusted Cumulative Unmodified Unmodified Corrected Tax Transfer Tax Net Fiscal INet Fiscal Year IFiscall Model IFiscall Model 'Tax Rate Adjustment Adjustment Revenues Revenues 1 $ 291711 $ 124,11104 $ 124,602 $ 498 $ 40,11726 $ 70,935 $ 70,935 2 201182 126,586 127,123 537 (962), 19,756 90,691 3 13,914 129,118 129,785 667 (23'3') 14,348 105f039 4 8,924 131,700 1312,659 91591 542 10,425 115,464 5 3,628 134,334 135,819 1,485 1,375 6,487 121)951 6 (1,810) 137,021 139,349 2,328 2,1259 2,2777 124,7`28 7 (7,636) 139,761 143,340 3,579 3,206 (851) 123877 8 (13,206) 142,556 147,891 5,335 4,1211 (3,660) 120,217 9 (12,942) 145,408 153,067 7,659 5,239 (43) 120,174 101 (12,586) 148,316 158,425 10,11109 5,430 2,952 123,126 11 (121751) 151,282 163,970 12,688 5,628 5,565 128,691 12 (12,939) 154,308 169,709 15,,401 5',836 8,297 136,988 13 (131151) 157,3914 175,648 18,254 6,048 11,1152 148,140 14 (13,606) 16,0,542 181,796 21,254 6',270 13,918 162)058 15 (14,097) 163,753 188,159 24,406 6,502 16,811 178,869 16 (14,817) 167,028 194,745 27,717 6,7401 19,839 198709 17 (15,117 1) 170,368 201,561 31,111913 6,984 23,006 221,714 18 (15,762) 173,775 208,615 34,840, 7,239 26)317 248,032 19 (16,391) 177,11251 215,917 38,666 7,505 29,780 277,812 20 (17,060) 1801798 223,474 421676 7,779 33)395 311,207 Source: City's Fiscal Model, San Diego County Assessor's Office, Kosmont (2020) 3.5 Additional Adjustments As previously introduced, there are additional elements of the Fiscal Model that are expected to warrant modification. 'These additional adjustments are not addressed herein as, Kosmont's access to underlying calculations within the Fiscal Model was restricted, and Kosmont could only evaluate outputs from the Fiscal Model,. Kosmont's conclusion that modification is likely warranted is based on potentially incongruous outputs from the Fiscal Model. Given access to the underlying calculations utilized in the Fiscal Model, Kosmont could provide additional analysis and commentary. 11 S I 111111 E Iq L 20 2021W*W*RYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 426 of 767 4.0 Fiscal and no 'Ic I pacts 4.1 Summary of Findings - Proposed Project Based on the unmodified Fiscal Model, the Project is estimated to generate between approximately ($17,000) to $30,000 per year in net City municipal revenues during the first 20 years of Project operation. Based on the Fiscal Model with minor adjustments discussed herein, the Project is estimated to generate between approximately ($4,000) to $71 000 per year in net City municipal revenues in the first 20 years of Project operation, generating a cumulative net total of approximately $300,000 over the same period. Additional details follow in Table 10 below. Printouts of the City's Fiscal model showing additional details of the unmodified Fiscal Model are included in Appendix A. Table 101: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Proposed Project Net Fiscal Revenues in A djuste Cum uIative U nod i f'i ed Net Fi'scal, Net Fiscal Year Fiscal Model Revenues Revenues 1 $ 29,,711 $ 70.1935 $ '703,935 2 201,182 1911,756 901,69,11 3 13191 4,348 105PO39 41, 81924 '101425 11 5,.464 5 31,628 61487 1211,951 6 (11810) 21777 1245,728 7 (751636) (851) 1231,877 8 (13,x'06) (33660) 120521,7 9 (12,942) (43), 1205174 10 (123586) 2,.952 1231,1126 11, (121751) 53,565 1281,691 12 (12,939) 85297 '1361,988 13 (131,151) '111,1152 14851140 1141, (13)606) '1359,18 '1623058 15 (141097) 16118,11 '1783869 16 (145617) '191,839 198 1,709 17 (1551171) 235006 22,117,14 18 (151762) 2613,17 2481032 19 (16139 1 291.7 0 27718,12 20 (171060) 335395 31,111207 Source: City's Fiscal Model, Kosmont (2020) 11 S I 111111 E liq L 21 202AY*W*RYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 421. of 767 4.2 Summary of Findings - Existing [ndustrial Based on the Fiscal Model, the Existing Industrial use on the Property is revenue, negative for the City, and projected to be lrevelnue negative in every year of the period evaluated. A summary of estimated net City revenues under the Existing Industrial use follows in Table 11 below. A comparison with estimated revenues generated by the proposed Project is also included for reference. Printouts, of the Gity's Fiscal lmodel showing additional details and underlying assumptions in the, unmodified Fiscal Model are included yin Appendix B. Table 11: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Existing Industrial & Proposed Project Proposed %I Ex'isfing llndustr�411 Project Net Fiscal �Revenues in Unmod'ifiled Adjusted Adjusted Rsc4ll Net Fiscal Net Fiscal Year Mode1 Revenues Revenues 11 $ (183) $ (158) $ 70,935 2 (545) (51 9) 19756 3 (774) (747) 141348 4 (960) (933) 10,425 5 (1 158) (1 130) 6,487 6 (1 362) (1 334) 2,777 7 (1 1 583) (1,1554) (8 51) 8 (1,1793) (1,;764) (3,660) 9 (1,1777) (1,;747) (43) 10 1,11759) (1,1729) 2,1 952 III (1,11759) (1,,728) 5,565 12 (1,;759) (1727) 3,297 13 (1 1 76 1) (1,729) 11,152 14 i 11771) (1,x`33) 13,918 15 i 11783) (1 1 749) 16,811 1 i 11796) (1 1 762) 191839 17 (1 810) (1 775) 23,006 18 (1 826) (1,790) 26,317 19 (1,1844) (Il 1 808) 29,1780 20 (1 1 863) (1,1826) 33,395 Cum WaUve Total $ (2'9,247) $ 311)207 Source: Gity's Fiscal Model, Kosmont (2020) Note: The only adjustment to the Fiscal Model for the Existing Industrial use is the increase in the property tax rate (from 16.11% to approximately 16.17% of 1% of assessed valuation). The other two adjustments (property turnover, and real property transfer tax) are not considered applicable to Existing Industrial use. 11VOSS S I 111111 E Iq L 22 202AY*W*RYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 422 of 767 4 Summary of Findings - Expected Industrial Based on the Fiscal Model, the Expected Industrial scenario is projected to generate net revenues of approximately $155,000 over the initial twenty years subsequent to a sale of the, Site. A summary of estimated net City revenues under the Expected Industrial scenario follows in Table 12 below. A comparison with estimated revenues generated by the proposed Project is also included for reference. Printouts of the City's Fiscal model showing additional details and underlying assumptions in the unmodified Fiscal Model are included in Appendix C. Table 12: Summary of Net Fiscal Benefits of Expected Industrial & Proposed Project Proposed Expected I n,dustria] Proj'e%,.L, Net Fiscal Revenues in, Unmodified .A juste Adj usted Fiscal Net Fiscal Net Fiscal, Year Model Revenues Revenues 1 $ 71227 $ 1101 47 $ 701,930 2 7)013 71,059 191756 3 61936 61983 143348 41, 61904 61952 101,425 5 618,63 61912 65487 6 618,19 61,869 25,777 7 6,7,62 61,813 (851) 8 6177,1 (31660), 9 6)905 61,958 1(43) 10 71097 7115"! 21,952 11' 7)274 71,329 5,565 12 714514 '71510 85297 13 7,1636 711,693 11,11152 1411 71814 71,872 '131918 15 '71 1,054 1618,11 16 81177 8)'238 '191839 17 8)3,62 81,142�4 2310016 18 85549 8P6,12 26,317 19 81739 811,804 291780 20 8)931 81997 331,395 cum ul,ative Total $ 1547 849 $ 3111207 Source: City's Fiscal Model, Kosmont (2020) Note:The only adjustments to the Fiscal Model for the Expected Industrial use are the increase in the property tax rate (from 16.11% to approximately 16.17% of 1% of assessed valuation), and the inclusion of areal property transfer tax in year 1. Property turnover is snot considered applicable to Expected Industrial scenario. IPICS I 111111 E liq L 23 202AY*W*RYa' JFckQJTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 423 of 767 5.0 Appendices lVioss S I I SII" 111111 11 ��I 111111 1 24 "I, 202AY*W*RYa' JFckQjTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 424 of 767 Appendix A Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Model for Proposed Project Pill: IVIOSS S I[R T llh`R S I411111 111111 VIII 25 202AVhVW)(aQjFck(;jTY NET IFIISCAL. IMPACT MODEL Page 425 of 767 GTY OF CHULAVISTA Instructional Guide 1 The spreadsheet is ready to accept unit counts and valuation of project costs. 2 TABS. COMPLETE ET"E SHADED AREAS AS INSTRUCTED ON EACH TAB 2a TAB: Property Tax Analysis Enter unit counts in yellow highlighted cells Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Commercial Industrial Office Hotel 2b Input a Constructed Assessed Value 2c Input on Percentage Complete row for each section-a factor of hove much of 2d TAB: Sales Tax Analysis Input Square Footage and Rates on Sheet 2e TAB: Expenditure Police& Fire Input Acres by Land Use In Shaded Areas 2f TAB: Police& Fire Costs Dev No input; shoves costs and phase in of'Fire Station/'S 2g TAB: Police& Fire Detal Ca cs(call volume y lLand !ase) 2h TAB: Master Plan Services 2i TAB: Maintenance Service Costs Input Dane Mlles and Parr Acres B "TAB; Maintenance Service Costs-IPS Ba Input the service count components listed (as applicable) 4 "TAB; Analysis Model F ' 4a This table links to other input tables and calculates the fiscal impact on 41b If the project has a hotel,the room counts per hotel need to be input to 4c Also,an absorption%impact factor needs to be entered on realizing the S TAB: Population Factor IPrepolpulated TAB: E H 1 Revenue Per Capita (Data supporting Fiscal Impact (Locked) TAB: EXH 2 Expenditures Per Capita (Data supporting Fiscal Impact Locked) TAB: SUMMARY-EXP(Reconciles Published Budget to Base for Fiscal Modell) Print each Tab when,done 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 426 of 767 latiDn Single Family Residential _ Multi-Family Residential �9 �9 � '9 � '9 � '9 �'9 �'9 �395 395 CITY OF Subtotal(Pear Capita9' 9' 9 9 9 9 9 95 395 CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Totals 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 41.5 Number of Homes Single Family Residential - - - - - - - - - Multi-Family Residential 141. 141. 141 141 141 141 141 141 141. Totals 141. 141. 141 141 141 141 141 141 141. Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms Hotel 2-#rooms Totals - - - - Avera e hotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* 15487 157A9 1.59.55 1.61..94 1.64.37 1.66.84 1.69.34 1.71.88 174.46 Average hotel Daily Rate-Developer,Assigned* 142,10 144.23 146.39 148.59 150.82 153.08 155.38 157.71 160..07 Average hotel Occupancy* 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77.1% Developer Provided hotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rahe(per room night) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 1.0% Absorption Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0l� yr 1 ......... � i 1 ,1111����JIriJr�/ Tax Revenues Property Tax AV 1.24,1.04 1.26,586 1.29,118 1.31.,700 1.34,334 1.37,021 1.39,761 1.42,5.56 145,408 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 49,561 47,880 47,739 47,628 47,469 47,31.5 47,1.66 47,022 48,432 Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita 6,093 5,870 5,881 5,905 5,929 5,9.51 5,973 6,007 6,1.87 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 59,600 60,856 62,137 63,44.5 64,778 66,1 38 67,52.5 68,940 70,383 Franchise Fees Per Capita 17,065 1.7,211 1.7,357 1.7,556 1.7,721 17,893 18,047 18,209 18,755 Other Taxes Per Capita 15,750 15,489 1.5,454 1.5,436 15,418 1.5,401 1.5,386 1.5,334 1.5,794 Subtotal Tax Revenues 272,172 273,891 377,716 281,670 385,649 289,720 393,859 298,068 304,960 Other Revenues Per Capita 16,698 1.7,396 17,580 1.7,76.5 1.7,950 1.8,1.36 1.8,271 1.8,433 18,986 Licenses and Permits Per Capita 2,2.54 2,260 2,267 2,275 2,284 2,293 2,302 2,312 2,382 Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 1.,772 1.,777 1,783 1,789 1.,796 1,803 1.,810 1.,818 1,873 Use of Money&Property Per Capita 4,286 4,298 4,312 4,326 4,342 4,360 4,378 4,397 4,529 Charges for Services No Forecast - - - - - - - - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 3,054 3,062 3,072 3,083 3,094 3,106 3,119 3,133 3,227 Subtotal Other Revenues 28,063 28,793 29,0.14 29,238 29,466 29,697 29,881 30,095 30,997_ Total General Fund Revenues $ 300,235 $ 302,685 $ 306,730 $ 310,909 $ 315,1.15 $ 319,417 $ 323,740 $ 328,163 $ 335,957 General Fund Expenditures General Government r Ca tC1 3,809 3,857 3,907 3,9.59 4,013 4,068 4,1.2.'5 4,1.84 4,245 Community Development(20%) r C a t C1 897 908 920 932 945 9.58 972 986 1,000 Public Works/Engineering r C a t C1 1,367 1,413 1,427 1,441 1,453 1,466 1,481 1,492 1,506 Drainage Management System 10,646 100646 100646 100646 100646 100646 100646 100646 1.0,646 Building Management System ,l J 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 Parks Management System 1'= 6,297 6,297 6,297 6,297 6,297 6,297 6,297 6,297 6, 7 Open Space Management.System 2,69'9 20699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 Fleet Management System 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 Pavement.Annual(PMP) 1 11 1 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 General Govt.Management System 0,r; 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 Urban Forestry Management System 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 '<' 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 Community Services ler_api�a 10,835 1.0,973 11,1.15 1.1,263 11,415 1.1,573 11,735 1.1,903 12,076 Public Safety: Police Services Deet SI-HICIfIC, 1.48,546 1.57,153 1.63,760 1.70,538 1.77,614 1.84,597 1.92,536 200,130 205,134 Fire e Su,,vices Proect SI-HIS IfIC, 69,594 72,671 76,1.06 78,216 80,356 82,513 84,716 86,800 89,001. nii iai Control Services I er CatWa 4,031. 4,082 4,135 4,190 4,247 4,305 4,366 4,428 4,492 Totcal''.Publ c Safety 222,1.71 233,906 244,001. 252,944 262,216 271.,716 281.,618 291.,359 298,627 Total General Fundi Expenditures 270,524 $ 282,502 292,816 301,985 311,487 321,226 $ 331,376 341,369 348,$99 Pr'ojecM±�16'F OrY7k � d.L C et $29,711 $20,102 $13,914 $0,924 $1181 $7636 $13',206 $12,942 ....................... ........................... 10 11 12 13 14, 15 16 1'�7 .......................................................................................................... lation om-0001 w-7is Single Family Residential 0- i��, Multi-Family Residential 395 �395 395 �395 395 �395 395 �395 395 CITY OF Subtotal(Per Capita) 39S �395 39S �395 395 395 395 395 395 CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Totals 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 Number of Homes Single Family Residential - - - - - - - - - Multi-Family Residential 141 141 141 141 1.41. 141 141 141 1.41. Totals 141 141 141 141 1.41. 141 141 141 1.41. 'Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms - - - - - - - - - Hotel 2-#rooms 'Totals - - - - - - - - - Average I lotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* $ 177.08 $ 17973 $ 182.43 $ 185.17 $ 187.94 $ 190.76 $ 193.62 $ 196.53 $ 199.48 Average I lotel Daily Rate-Developer,Assigned* $ 162.48 $ 164.91, $ 167.39 $ 169.90 $ 172.45 $ 175.03 $ 177.66 $ 180.32 $ 1,83.03 Average Hotel Occupancy* 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% Developer,Provided hotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate(per room night) 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% Absorption Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .... ................................................... ................................................... ......................................................... ........................................................... ................................................................. ........................................... "7........................................... Yc�,ar 4 17 9 20 .................................................................................................................... 0111"A"Ir Tax Revenues Property Tax AV $ 148,316 $ 151,282 $ 154,308 $ 157,394 $ 160,542 $ 163,753 $ 167,028 $ 170,368 $ 173,775 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 49,885 51,382 52,923 54,511 56,146 57,831, 59,566 61,352 63,193 Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita 6,373 6,564 6,761 6,964 7,173 7,388 7,610 7,838 8,073 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 71,855 73,356 74,888 76,450 78,043 79,669 81,326 83,017 84,742 Franchise Fees Per Capita 19,318 19,898 20,495 21,109 21,743 22,395 23,067 23,759 24,472 Other Taxes Per Capita 16,268 16,756 17,259 17,777 18,310 18,859 19,425 20,008 20,608 Subtotal Tax Revenues 313,815 319,238 326,633 334,205 341,957 349,894 358,021 366,342 374,863 Other Revenues Per Capita 19,556 20,142 20,747 21,369 22,010 22,670 23,351 24,051 24,773 Licenses and Permits Per Capita 2,453 2,527 2,603 2,681 2,761 2,844 2,929 3,017 3,108 Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 1,929 1,987 2,046 2,108 2,171 2,236 2,303 2,372 2,444 Use of Money&Property Per Capita 4,665 4,805 4,949 5,098 5,251 5,408 5,570 5,738 5,910 Charges for Services No Forecast - - - - - - - - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 3,334 3,424 3,537 3,632 3,741 3,854 3,969 4,088 4,211 Subtotal Other Revenues 31,927 3Z885 33,872 34,888 35,935 37,013 38,123 39,267 40,445 Total General Fund Revenues $ 343,9,42 $ 352,123 $ 360,505 $ 369,093 $ 377,891 $ 386,907 $ 396,144 $ 405,609 $ 415,308 General Fund Expenditures General Government r C a t C1 $ 4,308 $ 4,372 $ 4,439 $ 4,507 $ 4,617 $ 4,731 $ 4,847 $ 4,967 $ 5,091 Community Development(20%) r Ca t C1 1,015 1,030 1,045 1,062 1,087 1,114 1,142 1,170 1,199 Public Works/Engineering r C a t C1 1,518 1,541 1,564 1,588 1,627 1,667 1,708 1,750 1,794 Drainage Management System 10,646 10,646 10,646 10,646 10,646 10,646 10,646 10,646 10,646 Building Management System 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 Parks Management System 6,29,7 6,297 6,29,7 6,297 6,297 6,297 6,297 6,297 6,297 Open Space Management System 2,69,9 2,699 2,69,9 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 Fleet Management System 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 Pavement Annual[PMP 1 5,69,8 5,698 5,69,8 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 5,698 General Govt Management System 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 Urban Forestry Management System 2,69,9 2,699 2,69,9 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2,699 2 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 31,445 Community Services ler_api�a 12,254 12,438 12,627 12,822 13,135 13,459 13,790 14,131 14,482 Public Safety: Police Services Pro�Dect SI-HICIfIC, 210,262 215,518 220,906 226,429 232,09'0 237,892 243,839 249,935 256,184 Fire Services Pro1�ect SI-HICIfIC, 91,167 93,902 96,720 99,621 102,610 10,5,688 108,859 112,124 115,488 Aninia�Control Services I er CatWa 4,559 4,627 4,697 4,770 4,886 5,007 5,130 5,257 5,387 Total'Public Safety 305,988 314,048 322,323 330,820 339,586 348,587 357,828 367,316 377,019_ Total General Fund Expenditures $ 356,528 364,874 $ 373,444 382,244 $ 391,497 $ 401,004 $ 410,761 420,780 $ 431,070 Pr'ojecM±�16'FyOrY7kOWdYL'#�cket ($12,586) ($12,751) ($12,939) ($13ol5l) (�"S Of 7jV14,097) ($14,6 17) ($15,,171) ($11,7621 28 lation om-000-m-p7to Single Family Residential 0- i��, Multi-Family Residential 395 395 CITY OF Subtotal(Per Capita) 39S �395 CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 20 20 Totals 415 415 Number of Homes Single Family Residential - - Multi-Family Residential 141 141 Totals 141 141 'Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms - - Hotel 2-#rooms 'Totals - - Avera e Average I lotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* $ 202.47 $ 20530 Average hotel Daily Rate-Developer,Assigned* $ 1,85.77 $ 188.56 Average Hotel Occupancy* 77.1% 77A% Developer,Provided hotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate(per room night) 101% 10% Absorption Rate 0% 0% Yc�,ar 2 0111"A"Ir Tax Revenues Property Tax AV $ 177,251 $ 180,796 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 65,089 67,041 Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita 8,315 8,565 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 86,501 88,295 Franchise Fees Per Capita 25,206 25,962 Other Taxes Per Capita 21,226 21,863 Subtotal Tax Revenues 383,588 39ZS23 Other Revenues Per Capita 25,516 26,281 Licenses and Permits Per Capita 3,201 3,297 Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 2,517 2,592 Use of Money&Property Per Capita 6,087 6,270 Charges for Services No Forecast - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 4,337 4,467 Subtotal Other Revenues 41,658 4Z908 Total General Fund Revenues $ 425,246 $ 435,430 General Fund Expenditures General Government r Ca t C1 $ 5,218 $ 5,349 Community Development(20%) r C a 1,229 1,260 Public Works/Engineering r Cat C1 1,839 1,885 Drainage Management System 10,646 10,646 Building Management System 1,645 1,645 Parks Management System 6,29,7 6,297 Open Space Management System 2,699 2,699 Fleet Management System 1,499 1,499 Pavement Annual(PMP) 5,69,8 5,698 General Govt Management System 262 262 Urban Forestry Management System 2,699 2,699 2 31,445 31,445 Community Services Fier Capia 14,844 15,217 Public Safety: Police Services Pro�lect sj)ecific 262,588 269,153 Fire Services ProJ�ect sj)ecific 118,953 122,521 Aninia�Control Services Fier Capia 5,522 5,661 Total'PublicSafety 387,063 397,335 Total General Fund Expenditures $ 441,638 $ 452,491 Pr'ojecM±�16'F OrY7kOWdYL' cket ($16,3,91) ($�o 0 6 Page 429 of 767 29 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6, 7 ;-al ft-�-ft7 IZZ� CITY OF CHOLAVISTA Property Tax,Analys'is, Residential Unit,s Single Family Residential 'Total Cumulative SFR Units - 'Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Multi-Family Residential 'Total Cumulative MFR Units 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 'Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 395 395 395 395 395 395 395 Percentage Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Constructed Assessed Values $ 77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 'Total Cumulative Residents 39S 39S 39S 39S 39S 39S 39S Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Industrial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Constructed Assessed Values Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 Inflation Factor 2.00% 100.00% 102.00% 104.04% 106.12% 108.24% 110.41% 112.62% Total AV-Inflated $77,0�35,350 $78,576,057 $80,147,578 $81,750,530 $83,385,540 $85,0�53,251 $86,754,316 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $77,0�35,350 $78,576,057 $80,147,578 $81,750,530 $83,385,540 $85,0�53,251 $86,754,316 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Years AV Inflation Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $77,035,350 $78,S76,057 $80,147,578 $81,750,530 $83,385,540 $85,053,251 $8,6,7 5 4,3 16, Property'Tax Revenue Estimate Ad-Valorem 1.00% $ 770,354 $ 785,761 $ 801,476 $ 817,505, $ 833,855, $ 850,533 $ 867,543 'Total AV Tax Due to City 16.11% $124,104 $126,586 $129,118 $131,700 $134,334 $137,021 $139,761 30 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 430 of 767 Year 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is Property Tax Analysis Residential Units Single Family Residential Total Cumulative SFR Units Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete 00X0 0%1 00/0 0% 0% 0% 0%1 0% Constructed Assessed Values 1 $0 1 $0 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0- Multi-Family Residential Total Cumulative MFR Units 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 Total Cumulative Residents 395 395 395 395 395 395 395 395 Percentage Complete 10 1 100% 100% 100% 10 % 100% 7,035,350 100%j $77,035,350 00%1 7,035,350 $ Constructed Assessed Values 0%1 $7 $7 $77,035,350 77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,3500 $77,035,350 Total Cumulative Residents 395 395 395 39S 395 39S 395 39S Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Industrial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete -0%1 $ -0%1 $ -0%1 $ -0% -0% -0% -0%1 $ -0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete -0%1 $ -0%1 $ -0%1 $ -0% -0% -0% -0%1 $ -0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Constructed Assessed Values 'Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 Inflation Factor 114.87% 117.17% 119.51% 121.9�0% 124.34% 126.82% 129.36% 131.9�5% 'Total AV-Inflated $88,489,402 $90,2�59,190 $92,064,374 $9�3,905,662 $95,783,775 $9�7,699,451 $99,653,440 $101,646,508 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $88,489,402 $90,2�59,190 $92,064,374 $9�3,905,662 $95,783,775 $9�7,699,451 $99,653,440 $101,646,508 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Year's AV Inflation Amount $0, 1 $0, 1 $0, 1 $0 $01 $0 $01 $0 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $88,489,402 $90,25�9,190 $92,064,374 $93,905,662 $95,783,775 $97,699,451 $99,65�3,440 $101,646,508 Property Tax Revenue Estimate I I Ad-Valorem $ 884,894 $ 90�2,592 $ 920,644 $ 939,057 $ 957,838 $ 976,995, $ 996,534 $ 1,016,465 Total AV'Tax Due to City $142)5�5,6 $145,408 $148,316 $1S1,282 $154,308 $1S7,394 $160,5�42 $16 31 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 43 1. of 767 Year 16 17 18 19 20 Property Tax,Analys'is, Residential Unit,s Single Family Residential 'Total Cumulative SFR Units 'Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete 0%1 0% 0%1 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Multi-Family Residential 'Total Cumulative MFR Units 141 141 141 141 141 'Total Cumulative Residents 395 395 395 395 395 Percentage Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Constructed Assessed Values $77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 $77,035,350 Total Cumulative Residents 395 39S 395 39S 395 Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ Industrial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 00/01 $ 0% 0%1 $ 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 00/01 $ 0% 0%1 $ 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ Constructed Assessed Values Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 $ 77,035,350 Inflation Factor 134.59% 137.28% 140.02% 142.82% 145.68% Total AV-Inflated $103,679,438 $105�,753,027 $107,8,68,088 $110,025,450 $112,225,9�59 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $103,679,438 $105�,753,027 $107,8,68,088 $110,025,450 $112,225,9�59 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Years AV Inflation Amount $01 $0 $01 $0 $01 1 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $103,679,438 $105,753,027 $107,868,088 $110,025,450 $112,225,959 Property'Tax Revenue Estimate Ad-Valorem $ 1,036,794 $ 1,057,5,30 $ 1,078,681 $ 1,100�,254 $ 1,122,260 'Total AV Tax Due to City $167,028 $170,368 $173,775 $177,251 $180,796 32 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 432 of 767 FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 FY2027-28 FY2028-29 FY2029-30 FY2030-31 FY2031-32 ADOPTED FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST �7 ............................................................................ .......i.............................. ............... 5 2 13 I................................. ..................................... ........................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................ ............... ........................................................... ............... ........................................................................................... ............... ....................................................................................... .......................................................................................... ............... ........................................................................................ 1,0 M,�1A r i o 10 11 7,1 1, '1!"W,"2 '10 1 1,1 1,�,,7 7 1 8 1,2 1,7 1)11, '1"', 6 0 3 1 9 1 C f I'�G F I 1'��I Pt TA' 4,o f 1)�J 8,9�H 1 8)0 1 8)0 1 8)0 1 8)0 1 8)0 1 8 0 2 1 3,2 1 3,2 1 2 1 CITY OF .............................................................................. 7,3',6 1 4,8,7 �,1437 1 4,8,7 �,1437 1 4,8,7 �,1437 1 4,8,7 �,1437 1 4,8,7 �,1437 1 4,R7 �,1437 I........................................................................................................................................................................ ............... ............... ................. CHUIAVISrA DEVELOPER SFR(UNITS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - DEVELOPER MFR(UNITS) 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 COMMERCIAL(ACRES) - - - - - - - - - - - - - &91 INDUSTRIAL(ACRES) OFFICE(ACRES) HOTEL(ACRES) - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING DU POLICE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DIJ $ 88232 $ 975.90 $ 1,032.44 $ 1,075.85 $ 1,120.38 $ 1,166.86 $ 1,214.71 $ 1,264.90 $ 1,314.79 $ 1,347.66 $ 1,381.3S $ 1,415.88 $ 1,451.28 $ 1,487.S6 POLICE M ulti-Fam ily U nits 27,814 PER DIJ $ 952.71 $ 1,05332 $ 1,114.56 $ 1,161.42 $ 1,209.49 $ 1,259.67 $ 1,311.33 $ 1,36531 $ 1,419.36 $ 1,454.85 $ 1,491.22 $ 1,52830 $ 1,S66.71 $ 1,605.88 EXISTING ACRES POLICE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 4,167.10 $ 4,608.01 $ 4,87S.01 $ S,079.96 $ 5,290.22 $ S,509.72 $ 5,73S.66 $ S,972.62 $ 6,208.19 $ 6,363.40 $ 6,S22.48 $ 6,685.S5 $ 6,852.68 $ 7,024.00 POLICE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 898.41 $ 993.47 $ 1,051.04 $ 1,095.22 $ 1,140.56 $ 1,187.88 $ 1,236.59 $ 1,287.68 $ 1,338.47 $ 1,371.93 $ 1,406.23 $ 1,441.38 $ 1,477.42 $ 1,514.35 POLICE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 148,S46 $ 157,153 $ 163,760 $ 170,538 $ 177,614 $ 184,897 $ 192,536 $ 200,130 $ 205,134 $ 210,262 $ 215,518 $ 220,906 $ 226,429 EXISTING DU FIRE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DIJ $ 376.83 $ 439.73 $ 459.17 $ 480.87 $ 494.21 $ 507.72 $ S21.36 $ 535.28 $ S48.44 $ 562.35 $ S76.04 $ 593.32 $ 611.12 $ 629.45 FIRE Multi-FamilyUnits 27,814 PER DIJ $ 422.97 $ 493.58 $ SlS.40 $ 539.76 $ S54.73 $ 569.90 $ SBS.20 $ 600.82 $ 61S.60 $ 631.21 $ 646.58 $ 665.97 $ 68S.95 $ 706.53 EXISTING ACRES FIRE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 1,479.61 $ 1,72639 $ 1,802.93 $ 1,888.14 $ 1,940.50 $ 1,99338 $ 2,047.11 $ 2,101.76 $ 2,153.47 $ 2,208.06 $ 2,261.81 $ 2,329.67 $ 2,399.56 $ 2,47134 FIRE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 294.89 $ 344.12 $ 359.33 $ 376.32 $ 386.75 $ 397.33 $ 408.00 $ 418.89 $ 429.20 $ 440.08 $ 450.79 $ 464.32 $ 478.24 $ 492.59 FIRE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 69,594 $ 72,671 $ 76,106 $ 78,216 $ 80,356 $ 82,513 $ 84,716 $ 86,800 $ 89,001 $ 91,167 $ 93,902 $ 96,720 $ 99,621 33 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 433 of 767 FY2032-33 FY2033-34 FY2034-35 FY2035-36 FY2037-38 FY2038-39 FY2039-40 FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST ............... ............... ............. ........................................................................................ .............. 1"7 4 ....................... ] I......................... ............................................................................................... .............................................................................................. ............... 7 0 1,18 B 110l'(Jf,A,m,, 3,5,1),1('�9 '1 fi,1,0 1 '1,fi,13,1"1 f, C f I"�G F'I 1'��I Pt TNII'l D 1,1 1,91,3' 1,1167 1,1111H; 1,1178' 1 1,113 1 1"1 1 11,75'0 4,of MJ 6 1)I'll ("1 67 6 7 B ("1 7 1 6 5''S 1 16 1 3 111) 1 01 111) ���"�7 1 5,41 5, 5,27 CITY OF .............................................................................. .................. .............. ............... ............... ............... ............... CHUIAVISrA DEVELOPER SFR(UNITS) - - - - - DEVELOPER MFR(UNITS) 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 COMMERCIAL(ACRES) - - - - - - - &91 INDUSTRIAL(ACRES) - OFFICE(ACRES) HOTEL(ACRES) - - - - - EXISTING DU POLICE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DIJ $ 88232 $ 1,524.7S $ 1,562.87 $ 1,601.94 $ 1,641.99 $ 1,683.04 $ 1,725.12 $ 1,768.2S POLICE M ulti-Fam ily U nits 27,814 PER DIJ $ 952.71 $ 1,646.03 $ 1,687.18 $ 1,729.36 $ 1,77239 $ 1,816.91 $ 1,862.33 $ 1,908.89 EXISTING ACRES POLICE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 4,167.10 $ 7,199.60 $ 7,379.59 $ 7,564.08 $ 7,753.18 $ 7,947.01 $ 8,145.69 $ 8,349.33 POLICE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 898.41 $ 1,552.21 $ 1,591.02 $ 1,630.79 $ 1,67136 $ 1,713.3S $ 1,756.18 $ 1,800.09 POLICE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 232,090 $ 237,892 $ 243,839 $ 249,93S $ 256,184 $ 262,588 $ 269,153 EXISTING DU FIRE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DIJ $ 376.83 $ 648.34 $ 667.79 $ 687.82 $ 708.45 $ 729.71 $ 751.60 $ 774.15 FIRE Multi-FamilyUnits 27,814 PER DIJ $ 422.97 $ 727.73 $ 749.S6 $ 772.OS $ 795.21 $ 819.07 $ 843.64 $ 868.95 EXISTING ACRES FIRE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 1,479.61 $ 2,54S.69 $ 2,622.06 $ 2,700.72 $ 2,781.74 $ 2,86S.20 $ 2,951.15 $ 3,039.69 FIRE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 294.89 $ S07.37 $ 52239 $ S38.27 $ 554.42 $ S71.05 $ 588.18 $ 60S.83 FIRE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 102,610 $ 105,688 $ 108,859 $ 112,124 $ 115,488 $ 118,953 $ 122,521 34 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 434 of 767 Table - Public Safety Costs by Land Use FPolli"ce Calls for Service by Land Use Existing EDUs Existing CV Future EDUs Projected COST'PER Dwelling Type Call Volume(CV)(1) (2) DU (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS EDU $ 62,993,374 Single Family Units 123,906,773 36,084 3,434 4,854 16,667,871 14.957% 50-55% $ 31,844,897 $ 883 Multi-,Family Units 103,105,371 27,814 3,707 22P467 8�3,2 8�3,0 2 3 74.735% 42.07% $ 26,498,793 $ 953 Existing Acres Existing CV Future Acres Projected COST'PER Land Use Call Volume(CV) (2) Acre (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS ACRE Commercial Acres 15,,176,274 936 16,214 518 8,405,596 7.543% 6.19% $ 3,900,407 $ 4,167 Industrial/Office Acres 2,915,398 834 3,496 882 3,081,488 2.765% 1.19% $ 749,277 $ 898 Citywide Total 245,103,815 Fire Calls for Service by Land Use Calls for Service Existing EDUs Existing CF1S Future EDUs Projected COST'PER Dwelling Type (CFS) (2) DU (3) Future CF',S Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS EDU $ 33,055,258 Single Family Units 3,893 53629 0.0725947 4854 �352-3746952 14.800% 61-137% $ 20,208,875 $ �3 7 6.8�3 Multi-,Family Units 2J61 26516 0.08148433 22466-6667 1830-68136,8 76-890% �3�3.9�3 0% $ 11 P 2 15,5 2 6 $ 422.97 6,054 Existing Acres Existing CV Future Acres Projected COST'PER Land Use Call Volume(CV)(') (2) /Acre (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS ACRE Commercial Acres 267 936 0.28504274 518.417 147.7709996, 6.207% 4.190% $ 1,384,916, $ 1,479.61 Industrial/Office Acres 47 834 0.05681055 881.513 50.07923974 2.103% 0.744% $ 245,942 $ 294.89 �314 6,368 (1) Calls for Service include all calls for service responded to by the Fire Department during a one-year period. (2) Existing development data is per General Plan Update Fiscal Model. (3) Future development data is per March 200�6 PFDIF Update-Development Forecast. (4)SD,F-Service Demand Factor 35 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 435 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS,TABLE EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLD RESIDENT EQUIVALENT POPULATION EMPLOYEES (.05) 2012 244)408 37)218 12)220 2013 249ollO 37,934 12p456 2014 253,812 38)650 12)691 2015 258o514 39,366 12p926 2016 263,216 40)082 13)161 2017 267o917 40,798 13p396 2018 26�8)060 40)820 13)403 2019* 271o411 41,330 13p571 2020 282)375 43)000 14)119 2021 287o195 43,734 14p360 2022 292)015 44)468 14)601 2023 296o835 45,201 14p842 2024 301)6�55 45)935 15)083 2025 306o475 46,669 15p324 2026 311)295 47)403 15)565 2027 316o115 48,137 15p806 2028 320)935 48)871 16)047 2029 325o755 49,605 16p288 203,0 330)575 50339 16)529 2031 335o395 51,073 16p770 203,2 340)215 51)807 17)011 2033 342oO66 52,,089 17p103 203,4 343,844 52360 17)192 2035 345o651 52,,635 17p283 203,6 347)440 52)907 17)372 2037 349o185 53,173 17p459 203,8 350)894 53)433 17)545 2039 352o560 53,687 17p628 2040 354)241 53)943 17)712 2041 355o895 54,195 17p795 2042 357)524 54)443 17)876 2043 359ol26 54,687 17p956 2044 36�0)6�83 54)924 18)034 2 045 36�2o220 55,158 18olli 2046 363,786 55397 18)189 2047 365o344 55,634 18p267 As of 01/011/2019 Per State of California Department of Finance, Chula Vista Population is 271,411. 36 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 436 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Per Capita Weighted FY2019-20, FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 FUND/ACCOUNT Average FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 160.05 37,371,038 38,860,000 40,330,000 41,820,000 43,370,000 44,920,000 46,580,000 48,060,000 TOTAL 37,371,038 38�8601000 4013301000 4118201000 43,370,000 44,920,000 4615801000 48,060,000 Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 128.95 35,447,600 34,830,000 35,310,000 35,810,000 36,270,000 36,730,000 37,190,000 37,650,000 3020 Franchise Fees $ 49.12 3030 Utility Taxes $ 21�05 3040 Business License Tax $ 6.60 1,614,643 1,874,650 1,874,650 1,894,650 1,924,650 1,944,650 1,964,650 1,914,650 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 1633 3070 Real Property TransferTax $ 4.57 1,173,550 1,197,021 1,220,961 1,245,381 1,270,288 1,295,694 1,321,608 1,348,040 TOTAL 6015321816 6014911671 6114751611 6215101031 63,514,938 64,520,344 6515161258 66,422,690 Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.68 175,300 178,806 182,382 186,030 189,7SO 193,54S 197,416 201,36S 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 2.40 616,455 628,784 641,360 654,187 667,271 680,616 694,228 708,113 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 3.14 806,170 822,293 838,739 855,514 872,624 890,077 907,878 926,036 3160 Other Permits $ 0.05 14,000 14,280 14,566 14,857 15,154 15,457 15,766 16,082 TOTAL 116111925 116441164 116771047 117101588 1,744,799 1,779,695 118151289 1,851,595 Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.36 605,439 617,548 629,899 642,497 655,347 668,4S4 681,823 695,4S9 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 1.15 294,000 299,880 305,878 311,995 318,235 324,600 331,092 337,714 3240 Parking Penalties $ 0.97 250,000 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 276,020 281,541 287,171 3250 Other Penalties $ 0.46 118,000 120,360 122,767 125,223 127,727 130,282 132,887 135,545 TOTAL 112671439 112921788 113181644 113451016 1,371,917 1,399,355 114271342 1,455,889 Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 3.12 802,000 818,040 834,401 851,089 868,111 885,473 903,182 921,246 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - - - - - - - - - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ 1.07 274,847 280,344 285,951 291,670 297,503 303,453 309,522 315,713 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 3.98 1,022,250 1,042,695 1,063,549 1,084,820 1,106,S16 1,128,647 1,151,220 1,174,244 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 3.75 963,130 982,393 1,002,040 1,022,081 1,042,523 1,063,373 1,084,641 1,106,334 TOTAL 310651227 311261532 311891062 312521843 3,317,900 3,384,258 314511943 3,520,982 Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.89 742,346 757,193 7 7 2,3 37 787,784 803,S39 819,610 836,002 852,722 3440 State rax Sharing $ 0.89 228,246 232,811 237,467 242,216 247,061 252,002 257,042 262,183 3460 PTI I,VI,F-Former Motor Vehicle License F $ 99�97 23,130,251 24,190,000 25,130,000 26,080,000 27,060,000 28,050,000 29,120,000 30,050,000 3480 State Reimbursements $ 0.52 133,799 136,475 139,204 141,989 144,828 147,725 150,679 153,693 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.79 460,440 469,649 479,042 488,623 498,39S 508,363 518,530 528,901 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ 0.03 7,233 7,378 7,525 7,676 7,829 7,986 8,146 8,308 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 2,000 2,040 2,081 2,122 2,16S 2,208 2,252 2,297 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 2.38 610,000 622,200 634,644 647,337 660,284 673,489 686,959 700,698 TOTAL 2513141315 2614171745 2714021300 2813971746 29,424,101 30,461,383 3115791611 32,558,803 Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 5.15 1,321,991 1,348,431 1,37S,399 1,402,907 1,430,966 1,459,S8S 1,488,777 1,518,SS2 3720 Document Fees $ 2.60 668,824 682,200 695,844 709,761 723,957 738,436 753,204 768,269 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.10 25,000 25,500 26,010 26,530 27,061 27,602 28,154 28,717 3740 Inspection Fees $ 1.60 412,000 420,240 428,645 437,218 445,962 454,881 463,979 473,258 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.16 41,000 41,820 42,656 43,510 44,380 45,267 46,173 47,096 3770 Other Dev Fees $ 0.03 6,600 6,732 6,867 7,004 7,144 7,287 7,433 7,581 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 1.06 273,200 278,664 284,237 289,922 295,720 301,63S 307,668 313,821 3830 Services to the Port District $ 4.19 1,075,678 1,097,192 1,119,135 1,141,518 1,164,348 1,187,635 1,211,388 1,235,616 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 5.71 1,464,886 1,494,184 1,524,067 1,554,549 1,585,640 1,6 17,3 S 3 1,649,700 1,682,694 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 11.36 2,915,823 2,974,139 3,033,622 3,094,295 3,156,181 3,219,304 3,283,690 3,349,364 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.18 46,000 46,920 47,858 48,816 49,792 50,788 51,803 52,840 TOTAL 8,251,0�02 8,416,0�22 8,584,342 8,756,029 8,931,150 9,109,773 9,291,968 9,477,808 Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ 0.44 113,975 116,255 118,580 120,951 123,370 125,838 128,354 130,921 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.27 70,000 71,400 72,828 74,285 75,770 77,286 78,831 80,408 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0.01 1,800 1,836 1,873 1,910 1,948 1,987 2,027 2,068 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 7.31 1,876,001 1,913,521 1,951,791 1,990,827 2,030,644 2,071,2S7 2,112,682 2,154,93S 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 20.80 5,341,549 5,448,380 5,557,348 5,668,495 5,781,864 5,897,502 6,015,452 6,135,761 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.23 60,100 61,302 62,528 63,779 65,OS4 66,3SS 67,682 69,036 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 11.60 2,979,570 3,039,161 3,099,945 3,161,944 3,225,182 3,289,686 3,355,480 3,422,589 4600 Assessments $ 0.61 157,780 160,936 164,154 167,437 170,786 174,202 177,686 181,240 4700 Collection Charges $ 2.44 626,270 638,795 651,571 664,603 677,895 691,453 705,282 719,387 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 2,650 2,703 2,7 57 2,812 2,868 2,926 2,984 3,044 4900 Other Revenue $ 5.92 713,065 1,200,000 1,320,000 1,440,000 1,560,000 1,680,000 1,760,000 1,860,000 TOTAL 1119421760 1216541289 1310031375 1313571042 13,715,383 14,078,491 1414061460 14,759,390 TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 600.11 149,356,522 152,903,210, 156,980,,381 161,149,296 165,390,189 169,653,300 174,068,873 178,107,157 37 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 437 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES 296,494 301,555 306,616 311,677 316,738 321,799 3 2 6,8(,'p 0 331,921 3136,11982 342,043 1347,104 352,16P5 PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 IFY2027-28 FY2028-29 IFY2029-30 FY2030-31 FUND/ACCOUNT FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST'(3%) FORECAST 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 126.04 $ 128.87 $ 131.53 $ 134J8 $ 136�93 $ 139�59 $ 14151 $ 144�79 $ 149.14 $ 15161 $ 158.22 $ 16197 TOTAL Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 119.56 $ 115.50 $ 115.16 $ 114.89 $ 114.51 $ 114.14 $ 113.78 $ 113.43 $ 116.83 $ 120.34 $ 123.95 $ 127.67 3020 Franchise Fees $ 41.17 $ 41.52 $ 41.94 $ 42.35 $ 42.75 $ 43.16 $ 43.54 $ 43.93 $ 45.24 $ 46.60 $ 48.00 $ 49.44 3030 Utility Taxes $ 19.34 $ 19.23 $ 19.11 $ 18.99 $ 18.88 $ 18.77 $ 18.66 $ 18.44 $ 18.99 $ 19.56 $ 20.15 $ 20.7S 3040 Business License Tax $ SA5 $ 622 $ 6J] $ 6�08 $ 6�08 $ 6�04 $ 6�01 $ 5�77 $ 5.94 $ 6A2 $ 6.30 $ 6A9 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 14.70 $ 14.16 $ 14.19 $ 14.2S $ 14.30 $ 14.36 $ 14.41 $ 14.49 $ 14.93 $ 15.37 $ 15.84 $ 16.31 3070 Real Property Transfer'Fax $ 196 $ 197 $ 198 $ 4�00 $ 4�01 $ 4�03 $ 4�04 $ 4�06 $ 4.18 $ 431 $ 4.44 $ 437 TOTAL Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.61 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 $ 0.68 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 108 $ 109 $ 109 $ 110 $ 111 $ 112 $ 112 $ 113 $ 2.20 $ 126 $ 2.33 $ 140 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 2.72 $ 2.73 $ 2.74 $ 2.74 $ 2.76 $ 2.77 $ 2.78 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05 $ 3.14 3160 Other Permits $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0.05 $ 0�05 $ 0.05 $ 0�05 TOTAL Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.04 $ 2.OS $ 2.OS $ 2.06 $ 2.07 $ 2.08 $ 2.09 $ 2.10 $ 2.16 $ 2.22 $ 2.29 $ 2.36 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 0�99 $ 0�99 $ 1�00 $ 1�00 $ 1�00 $ 1�01 $ 1�01 $ 1�02 $ 1.05 $ 1�08 $ 1.11 $ 1A5 3240 Parking Penalties $ 0.84 $ 0.8S $ 0.8S $ 0.85 $ 0.85 $ 0.86 $ 0.86 $ 0.87 $ 0.89 $ 0.92 $ 0.95 $ 0.97 3250 Other Penalties $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0A1 $ 0A1 $ 0.42 $ OA3 $ 0.45 $ OA6 TOTAL Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 2.70 $ 2.71 $ 2.72 $ 2.73 $ 2.74 $ 2.75 $ 2.76 $ 2.78 $ 2.86 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 $ 3.12 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ O�93 $ O�93 $ O�93 $ O�94 $ O�94 $ O�94 $ 0�95 $ 0�95 $ 0.98 $ 1�01 $ 1.04 $ 1�07 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 3AS $ 3.46 $ 3.47 $ 3.48 $ 3.49 $ 3.51 $ 3.52 $ 3.54 $ 3.64 $ 3.75 $ 3.87 $ 3.98 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 125 $ 126 $ 127 $ 128 $ 129 $ 330 $ 332 $ 333 $ 3.43 $ 154 $ 3.64 $ 175 TOTAL Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.50 $ 2.51 $ 2.52 $ 2.53 $ 2.54 $ 2.55 $ 2.56 $ 2.57 $ 2.65 $ 2.73 $ 2.81 $ 2.89 3440 State'rax Sharing $ O�77 $ O�77 $ O�77 $ O�78 $ O�78 $ O�78 $ O�79 $ O�79 $ 0.81 $ 0A4 $ 0.86 $ 0A9 3460 PTI LVI,F-Former Motor Vehicle Licens( $ 78.01 $ 80.22 $ 81.96 $ 83.68 $ 85.43 $ 87.17 $ 89.09 $ 90.53 $ 93.25 $ 96.OS $ 98.93 $ 101.90 3480 State Reimbursements $ OA5 $ OA5 $ OA5 $ OA6 $ OA6 $ OA6 $ OA6 $ OA6 $ 0.48 $ OA9 $ 0.51 $ 032 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.5s $ 1.56 $ 1.56 $ 1.57 $ 1.57 $ 1.58 $ 1.59 $ 1.59 $ 1.64 $ 1.69 $ 1.74 $ 1.79 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 106 $ 106 $ 107 $ 108 $ 108 $ 109 $ 110 $ 111 $ 2.17 $ 124 $ 2.31 $ 238 TOTAL Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 4.46 $ 4.47 $ 4.49 $ 4.50 $ 4.52 $ 4.54 $ 4.55 $ 4.58 $ 4.71 $ 4.85 $ 5.00 $ 5.15 3720 Document Fees $ 126 $ 126 $ 127 $ 128 $ 129 $ 129 $ 230 $ 231 $ 2.38 $ 146 $ 2.53 $ 161 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.10 3740 Inspection Fees $ 139 $ 139 $ 1 A0 $ 1 A0 $ 1 Al $ 1 Al $ 1 A2 $ 1 A3 $ 1.47 $ 131 $ 1.56 $ 1�60 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 3770 Other Dev Fees $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ 0.02 $ O�02 $ 0.02 $ O�03 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.93 $ 0.93 $ 0.93 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.95 $ 0.97 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 3830 Services to the Port District $ 163 $ 164 $ 165 $ 166 $ 168 $ 169 $ 171 $ 172 $ 3.83 $ 195 $ 4.07 $ 4A9 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 4.94 $ 4.9S $ 4.97 $ 4.99 $ 5.01 $ 5.03 $ 5.05 $ 5.07 $ 5.22 $ 5.38 $ 5.54 $ 5.71 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 9A3 $ 9A6 $ 9A9 $ 9�93 $ 9�96 $ 10.00 $ 10.05 $ 10.09 $ 10.39 $ 10.71 $ 11.03 $ 11.36 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 TOTAL Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ 038 $ 039 $ 039 $ 039 $ 039 $ 039 $ 039 $ 039 $ 0.41 $ OA2 $ 0.43 $ OA4 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.27 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0�01 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 6.33 $ 63S $ 6.37 $ 6.39 $ 6.41 $ 6.44 $ 6.46 $ 6.49 $ 6.69 $ 6.89 $ 7.09 $ 7.31 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 18.02 $ 18.07 $ 18.12 $ 18.19 $ 18.25 $ 18.33 $ 18.40 $ 18.49 $ 19.04 $ 19.61 $ 20.20 $ 20.81 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.22 $ 0.23 $ 0.23 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 10.05 $ 10.08 $ 10,11, $ 10.14 $ 10.18 $ 10.22 $ 10.27 $ 10.31 $ 10.62 $ 10.94 $ 11.27 $ 11.61 4600 Assessments $ 0.53 $ 0.53 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.55 $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ 0.60 $ 0.61 4700 Collection Charges $ 11,1 $ 112 $ 113 $ 113 $ 114 $ 115 $ 116 $ 117 $ 2.23 $ 230 $ 2.37 $ 144 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4900 Other Revenue $ 140 $ 198 $ 431 $ 4�62 $ 4�93 $ 522 $ 538 $ 5�60 $ 5.77 $ 5�95 $ 6.12 $ 631 TOTAL TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 503.74 $ 507.05 $ 511.98 $ 5 1 T04 $ 52117 $ 52720 $ 53155 $ 536�60 $ 552.69 $ 56927 $ 586.35 $ 60194 38 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 438 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES 357,226 359,169 361,036 1362,1933 364,812 1360,644 368,438 3 7 0,18 8 PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE FY2031-32 IFY2032-33 FY2033-34 IFY2034-35 FY2035-36 IFY2037-38 FY2038-39 IFY203 FUND/ACCOUNT FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAS 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 167.86 $ 172.89 $ 178.08 $ 183.42 $ 18K92 $ 194.59 $ 200A3 $ 206.44 TOTAL Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 131.50 $ 135.44 $ 139.51 $ 143.69 $ 148.00 $ 152.44 $ 157.01 $ 161.73 3020 Franchise Fees $ 50.92 $ 5145 $ 54.02 $ 55.64 $ 57.31 $ 59.03 $ 60.80 $ 62.63 3030 Utility Taxes $ 21.37 $ 22.02 $ 22.68 $ 23.36 $ 24.06 $ 24.78 $ 25.52 $ 26.29 3040 Business License Tax $ 6�69 $ 6.89 $ T09 $ 7.31 $ T53 $ 7.75 $ T98 $ 8.22 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 16.80 $ 17.30 $ 17.82 $ 18.36 $ 18.91 $ 19.48 $ 20.06 $ 20.66 3070 Real Property Transfer'Fax $ 4�71 $ 4.85 $ 4�99 $ 5.14 $ 530 $ 5.46 $ 5�62 $ 5.79 TOTAL Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.7S $ 0.77 $ 0.79 $ 0.82 $ 0.84 $ 0.86 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 147 $ 2.55 $ 162 $ 2.70 $ 178 $ 2.87 $ 195 $ 3.04 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 3.23 $ 3.33 $ 3.43 $ 3.53 $ 3.64 $ 3.75 $ 3.86 $ 3.98 3160 Other Permits $ O�06 $ 0.06 $ O�06 $ 0.06 $ O�06 $ 0.07 $ O�07 $ 0.07 TOTAL Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.43 $ 2.50 $ 2.58 $ 2.65 $ 2.73 $ 2.82 $ 2.90 $ 2.99 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 1A,8 $ 1.21 $ 1�25 $ 1.29 $ 133 $ 1.37 $ 1 Al $ 1.45 3240 Parking Penalties $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 $ 1.10 $ 1.13 $ 1.16 $ 1.20 $ 1.23 3250 Other Penalties $ OA7 $ 0.49 $ mo $ 0.52 $ 033 $ 0.55 $ 037 $ 0.58 TOTAL Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 3.22 $ 3.31 $ 3.41 $ 3.52 $ 3.62 $ 3.73 $ 3.84 $ 3.96 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ lJo $ 1.14 $ 1A,7 $ 1.20 $ 124 $ 1.28 $ 132 $ 1.36 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 4.10 $ 4.22 $ 43S $ 4.48 $ 4.62 $ 4.75 $ 4.90 $ 5.04 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 186 $ 3.98 $ 4JO $ 4.22 $ 435 $ 4.48 $ 4�61 $ 4.75 TOTAL Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.98 $ 3.07 $ 3.16 $ 3.25 $ 3.35 $ 3.45 $ 3.56 $ 3.66 3440 State'rax Sharing $ O�92 $ 0.94 $ O�97 $ 1.00 $ 1�03 $ 1.06 $ 1�09 $ 1.13 3460 PTI I,VI,F-Former Motor Vehicle Licens($ 104.9S $ 108.10 $ 111.34 $ 114.69 $ 118.13 $ 121.67 $ 125.32 $ 129.08 3480 State Reimbursements $ O�54 $ 0.55 $ O�57 $ 0.59 $ O�60 $ 0.62 $ O�64 $ 0.66 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.8S $ 1.90 $ 1.96 $ 2.02 $ 2.08 $ 2.14 $ 2.21 $ 2.27 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.04 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 145 $ 2.52 $ 160 $ 2.67 $ 175 $ 2.84 $ 192 $ 3.01 TOTAL Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 5.30 $ 5.46 $ 5.63 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 6.15 $ 6.33 $ 6.52 3720 Document Fees $ 168 $ 2.76 $ 185 $ 2.93 $ 102 $ 3.11 $ 120 $ 3.30 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 3740 Inspection Fees $ 1�65 $ 1.70 $ 1�75 $ 1.81 $ 1 A6 $ 1.92 $ 1�97 $ 2.03 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 3770 Other Dev Fees $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 1.10 $ 1.13 $ 1.16 $ 1.20 $ 1.23 $ 1.27 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 3830 Services to the Port District $ 432 $ 4.45 $ 4�58 $ 4.72 $ 4A6 $ 5.00 $ SA5 $ 5.31 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 5.88 $ 6.05 $ 6.23 $ 6.42 $ 6.61 $ 6.81 $ 7.02 $ 7.23 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 11.70 $ 1105 $ 12,41, $ 12.78 $ 13.17 $ 13.56 $ 13.97 $ 14.39 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.22 $ 0.23 TOTAL Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ OA6 $ 0.47 $ OA9 $ 0.50 $ 031 $ 0.53 $ 035 $ 0.56 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 0.34 $ 0.35 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 7.53 $ 7.75 $ 7.98 $ 8.22 $ 8.47 $ 8.73 $ 8.99 $ 9.26 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 21.43 $ 2107 $ 22.73 $ 23.42 $ 24.12 $ 24.84 $ 25.59 $ 26.36 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 11.95 $ 1231 $ 12.68 $ 13.06 $ 13.45 $ 13.86 $ 14.27 $ 14.70 4600 Assessments $ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ 0.67 $ 0.69 $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 4700 Collection Charges $ 151 $ 2.59 $ 167 $ 2.75 $ 183 $ 2.91 $ 100 $ 3.09 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4900 Other Revenue $ 6�50 $ 6.69 $ 6A9 $ 7.10 $ 731 $ 7.53 $ T76 $ 7.99 TOTAL TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 622.06 $ 640.72 $ 659.94 $ 679.74 $ 700AA $ 721.14 $ 74177 $ 765.06 39 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 439 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Weighteid Average FY 2020 FY2021 [,Y 2 0 2 2 FY 2023 FY 2 0 01, FV 2025 FY 2026; FV2027 PY2020 Fl"2029 [",Y 2 0 3 0 �),—1 Household Population 28Z375 28T 195 2924 15 294835 30 4655 306A75 314295 �""l "115 2 0, 33T575 Employment Population(Per 11119 11360 1 d"()0 1 Pl,,K,12 1 V083 1 Z 3 2 1, 1 Z806 16M47 1628H 15521") Capka Equiv) Total Population 294494 30 hss!'�� 305h 16 3 1 4 6'77 316713 2 1 A')') 326860 3�33,�K�9)2 336982 3 4 21�(0)/41�33, 3 4 TJ 04 Per Capita by Category: General Government $ 7125 1 $ 6"L 0 2 �,l $ 6307 6C53 $ 65A2 6434 $ OT29 6827 $ 0128 70,31 Community Development 12.59 1 0A2 1016 1 L H) 11,25 1 L40 11.5 6 1152 11"89 12�06 'I"��,"��11 12A2 Pubhc Works/Engineering 55k2 47,95 4810 41419 5M011) 5 0 A7 51111) 5101 5"L 5 6 �3324 5310 54,71 Community Services 60K, 5 2,07 52111 5 3 54311 5 5 M7 5 5 M 56A2 57A3 5826 5112 60J)1 Public Safetv: Police Services 270J3 2 12,46 2 21 Afl) 224419 232A��"� 237M0 24 316 24180 25509 26LHI 26712 2 7 Fire Services 13017 1 1 L41') 114A6 I I TH"') 11120 12M50 1210) 12110 '1"��11,,"��l 12 �,I,��� 'I"����'6 0 1218,�,,119 Animal Control Services 11-31 952 0415 917 10,11 102"1 10,311) 1(15"13 1(h(Q; 1 le,�1 11,00 1 L 16 Total Public Safety 412.41 3 3 3 A7 3 4 131 35C36 3 01.34 36854 3 7 5 M 3 8 14,,,,, �111�11)0,5 11i; �1'1111 1'') 0 1'') 0 5,51 "111��,��3 1'') Total General Fund Expenditures 612.68 $ 50197 $ 52MI 4 $ 531AI $ 54MA8 $ 55022 $ 55194 $ 570MS $ 57175 $ 589A2 $ 60RD5 $ 6 0 9 M4, Per Capita by Department: City Council 2.56 220 $ 123 226 $ 219 232 $ 135 2.38 $ 142 145 $ 149 232 Boards 81 ComrnisAons 0.05 0.0"t DA11 0 J)I DA11 0 J)I DA11 0 J)I DA11 WE�� ch 0 5 WE3 City Clerk 4.09 312 �?5 6 3A 1 165 3.70 176 3JI I 1 18 6 312 19"!,; 404 City Attorney 12A6 1 1�05 I 110 1 1,11 11.49 1 1,6�� 11 M1 1 1,97 1215 12��,,,,,2 'I"L 5 0 121111) Administration 8.46 7.27 T 3 6 70', T 5 6 70, T76 7.87 'T 11)11) 8,10 it 2"�� 18 3 1 Info Tech Services 1523 13K) 1126 13 A,,,,, 13 Al 1"1331'') 13 1 11C 18 14,3 8 1 C59 14M0 1�T 0"I'll, Human Resources 1211, 1 OA��, 10,5 11 10108 1 1017 11 A I 1218 11.44 1 1�()() 'I 1'7'11!1; 1 1 A�3 Finance 1500 13A'7 1301 1 CO2 14 11 PC40 1400 ICHI 1524 15A6 15,619 Non-Departmental - Animal Care Facility 11,31, 952 0415 917 1 M11 102"1 1 th(Q; 1 1 11,00 1 L 16 Economic Development 8.65 7.01, T 5 7JS'3 'T 7 704 T94 8 J)6 K 17 8,21'') 1141 18 3 1 Planning&Building 3.93 3.18 14 3A'7 �?5 30', 3"1 3A6 1 7,'�� 377 18�11� 3 J1 le,� Engineering/ClP Projects %60 3 1 A'7 31 M7 3 2 2'e,� 3 2 11 311� 3 3"1 3 C 0'e,� �"'vl'5'�7 ���,�07 5,5 11) 6�12 Pohce 270J3 2 12,46 2 21 Afl) 224419 232A��"� 237M0 24 316 24180 25509 26LHI 26712 2 7 Fire 13017 1 1 L 4 1) 114 A 6 1 1 TH"') 1112 0 12M50 1210) 12110 '1"��11,,"��l 12����,I,��� 'I"����'6 0 1218,�,,119 Public Works 19mi, 16 K) 17 01 1721 173 8 1732 17 A,'!'; 17M6 I K00 I 18�16 '1 fi;'�"Vl I IK 5 le,� Recreation 4435 3KI2 3 K 61 311 1 3 A 6 4M 17 4 0.7,'�� 41219 41 J58; "I'll,2�,I,19 4112 4377 library 16.46 1015 103 1 C52 14.71 1 C91 1"11 113,,,,, 1"511 1177 16A0 162"1 General Fund Totals 612k8 $ 50597 $ 520J 4 $ 531AI $ 54MA8 $ 55022 $ 55194 $ 570MS 57175 $ 589A2 $ 60RD5 $ 6 0 9 M4, 40 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 440 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Weighted Average V 2()2 1) FY2021 [,�Y W22 FN`2 02"P11 ["y 2()2 4, F1`2025 FY2026, 1:1%,2 0 2 7 FY2020 F"I"2029 l,Y 2 11)3 0 L FULL FISCAL IMPACT-FORECAST F FY2020 FY 2021 FY 2022__j FY2023 I FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 �FY 2028 FY2029 I FY2030 1 General Government 18,160,487 18,705,302, 19,266,461 19,844,455 20,439,789 21,052,982 21,684,572 22,335,109 23,0�05,162 23,695,317 24,406,177 Community Development 3,208,062 3,304,304 3,403,433 3,505,536 3,610,702 3,719,023 3,830,594 3,945,512 4,063,877 4,185,794 4,311,367 Public Works/Engineering 14,217,621 14,747,185 15,175,755 15,611,689 16,0�49,950 16,505,765 16,976,996 17,446,944 17,939,238 18,435,310 18,988,369 Community Services 15,498,905 15,963,872, 16,442,789 16,936,072 17,444,154 17,967,479 18,506,503 19,061,699 19,633,550 20,222,556 20,829,233 Public Safety: Police Services 62,993,374 66,643,363 69,445,105 72,319,470 75,320,061 78,408,743 81,648,090 84,868,480 88,225,442 91,639,078 94,388,250 Fire Services 33,0�55,258 34,516,650 36,148,007 37,150,475 38,166,592 39,191,500 40,237,679 41,227,647 42,272,838 43,301,909 44,600,967 Animal Control Services 2,882,814 2,969,298 3,058,377 3,150,129 3,244,633 3,341,972 3,442,231 3,545,498 3,651,863 3,761,418 3,874,261 Total Public Safety 98,931,446 104,129,311 108,651,490 112R620,074 116,7311286 120,942,215 125,328,000 129,641,625 134,150,143 138,702,406 142,863,478 Total General Fund Expenditures 150,016,522 156,849,974 162,939�,928 168,517,826 174,275,881 180,187,464 186,326,665 192,430,888 198,791,969 205,241,382 211,398,623 DEPARTMENT NAME CITY COUNCIL 3,59'Yo 651,797 671,350 691,491, 712,236 733,60�3 755,611 778,279 801,628 825,676 850,447 875,9�60 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 0,0 7'Yo 12,074 12,436 12,809 13,193 13,589 13,997 14,417 14,849 15,295 15,754 16,226 CITY CLERK 5,2 Wo 1,042,495 1,,073,770 1,105,983 1,,139,163 1,173,338 1,,208,5,38 1,244,794 1,,282,138 1,320,602 1,,360,220 1,401,027 CITY ATTORNEY 16,61'Yo 3,277,722 3,,376,054 3,477,336 3,,581,656 3,689,105 3,,799,779 3,913,772 4,,031,185 4,152,121, 4,,276,684 4,404,985 ADMINISTRATION I I'd,i lyo 2,155,103 2,,219,756 2,286,349 2,,354,939 2,425,588 2,,498,355 2,573,306 2,,650,5,05 2,730,020 2,,811,921 2,896,278 INFO TECH SRVC,S 21,07'Y(.) 3,881,057 3,,997,488 4,117,413 4,,240,936 4,368,164 4,,499,208 4,634,185 4,,773,210 4,916,407 5,,,063,899 5,215,816 HUMAN RESOURCES I S,J,7'Y(.) 3,0�86,826 3,,179,431 3,274,813 3,,373,058 3,474,250 3,,578,477 3,685,831, 3,,796,406 3,910,299 4,,027,607 4,148,436 FINANCE 2 IJ,41Y6 4,053,414 4,,175,016 4,300,266 4,,429,274 4,562,153 4,,699,017 4,839,988 4,,985,187 5,134,743 5,,,288,785 5,447,449 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 0,0 0,yo - - - - - - ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 2,882,814 2,,969,298 3,0�58,377 3,,150,129 3,244,633 3,,341,972 3,442,231, 3,,545,498 3,651,863 3,,761,418 3,874,261, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 68,74'Yo 2,205,269 2,,271,428 2,339,570 2,,409,757 2,482,050 2,,556,5,12 2,633,207 2,,712,203 2,793,569 2,,877,376 2,963,698 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICI 31,26'Y(.) 1,002,793 1,,032,877 1,063,863 1,,095,779 1,128,652 1,,162,5,12 1,197,387 1,,233,309 1,270,308 1,,308,417 1,347,670 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROJECTS 65,62'Y(.) 9,329,383 9,,609,265 9,897,543 10,194,469 10,500,303 10,815,312 11,139,772 11,473,965 11,818,184 12,172,729 12,537,911, POLICE 62,9�93,374 66,643,363 69,445,105 72,319,470 75,320�,061, 78,408,743 81,648,090 84,868,480 88,225,442 91,639,078 94,388,250 FIRE 33,055,258 34,516,650 36,148,007 37,150,475 38,166,592 39,191,5,00 40,237,679 41,227,647 42,272,838 43,301,909 44,600�,967 PUBLIC WORKS 54,481Y(.) 4,888,237 5,,,137,920 5,278,213 5,,,417,220 5,549,646 5,,,690,452 5,837,224 5,,,972,980 6,121,054 6,,262,5,80 6,450,458 RECREATION 5 3,7 1'Yo 11,303,651 11,642,760 1,1,99 2,0 4 3 12,351,804 12,722,358 13,104,029 13,497,150 13,902,065 14,319,126 14,748,700 15,191,161, LIBRARY 4,6,29'Y(.) 4,195,255 4,,321,112 4,450,746 4,,584,268 4,721,796 4,,863,450 5,0�09,353 5,,,159,634 5,314,423 5,,,473,856 5,638,071, GENERAL FUND TOTALS 150,016,522 156,849,974 162,939�,928 168,517,826 174,275,881 180,187,464 186,326,665 192,430,888 198,791,969 205,241,382 211,398,623 41 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 44 1. of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORN SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDIT] PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABL 1 2 FY2039 V 2 03 1 Fy 2032 F 1,2 0 '�'3 1"1"2 03 �"y 03 FV 2013,6 [�V 2037 1:' rla Household Population 0,2 15 4 2 0 6 3,,H44 15, 5 11)"1 �"1'50"H94, 1) AE �/'''I'� ,2 2 8 Employment Population(Per 16,77 o 1,7,01 17 J 0' Capita Equiv) '1 3 64 H 2 36� Total Population 3�`37�'12'12 6 9,16 3 6 i�1) 2,,,�3 Per Capita by Category: General Government 7 138, 7, 4,8; T4 7,6,0�8; 77 6 7,9' �8; 1 87 rl 18(02 '1 11,11 1,4 A6 I 4,H'2 Community Development 12 "LH,() 1 2 '1�','�,,44 1 77 Public Works/Engineering 5 6,3 17�1),2 0 65,21� 6 Community Services 2 61'H'6 64, �3 6 5:") 6 fi;A�8; 1)�87 7 42 Public Safetv: Police Services 27 6 0 6 0,3 2 2 37 6 94,2 4,1) �"KH!�;,94, I 6�('�2 5 3 Fire Services 1 0 4, '1 2,4, 04, 1,4 2 4,6 14 5 1; 11 '1 3,3 1 Animal Control Services I '11,51 1 1"7 '1"L 0�8; 123e', 'I"L �8; 1 0 0 -'1 3 2 Total Public Safety 17 84, Zi 2 '14 5,31 7 "1 67J,")0 1,7 2 4 91,2 0 Total General Fund Expenditures I�"i 9 $ 6 27, 2 1; zt'�''I $ 6�"`)1:1),0 2 1; 61)�,92 1; 7 0 9A 2 $ 2 7/[,`�"�A 0 Per Capita by Department: 01 City Council 2,56 $ "L 2,66 $ 'L7�3 2,80 "LK7 2,11�)4, $ 0 1) Boards&Commissions 0'0 o',o 0,0 1,�' o',o��� 0,0 1,�' o',o��� 0,0 0''0 0,()�11 1 City Clerk 4,16 2 6 4,37 "l,4,18 14,5 1) t� "l,11�)4, '1 '4,2 15 City Attorney 12�8'e3 '1 0�8; 1 4,0 '1 �3 1,4�07 11�"7 1 Administration 18,,,17 0 18,81 11),()�3 19,2 1, 9,72 1)6 1 1� Info Tech Services I 5�8'' T� J, �' '16,2 1(0"'41 1"A 1'7,5 1 3e,1, I Q 1�I' Human Resources 12 "3) '1'L 3 2 12A"�2 '1 3 1 5�8; 1 111)21 14,2 6 11 2 Finance I 16 A�8; 16 57 '16, �8; IT40 I �',��'7 1,,!';,'7�3 1 1'')1�0 Non-Departmental Animal Care Facility I I 3"�) '11,51 1 1"7 9 '1"L 0�8; 123e', 'I"L �8; 1 0 0 '1 3 2 Economic Development 67 0 9,2111 9,,,17 9,7 0 1)11�)4, '1 '1 c 1 0A,5' Planning&Building 11�)4, 0 2 0 4,41 4,('�3 Engineering/CIP Projects 6('�'7 2 4 "10 J)5, 1,04 2 0 6 4 11 Police 27 6 0 6 0,3 2 2 37 6 94,2 4,1) �"KH!�;,94, �,31,I 6�('�2 5 3 Fire 1'13 0 4, '1 2,4, 04, 1,4 2 4,6 14 5"A"'; I 1 5�3,3 I Public Works I'e,3 87 '19'16 1 2 0,11 2 0 11 2 1 A'A, "L I�8; 22�74 Recreation A"13 4 5,12 2 4, 49,7 2 5,'L 2 3 Library 16 4, .16,7 4 ITI'� I 18J) "!,;,4,,5 1 -'111),3�8; 1 87 General Fund Totals I�"i 9 $ 6 27, 2 1; zt'�''1 6�"`)1:1),0 2 1; $ 61)�,92 1; 7 0 9A 2 $ '72 6, 7/[,`�"�A 0 42 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 442 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORN SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITI PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABL 1 2 FY2039 V 2 03 1 Fy 2032 F 1,2 '�'3 1"1"2 03 �"y 03 FV 2013,6 [�V 2037 1:' I I � I I rla FULL FISCAL IMPACT-FORECA FY 2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 General Government 25,138,362 25,892,513 26,669,288 27,469,367 28,293,448 29,142,251 30,0�16,519 30,917,014 31,844,525 Community Development 4,440,70�8 4,573,930 4,711,148 4,852,482 4,9�98,056 5,147,998 5,302,438 5,461,511 5,625,357 Public Works/Engineering 19,558,020 20,144,761 20,749,103 21,371,577 22,0�12,724 22,673,106 23,353,299 24,053,898 24,775,515 Community Services 21,454,110 22,097,733 22,760,665 23,443,485 24,146,789 24,871,193 25,617,329 26,385,849 27,177,424 Public Safety: Police Services 97,219,89�8 100,136,494 103,140,589 106,234,807 109,421,851 112,704,507 116,085,642 119,568,211 123,155,257 Fire Services 45,938,99�6 47,317,166 48,736,681 50,198,781 51,704,744 53,255,887 54,853,563 56,499,170 58,194,145 Animal Control Sery 3,990,489 4,110,203 4,233,510 4,360,515 41491,330 4,626,070 41764�852 4,907,798 51055,032 Total Public Safety 147,149,382 151p563,863 156,110,779 160,794,103 165,617,926 170,586,464 175,704,058 180,9751179 186,404,435 Total General Fund Expencl 217,740,582 224,272,799 231,000,983 237,931,013 245,068,943 252,421,012 259,993,642 267,793,451 275,827,255 DEPARTMENT NAME CITY COUNCIL 902,239 929,306 957,185 985,901 1,015,478 1,,045,942 1,077,320 1,,109,640 1,142,929 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 16,713 17,214 17,731, 18,263 18,811, 19,375 1,9,9 5 6 20,555 21,172 CITY CLERK 1,443,057 1,,486,349 1,530,940 1,,576,868 1,624,174 1,,672,899 1,723,086 1,,774,778 1,828,022 CITY ATTORNEY 4,537,134 4,,673,248 4,813,446 4,,957,849 5,106,585 5,,,259,782 5,417,576 5,,,580,103 5,747,506 ADMINISTRATION 2,983,167 3,,072,662 3,164,842 3,,259,787 3,357,581, 3,,458,308 3,562,057 3,,668,919 3,778,986 INFO TECH SRVC,S 5,372,290 5,,,533,459 5,699,463 5,,,870,447 6,0�46,560 6,,227,957 6,414,795 6,,607,239 6,805,457 HUMAN RESOURCES 4,272,889 4,,401,075 4,533,108 4,,669,101 4,809,174 4,,953,449 5,102,053 5,,,255,114 5,412,768 FINANCE 5,610,872 5,,,779,199 5,952,575 6,,131,152 6,315,086 6,,504,5,39 6,699,675 6,,900,665 7,107,685 NON-DEPARTMENTAL - - - - - ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 3,990,489 4,,110,203 4,233,510 4,,360,5,15 4,491,330 4,,626,070 4,764,852 4,,907,798 5,0�55,032 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3,0�52,609 3,,144,187 3,238,513 3,,335,668 3,435,738 3,,538,810 3,644,974 3,,754,324 3,866,953 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICI 1,388,100 1,,429,743 1,472,635 1,,516,814 1,562,319 1,,609,188 1,657,464 1,,707,188 1,758,403 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROJECTS 12,914,048 13,301,470 13,700,514 14,111,5,29 1,4,534,875 14,970,922 15,420,049 15,882,651 16,359,130 POLICE 97,219,898 100,136,494 1,03,140,589 106,234,807 1,09,421,851, 112,704,5,07 116,085,642 119,568,211 1,23,155,257 FIRE 45,9�38,996 47,317,166 48,736,681 5,0,198,781 51,704,744 5,3,255,887 54,853,563 5,6,499,170 58,194,145 PUBLIC WORKS 6,643,9�72 6,,843,291 7,0�48,589 7,,260,047 7,477,849 7,,702,184 7,933,249 8,,171,247 8,416,384 RECREATION 15,646,896 16,116,303 16,599,792 17,097,786 17,610,719 18,139,041 18,683,212 19,243,709 1,9,821,,020 LIBRARY 5,807,214 5,,,981,430 6,160,873 6,,345,699 6,536,070 6,,732,152 6,934,117 7,,142,140 7,356,404 GENERAL FUND TOTALS 217,740,582 224,272,799 231,000,983 237,931,013 245,068,943 252,421,012 259,993,642 267,793,451 275,827,255 43 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 443 of 767 RECLASS NON- RECLASS NON- FUNCTIONAL AREA RECONCILED PERSONNEL OPERATING INTERNALSERVICE AMENDED FY2019. ELIMINATION DEPARTMENTAL DEPARTMENTAL City 10 Year REVISED ITEMS TO PUBLISHED BUDGET SERVICES SUPPLIES&SERVICES UTILITIES OTHER CAPITAL XFERS OUT CHARGES 20 TOTAL ENTRY COSTS COSTS REVISED TOTALS TRANSFERS IN Model TOTALS General Government $ 15,592,728 $ 2,924,966 $ 20,259 $ - $ 123,915 $ $ - $ 18,661,868 $ $ $ 4S4,715 $ 19,116,583 (956oO96) $ 18,160,487 Community Development 4,621,535 343,316 4,872 12,000 2,020 23,635 5,007,378 124,332 5,131,710 (1,923,648) 3,208,062 Public Works/Engincering 16o361o728 1,792,632 Io457o593 123,500 ISO,171 386,611 609,443 20o881o678 673,694 21,SSS,372 (7,687,751) 3SO,000 14,217,621 Community Services 10,814,949 1,185,597 2,881,712 81,300 2,523 - 324,262 15,290,343 208,562 15,4.98,90.S - 15,4.98,90.S Public Safety - 54o776o784 2o0I0o850 412,372 103,243 - - Io000o423 58o303o672 2o233o778 1,413,564 61,9SI,014 (587o640) 1,630,000 62,993,374 28o49IoI07 2ol3lo858 193,717 - - 62,326 955o878 31,834o886 703,874 32,S38,760 (Io143,502) 1,660,000 33,OSS,258 Animml(:mj�cul Wr""Q�11:� 2,348,400 351,949 42,296 4,500 6,282 - 53,200 2,806,627 76,187 2,882,814. - 2,882,814. Non-Departmental (153,983) 1,668o697 3o984 4S4,622 - 42,207,075 - 44oI80o395 (36,767,3051 (2o233,778) (3,654,929) 1,S24,383 (lo524,383) - $ 132,853,248 $ 12,409,865 $ 5,016,805 $ 779,165 $ 2 B4,91 1 $ 4.2,656,012 $ 2,966,841 $ 196,966,847 $ (36,767,3�5:L $ $ - $ 160,199,54.2 $ (13,823,220L $ 3,64.0,000 $150,016,522 JADOPTED FY2019- IFT2019-20 20 ELIMINATION ENTRY AND 1ST PERSONNEL OPERATING INTERNAL SERVICE QUARTER RECLASS FOR City 10 Year REVISED DEPT DEPARTMENT NAME SERVICES SUPPLIES&SERVICES UTILITIES OTHER CAPITAL XFERS OUT CHARGES TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS POLICE SPREAD REVISED TOTALS TRANSFERS IN Model TOTALS 01100 CITY COUNCIL $ 1,4,56,659 $ 105,880 $ 1,307 $ $ 3,190 $ $ $ 1,567,036 4.0,857 $ 1,607,893 (956,096) $ 651,797 02000 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - 11,841 - - 11,841 233 12,074 12,074 03000 CITY CLERK 858,657 159,285 688 - 1,018,630 23,865 1,04.2,4.9.S 1,04.2,4.9.S 04-000 CITY ATTORNEY 20886o587 308o8OO 1,856 4,948 3o2O2ol9l 7S,S31 3,277,722 3,277,722 OSOOO ADM[NIsTRA,nON 1,948,791 150,187 832 3,4.16 2,103,226 51,877 2,155,103 2,155,103 06000 INFO TECI I SRVCS 2o349o498 1,335o947 11,907 87,890 3o785o242 9S,81S 3,881,057 3,881,057 07000 HUMAN RESOURCES 2,587,023 418,970 1,457 8,972 3,016,422 70,4.04. 3,086,826 3,086,826 08000 FINANCE 3o505o513 434oO56 2o212 IS,499 3o957o280 96,134 4,OS3,414 4,OS3,414 09000 NON-DEPARTMENTAL (153,983) 1,668,697 3,984 4.54,622 - 4.2,207,075 44,180,395 (36,767,305) (2,233,778) (3,654.,929) 1,524.,383 (1,524,383) - 10000 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 2o348o4OO 351o949 42o296 4,SOO 6,282 53o2OO 208O6o627 76,187 2,882,814 2,882,814 11000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1,977,144 168,422 2,497 - 1,520 2,149,583 55,686 2,205,269 2,205,269 12000 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES 2o6,44o391 174o894 2o375 12,000 Soo - 23o635 20857o795 68,646 2,926,441 (lo923,648) 1,002,793 13000 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROjEcrs 7,229,662 366,083 863,671 108,500 10,000 386,611 144,695 9,109,222 220,161 9,329,383 - 9,329,383 14-000 POLICE 54o776o784 2o0I0o850 412o372 103,243 - - 1,000o423 58o303o672 2o233o778 1,413,564 61,9SI,014 (587o640) 1,630,000 62,993,374 ISOOO FIRE 28,491,107 2,131,858 193,717 - - 62,326 955,878 31,834,886 703,874. 32,538,760 (1,14,3,502) 1,660,000 33,055,2S8 16000 PUBLIC WORKS 9oI32o066 1,426o549 593o922 1s,000 140,171 - 464o748 11,772o456 4S3,532 12,22S,988 (7o687,75 1) 3SO,000 4,888,237 17000 RECREA,riON 7,219,052 959,603 2,608,646 80,900 2,523 320,917 11,191,641 112,010 11,303,6S1 11,303,6S1 18000 LIBRARY 3o595o897 225o994 273oO66 400 - - 3o345 4oO98o7O2 96,SS3 4,19S,255 - 4,19S,255 GENERAL FUND TOTALS $ 132,853,248 $ 12,409,865 5,016,80-S $ 779,165 $ 284,911 $ 42,656,012 $ 2,966,841 196,966,847 (36,767,305) $ - $ - $ 160,199,542 (13,823,020) $ 3,640,000 150,016,522 4 A �4+ 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 444 of 767 Appendix B Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Model for Existing Industrial U�se 1VIOSS S I I I'll 11 1 45 "I, 202AY*W*RYaQJFckQjTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 445 of 767 GTY OF CHULAVISTA Instructional Guide I The spreadsheet is ready to accept unit counts and vailuation of project costs. 2 TABS: COMPLETE SHADED AREAS AS INSTRUCTED ON EACH TAB 2a TAB: Property Tax Analysis Enter unit counts in yellow highlighted cells Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Commercial Industrial Office Hotel 2b Input a Constructed Assessed Value 2c Input on Percentage Complete row for each section-a factor of how much of 2d TAB: Sales Tax Analysis-Input Square Footage and Rates on Sheet 2e TAB: Expenditure- Police& Fire Input Acres by Land Use In Shaded Areas 2f TAB: Police& Fire Costs-Dev- No input; shows costs and phase in of'Fir�e Station/S 2g TAB: Police& Fire Detal CaIcs(call volume by Land Use) 2h TAB: Master Plan Services 2i TAB: Maintenance Service Costs Input Lane Miles and Park Acres 3 TAB: Maintenance Service Costs-�PS 3a Input the service count components listed (as applicable) 4 TAB: Analys,is-Model FY 4a This table links to other input tables and calculates the fiscal impact on 4b If the project ha�s a hotel,the room counts per hotel need to be input to 4c Also,an absorption%impact factor needs to be entered on realizing the 5 TAB: Population Factor- Prepopulated TAB: EXH 1-Revenue Per Capita (Data supporting Fiscal Impact-Locked) TAB: EXH 2- Expenditures Per Capita (Data supporting Fiscal Impact- Locked) TAB: SUMMARY-EXP(Reconciles Published Budget to Base for Fiscal Model) 6 Print each Tab when,done 46 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 446 of 767 ........... ............. 3 4, 6 7 8 9 .4��V*lation 0 Single Family Residential o-OW%--P7*a i��, Multi-Family Residential CITY OF Subtotal(Per Capita) CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Totals 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Number of Homes Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Totals 'Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms Hotel 2-#rooms 'Totals - - - - - - - - Average I lotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* $ 15437 $ 157A9 $ 15935 $ 161�94 $ 16437 $ 16634 $ 16934 $ 17138 $ 174.46 Average I lotel Daily Rate-Developer,As,signed* $ 142.10 $ 144.23 $ 146.39 $ 148.59 $ 150.82 $ 153.08 $ 155.38 $ 157.71, $ 160.07 Average Hotel Occupancy* 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77.1% Developer,Provided I lotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate(per room night) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 101% Abs,or,ption Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ............... ... ......... 1 3 4, 5 7 8 1 1 ........................................................................................................................... Yc�,ar 0111"A"Ir Tax Revenues Property Tax AV $ 6,357 $ 6,484 $ 6,614 $ 6,746 $ 6,881 $ 7,019 $ 7,159 $ 7,303 $ 7,449 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 1,590 1,536 1,532 1,528 1,523 1,518 1,513 1,509 1,554 Transient O,ccupancy Tax Per Capita 195 188 189 189 190 191 192 193 199 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific - 64 130 197 265 �335 406 478 552 Franchise Fees Per Capita 548 552 558 563 569 574 579 584 60,2 Other Taxes Per Capita 505 497 496 495 495 494 494 492 50,7 Subtotal Tax Revenues 9,196 9,322 9,518 9,719 9,923 10,131 10,343 10,559 10,862 Other Revenues Per Capita 536 558 564 570 576 582 586 591 60,9 Licenses and Permits Per Capita 72 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 76 Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 60, Use of Money&Property Per Capita 137 138 138 139 139 140 140 141 14S Charges for Services No Forecast - - - - - - - - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 98 98 99 99 99 100 100 101 10,4 Subtotal Other Revenues 900 924 931 938 945 953 959 966 995 Total General Fund Revenues $ 10,09,6 $ 10,246 $ 10,4,49 $ 10,658 $ 10,868 $ 11,084 $ 11,302 $ 11,524 $ 11,856 General Fund Expenditures General Government r C a t C1 $ 12�2 $ 12�4 $ 12�5 $ 12�7 $ 12�9 $ 131 $ 132 $ 134 $ 136 Community Development(20%) r C a t C1 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 Public Works/Engineering r C a t C1 44 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 Drainage Management System 12�3 12�3 12�3 12�3 12�3 12�3 12�3 12�3 123 Building Management System 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Parks Management System 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Open Space Management System 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Fleet Management System 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Pavement Annual(PMP) 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 General Govt Management System 0, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Urban Forestry Management System 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 2 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 ler_api�a �348 352 357 �361 �366 �371 �377 �382 387 Community Services Public Safety: Police Services Pro��ect SI-HICIfIC, 6,865 7,263 7,568 7,881 8,208 8,545 8,898 9,249 9,480 Fire Services Pro��ect SI-HICIfIC, 2,378 2,483 2,600 2,672 2,746 2,819 2,895 2,966 �3,041 Aninia�Control Services I er CatWa 129 131 133 134 136 138 140 142 144 Total'PublicSafety 9,372 9,877 10,,301 10,,688 11,090 11,502 11,932 12,357 12,665 Total General Fund Expenditures $ 10,279 $ 10,791 $ 11,223 $ 11,617 $ 12,026 $ 12,446 $ 12,884 $ 13,317 $ 13,634 47 Pr'ojecM±�16'FyOrY7kOWdYL'#�cket ($183), ($545), ($774), ($960), page 4�alM ($1,3 6 2) ($1,5 8 3) ($1,�793) 01,177)__� ....................... ........................... 10 11 12 13 14, 15 16 1'�7 .......................................................................................................... .4��V*lation om-0001 w-7is Single Family Residential 0- i��, Multi-Family Residential CITY OF Subtotal(Per Capita) CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 13 13 13 1�3 13 1�3 13 1�3 13 Totals 13 13 13 1�3 13 1�3 13 1�3 13 Number of Homes Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Totals 'Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms Hotel 2-#rooms 'Totals - - - - - - - - Average I lotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* 177.08 179�73 182.43 185A7 187.94 190,�76 193.62 1%53 199.48 Average I lotel Daily Rate-Developer,As,signed* 162.48 164.91, 167.39 169.90 1,72.45 175.03 177.66 18032 1,83.03 Average Hotel Occupancy* 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% Developer,Provided I lotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate(per room night) 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% Abs,or,ption Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .... ................................................... ................................................... ......................................................... ........................................................... ................................................................. ........................................... "7........................................... Yc�,ar 4 17 9 20 .................................................................................................................... 0111"A"Ir Tax Revenues Property Tax AV 7,59�8 7,750 $ 7,90,5 $ 8,063 8,224 $ 8,388 $ 8,S56 $ 8,727 $ 8,902 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 1,60,1 1,649 1,69�8 1,749 1,801 1,855 1,911 1,968 2,027 Transient O,ccupancy Tax Per Capita 20,4 211 217 223 230, 237 244 251 259 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 628 705 783 863 945 1,028 1,113 1,200 1,288 Franchise Fees Per Capita 620 638 658 677 698 719 740, 762 785 Other Taxes Per Capita 522 538 554 570 587 605 623 642 661 Subtotal Tax Revenues 11,172 11,489 11,814 1Z146 1Z485 1Z832 13,188 13,551 13,922 Other Revenues Per Capita 627 646 666 686 706 727 749 772 795 Licenses and Permits Per Capita 79 81 84 86 89 91 94 97 100, Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 Use of Money&Property Per Capita 150 154 159 164 168 174 179 184 190, Charges for Services No Forecast - - - - - - - - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 10,7 110 113 117 120, 124 127 131 135 Subtotal Other Revenues 1,024 1,055 1,087 1,119 1,153 1,188 1,223 1,260 1,298 Total General Fund Revenues $ 12,196 12,544 $ 12,901 $ 13,265 $ 13,638 $ 14,020 $ 14,411 $ 14,811 $ 15,220 General Fund Expenditures General Government r C a t C1 138 140 $ 142 $ 145 $ 148 $ 152 $ 156 $ 159 $ 163 Community Development(20%) r C a t C1 33 33 34 34 35 36 37 38 38 Public Works/Engineering r C a t C1 49 49 so 51 S2 53 S5 56 S8 Drainage Management System 123 12�3 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 Building Management System 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Parks Management System 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Open Space Management System 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Fleet Management System 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Pavement Annual(PMP) 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 General Govt Management System 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Urban Forestry Management System 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 2 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 ler_api�a 393 �399 40,S 411 421 432 442 453 465 Community Services Public Safety: Police Services Pro��ect SI-HICIfIC, 9,717 9,960 10,209 10,464 10,726 10,994 11,269 11,550 11,839 Fire Services Pro��ect SI-HICIfIC, �3,1 15 3,208 �3,3 0,5 3)404 �3,SO6 3)611 3,719 3)831 �3,946 Aninia�Control Services I er CatWa 146 148 151 153 157 161 165 169 173 Total'PublicSafety 12,978 13,317 13,664 14,021 14,388 14,766 15,153 15,550 15,958 Total General Fund Expenditures 13,955 14,303 14,660 15,026 15,409 $ 15,803 $ 16,207 $ 16,621 $ 17,046 Proje, ($1�759) ($1,7 5�9) ($1,759) ($1,761) �C7 8�26) 48 cM±�!&YRYAOMYLV�cket - ,�9 Of 76 01,783) ($1,796) ($11810) ($1 1 91,11,111,111,111,11,'ll''''I'll''''I'll'','ll''''IlI z`iii....................................... .4��V*lation '1111"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1 I'll,""I,,"I"I'll'I'l'"'Il'"'I""Ill'"'Il'',"""Ill'',"""",'',""'I'll''I'll''Ill,'"""""""""'I'll'',"""""","''I'll'',"""",'"ll,''I'll'"ll'I..................................................................................................................................................................................................................."I om-000-m-p7to Single Family Residential 0- i��, Multi-Family Residential CITY OF Subtotal(Per Capita) CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 13 13 Totals 13 13 Number of Homes Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Totals 'Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms Hotel 2-#rooms 'Totals - - Average I lotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* $ 202.47 $ 20530 Average I lotel Daily Rate-Developer,As,signed* $ 1,85.77 $ 188.56 Average Hotel Occupancy* 77.1% 77A% Developer,Provided I lotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate(per room night) 101% 10% Abs,or,ption Rate 0% 0% Yc�,ar 2 0111"A"Ir Tax Revenues Property Tax AV $ 9,080 $ 9,261 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 2,088 2,151 Transient O,ccupancy Tax Per Capita 267 275 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 1,378 1,470 Franchise Fees Per Capita 80,9 833 Other Taxes Per Capita 681 701 Subtotal Tax Revenues 14,303 14,691 Other Revenues Per Capita 819 843 Licenses and Permits Per Capita 10,3 106 Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 81 83 Use of Money&Property Per Capita 19S 201 Charges for Services No Forecast - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 139 143 Subtotal Other Revenues 1,337 1,377 Total General Fund Revenues $ 15,639 $ 16,068 General Fund Expenditures General Government r C a t C1 $ 167 $ 172 Community Development(20%) r C a 39 40 Public Works/Engineering r C a t C1 59 60 Drainage Management System 123 12�3 Building Management System 19 19 Parks Management System 73 73 Open Space Management System 31 31 Fleet Management System 17 17 Pavement Annual(PMP) 66 66 General Govt Management System 3 3 Urban Forestry Management System 31 31 2 364 364 Community Services Fier Capi�a 476 488 Public Safety: Police Services Pro��ect sj)ecific 12,135 12,439 Fire Services Pro��ect sj)ecific 4,064 4,186 Aninia�Control Services Fier Capi�a 177 182 Total'PublicSafety 16,377 16,806 Total General Fund Expenditures $ 17,483 17,932 Pr'ojecM±�16'FyOrY7kOWdYL'#�cket 0"44) ($1,863) Page 449 of 767 49 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6, 7 ;-al ft-�-ft7 IZZ� CITY OF CHOLAVISTA Property Tax,Analys'is, Residential Unit,s Single Family Residential 'Total Cumulative SFR Units - 'Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Multi-Family Residential 'Total Cumulative MFR Units - 'Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 'Total Cumulative Residents Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Industrial Employees 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 Percentage Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Constructed Assessed Values 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Constructed Assessed Values Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 Inflation Factor 2.00% 100.00% 102.00% 104.04% 106.12% 108.24% 110.41% 112.62% Total AV-Inflated $3,946,185 $4,02�5,109 $4,105,611 $4,187,723 $4,271,478 $4,356,907 $4,444,045 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $3,946,185 $4,02�5,109 $4,105,611 $4,187,723 $4,271,478 $4,356,907 $4,444,045 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Years AV Inflation Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $3,946,185 $4,025,109 $4,105,611 $4,187,723 $4,271,478 $4,3S6,907 $4,444,045 Property'Tax Revenue Estimate Ad-Valorem 1.00% $ 39,462 $ 40�,251 $ 41,056, $ 41,877 $ 42,715 $ 43,569 $ 44,440 'Total AV Tax Due to City 16.11% $6,3S7 $6,484 $6,614 $6,746 $6,881 $7,019 $7,1S9 50 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 450 of 767 Year 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is Property Tax Analysis Residential Units Single Family Residential Total Cumulative SFR Units Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete 00X0 0%1 00/0 0% 0% 0% 0%1 0% Constructed Assessed Values $0 1 $0 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0- Multi-Family Residential Total Cumulative MFR Units Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete % % % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $01 $01 $01 $0 $01 $0 $01 $0 0 0 0 Total Cumulative Residents Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - Industrial Employees 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 Percentage Complete 10 0%1 $ 1 00%1 $ 100%j $ 100% 100%j $ 100% 10 0%1 $ 100% Constructed Assessed Values $ 3,946,185 3,946,185 3,946,185 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 3,946,185�_ Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete -0%1 $ -0%1 $ -0%1 $ -0% -0% -0% -0%1 $ 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ Constructed Assessed Values 'Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 Inflation Factor 114.87% 117.17% 119.51% 121.9�0% 124.34% 126.82% 129.36% 131.9�5% 'Total AV-Inflated $4,5�32,926 $4,623,585 $4,716,056 $4,810,377 $4,9016,585 $5,004,717 $5,1014,811 $5,206,907 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $4,5�32,926 $4,623,585 $4,716,056 $4,810,377 $4,9016,585 $5,004,717 $5,1014,811 $5,206,907 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Year's AV Inflation Amount $01 $01 $01 $0 $01 $0 $01 $0 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $4,532,926 $4,623,585 $4,716,05,6 $4,810,377 $4,906,5,85 $5,004,717 $5,104,811 $5,206,907 Property Tax Revenue Estimate I I Ad-Valorem $ 45,329 $ 46,236 $ 47,161 $ 48,10�4 $ 49,066 $ 50�,047.L!$. 51,048 $ 52,069 Total AV'Tax Due to City $7,303 1 $7,449 $7,598 $7,7SO $7,905, $8,,n63 $8,224 $8,,388 51 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 45 1. of 767 Year 16 17 18 19 20 Property Tax,Analys'is, Residential Unit,s Single Family Residential 'Total Cumulative SFR Units 'Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete 0%1 0% 0%1 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Multi-Family Residential 'Total Cumulative MFR Units 'Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $01 $0 $01 $0 $01 1 'Total Cumulative Residents Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ Industrial Employees 38 38 38 38 38 Percentage Complete 1000X01 100% 100% 10 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ 3,946,185 1 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,9461,10805%1 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0%1 $ 0% 0%1 $ 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ Constructed Assessed Values Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 $ 3,946,185 Inflation Factor 134.59% 137.28% 140.02% 142.82% 145.68% Total AV-Inflated $5,311,045 $5,417,266 $5,5�25,612 $5,636,124 $5,748,846 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $5,311,045 $5,417,266 $5,5�25,612 $5,636,124 $5,748,846 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Years AV Inflation Amount $01 $0 $01 $0 $01 1 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $5,311,045 $5,717,266 $57525,612 $5,636,124 $5,748,846 Property'Tax Revenue Estimate Ad-Valorem $ 53,110 $ 54,173 $ 55,256 $ 56,361 $ 57,488 Total AV Tax Due to City $8,556 $8,,727 $8,902 $9,080 $9,261 52 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 452 of 767 FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 FY2027-28 FY2028-29 FY2029-30 FY2030-31 FY2031-32 ADOPTED FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST �7 ............................................................................ .......i.............................. ............... 5 2 13 I................................. ..................................... ........................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................ ............... ........................................................... ............... ........................................................................................... ............... ....................................................................................... .......................................................................................... ............... ........................................................................................ 1,0 M,�1A r i o 10 11 7,1 1, '1!"W,"2 '10 1 1,1 1,�,,7 7 1 8 1,2 1,7 1)11, '1"', 6 0 3 1 9 1 C f I'�G F I 1'��I Pt TA' 4,o f 1)�J 8,9�H H; H; H; H; H; H; 321 321 321 321 CITY OF .............................................................................. 7,3,6 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 I........................................................................................................................................................................ ............... ............... ................. CHUIAVISrA DEVELOPER SFR(UNITS) DEVELOPER MFR(UNITS) COMMERCIAL(ACRES) - - - - - - - - - - - - - &91 INDUSTRIAL(ACRES) 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 - OFFICE(ACRES) - - - - - - - - - - - - - HOTEL(ACRES) - - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING DU POLICE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DU $ 88232 $ 975.90 $ 1,032.44 $ 1,075.85 $ 1,120.38 $ 1,166.86 $ 1,214.71 $ 1,264.90 $ 1,314.79 $ 1,347.66 $ 1,381.35 $ 1,415.88 $ 1,451.28 $ 1,487.S6 POLICE M ulti-Fam ily U nits 27,814 PER DU $ 952.71 $ 1,05332 $ 1,114.56 $ 1,161.42 $ 1,209.49 $ 1,259.67 $ 1,311.33 $ 1,36531 $ 1,419.36 $ 1,454.85 $ 1,491.22 $ 1,52830 $ 1,S66.71 $ 1,605.88 EXISTING ACRES POLICE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 4,167.10 $ 4,608.01 $ 4,875.01 $ S,079.96 $ 5,290.22 $ S,509.72 $ 5,735.66 $ S,972.62 $ 6,208.19 $ 6,363.40 $ 6,S22.48 $ 6,68535 $ 6,852.68 $ 7,024.00 POLICE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 898.41 $ 993.47 $ 1,051.04 $ 1,095.22 $ 1,140.56 $ 1,187.88 $ 1,236.59 $ 1,287.68 $ 1,338.47 $ 1,371.93 $ 1,406.23 $ 1,441.38 $ 1,477.42 $ 1,514.35 POLICE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 6,86S $ 7,263 $ 7,568 $ 7,881 $ 8,208 $ 8,545 $ 8,898 $ 9,249 $ 9,480 $ 9,717 $ 9,960 $ 10,209 $ 10,464 EXISTING DU FIRE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DU $ 376.83 $ 439.73 $ 459.17 $ 480.87 $ 494.21 $ 507.72 $ S21.36 $ 535.28 $ S48.44 $ 562.35 $ S76.04 $ 593.32 $ 611.12 $ 629.45 FIRE Multi-FamilyUnits 27,814 PER DU $ 422.97 $ 493.58 $ S15.40 $ 539.76 $ S54.73 $ 569.90 $ S85.20 $ 600.82 $ 615.60 $ 631.21 $ 646.58 $ 665.97 $ 685.9S $ 706.53 EXISTING ACRES FIRE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 1,479.61 $ 1,72639 $ 1,802.93 $ 1,888.14 $ 1,940.50 $ 1,99338 $ 2,047.11 $ 2,101.76 $ 2,153.47 $ 2,208.06 $ 2,261.81 $ 2,329.67 $ 2,399.56 $ 2,47134 FIRE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 294.89 $ 344.12 $ 359.33 $ 376.32 $ 386.7S $ 397.33 $ 408.00 $ 418.89 $ 429.20 $ 440.08 $ 450.79 $ 464.32 $ 478.24 $ 492.59 FIRE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 2,378 $ 2,483 $ 2,600 $ 2,672 $ 2,746 $ 2,819 $ 2,895 $ 2,966 $ 3,041 $ 3,115 $ 3,208 $ 3,305 $ 3,404 53 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 453 of 767 FY2032-33 FY2033-34 FY2034-35 FY2035-36 FY2037-38 FY2038-39 FY2039-40 FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST ............... ............... ............. ........................................................................................ .............. 1"7 4 ....................... ] I......................... ............................................................................................... .............................................................................................. ............... 7 0 1,18 B 110l'(Jf,A'm,'H"�� 31 5,1),1('�9 '1 fi,1,0 1 '1,fi,'13'1"18 C f I"�G F'I 1'��I Pt TAI'l D 1,1 1,9,13' 1,1167 1,1111H; 1,11'711 1 113 3" 1 7 91, 1175'111 4,o f 1)�J 6 1)I'll ("1 67 6 7 B ("1 7 1 6 5,5, 6 4,1 6 5, 1 3 111) 1 01 111) 1 1 ���"�7 1 5,41"n, 5, 1�' 5,2 7 CITY OF .............................................................................. .................. .............. ............... ............... ............... ............... CHUIAVISrA DEVELOPER SFR(UNITS) DEVELOPER MFR(UNITS) COMMERCIAL(ACRES) - - - - - - &91 INDUSTRIAL(ACRES) 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 - OFFICE(ACRES) - - - - - - - HOTEL(ACRES) - - - - - - EXISTING DU POLICE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DU $ 88232 $ 1,524.7S $ 1,562.87 $ 1,601.94 $ 1,641.99 $ 1,683.04 $ 1,725.12 $ 1,768.25 POLICE M ulti-Fam ily U nits 27,814 PER DU $ 952.71 $ 1,646.03 $ 1,687.18 $ 1,729.36 $ 1,77239 $ 1,816.91 $ 1,862.33 $ 1,908.89 EXISTING ACRES POLICE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 4,167.10 $ 7,199.60 $ 7,379.59 $ 7,564.08 $ 7,753.18 $ 7,947.01 $ 8,145.69 $ 8,349.33 POLICE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 898.41 $ 1,552.21 $ 1,591.02 $ 1,630.79 $ 1,67136 $ 1,713.35 $ 1,756.18 $ 1,800.09 POLICE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 10,726 $ 10,994 $ 11,269 $ 11,550 $ 11,839 $ 12,13S $ 12,439 EXISTING DU FIRE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DU $ 376.83 $ 648.34 $ 667.79 $ 687.82 $ 708.45 $ 729.71 $ 7S1.60 $ 774AS FIRE Multi-FamilyUnits 27,814 PER DU $ 422.97 $ 727.73 $ 749.S6 $ 772.OS $ 795.21 $ 819.07 $ 843.64 $ 868.9S EXISTING ACRES FIRE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 1,479.61 $ 2,54S.69 $ 2,622.06 $ 2,700.72 $ 2,781.74 $ 2,865.20 $ 2,951.15 $ 3,039.69 FIRE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 294.89 $ S07.37 $ 52239 $ S38.27 $ SS4.42 $ S71.OS $ 588.18 $ 605.83 FIRE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 3,506 $ 3,611 $ 3,719 $ 3,831 $ 3,946 $ 4,064 $ 4,186 54 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 454 of 767 Table - Public Safety Costs by Land Use FPolli"ce Calls for Service by Land Use Existing EDUs Existing CV Future EDUs Projected COST'PER Dwelling Type Call Volume(CV)(1) (2) DU (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS EDU $ 62,993,374 Single Family Units 123,906,773 36,084 3,434 4,854 16,667,871 14-957% �50-55% $ 31,844,897 $ 883 Multi-,Family Units 103,105,371 27,814 3,707 22467 83,283,023 74.735% 42.07% $ 26,498,793 $ 953 Existing Acres Existing CV Future Acres Projected COST'PER Land Use Call Volume(CV) (2) Acre (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS ACRE Commercial Acres 15,,176,274 936 16,214 518 8,405,596 7.543% 6.19% $ 3,900,407 $ 4,167 Industrial/Office Acres 2,915,398 834 3,496 882 3,081,488 2.765% 1.19% $ 749,277 $ 898 Citywide Total 245,103,815 Fire Calls for Service by Land Use Calls for Service Existing EDUs Existing CF1S Future EDUs Projected COST'PER Dwelling Type (CFS) (2) DU (3) Future CF',S Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS EDU $ 33,055,258 Single Family Units 3,893 53629 0.0725947 4854 �352-3746952 14.800% 61-137% $ 20,208,875 $ �3 7 6.8�3 Multi-,Family Units 2J61 26516 0.08148433 22466-6667 1830-68136,8 76-890% �3�3.9�3 0% $ 11 P 2 15,5 2 6 $ 422.97 6,054 Existing Acres Existing CV Future Acres Projected COST'PER Land Use Call Volume(CV)(') (2) /Acre (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS ACRE Commercial Acres 267 936 0.28504274 518.417 147.7709996, 6.207% 4.190% $ 1,384,916, $ 1,479.61 Industrial/Office Acres 47 834 0.05681055 881.513 50.07923974 2.103% 0.744% $ 245,942 $ 294.89 �314 6,368 (1) Calls for Service include all calls for service responded to by the Fire Department during a one-year period. (2) Existing development data is per General Plan Update Fiscal Model. (3) Future development data is per March 200�6 PFDIF Update-Development Forecast. (4)SD,F-Service Demand Factor 55 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 455 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS,TABLE EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLD RESIDENT EQUIVALENT POPULATION EMPLOYEES (.05) 2012 244)408 37)218 12Y220 2013 249ollO 37,934 12p456 2014 253,812 38)650 12y691 2015 258o514 39,366 12p926 2016 263,216 40)082 13y161 2017 267o917 40,798 13p396 2018 26�8)060 40)820 13Y403 2019* 271o411 41,330 13p5�71 2020 282)375 43)000 14Y 119 2021 287o195 43,734 14p360 2022 292)015 44)468 14y601 2023 296o835 45,201 14p842 2024 301)6�55 45)935 15�y083 2025 306o475 46,669 15p324 2026 311)295 47)403 15�y565 2027 316o115 48,137 15p806 2028 320)935 48)871 16yO47 2029 325o755 49,605 16p288 203,0 330)575 50339 16y529 2031 335,395 51,073 16p770 203,2 340)215 51)807 17Y011 2033 342oO66 52,,089 17p103 203,4 343,844 52360 17Y192 2035 345o651 52,,635 17p283 203,6 347)440 52)907 17372 2037 349o185 53,173 17p459 203,8 350)894 53)433 17YS45 2039 352o560 53,687 17p628 2040 354)241 53)943 17Y712 2041 355o895 54,195 17p795 2042 357)524 54)443 17y876 2043 359ol26 54,687 17p956 2044 36�0)6�83 54)924 18y034 2 045 36�2o220 55,158 18p111 2046 363,786 55397 18y189 2047 365,344 55,634 18p267 As of 01/011/2019 Per State of California Department of Finance, Chula Vista Population is 271,411. 56 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 456 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Per Capita Weighted FY2019-20, FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 FUND/ACCOUNT Average FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 160.05 37,371,038 38,860,000 40,330,000 41,820,000 43,370,000 44,920,000 46,580,000 48,060,000 TOTAL 37,371,038 38�8601000 401330,000 411820,000 43,370,000 44,920,000 461580,000 48#060#000 Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 128.95 35,447,600 34,830,000 35,310,000 35,810,000 36,270,000 36,730,000 37,190,000 37,650,000 3020 Franchise Fees $ 49.12 3030 Utility Taxes $ 21�05 3040 Business License Tax $ 6.60 1,614,643 1,874,650 1,874,650 1,894,650 1,924,650 1,944,650 1,964,650 1,914,650 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 1633 3070 Real Property TransferTax $ 4.57 1,173,550 1,197,021 1,220,961 1,245,381 1,270,288 1,295,694 1,321,608 1,348,040 TOTAL 6015321816 6014911671 611475,611 6215101031 63,514,938 64,520,344 651516,258 66,422,690 Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.68 175,300 178,806 182,382 186,030 189,750 193,54S 197,416 201,36S 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 2.40 616,455 628,784 641,360 654,187 667,271 680,616 694,228 708,113 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 3.14 806,170 822,293 838,739 855,514 872,624 890,077 907,878 926,036 3160 Other Permits $ 0.05 14,000 14,280 14,566 14,857 15,154 15,457 15,766 16,082 TOTAL 116111925 116441164 11677,047 11710,588 1,744,799 1,779,695 11815,289 1,851,595 Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.36 605,439 617,548 629,899 642,497 655,347 668,454 681,823 695,459 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 1.15 294,000 299,880 305,878 311,995 318,235 324,600 331,092 337,714 3240 Parking Penalties $ 0.97 250,000 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 276,020 281,541 287,171 3250 Other Penalties $ 0.46 118,000 120,360 122,767 125,223 127,727 130,282 132,887 135,545 TOTAL 112671439 112921788 11318,644 11345,016 1,371,917 1,399,355 11427,342 1,455,889 Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 3.12 802,000 818,040 834,401 851,089 868,111 885,473 903,182 921,246 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - - - - - - - - - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ 1.07 274,847 280,344 285,951 291,670 297,503 303,453 309,522 315,713 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 3.98 1,022,250 1,042,695 1,063,549 1,084,820 1,106,516 1,128,647 1,1S1,220 1,174,244 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 3.75 963,130 982,393 1,002,040 1,022,081 1,042,523 1,063,373 1,084,641 1,106,334 TOTAL 310651227 311261532 31189,062 31252,843 3,317,900 3,384,258 31451,943 3,520,982 Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.89 742,346 757,193 772,337 787,784 803,539 819,610 836,002 852,722 3440 State rax Sharing $ 0.89 228,246 232,811 237,467 242,216 247,061 252,002 257,042 262,183 3460 PTI I,VI,F-Former Motor Vehicle License F $ 99�97 23,130,251 24,190,000 25,130,000 26,080,000 27,060,000 28,050,000 29,120,000 30,050,000 3480 State Reimbursements $ 0.52 133,799 136,475 139,204 141,989 144,828 147,725 150,679 153,693 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.79 460,440 469,649 479,042 488,623 498fi39S 508,363 518,530 528,901 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ 0.03 7,233 7,378 7,525 7,676 7,829 7,986 8,146 8,308 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 2,000 2,040 2,081 2,122 2,165 2,208 2,252 2,297 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 2.38 610,000 622,200 634,644 647,337 660,284 673,489 686,959 700,698 TOTAL 2513141315 2614171745 271402,300 281397,746 29,424,101 30,461,383 311579,611 32,558,803 Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 5.15 1,321,991 1,348,431 1,375,399 1,402,907 1,430,966 1,459,58S 1,488,777 1,518,SS2 3720 Document Fees $ 2.60 668,824 682,200 695,844 709,761 723,957 738,436 753,204 768,269 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.10 25,000 25,500 26,010 26,530 27,061 27,602 28,154 28,717 3740 Inspection Fees $ 1.60 412,000 420,240 428,645 437,218 445,962 454,881 463,979 473,258 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.16 41,000 41,820 42,656 43,510 44,380 45,267 46,173 47,096 3770 Other Dev Fees $ 0.03 6,600 6,732 6,867 7,004 7,144 7,287 7,433 7,581 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 1.06 273,200 278,664 284,237 289,922 295,720 301,63S 307,668 313,821 3830 Services to the Port District $ 4.19 1,075,678 1,097,192 1,119,135 1,141,518 1,164,348 1,187,635 1,211,388 1,235,616 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 5.71 1,464,886 1,494,184 1,S24,067 1,SS4,549 1,585,640 1,617,3S3 1,649,700 1,682,694 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 11.36 2,915,823 2,974,139 3,033,622 3,094,295 3,156,181 3,219,304 3,283,690 3,349,364 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.18 46,000 46,920 47,858 48,816 49,792 50,788 51,803 52,840 TOTAL 8,251,0�02 8,416,0�22 8,584,342 8,756,029 8,931,150 9,109,773 9,291,968 9,477,808 Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ 0.44 113,975 116,255 118,580 120,951 123,370 125,838 128,354 130,921 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.27 70,000 71,400 72,828 74,285 75,770 77,286 78,831 80,408 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0.01 1,800 1,836 1,873 1,910 1,948 1,987 2,027 2,068 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 7.31 1,876,001 1,913,521 1,9S1,791 1,990,827 2,030,644 2,071,2S7 2,112,682 2,154,93S 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 20.80 5,341,549 5,448,380 5,557,348 5,668,495 5,781,864 5,897,502 6,015,452 6,135,761 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.23 60,100 61,302 62,528 63,779 65,OS4 66,3SS 67,682 69,036 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 11.60 2,979,570 3,039,161 3,099,945 3,161,944 3,225,182 3,289,686 3,355,480 3,422,589 4600 Assessments $ 0.61 157,780 160,936 164,154 167,437 170,786 174,202 177,686 181,240 4700 Collection Charges $ 2.44 626,270 638,795 651,571 664,603 677,895 691,453 705,282 719,387 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 2,650 2,703 2,757 2,812 2,868 2,926 2,984 3,044 4900 Other Revenue $ 5.92 713,065 1,200,000 1,320,000 1,440,000 1,560,000 1,680,000 1,760,000 1,860,000 TOTAL 1119421760 1216541289 131003,375 131357,042 13,715,383 14,078,491 141406,460 14,759,390 TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 600.11 149,356,522 152,903,210, 156,980,,381 161,149,296 165,390,189 169,653,300 174,068,873 178,107,157 57 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 457 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES 296,494 301,555 306,616 311,677 316,738 321,799 326,860 331,921 330,'982 342,043 1347,104 352,165 PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 IFY2027-28 FY2028-29 IFY2029-30 FY2030-31 FUND/ACCOUNT FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST'(3%) FORECAST 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 126.04 $ 128.87 $ 131.53 $ 134.18 $ 136.93 $ 139.59 $ 142,51, $ 144.79 $ 149A4 $ 153,61, $ 15822 $ 162.97 TOTAL Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 119.56 $ 115.50 $ 115.16 $ 114.89 $ 114.51 $ 114.14 $ 113.78 $ 113.43 $ 116.83 $ 120.34 $ 123.95 $ 127.67 3020 Franchise Fees $ 41.17 $ 41.52 $ 41.94 $ 4235 $ 4175 $ 4116 $ 4154 $ 4193 $ 45.24 $ 46�60 $ 48.00 $ 49�44 3030 Utility Taxes $ 19.34 $ 19.23 $ 19.11 $ 18.99 $ 18.88 $ 18.77 $ 18.66 $ 18.44 $ 18.99 $ 19.56 $ 20.15 $ 20.7S 3040 Business License Tax $ SA5 $ 622 $ 6J] $ 6.08 $ 6.08 $ 6.04 $ 6.01 $ 5.77 $ 5.94 $ 6.12 $ 6.30 $ 6.49 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 14.70 $ 14.16 $ 14.19 $ 14.2S $ 14.30 $ 14.36 $ 14.41 $ 14.49 $ 14.93 $ 15.37 $ 15.84 $ 16.31 3070 Real Property Transfer'Fax $ 196 $ 197 $ 198 $ 4.00 $ 4.01 $ 4.03 $ 4.04 $ 4.06 $ 4.18 $ 4.31 $ 4.44 $ 4.57 TOTAL Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.61 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 $ 0.68 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 108 $ 109 $ 109 $ 2.10 $ 2.11 $ 2.12 $ 2.12 $ 2.13 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.33 $ 2.40 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 2.72 $ 2.73 $ 2.74 $ 2.74 $ 2.76 $ 2.77 $ 2.78 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05 $ 3.14 3160 Other Permits $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 TOTAL Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.04 $ 2.OS $ 2.OS $ 2.06 $ 2.07 $ 2.08 $ 2.09 $ 2.10 $ 2.16 $ 2.22 $ 2.29 $ 2.36 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 0�99 $ 0�99 $ 1�00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.01 $ 1.01 $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 1.08 $ 1.11 $ 1.15 3240 Parking Penalties $ 0.84 $ 0.8S $ 0.8S $ 0.8S $ 0.8S $ 0.86 $ 0.86 $ 0.87 $ 0.89 $ 0.92 $ 0.95 $ 0.97 3250 Other Penalties $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0.40 $ 0.40 $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 TOTAL Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 2.70 $ 2.71 $ 2.72 $ 2.73 $ 2.74 $ 2.7S $ 2.76 $ 2.78 $ 2.86 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 $ 3.12 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ O�93 $ O�93 $ O�93 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 0.98 $ 1.01 $ 1.04 $ 1.07 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 3AS $ 3.46 $ 3.47 $ 3.48 $ 3.49 $ 3.51 $ 3.52 $ 3.54 $ 3.64 $ 3.7S $ 3.87 $ 3.98 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 125 $ 126 $ 127 $ 3.28 $ 3.29 $ 3.30 $ 3.32 $ 3.33 $ 3.43 $ 3.54 $ 3.64 $ 3.75 TOTAL Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.50 $ 2.51 $ 2.52 $ 2.53 $ 2.54 $ 2.5S $ 2.56 $ 2.57 $ 2.65 $ 2.73 $ 2.81 $ 2.89 3440 State'rax Sharing $ O�77 $ O�77 $ O�77 $ 0.78 $ 0.78 $ 0.78 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.84 $ 0.86 $ 0.89 3460 PTI LVI,F-Former Motor Vehicle Licens( $ 78.01 $ 80.22 $ 81.96 $ 83.68 $ 85.43 $ 87.17 $ 89.09 $ 90.53 $ 93.25 $ 96.OS $ 98.93 $ 101.90 3480 State Reimbursements $ OA5 $ OA5 $ OA5 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.48 $ 0.49 $ 0.51 $ 0.52 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.5s $ 1.56 $ 1.56 $ 1.57 $ 1.57 $ 1.58 $ 1.59 $ 1.59 $ 1.64 $ 1.69 $ 1.74 $ 1.79 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 106 $ 106 $ 107 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.09 $ 2.10 $ 2.11 $ 2.17 $ 2.24 $ 2.31 $ 2.38 TOTAL Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 4.46 $ 4.47 $ 4.49 $ 4.50 $ 4.52 $ 4.54 $ 4.5S $ 4.58 $ 4.71 $ 4.8S $ 5.00 $ 5.1s 3720 Document Fees $ 126 $ 126 $ 127 $ 2.28 $ 2.29 $ 2.29 $ 2.30 $ 2.31 $ 2.38 $ 2.46 $ 2.53 $ 2.61 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.10 3740 Inspection Fees $ 139 $ 139 $ 1 A0 $ 1.40 $ 1.41 $ 1.41 $ 1.42 $ 1.43 $ 1.47 $ 1.51 $ 1.56 $ 1.60 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ OAS $ 0.16 $ 0.16 3770 Other Dev Fees $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.93 $ 0.93 $ 0.93 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.9s $ 0.97 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 3830 Services to the Port District $ 163 $ 164 $ 165 $ 3.66 $ 3.68 $ 3.69 $ 3.71 $ 3.72 $ 3.83 $ 3.95 $ 4.07 $ 4.19 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 4.94 $ 4.9S $ 4.97 $ 4.99 $ 5.01 $ 5.03 $ 5.0s $ 5.07 $ 5.22 $ 5.38 $ 5.54 $ 5.71 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 9A3 $ 9A6 $ 9A9 $ 9.93 $ 9.96 $ 1 0�00 $ 1 0�05 $ 1 0�09 $ 10.39 $ 10�71 $ 11.03 $ 1136 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 TOTAL Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ 038 $ 039 $ 039 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.44 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.27 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 6.33 $ 63S $ 6.37 $ 6.39 $ 6.41 $ 6.44 $ 6.46 $ 6.49 $ 6.69 $ 6.89 $ 7.09 $ 7.31 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 18.02 $ 18.07 $ 18.12 $ 18J9 $ 1825 $ 1833 $ 1 K40 $ 1 K49 $ 19.04 $ 19�61 $ 20.20 $ 20A] 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.22 $ 0.23 $ 0.23 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 10.05 $ 10.08 $ 10,11, $ 10AA $ 10J8 $ 1022 $ 1027 $ 1031 $ 10.62 $ 1 O�94 $ 11.27 $ 11�61 4600 Assessments $ 0.53 $ 0.53 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.5s $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ 0.60 $ 0.61 4700 Collection Charges $ 11,1 $ 112 $ 113 $ 2.13 $ 2.14 $ 2.15 $ 2.16 $ 2.17 $ 2.23 $ 2.30 $ 2.37 $ 2.44 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4900 Other Revenue $ 140 $ 198 $ 431 $ 4.62 $ 4.93 $ 5.22 $ 5.38 $ 5.60 $ 5.77 $ 5.95 $ 6.12 $ 6.31 TOTAL TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 503.74 $ 507.05 $ 511.98 $ 517.04 $ 522.17 $ 527.20 $ 532.55 $ 536.60 $ 55169 $ 569.27 $ 58635 $ 603.94 58 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 458 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES 357,226 359,169 361,036 13 6 2,93"3 364,812 1360,644 368,4,38 3 7 0,18 8 PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE FY2031-32 IFY2032-33 FY2033-34 IFY2034-35 FY2035-36 IFY2037-38 FY2038-39 IFY203 FUND/ACCOUNT FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAS 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 167.86 $ 172.89 $ 178.08 $ 18142 $ 188.92 $ 194�59 $ 200.43 $ 206A4 TOTAL Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 131.50 $ 135.44 $ 139.51 $ 143.69 $ 148.00 $ 152.44 $ 157.01 $ 161.73 3020 Franchise Fees $ 50.92 $ 5145 $ 54.02 $ 55.64 $ 5731 $ 59.03 $ 60A0 $ 62.63 3030 Utility Taxes $ 21.37 $ 22.02 $ 22.68 $ 23.36 $ 24.06 $ 24.78 $ 25.52 $ 26.29 3040 Business License Tax $ &69 $ 6.89 $ T09 $ 7.31 $ 7.53 $ 7.75 $ 7.98 $ 8.22 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 16.80 $ 17.30 $ 17.82 $ 18.36 $ 18.91 $ 19.48 $ 20.06 $ 20.66 3070 Real Property Transfer'Fax $ 4�71 $ 4.85 $ 4�99 $ 5.14 $ 5.30 $ 5.46 $ 5.62 $ 5.79 TOTAL Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.7S $ 0.77 $ 0.79 $ 0.82 $ 0.84 $ 0.86 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 147 $ 2.55 $ 162 $ 2.70 $ 2.78 $ 2.87 $ 2.95 $ 3.04 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 3.23 $ 3.33 $ 3.43 $ 3.53 $ 3.64 $ 3.75 $ 3.86 $ 3.98 3160 Other Permits $ O�06 $ 0.06 $ O�06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 TOTAL Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.43 $ 2.50 $ 2.58 $ 2.65 $ 2.73 $ 2.82 $ 2.90 $ 2.99 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 1A,8 $ 1.21 $ 1�25 $ 1.29 $ 1.33 $ 1.37 $ 1.41 $ 1.45 3240 Parking Penalties $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 $ 1.10 $ 1.13 $ 1.16 $ 1.20 $ 1.23 3250 Other Penalties $ OA7 $ 0.49 $ mo $ 0.52 $ 0.53 $ 0.55 $ 0.57 $ 0.58 TOTAL Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 3.22 $ 3.31 $ 3.41 $ 3.52 $ 3.62 $ 3.73 $ 3.84 $ 3.96 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ lJo $ 1.14 $ 1A,7 $ 1.20 $ 1.24 $ 1.28 $ 1.32 $ 1.36 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 4.10 $ 4.22 $ 43S $ 4.48 $ 4.62 $ 4.75 $ 4.90 $ 5.04 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 186 $ 3.98 $ 4JO $ 4.22 $ 4.35 $ 4.48 $ 4.61 $ 4.75 TOTAL Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.98 $ 3.07 $ 3.16 $ 3.25 $ 3.3S $ 3.45 $ 3.56 $ 3.66 3440 State'rax Sharing $ O�92 $ 0.94 $ O�97 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 $ 1.09 $ 1.13 3460 PTI LVI,F-Former Motor Vehicle Licens($ 104.9S $ 108.10 $ 111.34 $ 114.69 $ 118.13 $ 121.67 $ 125.32 $ 129.08 3480 State Reimbursements $ O�54 $ 0.55 $ O�57 $ 0.59 $ 0.60 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.8S $ 1.90 $ 1.96 $ 2.02 $ 2.08 $ 2.14 $ 2.21 $ 2.27 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 145 $ 2.52 $ 160 $ 2.67 $ 2.75 $ 2.84 $ 2.92 $ 3.01 TOTAL Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 5.30 $ 5.46 $ 5.63 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 6.15 $ 6.33 $ 6.52 3720 Document Fees $ 168 $ 2.76 $ 185 $ 2.93 $ 3.02 $ 3.11 $ 3.20 $ 3.30 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 3740 Inspection Fees $ 1�65 $ 1.70 $ 1�75 $ 1.81 $ 1.86 $ 1.92 $ 1.97 $ 2.03 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 3770 Other Dev Fees $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 1.10 $ 1.13 $ 1.16 $ 1.20 $ 1.23 $ 1.27 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 3830 Services to the Port District $ 432 $ 4.45 $ 4�58 $ 4.72 $ 4.86 $ 5.00 $ 5.15 $ 5.31 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 5.88 $ 6.05 $ 6.23 $ 6.42 $ 6.61 $ 6.81 $ 7.02 $ 7.23 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 11.70 $ 1105 $ 12,41, $ 12.78 $ 1117 $ 13.56 $ 1197 $ 14.39 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.22 $ 0.23 TOTAL Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ OA6 $ 0.47 $ OA9 $ 0.50 $ 0.51 $ 0.53 $ 0.55 $ 0.56 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 0.34 $ 0.35 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 7.53 $ 7.75 $ 7.98 $ 8.22 $ 8.47 $ 8.73 $ 8.99 $ 9.26 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 21.43 $ 2107 $ 22.73 $ 23.42 $ 24J2 $ 24.84 $ 25�59 $ 26.36 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 11.95 $ 1231 $ 12.68 $ 13.06 $ 1145 $ 13.86 $ 1427 $ 14.70 4600 Assessments $ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ 0.67 $ 0.69 $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 4700 Collection Charges $ 151 $ 2.59 $ 167 $ 2.75 $ 2.83 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 3.09 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4900 Other Revenue $ &50 $ 6.69 $ &89 $ 7.10 $ 7.31 $ 7.53 $ 7.76 $ 7.99 TOTAL TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 622.06 $ 640.72 $ 659.94 $ 679�74 $ 700.14 $ 721A4 $ 742.77 $ 765�06 59 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 459 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Weighteid Average FY 2020 FY2021 [,Y 2 0 2 2 FY 2023 FY 2 0 01, FV 2025 FY 2026; FV2027 PY2020 Fl"2029 [",Y 2 0 3 0 �),—1 Household Population 28Z375 28T 195 2924 15 294835 30 4655 306A75 314295 �""l "115 2 0, 33T575 Employment Population(Per I 19 14�3 6 0 14,601 1 4M42 I Syw"" I n32/1 I SO 6,`�� 1 0 6 1(",J)/17 16,2 16,1,��,2 Capka Equiv) Total Population 294494 30 hss!'�� 305h 16 3 1 4 6'77 316713 2 1 A')') 326860 3�33,�K�9)2 336982 3 4 21�(0)/41�33, 3 4 TJ 04 Per Capita by Category: General Government $ 7125 1 $ 6"L 0 2 �,l $ 6307 6C53 $ 65A2 6434 $ OT29 6827 $ 0128 70,31 Community Development 12.59 1 0A2 1016 1 L H) 11,25 1 L40 11.5 6 1152 11"89 12�06 'I"��,"��11 12A2 Pubhc Works/Engineering 55k2 47,95 4810 41419 5M011) 5 0 A7 51111) 5101 5"L 5 6 �3324 5310 54,71 Community Services 60K, 5 2,07 52111 5 3 54311 5 5 M7 5 5 M 56A2 57A3 5826 5112 60J)1 Public Safetv: Police Services 270J3 2 12,46 2 21 Afl) 224419 232A��"� 237M0 24 316 24180 25509 26LHI 26712 2 7 Fire Services 13017 1 1 L41') 114A6 I I TH"') 11120 12M50 1210) 12110 '1"��11,,"��l 12 �,I,��� 'I"����'6 0 1218,�,,119 Animal Control Services 11-31 952 0415 917 10,11 102"1 10,311) 1(15"13 1(h(Q; 1 le,�1 11,00 1 L 16 Total Public Safety 412.41 3 3 3 A7 3 4 131 35C36 3 01.34 36854 3 7 5 M 3 8 14,,,,, �111�11)0,5 11i; �1'1111 1'') 0 1'') 0 5,51 "111��,��3 1'') Total General Fund Expenditures 612.68 $ 50197 $ 52MI 4 $ 531AI $ 54MA8 $ 55022 $ 55194 $ 570MS $ 57175 $ 589A2 $ 60RD5 $ 6 0 9 M4, Per Capita by Department: City Council 2.56 220 $ 123 226 $ 219 232 $ 135 2.38 $ 142 145 $ 149 232 Boards 81 ComrnisAons 0.05 0.0"t DA11 0 J)I DA11 0 J)I DA11 0 J)I DA11 WE�� ch 0 5 WE3 City Clerk 4.09 312 �?5 6 3A 1 165 3.70 176 3JI I 1 18 6 312 19"!,; 404 City Attorney 12A6 1 1�05 I 110 1 1,11 11.49 1 1,6�� 11 M1 1 1,97 1215 12��,,,,,2 'I"L 5 0 121111) Administration 8.46 7.27 T 3 6 70', T 5 6 70, T76 7.87 'T 11)11) 8,10 it 2"�� 18 3 1 Info Tech Services 1523 13K) 1126 13 A,,,,, 13 Al 1"1331'') 13 1 11C 18 14,3 8 1 C59 14M0 1�T 0"I'll, Human Resources 1211, 1 OA��, 10,5 11 10108 1 1017 11 A I 1218 11.44 1 1�()() 'I 1'7'11!1; 1 1 A�3 Finance 1500 13A'7 1301 1 CO2 14 11 PC40 1400 ICHI 1524 15A6 15,619 Non-Departmental - Animal Care Facility 11,31, 952 0415 917 1 M11 102"1 1 th(Q; 1 1 11,00 1 L 16 Economic Development 8.65 7.01, T 5 7JS'3 'T 7 704 T94 8 J)6 K 17 8,21'') 1141 18 3 1 Planning&Building 3.93 3.18 14 3A'7 �?5 30', 3"1 3A6 1 7,'�� 377 18�11� 3 J1 le,� Engineering/ClP Projects %60 3 1 A'7 31 M7 3 2 2'e,� 3 2 11 311� 3 3"1 3 C 0'e,� �"'vl'5'�7 ���,�07 5,5 11) 6�12 Pohce 270J3 2 12,46 2 21 Afl) 224419 232A��"� 237M0 24 316 24180 25509 26LHI 26712 2 7 Fire 13017 1 1 L 4 1) 114 A 6 1 1 TH"') 1112 0 12M50 1210) 12110 '1"��11,,"��l 12����,I,��� 'I"����'6 0 1218,�,,119 Public Works 19mi, 16 K) 17 01 1721 173 8 1732 17 A,'!'; 17M6 I K00 I 18�16 '1 fi;'�"Vl I IK 5 le,� Recreation 4435 3KI2 3 K 61 311 1 3 A 6 4M 17 4 0.7,'�� 41219 41 J58; "I'll,2�,I,19 4112 4377 library 16.46 1015 103 1 C52 14.71 1 C91 1"11 113,,,,, 1"511 1177 16A0 162"1 General Fund Totals 612k8 $ 50597 $ 520J 4 $ 531AI $ 54MA8 $ 55022 $ 55194 $ 570MS 57175 $ 589A2 $ 60RD5 $ 6 0 9 M4, 60 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 46,0 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Weighted Average V 2()2 1) FY2021 [,�Y W22 FN`2 02"P11 ["y 2()2 4, F1`2025 FY2026, 1:1%,2 0 2 7 FY2020 F"I"2029 l,Y 2 11)3 0 L FULL FISCAL IMPACT-FORECAST F FY2020 FY 2021 FY 2022__j FY2023 I FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 �FY 2028 FY2029 I FY2030 1 General Government 18,160,487 18,705,302, 19,266,461 19,844,455 20,439,789 21,052,982 21,684,572 22,335,109 23,005,162 23,695,317 24,406,177 Community Development 3,208,062 3,304,304 3,403,433 3,505,536 3,610,702 3,719,023 3,830,594 3,945,512 4,063,877 4,185,794 4,311,367 Public Works/Engineering 14,217,621 14,747,185 15,175,755 15,611,689 16,049,950 16,505,765 16,976,996 17,446,944 17,939,238 18,435,310 18,988,369 Community Services 15,498,905 15,963,872, 16,442,789 16,936,072 17,444,154 17,967,479 18,506,503 19,061,699 19,633,550 20,222,556 20,829,233 Public Safety: Police Services 62,993,374 66,643,363 69,445,105 72,319,470 75,320,061 78,408,743 81,648,090 84,868,480 88,225,442 91,639,078 94,388,250 Fire Services 33,0�55,258 34,516,650 36,148,007 37,150,475 38,166,592 39,191,500 40,237,679 41,227,647 42,272,838 43,301,909 44,600,967 Animal Control Services 2,882,814 2,969,298 3,058,377 3,150,129 3,244,633 3,341,972 3,442,231 3,545,498 3,651,863 3)761,418 3,8741261 Total Public Safety 98,931,446 104,129,311 108,651,490 112R620,074 116,731,286 120,942,215 125,328,000 129p641,625 134,150,143 138,702,406 142,863,478 Total General Fund Expenditures 150,016,522 156,849,974 162,939,928 168,517,826 174,275,881 180,187,464 186,326,665 192,430,888 198,791,969 205,241,382 211,398,623 DEPARTMENT NAME CITY COUNCIL 3,59'Yo 651,797 671,350 691,491, 712,236 733,603 755,611 778,279 801,628 825,676 850,447 875,960 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 0,0 7'Yo 12,074 12,436 12,809 13,193 13,589 13,997 14,417 14,849 1,5,295 15,754 16,226 CITY CLERK 5,2 5'Yo 1,042,495 1,,073,770 1,105,983 1,,139,163 1,173,338 1,,208,538 1,244,794 1,,282,138 1,320,602 1,,360,220 1,401,027 CITY ATTORNEY 16,61'Yo 3,277,722 3,,376,054 3,477,336 3,,5,81,656 3,689,105 3,,799,779 3,913,772 4,,031,185 4,15 2,12 1, 4,,276,684 4,404,9�85 ADMINISTRATION I I'd,i lyo 2,155,103 2,,219,756 2,286,349 2,,354,939 2,425,588 2,,498,355 2,5 7 3,3 0 6 2,,650,505 2,730,020 2,,811,921 2,896,278 INFO TECH SRVC,S 21,07'Y(.) 3,881,057 3,,997,488 4,117,413 4,,240,936 4,368,164 4,,499,208 4,634,185 4,,773,210 4,916,407 5,,,063,899 5,215,816 HUMAN RESOURCES 15,4 7 1 Yo 3,0�86,826 3,,179,431 3,274,813 3,,373,058 3,474,250 3,,5,78,477 3,685,831, 3,,796,406 3,910,299 4,,027,607 4,148,436 FINANCE 21,14.1yo 4,05 3,414 4,,175,016 4,300,266 4,,429,274 4,562,153 4,,699,017 4,839,9�88 4,,985,187 5,134,743 5,,,288,785 5,447,449 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 0,0 0,yo - - - - - ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 2,882,814 2,,969,298 3,058,377 3,,150,129 3,244,633 3,,341,972 3,442,231, 3,,5,45,498 3,65 1,8 6 3 3,,761,418 3,874,261, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 68,74'Yo 2,205,269 2,,271,428 2,3 3 9,5 7 0 2,,409,757 2,482,050 2,,5,56,512 2,6 3 3,2 0 7 2,,712,203 2,793,569 2,,877,376 2,963,698 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICI 31,26'Y(.) 1,002,793 1,,032,877 1,063,863 1,,095,779 1,128,652 1,,162,512 1,197,387 1,,233,309 1,270,308 1,,308,417 1,347,670 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROJECTS 6 5,6 2'Yo 9,329,383 9,,609,265 9,897,543 10,194,469 10,500,303 10,815,312 11,139,772 11,473,965 11,818,184 12,172,729 1,2,5 3 7,9 1,1, POLICE 62,9�93,374 66,643,363 69,445,105 72,319,470 75,3 2 0,0 6 1, 78,408,743 81,648,090 84,868,480 88,225,442 91,639,078 94,388,250 FIRE 33,055,258 34,516,650 3 6,14 8,0 0 7 37,150,475 38,166,592 39,191,500 40,237,679 41,227,647 42,272,838 43,301,909 44,600,9�67 PUBLIC WORKS 5 4,4 8 1 Yo 4,888,237 5,,,137,920 5,278,213 5,,,417,220 5,549,646 5,,,690,452 5,837,224 5,,,972,980 6,121,054 6,,262,580 6,450,458 RECREATION 5 3,7 1'Yo 11,303,651 11,642,760 11,992,043 12,351,804 12,722,358 13,104,029 13,497,150 13,902,065 14,319,126 14,748,700 15,191,161, LIBRARY 4,6,29'Y(.) 4,195,255 4,,321,112 4,450,746 4,,5,84,268 4,721,796 4,,863,450 5,009,353 5,,,159,634 5,314,423 5,,,473,856 5,638,071, GENERAL FUND TOTALS 150,016,522 156,849,974 162,939,928 168,517,826 174,275,881 180,187,464 186,326,665 192,430,888 198,791,969 205,241,382 211,398,623 61 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 46,1. of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORN SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDIT] PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABL 1 2 FY2039 V 2 03 1 Fy 2032 F 1,2 0 '�'3 1"1"2 03 �"y 03 FV 2013,6 [�V 2037 1:' I I � I I rla Household Population 0,2 15 4 2 0 6 "844 15, 11)"I el, AE 2 2 8 Employment Population(Per 16,77 o 1,7,01 17 J 0' Capita Equiv) /1 3 170"1818 1 2,1)",',13 3 64 j-,' 2 36� 'V`9,1 6 36 J)36 Total Population "'1") 7'12'12 6 Per Capita by Category: General Government 7 138, 7, 4,8; T4 7,6,08; 77 19 6 7'9"88; 1 �7 91 '8(02 14 A I I 1 4,6 1 4 J5 Community Development 12 2 '1 "I'l 1 77 1 �720 Public Works/Engineering 5 3 1) A Community Services 2 61'H'6 64,1) 6 1133 6 fi;A fi; 1) �7 1 6 7 �,I,2 Public Safetv: z 8 Police Services 27 6 0 6 0,3 2 2 37 6 "��914'1'��5 '19 0�8;94 �,31,16 2 5'� 2 Fire Services 1 0 4, '1 2,4, Animal Control Services I '11,51 1 1"7 '1"L08; 12 1 0 -'1 Total Public Safety 17 84, Zi 2 "34('�4' 44 "167,6 0 2 2 91, 0 Total General Fund Expenditures I�"i 9 $ 6 27, 2 1; zt'�''I $ 6 1:1),0 2 1; 61)�,92 1; 7 0 9,12 $ '72(�,J-il,'1 7/[,`�"�A 0 Per Capita by Department: 01 City Council 2,56 $ "L 2,66 $ 23 $ "L 2,19"1 $ 0 1) Boards&Commissions 0,0 o',o 0,0 1,�' 0,01 o' 0,01 0,0,6 0,06 City Clerk 4,16 2 6 4,�"'�7 "l,4, 4,5 9 "1,70 4 45"�� "1"19"1 "7", 7 City Attorney 12�8'e3 '1 0�8; 13A,0 1�' �, 14"'1"�� 1,� '15"15 1,4�07 1,4�7 1, 3 Administration 18,,,17 0 18,81 9,0 11),2 1, "1 fi; 9,72 6 1021 Info Tech Services 5'4"") 1 5�8'' J,ff� , '16, 6 1 6�66 ITI'(,) I Human Resources 12 "3 '1'L 3 2 12A"�2 '1 1"325 '1, 5 fi; 1 2 14, 6 1,4 2 I Finance I 16 A�8; 16 57 1'7�,I, 7 J5 '827 1 fi;7 Non-Departmental Animal Care Facility '11,51 1 1"7 9 '1"L08; 12 6 Economic Development 67 ("')'02 1) 9,,,17 11)7,0 19,19 1 '1 0 A 11) 1 4,1, I Planning&Building 11�)4, 0 0 4 41 4,6 7, Engineering/CIP Projects 6('�'7 2 4 1) 0 1'0"1 2 0 6 4 A I "l 4 11) Police 27 6 0 6 0,3 2 2 le,37 6 "��914'1'��5 '19 0�8;,94 �,31,16 2 Fire 1'13 0 4, '1 2,4, Public Works I'e,3 87 '19'16 1 0 A 1 2 "��l A 1 2 1 1 A fi; 2 2 T4 Recreation A"13 4 5,12 4, 2 �96 I Library 16 4, '16,7 4 17 1, 1 18J)I 'I"!,;A 5 1 18�9 1 '19' fi; 11)'e,�7 General Fund Totals I�"i 9 6 27, 2 1; zt'�''1 6�"`)1:1),0 2 1; 61) 1; 7 0 9,12 '72 6,,-,1,'1 7/[,`�"�A 0 62 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 46,2 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORN SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITI PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABL 1 2 FY2039 V 2 03 1 Fy 2032 F 1,2 '�'3 1"1"2 03 �"y 03 FV 2013,6 [�V 2037 1:' I I � I I rla FULL FISCAL IMPACT-FORECA FY 2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 General Government 25,138,362 25,892,513 26,669,288 27,469,367 28,293,448 29,142,251 30,016,519 30,917,014 31,844,525 Community Development 4,440,70�8 4,573,930 4,711,148 4,852,482 4,998,056 5,147,998 5,302,438 5,461,511 5,625,357 Public Works/Engineering 19,558,020 20,144,761 20,749,103 21,371,577 22,012,724 22,673,106 23,353,299 24,053,898 24,775,515 Community Services 21,454,110 22,097,733 22,760,665 23,443,485 24,146,789 24,871,193 25,617,329 26,385,849 27,177,424 Public Safety: Police Services 97,219,89�8 100,136,494 103,140,589 106,234,807 109,421,851 112,704,507 116,085,642 119,568,211 123,155,257 Fire Services 45,938,99�6 47,317,166 48,736,681 50,198,781 51,704,744 53,255,887 54,853,563 56,499,170 58,194,145 Animal Control Sery 3,990,489 4,110,203 4,233,510 4,360,515 41491,330 4,626,070 4,764,852 4,907,798 5,055,032 Total Public Safety 147,149,382 151p563,863 156,110,779 160,794,103 165,617,926 170,586,464 175,704,058 180,975,179 186,404,435 Total General Fund Expencl 217,740,582 224,272,799 231,000,983 237,931,013 245,068,943 252,421,012 259,993,642 267,793,451 275,827,255 DEPARTMENT NAME CITY COUNCIL 902,239 929,306 957,185 985,901 1,015,478 1,,045,942 1,077,320 1,,109,640 1,1,4 2,9 2 9 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 16,713 17,214 17,731, 18,263 18,811, 19,375 19,956 20,5,55 21,172 CITY CLERK 1,443,057 1,,486,349 1,530,940 1,,5,76,868 1,624,174 1,,672,899 1,723,086 1,,774,778 1,828,022 CITY ATTORNEY 4,537,134 4,,673,248 4,813,446 4,,957,849 5,106,585 5,,,259,782 5,41,7,576 5,,,5,80,103 5,747,50�6 ADMINISTRATION 2,983,167 3,,072,662 3,164,842 3,,259,787 3,357,581, 3,,458,308 3,562,057 3,,668,919 3,778,9�86 INFO TECH SRVC,S 5,372,290 5,,,533,459 5,699,463 5,,,870,447 6,0 4 6,5 6 0 6,,227,957 6,414,795 6,,607,239 6,805,457 HUMAN RESOURCES 4,272,889 4,,401,075 4,533,108 4,,669,101 4,809,174 4,,953,449 5,102,053 5,,,255,114 5,412,768 FINANCE 5,610,872 5,,,779,199 5,952,575 6,,131,152 6,315,086 6,,5,04,539 6,699,675 6,,900,665 7,107,685 NON-DEPARTMENTAL - - - - - ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 3,990,489 4,,110,203 4,233,510 4,,360,515 4,491,330 4,,626,070 4,764,852 4,,907,798 5,055,032 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3,0�52,609 3,,144,187 3,238,513 3,,335,668 3,435,738 3,,5,38,810 3,644,9�74 3,,754,324 3,8 6 6,9 5 3 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICI 1,388,100 1,,429,743 1,472,635 1,,5,16,814 1,562,319 1,,609,188 1,657,464 1,,707,188 1,758,403 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROJECTS 12,914,048 13,301,470 13,700,514 14,111,529 14,534,875 14,970,922 15,420,049 15,882,651 16,359,130 POLICE 97,219,898 100,136,494 1,03,140,589 106,234,807 1,09,421,851, 112,704,507 116,085,642 119,5,68,211 1,23,1,55,257 FIRE 45,9�38,996 47,317,166 48,736,681 5,0,198,781 51,704,744 5,3,255,887 54,853,563 5,6,499,170 58,194,145 PUBLIC WORKS 6,643,9�72 6,,843,291 7,0�48,589 7,,260,047 7,477,849 7,,702,184 7,933,249 8,,171,247 8,416,384 RECREATION 15,646,896 16,116,303 16,599,792 17,097,786 17,610,719 18,139,041 18,683,212 19,243,709 19,821,020 LIBRARY 5,807,214 5,,,981,430 6,160,873 6,,345,699 6,5 3 6,0 7 0 6,,732,152 6,934,117 7,,142,140 7,356,40�4 GENERAL FUND TOTALS 217,740,582 224,272,799 231,000,983 237,931,013 245,068,943 252,421,012 259,993,642 267,793,451 275,827,255 63 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 46,3 of 767 RECLASS NON- RECLASS NON- FUNCTIONAL AREA RECONCILED PERSONNEL OPERATING INTERNALSERVICE AMENDED FY2019. ELIMINATION DEPARTMENTAL DEPARTMENTAL City 10 Year REVISED ITEMS TO PUBLISHED BUDGET SERVICES SUPPLIES&SERVICES UTILITIES OTHER CAPITAL XFERS OUT CHARGES 20 TOTAL ENTRY COSTS COSTS REVISED TOTALS TRANSFERS IN Model TOTALS General Government $ 15,592,728 $ 2,924,966 $ 20,259 $ - $ 123,915 $ $ - $ 18,661,868 $ $ $ 4S4,715 $ 19,116,S83 (956oO96) $ 18,160,487 Community Development 4,621,535 343,316 4,872 12,000 2,020 23,635 5,007,378 124,332 5,131,710 (1,923,648) 3,208,062 Public Works/Engincering 16o361o728 1,792,632 1,457,593 123,500 ISO,171 386,611 609o443 20o881o678 673,694 21,555,372 (7o687o75 1) 3SO,000 14,217,621 Community Services 10,814,949 1,185,597 2,881,712 81,300 2,523 - 324,262 15,290,343 208,562 15,498,90.5 - 15,498,90.5 Public Safety - 54o776o784 2o0I0o850 412o372 103,243 - - Io000,423 58o303o672 2,233o778 1,413,564 61,951,014 (587o640) 1,630,000 62,993,374 28o49IoI07 2ol3lo858 193o717 - - 62,326 955o878 31,834o886 703,874 32,538,760 (1,143o5O2) 1,660,000 33,055,2S8 Animml(:mj�cul Wr""Q�11:� 2,348,400 351,949 42,296 4,500 6,282 - 53,200 2,806,627 76,187 2,882,814. - 2,882,814. Non-Departmental (153,983) 1,668o697 3,984 4S4,622 - 42,207,075 - 44oI80o395 (36,767,3051 (2o233o778) (3,654,9291 1,524,383 (1,524o383) - - $ 132,853,248 $ 12,409,865 $ 5,016,805 $ 779,16S $ 2 B4,91 1 $ 4.2,656,012 $ 2,966,841 $ 196,966,847 $ (36,767,3LL $ $ - $ 160,199,54.2 $ (13,823,220L $ 3,640,000 $150,016,522 JADOPTED FY2019- IFT2019-20 20 ELIMINATION ENTRY AND 1ST PERSONNEL OPERATING INTERNAL SERVICE QUARTER RECLASS FOR City 10 Year REVISED DEPT DEPARTMENT NAME SERVICES SUPPLIES&SERVICES UTILITIES OTHER CAPITAL XFERS OUT CHARGES TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS POLICE SPREAD REVISED TOTALS TRANSFERS IN Model TOTALS 01100 CITY COUNCIL $ 1,4,56,659 $ 105,880 $ 1,307 $ $ 3,190 $ $ $ 1,567,036 4.0,857 $ 1,607,893 (956,096) $ 651,797 02000 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - 11,841 - - 11,841 233 12,074 12,074 03000 CITY CLERK 858,657 159,285 688 - 1,018,630 23,865 1,042,4.95 1,042,4.95 04-000 CITY ATTORNEY 20886o587 308o8OO 1,856 4,948 3,202ol9l 7S,531 3,277,722 3,277,722 OSOOO ADM[NIsTRA,nON 1,948,791 150,187 832 3,416 2,103,226 51,877 2,155,103 2,155,103 06000 INFO TECI I SRVCS 2o349o498 1,335o947 11,907 87,890 3,785o242 9S,815 3,881,OS7 3,881,OS7 07000 HUMAN RESOURCES 2,587,023 418,970 1,457 8,972 3,016,422 70,404. 3,086,826 3,086,826 08000 FINANCE 3o505o513 434oO56 2,212 IS,499 3,957o280 96,134 4,053,414 4,053,414 09000 NON-DEPARTMENTAL (153,983) 1,668,697 3,984 4.54,622 - 4.2,207,075 44,180,395 (36,767,305) (2,233,778) (3,654.,929) 1,524.,383 (1,524,383) - 10000 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 2o348o4OO 351,949 42o296 4,500 6,282 53o2OO 2,806o627 76,187 2,882,814 2,882,814 11000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1,977,144 168,422 2,497 - 1,520 2,14,9,583 55,686 2,205,269 2,205,269 12000 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES 2o6,44o391 174o894 2,375 12,000 Soo - 23o635 2,857o795 68,646 2,926,441 (1,923o648) 1,002,793 13000 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROjEcrs 7,229,662 366,083 863,671 108,500 10,000 386,611 144,695 9,109,222 220,161 9,329,383 - 9,329,383 14-000 POLICE 54o776o784 2,010o850 412o372 103,243 - - 1,000o423 58o303o672 2,233o778 1,413,564 61,951,014 (587o640) 1,630,000 62,993,374 ISOOO FIRE 28,491,107 2,131,858 193,717 - - 62,326 955,878 31,834,886 703,874. 32,538,760 (1,143,502) 1,660,000 33,055,258 16000 PUBLIC WORKS 9oI32o066 1,426o549 593o922 1s,000 140,171 - 464o748 11,772o456 4S3,532 12,225,988 (7o687o75 1) 3SO,000 4,888,237 17000 RECREA,riON 7,219,052 959,603 2,608,646 80,900 2,523 320,917 11,191,641 112,010 11,303,651 11,303,651 18000 LIBRARY 3o595o897 225o994 273oO66 400 - - 3,345 4,098o7O2 96,553 4,195,2SS - 4,195,2SS GENERAL FUND TOTALS $ 132,853,248 $ 12,409,865 5,016,805 $ 779,16S $ 284,911 $ 42,656,012 $ 2,966,841 196,966,847 (36,767,305) $ - $ - $ 160,199,542 (13,823,020) $ 3,640,000 150,016,522 6 A �4+ 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 46,4 of 767 Appendix C Printouts from Unmodified Fiscal Model for Expected Industrial Use 1VIOSS S I I I'll 11 1 6,5 "I, 202AY*W*RYaQJFckQjTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 46,5 of 767 GTY OF CHULAVISTA Instructional Guide I The spreadsheet is ready to accept unit counts and vailuation of project costs. 2 TABS: COMPLETE SHADED AREAS AS INSTRUCTED ON EACH TAB 2a TAB: Property Tax Analysis Enter unit counts in yellow highlighted cells Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Commercial Industrial Office Hotel 2b Input a Constructed Assessed Value 2c Input on Percentage Complete row for each section-a factor of how much of 2d TAB: Sales Tax Analysis-Input Square Footage and Rates on Sheet 2e TAB: Expenditure- Police& Fire Input Acres by Land Use In Shaded Areas 2f TAB: Police& Fire Costs-Dev- No input; shows costs and phase in of'Fir�e Station/S 2g TAB: Police& Fire Detal CaIcs(call volume by Land Use) 2h TAB: Master Plan Services 2i TAB: Maintenance Service Costs Input Lane Miles and Park Acres 3 TAB: Maintenance Service Costs-�PS 3a Input the service count components listed (as applicable) 4 TAB: Analys,is-Model FY 4a This table links to other input tables and calculates the fiscal impact on 4b If the project ha�s a hotel,the room counts per hotel need to be input to 4c Also,an absorption%impact factor needs to be entered on realizing the 5 TAB: Population Factor- Prepopulated TAB: EXH 1-Revenue Per Capita (Data supporting Fiscal Impact-Locked) TAB: EXH 2- Expenditures Per Capita (Data supporting Fiscal Impact- Locked) TAB: SUMMARY-EXP(Reconciles Published Budget to Base for Fiscal Model) 6 Print each Tab when,done 66 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 46,6 of 767 ........... ............. 3 4, 6 7 8 9 .4��V*lation 0 Single Family Residential o-OW%--P7*a i��, Multi-Family Residential CITY OF Subtotal(Per Capita) CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 13 13 1�3 1�3 1�3 1�3 1�3 1�3 13 Totals 13 13 1�3 1�3 1�3 1�3 1�3 1�3 13 Number of Homes Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Totals 'Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms Hotel 2-#rooms 'Totals - - - - - - - - Average I lotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* $ 15437 $ 157A9 $ 159�55 $ 161�94 $ 16437 $ 166�84 $ 16934 $ 171�88 $ 174.46 Average I lotel Daily Rate-Developer,As,signed* $ 142.10 $ 144.23 $ 14639 $ 148.59 $ 150.82 $ 153.08 $ 15538 $ 157.71 $ 1,60.07 Average Hotel Occupancy* 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77A% 77.1% Developer,Provided I lotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate(per room night) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 101% Abs,or,ption Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ............... ... ......... 1 3 4, 5 7 8 1 1 ........................................................................................................................... Yc�,ar 0111"A"Ir Tax Revenues Property Tax AV $ 11,277 $ 11,503 $ 11,733 $ 11,967 $ 12,207 $ 12,45 1 $ 12,700 $ 12,954 $ 13,213 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 1,590 1,536 1,532 1,528 1,523 1,518 1,513 1,509 1,S54 Transient O,ccupancy Tax Per Capita 195 188 189 189 190 191 192 193 199 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 2,490 2,604 2,721 2,840 2,961 3,084 3,210 3,339 �3,470, Franchise Fees Per Capita 548 552 558 563 569 574 579 584 602 Other Taxes Per Capita 505 497 496 495 495 494 494 492 507 Subtotal Tax Revenues 16,606 16,881 17,227 17,583 17,944 18,312 18,688 19,070 19,544 Other Revenues Per Capita 536 558 564 570 576 582 586 591 609 Licenses and Permits Per Capita 72 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 76 Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 60 Use of Money&Property Per Capita 137 138 138 139 139 140 140 141 145 Charges for Services No Forecast - - - - - - - - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 98 98 99 99 99 100 100 101 104 Subtotal Other Revenues 900 924 931 938 945 953 959 966 995 Total General Fund Revenues $ 17,506 $ 17,804 $ 18,158 $ 18,521 $ 18,889 $ 19,265 $ 19,646 $ 20,036 $ 20,538 General Fund Expenditures General Government r C a t C1 $ 12�2 $ 124 $ 125 $ 127 $ 129 $ 131 $ 132 $ 134 $ 136 Community Development(20%) r C a t C1 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 Public Works/Engineering r C a t C1 44 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 Drainage Management System 12�3 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 Building Management System 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Parks Management System 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Open Space Management System 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Fleet Management System 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Pavement Annual(PMP) 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 General Govt Management System 0, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Urban Forestry Management System 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 2 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 ler_api�a �348 �352 �357 �361 �366 �371 �377 �382 387 Community Services Public Safety: Police Services Pro��ect SI-HICIfIC, 6,865 7,263 7,568 7,881 8,208 8,545 8,898 9,249 9,480, Fire Services Pro��ect SI-HICIfIC, 2,378 2,483 2,600 2,672 2,746 2,819 2,895 2,966 �3,041 Aninia�Control Services I er CatWa 129 131 133 134 136 138 140 142 144 Total'PublicSafety 9,372 9,877 10,301 10,688 11,090 11,502 11,932 12,357 12,665 Total General Fund Expenditures $ 10,279 $ 10,791 $ 11,223 $ 11,617 $ 12,026 $ 12,446 $ 12,884 $ 13,317 $ 13,634 67 Pr'ojecM±�16'FyOrY7kOWdYL'#�cket �$7,227 �$7,013 $6,936 $6,904 ==Pau 46,�M67 �$6,819 �$6,762 �$6,719 $6,905 ....................... ........................... 10 11 12 13 14, 15 16 1'�7 .......................................................................................................... .4��V*lation om-0001 w-7is Single Family Residential 0- i��, Multi-Family Residential CITY OF Subtotal(Per Capita) CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Totals 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Number of Homes Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Totals 'Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms Hotel 2-#rooms 'Totals - - - - - - - - Average I lotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* $ 177.08 $ 179�73 $ 182.43 $ 18SA7 $ 187.94 $ 1%76 $ 193.62 $ 19653 $ 199.48 Average I lotel Daily Rate-Developer,As,signed* $ 162.48 $ 164.91, $ 167.39 $ 169.90 $ 17 2.45 $ 175.03 $ 17 7.6 6 $ 180.32 $ 1,83.03 Average Hotel Occupancy* 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% 77A% 77.1% Developer,Provided I lotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate(per room night) 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% 10% 101% Abs,or,ption Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .... ................................................... ................................................... ......................................................... ........................................................... ................................................................. ........................................... "7........................................... Yc�,ar 4 17 9 20 .................................................................................................................... 0111"A"Ir Tax Revenues Property Tax AV $ 13,477 $ 13,747 $ 14,022 $ 14,302 $ 14,588 $ 14,880 $ 15,177 $ 15,481 $ 15,791 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 1,60,1 1,649 1,69�8 1,749 1,80,1 1,855 1,911 1,968 2,027 Transient O,ccupancy Tax Per Capita 20,4 211 217 223 230 237 244 251 259 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific �3,60,4 3,740 �3,879 4,021 4,166 4,314 4,464 4,618 4,775 Franchise Fees Per Capita 620 638 658 677 698 719 740 762 78S Other Taxes Per Capita 522 538 554 570 587 605 623 642 661 Subtotal Tax Revenues 20,028 20,522 21,027 21,543 2ZO71 2Z610 23,160 23,723 24,298 Other Revenues Per Capita 627 646 666 686 70,6 727 749 772 79S Licenses and Permits Per Capita 79 81 84 86 89 91 94 97 1010 Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 62 64 66 68 70, 72 74 76 78 Use of Money&Property Per Capita 150 154 159 164 168 174 179 184 190 Charges for Services No Forecast - - - - - - - - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 10,7 110 113 117 120 124 127 131 13S Subtotal Other Revenues 1,024 1,055 1,087 1,119 1,153 1,188 1,223 1,260 1,298 Total General Fund Revenues $ 21,052 $ 21,577 $ 22,114 $ 22,663 $ 23,224 $ 23,79,7 $ 24,383 $ 24,983 $ 25,596 General Fund Expenditures General Government r C a t C1 $ 138 $ 140 $ 142 $ 145 $ 148 $ 152 $ 156 $ 159 $ 163 Community Development(20%) r C a t C1 33 33 34 34 35 36 37 38 38 Public Works/Engineering r C a t C1 49 49 so 51 52 53 55 56 58 Drainage Management System 123 12�3 123 12�3 123 12�3 123 12�3 123 Building Management System 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Parks Management System 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Open Space Management System 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Fleet Management System 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Pavement Annual(PMP) 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 General Govt Management System 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Urban Forestry Management System 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 2 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 ler_api�a 393 �399 40,S 411 421 432 442 453 46S Community Services Public Safety: Police Services Pro��ect SI-HICIfIC, 9,717 9,960 10,209 10,,464 10,726 10,,994 11,269 11,550 11,839 Fire Services Pro��ect SI-HICIfIC, �3,1 15 3,208 �3,3 0,5 3,404 �3,5 0,6 3,611 �3,719 3,831 �3,946 Aninia�Control Services I er CatWa 146 148 151 153 157 161 16S 169 173 Total'PublicSafety 12,978 13,317 13,664 14,021 14,388 14,766 15,153 15,550 15,958 Total General Fund Expenditures $ 13,955 14,303 $ 14,660 15,026 $ 15,409 $ 15,803 $ 16,207 16,621 $ 17,046 1;Jq Pr'ojecM±�16'FyOrY7kOWdYL'#�cket $7,097 �$7,274 $7,454 �$7,636 �&_46g Of 767$7,994 $8,177 �$8,362 $8,_54 9 1 91,11,111,111,111,11,'ll''''I'll''''I'll'','ll''''IlI z`iii....................................... .4��V*lation '1111"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1 I'll,""I,,"I"I'll'I'l'"'Il'"'I""Ill'"'Il'',"""Ill'',"""",'',""'I'll''I'll''Ill,'"""""""""'I'll'',"""""","''I'll'',"""",'"ll,''I'll'"ll'I..................................................................................................................................................................................................................."I om-000-m-p7to Single Family Residential 0- i��, Multi-Family Residential CITY OF Subtotal(Per Capita) CHUIAVISTA Employment Population 13 13 Totals 13 13 Number of Homes Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Totals 'Transient Occupancy Tax(Project Specific) Hotel 1-#rooms Hotel 2-#rooms 'Totals - - Average I lotel Daily Rate-San Diego County Average* $ 202.47 $ 20530 Average I lotel Daily Rate-Developer,As,signed* $ 1,85.77 $ 188.56 Average Hotel Occupancy* 77.1% 77A% Developer,Provided I lotel Occupancy* 0.0% 0.0% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate(per room night) 101% 10% Abs,or,ption Rate 0% 0% Yc�,ar 2 0111"A"Ir Tax Revenues Property Tax AV $ 16,106 $ 16,428 Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 2,088 2,151 Transient O,ccupancy Tax Per Capita 267 275 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 4,935 5,098 Franchise Fees Per Capita 80,9 833 Other Taxes Per Capita 681 701 Subtotal Tax Revenues 24,886 25,486 Other Revenues Per Capita 819 843 Licenses and Permits Per Capita 10,3 106 Fines,forfeitures,penalties Per Capita 81 83 Use of Money&Property Per Capita 19S 201 Charges for Services No Forecast - - Intergovernmental Per Capita 139 143 Subtotal Other Revenues 1,337 1,377 Total General Fund Revenues $ 26,222 $ 26,863 General Fund Expenditures General Government r C a t C1 $ 167 $ 172 Community Development(20%) r C a 39 40 Public Works/Engineering r C a C1 59 60 Drainage Management System 123 12�3 Building Management System 19 19 Parks Management System 73 73 Open Space Management System 31 31 Fleet Management System 17 17 Pavement Annual(PMP) 66 66 General Govt Management System 3 3 Urban Forestry Management System 31 31 2 364 364 Community Services Fier Capi�a 476 488 Public Safety: Police Services Pro��ect sj)ecific 12,135 12,439 Fire Services Pro��ect sj)ecific 4,064 4,186 Aninia�Control Services Fier Capi�a 177 182 Total'PublicSafety 16,377 16,806 Total General Fund Expenditures $ 17,483 17,932 Pr'ojecM±�16'FyOrY7kOWdYL'#�cket $8,739 $8,931 Page 46,9 of 767 69 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6, 7 ;-al ft-�-ft7 IZZ� CITY OF CHOLAVISTA Property Tax,Analys'is, Residential Unit,s Single Family Residential 'Total Cumulative SFR Units - 'Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Multi-Family Residential 'Total Cumulative MFR Units - 'Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 'Total Cumulative Residents Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Industrial Employees 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 Percentage Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Constructed Assessed Values 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Constructed Assessed Values Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 Inflation Factor 2.00% 100.00% 102.00% 104.04% 106.12% 108.24% 110.41% 112.62% Total AV-Inflated $7,000,000 $7,140,000 $7,282,800 $7,42�8,456 $7,577,025 $7,72�8,566 $7,883,137 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $7,000,000 $7,140,000 $7,282,800 $7,42�8,456 $7,577,025 $7,72�8,566 $7,883,137 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Years AV Inflation Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $7,000,000 $7,140,000 $7,282,800 $7,428,456 $7,577,025 $7,728,566 $7,883,137 Property'Tax Revenue Estimate Ad-Valorem 1.00% $ 70�,00�O $ 71,40�O $ 72,828 $ 74,285 $ 75,770 $ 77,286, $ 78,831 'Total AV Tax Due to City 16.11% $11,277 $11,S03 $11,733 $11,967 $12,207 $12,451 $12,700 70 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 470 of 767 Year 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is Property Tax Analysis Residential Units Single Family Residential Total Cumulative SFR Units Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete 00X0 0%1 00/0 0% 0% 0% 0%1 0% Constructed Assessed Values $0 1 $0 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0- Multi-Family Residential Total Cumulative MFR Units Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete % % % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $01 $01 $01 $0 $01 $0 $01 $0 0 0 0 Total Cumulative Residents Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - Industrial Employees 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 Percentage Complete 10 0%1 $ 1 00%1 $ 100%j $ 100% 100%j $ 100% 10 0%1 $ 100% Constructed Assessed Values $ 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 7,000,000_ Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete -0%1 $ -0%1 $ -0%1 $ -0% -0% -0% -0%1 $ 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ Constructed Assessed Values 'Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 Inflation Factor 114.87% 117.17% 119.51% 121.9�0% 124.34% 126.82% 129.36% 131.9�5% 'Total AV-Inflated $8,040,800 $8,2011,616 $8,365,648 $8,532,961 $8,7013,620 $8,877,693 $9�,055,246 $9,236,351 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $8,040,800 $8,2011,616 $8,365,648 $8,532,961 $8,7013,620 $8,877,693 $9�,055,246 $9,236,351 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Year's AV Inflation Amount $0, 1 $0, 1 $0, 1 $0 $01 $0 $01 $0 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $8,040,800 $8,201,616 $8,365,648 $8,,532,961 $8,703,620 $8,,877,693 $9,055�,246 $9,236,351 Property Tax Revenue Estimate I I I Ad-Valorem $ 80,408 $ 82,016 $ 83,656 $ 85,330 $ 87,036 $ 88,777 $ 90,552 $ 92,364 Total AV'Tax Due to City $121954 $13,213 $13,477 $13,747 1 $14,022 $14,302 1 $14,588 $1 71 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 47 1. of 767 Year 16 17 18 19 20 Property Tax,Analys'is, Residential Unit,s Single Family Residential 'Total Cumulative SFR Units 'Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete 0%1 0% 0%1 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Multi-Family Residential 'Total Cumulative MFR Units 'Total Cumulative Residents Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $01 $0 $01 $0 $01 1 'Total Cumulative Residents Commercial Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ Industrial Employees 38 38 38 38 38 Percentage Complete 100OX 100% 100%j $ 100% 10 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ 7,000,00001 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 Office Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0%1 $ 0% 0%1 $ 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ Hotel Employees 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Constructed Assessed Values $ $ $ $ $ Constructed Assessed Values Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 Inflation Factor 134.59% 137.28% 140.02% 142.82% 145.68% Total AV-Inflated $9�,421,078 $9,609,500 $9�,8011,690 $9,997,724 $10,197,678 Cumulative AV(w/o Prior Years Inflation) $9�,421,078 $9,609,500 $9�,8011,690 $9,997,724 $10,197,678 Prior Years AV Inflation Factor 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Prior Years AV Inflation Amount $01 $0 $01 $0 $01 1 Cumulative Residential AV-Inflated $9,421,078 $9,909,500 $97801,690 $9,997,724 $10,197,678 Property'Tax Revenue Estimate Ad-Valorem $ 94,211 $ 96,095 $ 98,017 $ 99,977 $ 10�1,977 Total AV Tax Due to City $15,177 $1S,481 $15,791 $16,106 $16,428 72 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 472 of 767 FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 FY2027-28 FY2028-29 FY2029-30 FY2030-31 FY2031-32 ADOPTED FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST �7 ............................................................................ .......i.............................. ............... 5 2 13 I................................. ..................................... ........................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................ ............... ........................................................... ............... ........................................................................................... ............... ....................................................................................... .......................................................................................... ............... ........................................................................................ 1,0 M,�1A r i o 10 11 7,1 1, '1!"W,"2 '10 1 1,1 1,�,,7 7 1 8 1,2 1,7 1)11, '1"', 6 0 3 1 9 1 C f I'�G F I 1'��I Pt TA' 4,o f 1)�J 8,9�H H; H; H; H; H; H; 321 321 321 321 CITY OF .............................................................................. 7,3,6 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 1,,4, 7 1,143',7 I........................................................................................................................................................................ ............... ............... ................. CHUIAVISrA DEVELOPER SFR(UNITS) DEVELOPER MFR(UNITS) COMMERCIAL(ACRES) - - - - - - - - - - - - - &91 INDUSTRIAL(ACRES) 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 - OFFICE(ACRES) - - - - - - - - - - - - - HOTEL(ACRES) - - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING DU POLICE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DU $ 88232 $ 975.90 $ 1,032.44 $ 1,075.85 $ 1,120.38 $ 1,166.86 $ 1,214.71 $ 1,264.90 $ 1,314.79 $ 1,347.66 $ 1,381.35 $ 1,415.88 $ 1,451.28 $ 1,487.S6 POLICE M ulti-Fam ily U nits 27,814 PER DU $ 952.71 $ 1,05332 $ 1,114.56 $ 1,161.42 $ 1,209.49 $ 1,259.67 $ 1,311.33 $ 1,36531 $ 1,419.36 $ 1,454.85 $ 1,491.22 $ 1,52830 $ 1,S66.71 $ 1,605.88 EXISTING ACRES POLICE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 4,167.10 $ 4,608.01 $ 4,875.01 $ S,079.96 $ 5,290.22 $ S,509.72 $ 5,735.66 $ S,972.62 $ 6,208.19 $ 6,363.40 $ 6,S22.48 $ 6,68535 $ 6,852.68 $ 7,024.00 POLICE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 898.41 $ 993.47 $ 1,051.04 $ 1,095.22 $ 1,140.56 $ 1,187.88 $ 1,236.59 $ 1,287.68 $ 1,338.47 $ 1,371.93 $ 1,406.23 $ 1,441.38 $ 1,477.42 $ 1,514.35 POLICE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 6,86S $ 7,263 $ 7,568 $ 7,881 $ 8,208 $ 8,545 $ 8,898 $ 9,249 $ 9,480 $ 9,717 $ 9,960 $ 10,209 $ 10,464 EXISTING DU FIRE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DU $ 376.83 $ 439.73 $ 459.17 $ 480.87 $ 494.21 $ 507.72 $ S21.36 $ 535.28 $ S48.44 $ 562.35 $ S76.04 $ 593.32 $ 611.12 $ 629.45 FIRE Multi-FamilyUnits 27,814 PER DU $ 422.97 $ 493.58 $ S15.40 $ 539.76 $ S54.73 $ 569.90 $ S85.20 $ 600.82 $ 615.60 $ 631.21 $ 646.58 $ 665.97 $ 685.9S $ 706.53 EXISTING ACRES FIRE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 1,479.61 $ 1,72639 $ 1,802.93 $ 1,888.14 $ 1,940.50 $ 1,99338 $ 2,047.11 $ 2,101.76 $ 2,153.47 $ 2,208.06 $ 2,261.81 $ 2,329.67 $ 2,399.56 $ 2,47134 FIRE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 294.89 $ 344.12 $ 359.33 $ 376.32 $ 386.7S $ 397.33 $ 408.00 $ 418.89 $ 429.20 $ 440.08 $ 450.79 $ 464.32 $ 478.24 $ 492.59 FIRE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 2,378 $ 2,483 $ 2,600 $ 2,672 $ 2,746 $ 2,819 $ 2,895 $ 2,966 $ 3,041 $ 3,115 $ 3,208 $ 3,305 $ 3,404 73 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 473 of 767 FY2032-33 FY2033-34 FY2034-35 FY2035-36 FY2037-38 FY2038-39 FY2039-40 FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST ............... ............... ............. ........................................................................................ .............. 1"7 4 ....................... ] I......................... ............................................................................................... .............................................................................................. ............... 7 0 1,18 B 110l'(Jf,A,m,, 3,5,1),1('�9 '1 fi,1,0 1 '1,fi,13,1"1 f, C f I"�G F'I 1'��I Pt TAI'l D 1,1 1,91,3' 1,1167 1,1111H; 1,11 7,H 113 1,791, 1'7 0 4,o f,1)�J 6 I'll ("1 67 6 7 B ("1 7 1 6 5,5, 6 4,1 6 5, 1 3 111) 1 01 111) 1 1 ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... CITY OF .............................................................................. .................. .............. 1 5,41"n, ��'27 CHUIAVISrA DEVELOPER SFR(UNITS) - DEVELOPER MFR(UNITS) COMMERCIAL(ACRES) - - &91 INDUSTRIAL(ACRES) 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 6.91 - OFFICE(ACRES) - - - - - - - HOTEL(ACRES) - - - - - EXISTING DU POLICE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DU $ 88232 $ 1,524.7S $ 1,562.87 $ 1,601.94 $ 1,641.99 $ 1,683.04 $ 1,725.12 $ 1,768.2S POLICE M ulti-Fam ily U nits 27,814 PER DU $ 952.71 $ 1,646.03 $ 1,687.18 $ 1,729.36 $ 1,772.59 $ 1,816.91 $ 1,862.33 $ 1,908.89 EXISTING ACRES POLICE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 4,167.10 $ 7,199.60 $ 7,379.59 $ 7,564.08 $ 7,753.18 $ 7,947.01 $ 8,145.69 $ 8,349.33 POLICE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 898.41 $ 1,552.21 $ 1,591.02 $ 1,630.79 $ 1,671.56 $ 1,713.3S $ 1,756.18 $ 1,800.09 POLICE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 10,726 $ 10,994 $ 11,269 $ 11,550 $ 11,839 $ 12,135 $ 12,439 EXISTING DU FIRE Single Family Units 36,084 PER DU $ 376.83 $ 648.34 $ 667.79 $ 687.82 $ 708.45 $ 729.71 $ 751.60 $ 774AS FIRE Multi-FamilyUnits 27,814 PER DU $ 422.97 $ 727.73 $ 749.S6 $ 772.OS $ 795.21 $ 819.07 $ 843.64 $ 868.9S EXISTING ACRES FIRE Commercial Acres 936 PER ACRE $ 1,479.61 $ 2,54S.69 $ 2,622.06 $ 2,700.72 $ 2,781.74 $ 2,86S.20 $ 2,951.15 $ 3,039.69 FIRE Industrial/Office Acres 834 PER ACRE $ 294.89 $ S07.37 $ 52239 $ S38.27 $ 554.42 $ S71.OS $ 588.18 $ 60S.83 FIRE COSTS-PROJECT SPECIFIC $ 3,506 $ 3,611 $ 3,719 $ 3,831 $ 3,946 $ 4,064 $ 4,186 74 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 474 of 767 Table - Public Safety Costs by Land Use FPolli"ce Calls for Service by Land Use Existing EDUs Existing CV Future EDUs Projected COST'PER Dwelling Type Call Volume(CV)(1) (2) DU (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS EDU $ 62,993,374 Single Family Units 123,906,773 36,084 3,434 4,854 16,667,871 14-957% �50-55% $ 31,844,897 $ 883 Multi-,Family Units 103,105,371 27,814 3,707 22467 83,283,023 74.735% 42.07% $ 26,498,793 $ 953 Existing Acres Existing CV Future Acres Projected COST'PER Land Use Call Volume(CV) (2) Acre (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS ACRE Commercial Acres 15,,176,274 936 16,214 518 8,405,596 7.543% 6.19% $ 3,900,407 $ 4,167 Industrial/Office Acres 2,915,398 834 3,496 882 3,081,488 2.765% 1.19% $ 749,277 $ 898 Citywide Total 245,103,815 Fire Calls for Service by Land Use Calls for Service Existing EDUs Existing CF1S Future EDUs Projected COST'PER Dwelling Type (CFS) (2) DU (3) Future CF',S Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS EDU $ 33,055,258 Single Family Units 3,893 53629 0.0725947 4854 �352-3746952 14.800% 61-137% $ 20,208,875 $ �3 7 6.8�3 Multi-,Family Units 2J61 26516 0.08148433 22466-6667 1830-68136,8 76-890% �3�3.9�3 0% $ 11 P 2 15,5 2 6 $ 422.97 6,054 Existing Acres Existing CV Future Acres Projected COST'PER Land Use Call Volume(CV)(') (2) /Acre (3) Future CV Future SDF(4) %OF CV COSTS ACRE Commercial Acres 267 936 0.28504274 518.417 147.7709996, 6.207% 4.190% $ 1,384,916, $ 1,479.61 Industrial/Office Acres 47 834 0.05681055 881.513 50.07923974 2.103% 0.744% $ 245,942 $ 294.89 �314 6,368 (1) Calls for Service include all calls for service responded to by the Fire Department during a one-year period. (2) Existing development data is per General Plan Update Fiscal Model. (3) Future development data is per March 200�6 PFDIF Update-Development Forecast. (4)SD,F-Service Demand Factor 75 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 475 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS,TABLE EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLD RESIDENT EQUIVALENT POPULATION EMPLOYEES (.05) 2012 244)408 37)218 12Y220 2013 249ollO 37,934 12p456 2014 253,812 38)650 12y691 2015 258o514 39,366 12p926 2016 263,216 40)082 13y161 2017 267o917 40,798 13p396 2018 26�8)060 40)820 13Y403 2019* 271o411 41,330 13p5�71 2020 282)375 43)000 14Y 119 2021 287o195 43,734 14p360 2022 292)015 44)468 14y601 2023 296o835 45,201 14p842 2024 301)6�55 45)935 15�y083 2025 306o475 46,669 15p324 2026 311)295 47)403 15�y565 2027 316o115 48,137 15p806 2028 320)935 48)871 16yO47 2029 325o755 49,605 16p288 203,0 330)575 50339 16y529 2031 335,395 51,073 16p770 203,2 340)215 51)807 17Y011 2033 342oO66 52,,089 17p103 203,4 343,844 52360 17Y192 2035 345o651 52,,635 17p283 203,6 347)440 52)907 17372 2037 349o185 53,173 17p459 203,8 350)894 53)433 17YS45 2039 352o560 53,687 17p628 2040 354)241 53)943 17Y712 2041 355o895 54,195 17p795 2042 357)524 54)443 17y876 2043 359ol26 54,687 17p956 2044 36�0)6�83 54)924 18y034 2 045 36�2o220 55,158 18p111 2046 363,786 55397 18y189 2047 365,344 55,634 18p267 As of 01/011/2019 Per State of California Department of Finance, Chula Vista Population is 271,411. 76 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 476 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Per Capita Weighted FY2019-20, FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 FUND/ACCOUNT Average FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST FORECAST' FORECAST' FORECAST 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 160.05 37,371,038 38,860,000 40,330,000 41,820,000 43,370,000 44,920,000 46,580,000 48,060,000 TOTAL 37,371,038 38�8601000 4013301000 4118201000 43,370,000 44,920,000 4615801000 48,060,000 Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 128.95 35,447,600 34,830,000 35,310,000 35,810,000 36,270,000 36,730,000 37,190,000 37,650,000 3020 Franchise Fees $ 49.12 3030 Utility Taxes $ 21�05 3040 Business License Tax $ 6.60 1,614,643 1,874,650 1,874,650 1,894,650 1,924,650 1,944,650 1,964,650 1,914,650 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 1633 3070 Real Property TransferTax $ 4.57 1,173,550 1,197,021 1,220,961 1,245,381 1,270,288 1,295,694 1,321,608 1,348,040 TOTAL 6015321816 6014911671 6114751611 6215101031 63,514,938 64,520,344 6515161258 66,422,690 Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.68 175,300 178,806 182,382 186,030 189,7SO 193,54S 197,416 201,36S 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 2.40 616,455 628,784 641,360 654,187 667,271 680,616 694,228 708,113 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 3.14 806,170 822,293 838,739 855,514 872,624 890,077 907,878 926,036 3160 Other Permits $ 0.05 14,000 14,280 14,566 14,857 15,154 15,457 15,766 16,082 TOTAL 116111925 116441164 116771047 117101588 1,744,799 1,779,695 118151289 1,851,595 Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.36 605,439 617,548 629,899 642,497 655,347 668,4S4 681,823 695,4S9 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 1.15 294,000 299,880 305,878 311,995 318,235 324,600 331,092 337,714 3240 Parking Penalties $ 0.97 250,000 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 276,020 281,541 287,171 3250 Other Penalties $ 0.46 118,000 120,360 122,767 125,223 127,727 130,282 132,887 135,545 TOTAL 112671439 112921788 113181644 113451016 1,371,917 1,399,355 114271342 1,455,889 Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 3.12 802,000 818,040 834,401 851,089 868,111 885,473 903,182 921,246 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - - - - - - - - - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ 1.07 274,847 280,344 285,951 291,670 297,503 303,453 309,522 315,713 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 3.98 1,022,250 1,042,695 1,063,549 1,084,820 1,106,516 1,128,647 1,1S1,220 1,174,244 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 3.75 963,130 982,393 1,002,040 1,022,081 1,042,523 1,063,373 1,084,641 1,106,334 TOTAL 310651227 311261532 311891062 312521843 3,317,900 3,384,258 314511943 3,520,982 Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.89 742,346 757,193 7 7 2,3 37 787,784 803,539 819,610 836,002 852,722 3440 State rax Sharing $ 0.89 228,246 232,811 237,467 242,216 247,061 252,002 257,042 262,183 3460 PTI I,VI,F-Former Motor Vehicle License F $ 99�97 23,130,251 24,190,000 25,130,000 26,080,000 27,060,000 28,050,000 29,120,000 30,050,000 3480 State Reimbursements $ 0.52 133,799 136,475 139,204 141,989 144,828 147,725 150,679 153,693 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.79 460,440 469,649 479,042 488,623 498,39S 508,363 518,530 528,901 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ 0.03 7,233 7,378 7,525 7,676 7,829 7,986 8,146 8,308 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 2,000 2,040 2,081 2,122 2,16S 2,208 2,252 2,297 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 2.38 610,000 622,200 634,644 647,337 660,284 673,489 686,959 700,698 TOTAL 2513141315 2614171745 2714021300 2813971746 29,424,101 30,461,383 3115791611 32,558,803 Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 5.15 1,321,991 1,348,431 1,37S,399 1,402,907 1,430,966 1,459,58S 1,488,777 1,518,SS2 3720 Document Fees $ 2.60 668,824 682,200 695,844 709,761 723,957 738,436 753,204 768,269 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.10 25,000 25,500 26,010 26,530 27,061 27,602 28,154 28,717 3740 Inspection Fees $ 1.60 412,000 420,240 428,645 437,218 445,962 454,881 463,979 473,258 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.16 41,000 41,820 42,656 43,510 44,380 45,267 46,173 47,096 3770 Other Dev Fees $ 0.03 6,600 6,732 6,867 7,004 7,144 7,287 7,433 7,581 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 1.06 273,200 278,664 284,237 289,922 295,720 301,63S 307,668 313,821 3830 Services to the Port District $ 4.19 1,075,678 1,097,192 1,119,135 1,141,518 1,164,348 1,187,635 1,211,388 1,235,616 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 5.71 1,464,886 1,494,184 1,524,067 1,SS4,549 1,585,640 1,617,3S3 1,649,700 1,682,694 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 11.36 2,915,823 2,974,139 3,033,622 3,094,295 3,156,181 3,219,304 3,283,690 3,349,364 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.18 46,000 46,920 47,858 48,816 49,792 50,788 51,803 52,840 TOTAL 8,251,0�02 8,416,0�22 8,584,342 8,756,0�29 8,931,150 9,109,773 9,291,968 9,477,808 Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ 0.44 113,975 116,255 118,580 120,951 123,370 125,838 128,354 130,921 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.27 70,000 71,400 72,828 74,285 75,770 77,286 78,831 80,408 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0.01 1,800 1,836 1,873 1,910 1,948 1,987 2,027 2,068 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 7.31 1,876,001 1,913,521 1,9S1,791 1,990,827 2,030,644 2,071,2S7 2,112,682 2,154,93S 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 20.80 5,341,549 5,448,380 5,S57,348 5,668,495 5,781,864 5,897,502 6,015,452 6,135,761 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.23 60,100 61,302 62,528 63,779 65,054 66,35S 67,682 69,036 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 11.60 2,979,570 3,039,161 3,099,945 3,161,944 3,225,182 3,289,686 3,355,480 3,422,589 4600 Assessments $ 0.61 157,780 160,936 164,154 167,437 170,786 174,202 177,686 181,240 4700 Collection Charges $ 2.44 626,270 638,795 651,571 664,603 677,895 691,453 705,282 719,387 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 2,650 2,703 2,7 57 2,812 2,868 2,926 2,984 3,044 4900 Other Revenue $ 5.92 713,065 1,200,000 1,320,000 1,440,000 1,560,000 1,680,000 1,760,000 1,860,000 TOTAL 1119421760 1216541289 1310031375 1313571042 13,715,383 14,078,491 1414061460 14,759,390 TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 600.11 149,356,522 152,903,210, 156,980,,381 161,149,296 165,390,189 169,653,300 174,068,873 178,107,157 77 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 477 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES 296,494 301,555 306,616 311,677 316,738 321,799 326,860 331,921 330,'982 342,043 1347,104 352,165 PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 IFY2027-28 FY2028-29 IFY2029-30 FY2030-31 FUND/ACCOUNT FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST'(3%) FORECAST 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 126.04 $ 128.87 $ 131.53 $ 134.18 $ 136.93 $ 139.59 $ 142,51, $ 144.79 $ 149A4 $ 153,61, $ 15822 $ 162.97 TOTAL Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 119.56 $ 115.50 $ 115.16 $ 114.89 $ 114.51 $ 114.14 $ 113.78 $ 113.43 $ 116.83 $ 120.34 $ 123.95 $ 127.67 3020 Franchise Fees $ 41.17 $ 41.52 $ 41.94 $ 4235 $ 4175 $ 4116 $ 4154 $ 4193 $ 45.24 $ 46�60 $ 48.00 $ 49�44 3030 Utility Taxes $ 19.34 $ 19.23 $ 19.11 $ 18.99 $ 18.88 $ 18.77 $ 18.66 $ 18.44 $ 18.99 $ 19.56 $ 20.15 $ 20.7S 3040 Business License Tax $ SA5 $ 622 $ 6J] $ 6.08 $ 6.08 $ 6.04 $ 6.01 $ 5.77 $ 5.94 $ 6.12 $ 6.30 $ 6.49 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 14.70 $ 14.16 $ 14.19 $ 14.2S $ 14.30 $ 14.36 $ 14.41 $ 14.49 $ 14.93 $ 15.37 $ 15.84 $ 16.31 3070 Real Property Transfer'Fax $ 196 $ 197 $ 198 $ 4.00 $ 4.01 $ 4.03 $ 4.04 $ 4.06 $ 4.18 $ 4.31 $ 4.44 $ 4.57 TOTAL Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.61 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 $ 0.68 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 108 $ 109 $ 109 $ 2.10 $ 2.11 $ 2.12 $ 2.12 $ 2.13 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.33 $ 2.40 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 2.72 $ 2.73 $ 2.74 $ 2.74 $ 2.76 $ 2.77 $ 2.78 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05 $ 3.14 3160 Other Permits $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0�05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 TOTAL Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.04 $ 2.OS $ 2.OS $ 2.06 $ 2.07 $ 2.08 $ 2.09 $ 2.10 $ 2.16 $ 2.22 $ 2.29 $ 2.36 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 0�99 $ 0�99 $ 1�00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.01 $ 1.01 $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 1.08 $ 1.11 $ 1.15 3240 Parking Penalties $ 0.84 $ 0.8S $ 0.8S $ 0.8S $ 0.8S $ 0.86 $ 0.86 $ 0.87 $ 0.89 $ 0.92 $ 0.95 $ 0.97 3250 Other Penalties $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0A0 $ 0.40 $ 0.40 $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 TOTAL Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 2.70 $ 2.71 $ 2.72 $ 2.73 $ 2.74 $ 2.7S $ 2.76 $ 2.78 $ 2.86 $ 2.94 $ 3.03 $ 3.12 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ O�93 $ O�93 $ O�93 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 0.98 $ 1.01 $ 1.04 $ 1.07 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 3AS $ 3.46 $ 3.47 $ 3.48 $ 3.49 $ 3.51 $ 3.52 $ 3.54 $ 3.64 $ 3.7S $ 3.87 $ 3.98 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 125 $ 126 $ 127 $ 3.28 $ 3.29 $ 3.30 $ 3.32 $ 3.33 $ 3.43 $ 3.54 $ 3.64 $ 3.75 TOTAL Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.50 $ 2.51 $ 2.52 $ 2.53 $ 2.54 $ 2.5S $ 2.56 $ 2.57 $ 2.65 $ 2.73 $ 2.81 $ 2.89 3440 State'rax Sharing $ O�77 $ O�77 $ O�77 $ 0.78 $ 0.78 $ 0.78 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.84 $ 0.86 $ 0.89 3460 PTI LVI,F-Former Motor Vehicle Licens( $ 78.01 $ 80.22 $ 81.96 $ 83.68 $ 85.43 $ 87.17 $ 89.09 $ 90.53 $ 93.25 $ 96.OS $ 98.93 $ 101.90 3480 State Reimbursements $ OA5 $ OA5 $ OA5 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.48 $ 0.49 $ 0.51 $ 0.52 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.5s $ 1.56 $ 1.56 $ 1.57 $ 1.57 $ 1.58 $ 1.59 $ 1.59 $ 1.64 $ 1.69 $ 1.74 $ 1.79 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 106 $ 106 $ 107 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.09 $ 2.10 $ 2.11 $ 2.17 $ 2.24 $ 2.31 $ 2.38 TOTAL Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 4.46 $ 4.47 $ 4.49 $ 4.50 $ 4.52 $ 4.54 $ 4.5S $ 4.58 $ 4.71 $ 4.8S $ 5.00 $ 5.1s 3720 Document Fees $ 126 $ 126 $ 127 $ 2.28 $ 2.29 $ 2.29 $ 2.30 $ 2.31 $ 2.38 $ 2.46 $ 2.53 $ 2.61 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.10 3740 Inspection Fees $ 139 $ 139 $ 1 A0 $ 1.40 $ 1.41 $ 1.41 $ 1.42 $ 1.43 $ 1.47 $ 1.51 $ 1.56 $ 1.60 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ OAS $ 0.16 $ 0.16 3770 Other Dev Fees $ O�02 $ O�02 $ O�02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.93 $ 0.93 $ 0.93 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.9s $ 0.97 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 3830 Services to the Port District $ 163 $ 164 $ 165 $ 3.66 $ 3.68 $ 3.69 $ 3.71 $ 3.72 $ 3.83 $ 3.95 $ 4.07 $ 4.19 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 4.94 $ 4.9S $ 4.97 $ 4.99 $ 5.01 $ 5.03 $ 5.0s $ 5.07 $ 5.22 $ 5.38 $ 5.54 $ 5.71 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 9A3 $ 9A6 $ 9A9 $ 9.93 $ 9.96 $ 1 0�00 $ 1 0�05 $ 1 0�09 $ 10.39 $ 10�71 $ 11.03 $ 1136 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 TOTAL Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ 038 $ 039 $ 039 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.44 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.27 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 6.33 $ 63S $ 6.37 $ 6.39 $ 6.41 $ 6.44 $ 6.46 $ 6.49 $ 6.69 $ 6.89 $ 7.09 $ 7.31 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 18.02 $ 18.07 $ 18.12 $ 18J9 $ 1825 $ 1833 $ 1 K40 $ 1 K49 $ 19.04 $ 19�61 $ 20.20 $ 20A] 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.22 $ 0.23 $ 0.23 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 10.05 $ 10.08 $ 10,11, $ 10AA $ 10J8 $ 1022 $ 1027 $ 1031 $ 10.62 $ 1 O�94 $ 11.27 $ 11�61 4600 Assessments $ 0.53 $ 0.53 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.5s $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ 0.60 $ 0.61 4700 Collection Charges $ 11,1 $ 112 $ 113 $ 2.13 $ 2.14 $ 2.15 $ 2.16 $ 2.17 $ 2.23 $ 2.30 $ 2.37 $ 2.44 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4900 Other Revenue $ 140 $ 198 $ 431 $ 4.62 $ 4.93 $ 5.22 $ 5.38 $ 5.60 $ 5.77 $ 5.95 $ 6.12 $ 6.31 TOTAL TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 503.74 $ 507.05 $ 511.98 $ 517.04 $ 522.17 $ 527.20 $ 532.55 $ 536.60 $ 55169 $ 569.27 $ 58635 $ 603.94 78 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 478 of 767 CIT'Y OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED ANALYSIS OF REVENUES 357,226 359,169 361,036 13 6 2,93"3 364,812 1360,644 368,4,38 3 7 0,18 8 PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE FY2031-32 IFY2032-33 FY2033-34 IFY2034-35 FY2035-36 IFY2037-38 FY2038-39 IFY203 FUND/ACCOUNT FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAST(3%) FORECAS 100 GENERALFUND Prol2erly Taxes 3000 Property'Fax $ 167.86 $ 172.89 $ 178.08 $ 18142 $ 188.92 $ 194�59 $ 200.43 $ 206A4 TOTAL Other Local Taxes 3010 Sales Tax $ 131.50 $ 135.44 $ 139.51 $ 143.69 $ 148.00 $ 152.44 $ 157.01 $ 161.73 3020 Franchise Fees $ 50.92 $ 5145 $ 54.02 $ 55.64 $ 5731 $ 59.03 $ 60A0 $ 62.63 3030 Utility Taxes $ 21.37 $ 22.02 $ 22.68 $ 23.36 $ 24.06 $ 24.78 $ 25.52 $ 26.29 3040 Business License Tax $ &69 $ 6.89 $ T09 $ 7.31 $ 7.53 $ 7.75 $ 7.98 $ 8.22 3050 Transient Occupancy Tax $ 16.80 $ 17.30 $ 17.82 $ 18.36 $ 18.91 $ 19.48 $ 20.06 $ 20.66 3070 Real Property Transfer'Fax $ 4�71 $ 4.85 $ 4�99 $ 5.14 $ 5.30 $ 5.46 $ 5.62 $ 5.79 TOTAL Licenses and Permits 3100 Licenses $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.7S $ 0.77 $ 0.79 $ 0.82 $ 0.84 $ 0.86 3120 Dev/Improvement Permits $ 147 $ 2.55 $ 162 $ 2.70 $ 2.78 $ 2.87 $ 2.95 $ 3.04 3140 Regulatory Permits $ 3.23 $ 3.33 $ 3.43 $ 3.53 $ 3.64 $ 3.75 $ 3.86 $ 3.98 3160 Other Permits $ O�06 $ 0.06 $ O�06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 TOTAL Fines,Forfeitures,Penalties 3200 Community Appearance Penalties $ 2.43 $ 2.50 $ 2.58 $ 2.65 $ 2.73 $ 2.82 $ 2.90 $ 2.99 3210 Law Enforcement Penalties $ 1A,8 $ 1.21 $ 1�25 $ 1.29 $ 1.33 $ 1.37 $ 1.41 $ 1.45 3240 Parking Penalties $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 $ 1.10 $ 1.13 $ 1.16 $ 1.20 $ 1.23 3250 Other Penalties $ OA7 $ 0.49 $ mo $ 0.52 $ 0.53 $ 0.55 $ 0.57 $ 0.58 TOTAL Use Of Money&Property 3300 Investment Earnings $ 3.22 $ 3.31 $ 3.41 $ 3.52 $ 3.62 $ 3.73 $ 3.84 $ 3.96 3310 Sale of Real Property $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3320 Sale of Personal Property $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3330 Rental/Lease of Equipment $ lJo $ 1.14 $ 1A,7 $ 1.20 $ 1.24 $ 1.28 $ 1.32 $ 1.36 3350 Rental/Lease of Land and Space $ 4.10 $ 4.22 $ 43S $ 4.48 $ 4.62 $ 4.75 $ 4.90 $ 5.04 3370 Rental/Lease of Buildings $ 186 $ 3.98 $ 4JO $ 4.22 $ 4.35 $ 4.48 $ 4.61 $ 4.75 TOTAL Revenue from Other Agencies 3400 State Grants $ 2.98 $ 3.07 $ 3.16 $ 3.25 $ 3.3S $ 3.45 $ 3.56 $ 3.66 3440 State'rax Sharing $ O�92 $ 0.94 $ O�97 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 $ 1.09 $ 1.13 3460 PTI LVI,F-Former Motor Vehicle Licens($ 104.9S $ 108.10 $ 111.34 $ 114.69 $ 118.13 $ 121.67 $ 125.32 $ 129.08 3480 State Reimbursements $ O�54 $ 0.55 $ O�57 $ 0.59 $ 0.60 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 3500 Federal Grants $ 1.8S $ 1.90 $ 1.96 $ 2.02 $ 2.08 $ 2.14 $ 2.21 $ 2.27 3580 Federal Reimbursements $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 3600 0 th er Agen cy Gran ts $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 3690 Other Agency Revenue $ 145 $ 2.52 $ 160 $ 2.67 $ 2.75 $ 2.84 $ 2.92 $ 3.01 TOTAL Charges for Services 3700 Zoning Fees $ 5.30 $ 5.46 $ 5.63 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 6.15 $ 6.33 $ 6.52 3720 Document Fees $ 168 $ 2.76 $ 185 $ 2.93 $ 3.02 $ 3.11 $ 3.20 $ 3.30 3730 Plan Checking Fees $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 3740 Inspection Fees $ 1�65 $ 1.70 $ 1�75 $ 1.81 $ 1.86 $ 1.92 $ 1.97 $ 2.03 3750 Filing Fees $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 3770 Other Dev Fees $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ O�03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 3800 Animal Shelter Contracts $ 1.10 $ 1.13 $ 1.16 $ 1.20 $ 1.23 $ 1.27 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 3830 Services to the Port District $ 432 $ 4.45 $ 4�58 $ 4.72 $ 4.86 $ 5.00 $ 5.15 $ 5.31 3900 Recreation Program Fees $ 5.88 $ 6.05 $ 6.23 $ 6.42 $ 6.61 $ 6.81 $ 7.02 $ 7.23 4200 Staff Services Reimbursements $ 11.70 $ 1105 $ 12,41, $ 12.78 $ 1117 $ 13.56 $ 1197 $ 14.39 4300 Fees for Other Services $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.22 $ 0.23 TOTAL Other Revenue 4410 DIF Reimbursements $ OA6 $ 0.47 $ OA9 $ 0.50 $ 0.51 $ 0.53 $ 0.55 $ 0.56 4420 Transit Reimbursements $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 0.34 $ 0.35 4430 Redev Agency Reimbursements $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0�01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4440 Open Space/Assess Dist Reimb $ 7.53 $ 7.75 $ 7.98 $ 8.22 $ 8.47 $ 8.73 $ 8.99 $ 9.26 4450 CIP Reimbursements $ 21.43 $ 2107 $ 22.73 $ 23.42 $ 24J2 $ 24.84 $ 25�59 $ 26.36 4460 CDBG/Ilorne Reimbursements $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 4480 Other City Funds Reimbursement $ 11.95 $ 1231 $ 12.68 $ 13.06 $ 1145 $ 13.86 $ 1427 $ 14.70 4600 Assessments $ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ 0.67 $ 0.69 $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 4700 Collection Charges $ 151 $ 2.59 $ 167 $ 2.75 $ 2.83 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 3.09 4800 Sale of Goods $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 4900 Other Revenue $ &50 $ 6.69 $ &89 $ 7.10 $ 7.31 $ 7.53 $ 7.76 $ 7.99 TOTAL TOTAL-100GENERALFUND $ 622.06 $ 640.72 $ 659.94 $ 679�74 $ 700.14 $ 721A4 $ 742.77 $ 765�06 79 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 479 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Weighteid Average FY 2020 FY2021 [,Y 2 0 2 2 FY 2023 FY 2 0 01, FV 2025 FY 2026; FV2027 PY2020 Fl"2029 [",Y 2 0 3 0 �),—1 Household Population 28Z375 28T 195 2924 15 294835 30 4655 306A75 314295 �""l "115 2 0, 33T575 Employment Population(Per I 19 14�3 6 0 14,601 1 4M42 I Syw"" I n32/1 I SO 6,`�� 1 0 6 1(",J)/17 16,2 16,1,��,2 Capka Equiv) Total Population 294494 30 hss!'�� 305h 16 3 1 4 6'77 316713 2 1 A')') 326860 3�33,�K�9)2 336982 3 4 21�(0)/41�33, 3 4 TJ 04 Per Capita by Category: General Government $ 7125 1 $ 6"L 0 2 �,l $ 6307 6C53 $ 65A2 6434 $ OT29 6827 $ 0128 70,31 Community Development 12.59 1 0A2 1016 1 L H) 11,25 1 L40 11.5 6 1152 11"89 12�06 'I"��,"��11 12A2 Pubhc Works/Engineering 55k2 47,95 4810 41419 5M011) 5 0 A7 51111) 5101 5"L 5 6 �3324 5310 54,71 Community Services 60K, 5 2,07 52111 5 3 54311 5 5 M7 5 5 M 56A2 57A3 5826 5112 60J)1 Public Safetv: Police Services 270J3 2 12,46 2 21 Afl) 224419 232A��"� 237M0 24 316 24180 25509 26LHI 26712 2 7 Fire Services 13017 1 1 L41') 114A6 I I TH"') 11120 12M50 1210) 12110 '1"��11,,"��l 12 �,I,��� 'I"����'6 0 1218,�,,119 Animal Control Services 11-31 952 0415 917 10,11 102"1 10,311) 1(15"13 1(h(Q; 1 le,�1 11,00 1 L 16 Total Public Safety 412.41 3 3 3 A7 3 4 131 35C36 3 01.34 36854 3 7 5 M 3 8 14,,,,, �111�11)0,5 11i; �1'1111 1'') 0 1'') 0 5,51 "111��,��3 1'') Total General Fund Expenditures 612.68 $ 50197 $ 52MI 4 $ 531AI $ 54MA8 $ 55022 $ 55194 $ 570MS $ 57175 $ 589A2 $ 60RD5 $ 6 0 9 M4, Per Capita by Department: City Council 2.56 220 $ 123 226 $ 219 232 $ 135 2.38 $ 142 145 $ 149 232 Boards 81 ComrnisAons 0.05 0.0"t DA11 0 J)I DA11 0 J)I DA11 0 J)I DA11 WE�� ch 0 5 WE3 City Clerk 4.09 312 �?5 6 3A 1 165 3.70 176 3JI I 1 18 6 312 19"!,; 404 City Attorney 12A6 1 1�05 I 110 1 1,11 11.49 1 1,6�� 11 M1 1 1,97 1215 12��,,,,,2 'I"L 5 0 121111) Administration 8.46 7.27 T 3 6 70', T 5 6 70, T76 7.87 'T 11)11) 8,10 it 2"�� 18 3 1 Info Tech Services 1523 13K) 1126 13 A,,,,, 13 Al 1"1331'') 13 1 11C 18 14,3 8 1 C59 14M0 1�T 0"I'll, Human Resources 1211, 1 OA��, 10,5 11 10108 1 1017 11 A I 1218 11.44 1 1�()() 'I 1'7'11!1; 1 1 A�3 Finance 1500 13A'7 1301 1 CO2 14 11 PC40 1400 ICHI 1524 15A6 15,619 Non-Departmental - Animal Care Facility 11,31, 952 0415 917 1 M11 102"1 1 th(Q; 1 1 11,00 1 L 16 Economic Development 8.65 7.01, T 5 7JS'3 'T 7 704 T94 8 J)6 K 17 8,21'') 1141 18 3 1 Planning&Building 3.93 3.18 14 3A'7 �?5 30', 3"1 3A6 1 7,'�� 377 18�11� 3 J1 le,� Engineering/ClP Projects %60 3 1 A'7 31 M7 3 2 2'e,� 3 2 11 311� 3 3"1 3 C 0'e,� �"'vl'5'�7 ���,�07 5,5 11) 6�12 Pohce 270J3 2 12,46 2 21 Afl) 224419 232A��"� 237M0 24 316 24180 25509 26LHI 26712 2 7 Fire 13017 1 1 L 4 1) 114 A 6 1 1 TH"') 1112 0 12M50 1210) 12110 '1"��11,,"��l 12����,I,��� 'I"����'6 0 1218,�,,119 Public Works 19mi, 16 K) 17 01 1721 173 8 1732 17 A,'!'; 17M6 I K00 I 18�16 '1 fi;'�"Vl I IK 5 le,� Recreation 4435 3KI2 3 K 61 311 1 3 A 6 4M 17 4 0.7,'�� 41219 41 J58; "I'll,2�,I,19 4112 4377 library 16.46 1015 103 1 C52 14.71 1 C91 1"11 113,,,,, 1"511 1177 16A0 162"1 General Fund Totals 612k8 $ 50597 $ 520J 4 $ 531AI $ 54MA8 $ 55022 $ 55194 $ 570MS 57175 $ 589A2 $ 60RD5 $ 6 0 9 M4, 80 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 480 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABLE Weighted Average V 2()2 1) FY2021 [,�Y W22 FN`2 02"P11 ["y 2()2 4, F1`2025 FY2026, 1:1%,2 0 2 7 FY2020 F"I"2029 l,Y 2 11)3 0 L FULL FISCAL IMPACT-FORECAST F FY2020 FY 2021 FY 2022__j FY2023 I FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 �FY 2028 FY2029 I FY2030 1 General Government 18,160,487 18,705,302, 19,266,461 19,844,455 20,439,789 21,052,982, 21,684,572 22,335,109 23,0�05,162 23,695,317 24,406,177 Community Development 3,208,062 3,304,304 3,403,433 3,5o5,536 3,6 10,7 0 2 3,719,023 3,830,594 3,945,512 4,063,877 4,185,794 4,311,367 Public Works/Engineering 14,217,621 14,747,185 15,175,755 15,611,689 16,0�49,950 16,505,765 16,976,99�6 17,446,944 17,939,238 18,435,310 18,988,369 Community Services 15,498,905 15,963,872, 16,442,789 16,936,072, 17,444,154 17,967,479 18,506,503 19,061,699 19,633,550 20,222,556 20,829,233 Public Safety: Police Services 62,993,374 66,643,363 69,445,105 72,319,470 75,320,061 78,408,743 81,648,09�O 84,868,480 88,225,442 91,639,078 94,388,250 Fire Services 33,0�55,258 34,516,650 36,148,007 37,150,475 38,166,59�2 39,191,500 40,237,679 41,227,647 42,272,838 43,301,909 44,600,967 Animal Control Services 2,882,814 2,969,298 3,058,377 3,150,129 3,244,633 3,341,972 3,442,231 3,545,498 31651,863 3,761,418 3,8741261 Total Public Safety 98,931,446 104,129,311 108,651,490 112R620,074 116,731,286 120,942,215 125,328,000 129,641,625 134,150,143 138,702,406 142,863,478 Total General Fund Expenditures 150,016,522 156,849,974 162,939�,928 168.517.826 174,275,881 180,187,464 186,326,665 192,430,888 198,791,969 205,241,382 211,398,623 DEPARTMENT NAME CITY COUNCIL 3,59'Yo 651,797 671,350 691,491, 712,236 733,60�3 755,611 778,279 801,628 825,676 850,447 875,9�60 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 0,0 7'Yo 12,074 12,436 12,809 13,193 13,589 13,997 14,417 14,849 15,295 15,754 16,226 CITY CLERK 5,2 Wo 1,042,495 1,,073,770 1,105,983 1,,139,163 1,173,338 1,,208,538 1,244,794 1,,282,138 1,320,602 1,,360,220 1,401,027 CITY ATTORNEY 16,61'Yo 3,277,722 3,,376,054 3,477,336 3,,581,656 3,689,105 3,,799,779 3,913,772 4,,031,185 4,152,121 4,,276,684 4,404,9�85 ADMINISTRATION I I'd,i lyo 2,155,103 2,,219,756 2,286,349 2,,354,939 2,425,588 2,,498,355 2,573,306 2,,650,505 2,7 3 0,0 2 0 2,,811,921 2,896,278 INFO TECH SRVC,S 21,07'Y(.) 3,881,057 3,,997,488 4,117,413 4,,240,936 4,368,164 4,,499,208 4,634,185 4,,773,210 4,916,407 5,,,063,899 5,215,816 HUMAN RESOURCES I S,J,7'Y(.) 3,0�86,826 3,,179,431 3,274,813 3,,373,058 3,474,250 3,,578,477 3,685,831 3,,796,406 3,910,299 4,,027,607 4,148,436 FINANCE 21,14'Yo 4,053,414 4,,175,016 4,300,266 4,,429,274 4,562,153 4,,699,017 4,839,9�88 4,,985,187 5,134,743 5,,,288,785 5,447,449 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 0,0 0,yo - - - - - - ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 2,882,814 2,,969,298 3,0�58,377 3,,150,129 3,244,633 3,,341,972 3,442,231 3,,545,498 3,651,863 3,,761,418 3,874,261 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 68,74'Yo 2,205,269 2,,271,428 2,3 3 9,5 7 0 2,,409,757 2,482,050 2,,556,512 2,633,207 2,,712,203 2,793,569 2,,877,376 2,963,698 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICI 31,26'Y(.) 1,002,793 1,,032,877 1,063,863 1,,095,779 1,128,652 1,,162,512 1,197,387 1,,233,309 1,270,308 1,,308,417 1,347,670 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROJECTS 65,62'Y(.) 9,329,383 9,,609,265 9,897,543 10,194,469 10,500,303 10,815,312 11,139,772 11,473,965 11,818,184 12,172,729 12,537,911 POLICE 62,9�93,374 66,643,363 69,445,105 72,319,470 75,320�,061 78,408,743 81,648,090 84,868,480 88,225,442 91,639,078 94,388,250 FIRE 33,055,258 34,516,650 36,148,00�7 37,150,475 38,166,592 39,191,500 40,237,679 41,227,647 42,272,838 43,301,909 44,600�,967 PUBLIC WORKS 54,481Y(.) 4,888,237 5,,,137,920 5,278,213 5,,,417,220 5,549,646 5,,,690,452 5,837,224 5,,,972,980 6,121,054 6,,262,580 6,450,458 RECREATION 5 3,7 1'Yo 11,303,651 11,642,760 1,1,99 2,04 3 12,351,804 12,722,358 13,104,029 1,3,49 7,15 0 13,902,065 14,319,126 14,748,700 15,191,161 LIBRARY 4,6,29'Y(.) 4,195,255 4,,321,112 4,450,746 4,,584,268 4,721,796 4,,863,450 5,0�09,353 5,,,159,634 5,314,423 5,,,473,856 5,638,071 GENERAL FUND TOTALS 150,016,522 156,849,974 162,939�,928 168,517,82,6 174,275,881 180,187,464 186,326,665 192,430,888 198,791,969 205,241,382 211,398,623 81 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 48 1. of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORN SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDIT] PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABL 1 2 FY2039 V 2 03 1 Fy 2032 F 1,2 0 '�'3 1"1"2 03 �"y 03 FV 2013,6 [�V 2037 1:' rla Household Population 0,2 15 4 2 0 6 3,,H44 15, 5 11)"1 �"1'50"H94, 1) AE �/'''I'� ,2 2 8 Employment Population(Per 16,77 o 1,7,01 17 J 0' Capita Equiv) '1 3 64 H 2 36� Total Population 3�`37�'12'12 6 9,16 3 6 i�1) 2,,,�3 Per Capita by Category: General Government 7 138, 7, 4,8; T4 7,6,0�8; 77 6 7,9' �8; 1 87 rl 18(02 '1 11,11 1,4 A6 I 4,H'2 Community Development 12 "LH,() 1 2 '1�','�,,44 1 77 Public Works/Engineering 5 6,3 17�1),2 0 65,21� 6 Community Services 2 61'H'6 64, �3 6 5:") 6 fi;A�8; 1)�87 7 42 Public Safetv: Police Services 27 6 0 6 0,3 2 2 37 6 94,2 4,1) �"KH!�;,94, I 6�('�2 5 3 Fire Services 1 0 4, '1 2,4, 04, 1,4 2 4,6 14 5 1; 11 '1 3,3 1 Animal Control Services I '11,51 1 1"7 '1"L 0�8; 123e', 'I"L �8; 1 0 0 -'1 3 2 Total Public Safety 17 84, Zi 2 '14 5,31 7 "1 67J,")0 1,7 2 4 91,2 0 Total General Fund Expenditures I�"i 9 $ 6 27, 2 1; zt'�''I $ 6�"`)1:1),0 2 1; 61)�,92 1; 7 0 9A 2 $ 2 7/[,`�"�A 0 Per Capita by Department: 01 City Council 2,56 $ "L 2,66 $ 'L7�3 2,80 "LK7 2,11�)4, $ 0 1) Boards&Commissions 0'0 o',o 0,0 1,�' o',o��� 0,0 1,�' o',o��� 0,0 0''0 0,()�11 1 City Clerk 4,16 2 6 4,37 "l,4,18 14,5 1) t� "l,11�)4, '1 '4,2 15 City Attorney 12�8'e3 '1 0�8; 1 4,0 '1 �3 1,4�07 11�"7 1 Administration 18,,,17 0 18,81 11),()�3 19,2 1, 9,72 1)6 1 1� Info Tech Services I 5�8'' T� J, �' '16,2 1(0"'41 1"A 1'7,5 1 3e,1, I Q 1�I' Human Resources 12 "3) '1'L 3 2 12A"�2 '1 3 1 5�8; 1 111)21 14,2 6 11 2 Finance I 16 A�8; 16 57 '16, �8; IT40 I �',��'7 1,,!';,'7�3 1 1'')1�0 Non-Departmental Animal Care Facility I I 3"�) '11,51 1 1"7 9 '1"L 0�8; 123e', 'I"L �8; 1 0 0 '1 3 2 Economic Development 67 0 9,2111 9,,,17 9,7 0 1)11�)4, '1 '1 c 1 0A,5' Planning&Building 11�)4, 0 2 0 4,41 4,('�3 Engineering/CIP Projects 6('�'7 2 4 "10 J)5, 1,04 2 0 6 4 11 Police 27 6 0 6 0,3 2 2 37 6 94,2 4,1) �"KH!�;,94, �,31,I 6�('�2 5 3 Fire 1'13 0 4, '1 2,4, 04, 1,4 2 4,6 14 5"A"'; I 1 5�3,3 I Public Works I'e,3 87 '19'16 1 2 0,11 2 0 11 2 1 A'A, "L I�8; 22�74 Recreation A"13 4 5,12 2 4, 49,7 2 5,'L 2 3 Library 16 4, .16,7 4 ITI'� I 18J) "!,;,4,,5 1 -'111),3�8; 1 87 General Fund Totals I�"i 9 $ 6 27, 2 1; zt'�''1 6�"`)1:1),0 2 1; $ 61)�,92 1; 7 0 9A 2 $ '72 6, 7/[,`�"�A 0 82 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 482 of 767 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,CALIFORN SELECTED,ANALYSIS-EXPENDITI PER CAPITA ASSUMPTIONS TABL 1 2 FY2039 V 2 03 1 Fy 2032 F 1,2 '�'3 1"1"2 03 �"y 03 FV 2013,6 [�V 2037 1:' I I � I I rla FULL FISCAL IMPACT-FORECA FY 2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 General Government 25,138,362 25,892,513 26,669,288 27,469,367 28,293,448 29,142,251 30,016,519 30,917,014 31,844,525 Community Development 4,440,70�8 4,573,930 4,711,148 4,852,482 4,998,056 5,147,998 5,302,438 5,461,511 5,625,357 Public Works/Engineering 19,558,020 20,144,761 20,749,103 21,371,577 22,012,724 22,673,106 23,353,299 24,053,898 24,775,515 Community Services 21,454,110 22,097,733 22,760,665 23,443,485 24,146,789 24,871,193 25,617,329 26,385,849 27,177,424 Public Safety: Police Services 97,219,89�8 100,136,494 103,140,589 106,234,807 109,421,851 112,704,507 116,085,642 119,568,211 123,155,257 Fire Services 45,938,99�6 47,317,166 48,736,681 50,198,781 51,704,744 53,255,887 54,853,563 56,499,170 58,194,145 Animal Control Sery 3,990,489 4,110,203 4,233,510 4,360,515 41491,330 4,626,070 4,764,852 4,907,798 5,055,032 Total Public Safety 147,149,382 151p563,863 156,110,779 160,794,103 165,617,926 170,586,464 175,704,058 180,975,179 186,404,435 Total General Fund Expencl 217,740,582 224,272,799 231,000,983 237,931,013 245,068,943 252,421,012 259,993,642 267,793,451 275,827,255 DEPARTMENT NAME CITY COUNCIL 902,239 929,306 957,185 985,901 1,015,478 1,,045,942 1,077,320 1,,109,640 1,1,4 2,9 2 9 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 16,713 17,214 17,731, 18,263 18,811, 19,375 19,956 20,5,55 21,172 CITY CLERK 1,443,057 1,,486,349 1,530,940 1,,5,76,868 1,624,174 1,,672,899 1,723,086 1,,774,778 1,828,022 CITY ATTORNEY 4,537,134 4,,673,248 4,813,446 4,,957,849 5,106,585 5,,,259,782 5,41,7,576 5,,,5,80,103 5,747,50�6 ADMINISTRATION 2,983,167 3,,072,662 3,164,842 3,,259,787 3,357,581, 3,,458,308 3,562,057 3,,668,919 3,778,9�86 INFO TECH SRVC,S 5,372,290 5,,,533,459 5,699,463 5,,,870,447 6,0 4 6,5 6 0 6,,227,957 6,414,795 6,,607,239 6,805,457 HUMAN RESOURCES 4,272,889 4,,401,075 4,533,108 4,,669,101 4,809,174 4,,953,449 5,102,053 5,,,255,114 5,412,768 FINANCE 5,610,872 5,,,779,199 5,952,575 6,,131,152 6,315,086 6,,5,04,539 6,699,675 6,,900,665 7,107,685 NON-DEPARTMENTAL - - - - - ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 3,990,489 4,,110,203 4,233,510 4,,360,515 4,491,330 4,,626,070 4,764,852 4,,907,798 5,055,032 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3,0�52,609 3,,144,187 3,238,513 3,,335,668 3,435,738 3,,5,38,810 3,644,9�74 3,,754,324 3,8 6 6,9 5 3 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICI 1,388,100 1,,429,743 1,472,635 1,,5,16,814 1,562,319 1,,609,188 1,657,464 1,,707,188 1,758,403 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROJECTS 12,914,048 13,301,470 13,700,514 14,111,529 14,534,875 14,970,922 15,420,049 15,882,651 16,359,130 POLICE 97,219,898 100,136,494 1,03,140,589 106,234,807 1,09,421,851, 112,704,507 116,085,642 119,5,68,211 1,23,1,55,257 FIRE 45,9�38,996 47,317,166 48,736,681 5,0,198,781 51,704,744 5,3,255,887 54,853,563 5,6,499,170 58,194,145 PUBLIC WORKS 6,643,9�72 6,,843,291 7,0�48,589 7,,260,047 7,477,849 7,,702,184 7,933,249 8,,171,247 8,416,384 RECREATION 15,646,896 16,116,303 16,599,792 17,097,786 17,610,719 18,139,041 18,683,212 19,243,709 19,821,020 LIBRARY 5,807,214 5,,,981,430 6,160,873 6,,345,699 6,5 3 6,0 7 0 6,,732,152 6,934,117 7,,142,140 7,356,40�4 GENERAL FUND TOTALS 217,740,582 224,272,799 231,000,983 237,931,013 245,068,943 252,421,012 259,993,642 267,793,451 275,827,255 83 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 483 of 767 RECLASS NON- RECLASS NON- FUNCTIONAL AREA RECONCILED PERSONNEL OPERATING INTERNALSERVICE AMENDED FY2019. ELIMINATION DEPARTMENTAL DEPARTMENTAL City 10 Year REVISED ITEMS TO PUBLISHED BUDGET SERVICES SUPPLIES&SERVICES UTILITIES OTHER CAPITAL XFERS OUT CHARGES 20 TOTAL ENTRY COSTS COSTS REVISED TOTALS TRANSFERS IN Model TOTALS General Government $ 15,592,728 $ 2,924,966 $ 20,259 $ - $ 123,915 $ $ - $ 18,661,868 $ $ $ 4S4,715 $ 19,116,S83 (956oO96) $ 18,160,487 Community Development 4,621,535 343,316 4,872 12,000 2,020 23,635 5,007,378 124,332 5,131,710 (1,923,648) 3,208,062 Public Works/Engincering 16o361o728 1,792,632 1,457,593 123,500 ISO,171 386,611 609o443 20o881o678 673,694 21,555,372 (7o687o75 1) 3SO,000 14,217,621 Community Services 10,814,949 1,185,597 2,881,712 81,300 2,523 - 324,262 15,290,343 208,562 15,498,90.5 - 15,498,90.5 Public Safety - 54o776o784 2o0I0o850 412o372 103,243 - - Io000,423 58o303o672 2,233o778 1,413,564 61,951,014 (587o640) 1,630,000 62,993,374 28o49IoI07 2ol3lo858 193o717 - - 62,326 955o878 31,834o886 703,874 32,538,760 (1,143o5O2) 1,660,000 33,055,2S8 Animml(:mj�cul Wr""Q�11:� 2,348,400 351,949 42,296 4,500 6,282 - 53,200 2,806,627 76,187 2,882,814. - 2,882,814. Non-Departmental (153,983) 1,668o697 3,984 4S4,622 - 42,207,075 - 44oI80o395 (36,767,3051 (2o233o778) (3,654,9291 1,524,383 (1,524o383) - - $ 132,853,248 $ 12,409,865 $ 5,016,805 $ 779,16S $ 2 B4,91 1 $ 4.2,656,012 $ 2,966,841 $ 196,966,847 $ (36,767,3LL $ $ - $ 160,199,54.2 $ (13,823,220L $ 3,640,000 $150,016,522 JADOPTED FY2019- IFT2019-20 20 ELIMINATION ENTRY AND 1ST PERSONNEL OPERATING INTERNAL SERVICE QUARTER RECLASS FOR City 10 Year REVISED DEPT DEPARTMENT NAME SERVICES SUPPLIES&SERVICES UTILITIES OTHER CAPITAL XFERS OUT CHARGES TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS POLICE SPREAD REVISED TOTALS TRANSFERS IN Model TOTALS 01100 CITY COUNCIL $ 1,4,56,659 $ 105,880 $ 1,307 $ $ 3,190 $ $ $ 1,567,036 4.0,857 $ 1,607,893 (956,096) $ 651,797 02000 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - 11,841 - - 11,841 233 12,074 12,074 03000 CITY CLERK 858,657 159,285 688 - 1,018,630 23,865 1,042,4.95 1,042,4.95 04-000 CITY ATTORNEY 20886o587 308o8OO 1,856 4,948 3,202ol9l 7S,531 3,277,722 3,277,722 OSOOO ADM[NIsTRA,nON 1,948,791 150,187 832 3,416 2,103,226 51,877 2,155,103 2,155,103 06000 INFO TECI I SRVCS 2o349o498 1,335o947 11,907 87,890 3,785o242 9S,815 3,881,OS7 3,881,OS7 07000 HUMAN RESOURCES 2,587,023 418,970 1,457 8,972 3,016,422 70,404. 3,086,826 3,086,826 08000 FINANCE 3o505o513 434oO56 2,212 IS,499 3,957o280 96,134 4,053,414 4,053,414 09000 NON-DEPARTMENTAL (153,983) 1,668,697 3,984 4.54,622 - 4.2,207,075 44,180,395 (36,767,305) (2,233,778) (3,654.,929) 1,524.,383 (1,524,383) - 10000 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 2o348o4OO 351,949 42o296 4,500 6,282 53o2OO 2,806o627 76,187 2,882,814 2,882,814 11000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1,977,144 168,422 2,497 - 1,520 2,14,9,583 55,686 2,205,269 2,205,269 12000 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES 2o6,44o391 174o894 2,375 12,000 Soo - 23o635 2,857o795 68,646 2,926,441 (1,923o648) 1,002,793 13000 ENGINEERING AND CIP PROjEcrs 7,229,662 366,083 863,671 108,500 10,000 386,611 144,695 9,109,222 220,161 9,329,383 - 9,329,383 14-000 POLICE 54o776o784 2,010o850 412o372 103,243 - - 1,000o423 58o303o672 2,233o778 1,413,564 61,951,014 (587o640) 1,630,000 62,993,374 ISOOO FIRE 28,491,107 2,131,858 193,717 - - 62,326 955,878 31,834,886 703,874. 32,538,760 (1,143,502) 1,660,000 33,055,258 16000 PUBLIC WORKS 9oI32o066 1,426o549 593o922 1s,000 140,171 - 464o748 11,772o456 4S3,532 12,225,988 (7o687o75 1) 3SO,000 4,888,237 17000 RECREA,riON 7,219,052 959,603 2,608,646 80,900 2,523 320,917 11,191,641 112,010 11,303,651 11,303,651 18000 LIBRARY 3o595o897 225o994 273oO66 400 - - 3,345 4,098o7O2 96,553 4,195,2SS - 4,195,2SS GENERAL FUND TOTALS $ 132,853,248 $ 12,409,865 5,016,805 $ 779,16S $ 284,911 $ 42,656,012 $ 2,966,841 196,966,847 (36,767,305) $ - $ - $ 160,199,542 (13,823,020) $ 3,640,000 150,016,522 8 A I+ 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 484 of 767 Appendix D Recent Industrial Sales Comparables 1vioss S I I I'll 11 1 85 202AY*W*AYaQJFckQjTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 485 of 767 cy) 0) 0) c 0 c c -a 0 co 0 co co 7C3 c c: — 0) 0) 0) C) 0 o a r- r- r- m 0 (D *7 (1) *c: (L) a) C) (n S co U) (1) U) :3 cn (1) V ' :3 :3 �:3 t -1 = IL) Lo o 03 5 cu o 0 0 Co L- = 7- M' M — r. Lo.— 4.1 1 ZZ 4— 4— �: 1= 40— o, M, (n Q) U) :3 (1) :3 (r) 0) :3 a) (1) U r- :3 L- = r- " r- �:3 " c: L- L- Ca -0 cu co C13 (v M c: W m m m M, rn m m w w w r'- �r-- r-- 4w, T- T- V- 'r- -r-- -r-- " -r-- -r-- -r-- T--- -r-- -r-- -r-- -r-- m C) CD o o o 0 "'�- o o o o o o o o z (o C Y') a) (y) C�Y-) 00 �r�- cy') 0 N cy'), (N I rT m CN N Lr) 0 U) T- V- 00 �r�- U') LO c") 0) r'-- v--- (3) 00 �LL U) Lo (c) 00 r- T- v- N Lo (c) I,-- co Lr) r'-- "r- (D CN C) qtzr 4�r L0 cy) 0') 00 L0, 00 Nr L0 CF) 0) CN 4�r 00 qtzr 4�r L0 T- 00 CN Lo (D CN tl U) CD Lo 00 (D (0 C> 4�r CN V- 4�r 00 T- cy-) c1r) Z -r-- CN4 N co 649� 64 C) C) CD, C) a) 0') C) C) C) C) C) C) C) CD, Q) C) CD C) L0 N 1*-- 0) C) C) CD C) C> C) C> CD 0 0 C) m �r�- N m 0 0 0� 0 L0 0 0 C) Lr) CD C) 00 (D cr) 0) C) C) CN (D (N Lr) Lo C) r�- L0 0 00 0) LO 0) Lo 0 (.0 LO Iq cq N 0 IL !E� ll� 0) (N 0) 0 Cy) N (.0 00 co N N cr) -r-- Wz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N CN CN C) c:) CY) W N N T- T- M 69. Q) ol 0-c", C) r- C) 0') r.L Z m 0 00 �r%_ Iq N 0) (01 �rl- 0 U') w LO 00 (Y) w co C) ['�- co c- r- C) 00 00 T- 0), 15 00 0) [*1- (3) CD (3) (3) (D (D C) G) M CD 0) ::) M M M N m 0 W (D (Y) p- 0 N �r-- 0) LO w P- Iq tr) r- M Iq M M Iq N qq IT qq (N IT N M U) Iq (D CD 6 c3 ci ci 6 b c3 ci c) 6 b 6 b c3 �U. 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 (0 N U') 0 0 0 Iq L0 0 C) 0') C) C) r-- L0 r-- (0 (Y) (�o CD N C) 0')� C) CD r- C-) �r-- 00 T- C) (7) 00 LO "tt 00 (D (D 00 CY) Lo �LL r-�' (6 C6 C6 cNi cr� r-- tzi cNf iLd & cr� C-4 tzi (vi 00) cy) p-- N C) (D� T- wo *.Woo cq CD Lo r- C) 4�r CC) 0') C) 4�r C-) C) I'-- CD M Nt LO v- r- N 4�t N M� "t- CO (D (D (0 (0 CN C) 16 .4 C) (Y) LO Nt (D (D 4-0 4-0 4" 4-1 0 0 0 4- 0 0 46� 4� 4-4 0 4-1 cn U) cn (/) 0) 0) 0) T) -T) C/) cl) C/) 0) (n D t5 > > (1) > > > L L co m m m m m r), m, m m, m 5 75 -5 '-5 -5 '-5 '-5 -5 '-5, -c -c C) m >% cu .r CO 4" j.." U) (n ry -1.4 0 4-0 '70 4-0 U), 0- co, U) 76 U) co m 0 cn U) (n Q) (n c Lzz c c: 0 U) co cu 4" (U 00 0 M m Q- 0 �LL 2i v 2 cil? (Y) () 2 (10 () 0 c- Lo �r-_ L0 U') 0 0 0) N 0 Iq 0 z 0 M, -r-- Lo' M 0 0 -r- 0 M O� Iq (D (D 0 P�- Lo U") Lo N U') ol U*) 0 m W IS- m 0 w w co CN CN co N co co (D r- 1'— (0 livoss 86, 2021;^*kWWYaWJFckQjTY NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Page 486 of 767 676 Moss Street—Proposed Gene�ra�l Pla�n Amend�ments 676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Development Plan, Tentative Majrj% Industr*tal Lands and Area of Change Analysts Prepared For: SLF-Moss Street, LLC Preparers: I N T E R N A, T 1 01 N A L 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92124 858.614.5000 www.mbakerintl,.com Contact.- Dan Wery, AICP, LEED AP JN 167467 Real Estale H Ali a nce,/Ec,'c',on onti CS De 'd'opmel'n't E'nti letu'ents k,0 si!'Min.O" 'D"' ('o rix slnnc Q�'56 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 630, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 424.297.1070 www.kosmont.com Contact.- Wil Soholt 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 487 of 767 676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment, Rezone, 0 Site Development Plan, Tentative Man lnd�ustrtal Lands and Area of Change Analysts Op Prepared For. SLF-Moss Street, L,LC Preparers: loll * I N T E R N A, T 1 0 N A L 9755, Clairemont Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92124 858.614.5000 www.m�bakerintl.com Contact: Dan Wery, AICP, LEED AP J N 167467 Real Estate Fli DeVILI'lopme,nt 0 S,Min 0'" DIII' E'n fill,le"I"ments !a 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 630 Manh�at,tan Beach, CA 90�266 424.297.1070 www.kosmont.com Contact: Wil Soholt May 2020 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 488 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's TABLE OF' CONTENTS INDUSTRIAL LANDS AND AREA OF CHANGE 1 Background and Purpose................................................................. 1 ProjectDescription....................................................................................................................I Process ......................................................................................................................................2 General Plan Policy Consistency................................................................................................2 Preservation of Industrial Lands................................................................................................3 Unique Circumstances and Limited Implications.......................................................................3 Minimal Effect on Industrial Jobs, Revenue, or Capacity...........................................................4 FiscalIm�pact Analysis................................................................................................................5 SignificantBenefit..................................................................................................................5 Jobs-Housing Ratio ................................................................................................................5 Industrial Redevelopment Scenario........................................................................................6 EMPLOYMENT LANDS ANALYSIS..............................................................................................6 SummaryFindings .....................................................................................................................6 Current Industrial Market Trends..............................................................................................7' Long-Term Industrial Market Demand ......................................................................................9 Industrial Employment............ 9 Industrial Employment Density............................................................................................11 Required Industrial Building Area ........................................................................................11 RequiredIndustrial Land......................................................................................................11 LSTREET TROLLEY.................................................................................................................. 12 Pol�icy, Process, and Criteria.....................................................................................................12 Project Consistent with Possible Trolley Uses .........................................................................13 TransitionalUse.......................................................................................................................13 CONCLUSIONS 14, REFERENCESemealoomeloomeloomelemosloomeloomeloomeleme0,0000,0000,0000,00ooloomeloomelemeo,omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�omme�om 15 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosn'1011, Pagei camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 489 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's LISTOF FIGURES Figure 1: Industrial Net Absorption, Net Deliveries, and Vacancy within C,ity of Chula Vista ......................7 Figure 2: Industrial Market Rent Growth within City of Chula Vista ............................................................8 Figure 3: Industrial Market Rent Per Square Foot within City of Chula Vista...............................................8 Figure 4: Past and Future Industrial Deliveries in Square Feet within City of Chula Vista ...........................9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Estimate of Land Acres Required to Support City of Chula Vista Industrial Demand..............................10 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Exhibits 1. Existing General Plan Designation 2. Project S,ite and Areas of Consideration 3. E and H Street Stations—Surrounding Land Uses 4. Area of Consideration with L Street Station 5. Bayfront Development Project 6. Ci'tywide Industrial Lands 7. Nearby Public Facilities Appendix B:Map of Traffic Analysis Zones Evaluated Appendix C: Projected Industrial and Office Development by TAZ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA1,1011"ari,, Page ii campli 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 490 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE SLF-Moss Street', LLC (applicant) is currently pursuing entitlements to facilitate the development of a residential community(project) on an approximately 6.9-acre site (site)at 676 Moss Street in Chula Vista, California (City). The purpose of this ana�lysis is to evaluate the proposed cha�n�ge in the General Plan land use designation and zoning from Limited Industrial (1-L) to Residential High (R-3), in the context of the, broader geogra�phic area and with respect to potential impacts on: Other industrial lands; The demand and capacli'ty of employment-centered land uses; The fisca�l health of the City; The existing and appropriate future uses in the area; and The potential for and implications of a new trolley station at L Street. In addressing these issues, this analysis evaluated the relative strength and value of the property and context of industrial lands;the fiscal impacts of the project;and the land use policy and compatibi'lity with existing and possible future land uses in the area. This analysis also included a detailed review of emplo�ym�en�t-centered land uses a�nd future dema�nd�s in the City.,The project is compatible with all existing and potential land uses, and neither induces nor precludes the conversion of adjacent industrial lands. The project will have a negligible effect on the citywide employment capacity, and the City will still h�ave more than 18 times the amount of industrially zoned lands of the 76 acres needed to meet future industrial demand projections in 20351 and nearly 9 times the amount of the 157 acres needed through 2050.' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is currently utilized for a variety of industrial u�ses including heavy equipment rentals, shipping container repair and storage, boat repair,and sandblasting material and equipment supply.The proposed project would redevelop the site with approximately 141 residential dwe�lling u�nits ranging in size from roughly 1,175 to 1,950 square feet. The �project's total value is estimated at approximately $77 million, and project co,nstruction is expected to support a total of 612 direct, indi'rect, and induced jobs. The project requires a General Plan Amendment and rezone to change the land use and zoning from Limited Industrial (I-L) to Residential High (R-3). Requested entitlements also, include Site Development Plan, Design Review, and Tentative Map approvals. 12,145 total acres—73,1 acres in use—7�rezoned to residential/Year 2035 demand of 7'6 acres,=18.,5x demand. 2 2,145 total acres—73,1 acres in use—7�rezoned to residential/Year 2050 demand of 157 acres�=8.9x demand. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 1 INTER N ATIONAL kos,11,1011"ari,, campli 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 49 1. of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's PROCESS This project evaluation followed that of the 2005 Chula Vista General Plan Focused Area of Changes.The recommended existing and proposed land uses and zoning were identified and evaluated for areas roughly within one-half mile of the project site,as well as the planned land use and zoning patterns around the three nearest trolley stations at Palomar Street, H Street, and E Street. Land uses in the study area were segregated into three categories:stable residential neighborhoods and nonresidential uses not likely to change, transitional areas, and potential areas of change. Most of the surrounding uses are, consistent with the proposed project and would not be susceptible to change. Surrounding uses incl�ude: Single-family and multi-famil�y residential neighborhoods Public facilities, such as schools and parks Recently approved or constructed development projects Recently re-designated and rezoned properties Narrow industrial lots (between Colorado Avenue and the railroad), specifically identified in the General Plan Currently vacant lands (between 1-5 and Industrial Boulevard) This resulted in a focus on the project site and the other properties zoned Industrial (I-L)within the b�lock. The series of seven exhibits in Appendix A identifies the project site in the context of the existing uses, General Plan land use designations, l�and uses not subject to change, use pattern�s around the E Street and H Street trolley stations, a potential L Street trolley station, the Bayfront Development Project, existing industrially zoned lands, and nearby public fac,ilities. Several of the exhibits have notations to explain the relevant issues and considerations included in this report. GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY In general, the revised General Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis demonstrates the project is consistent, with and implements all of the applicable General Plan policies, goals, and objectives. While the project appears contrary to Policy ED, 1.,3, which states "Encourage the preservation and expa�n�sion of existing industrial uses in areas designated as inclustrial," it meets the objectives of the policy to ensure the long-term fiscal health and economic vital�ity of the City.The project will: Generate more th�an $311,000 in net General Fund revenues to the City over a 20-year period. Replace an existing industrial use that loses money for the City each year�, forever, with a project that will be net positive in perpetuity. Enhance land use compatibility by removing an unattractive and blighted industrial use that diminishes the value of and investment in surrounding residential property. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 2 INTER N ATIONAL kos,11,1011", camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 492 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's • Clean up the site,which would likely be economically infeasible for industrial re�use. • Complete planned improvements including curb,sidewalks,and landscaping along Moss Street to the benefit of the entire neighborhood. • Contribute $1.35 million toward new and improved parks. • Contribute toward capital improvements in the neighborhood to reduce traffic throughout the neighborhood. Benefit businesses in the South Broadway Corridor by adding customers with�in a short walking distance. Locate higher density residential uses within high-quality transit corridors. Provide increased opportunities for homeownership. See Exhibits 1-3 of App�endix A related to the existi'ng and proposed changes to the General Plan land use. PRESERVATION OF INDUSTRIAL LANDS The project will have a minimal effect on the capacity for industrial development and the jobs-housing balance, will not induce or set a precedent for other conversio�n, and will result in significant net positive reven�ue to the City. The detailed Employment Lands Analysis prepared by Kosm�ont Companies a�n�d included in this report demonstrates the City's current,ly designated industrial land significantly exceeds the projected demand for inclustrial l�a�nds through a Yea�r 2050, horizon. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND LIMITED IMPLICATIONS The project site is different from most other industrially zoned lands in Chula Vista.The unique aspects of the site restrict and limit the implications of the proposed land use and zoning change to this property. The project site is surrounded by stable residential neighborhoods. It is one of the few industrially zoned properties in the City that has a traditional industrial use with heavy machinery, outdoor storage, and operations.These are the most noxious and least compatible uses for the adjoini'ng residential neighbors. Most other uses in the nearby industrial lands tend toward retail commercial operations. The few other industrial properties in the City that share more than one side with residential sites typically have uses that are indoor in nature and have substantial buffers or setbacks between the residential and inclustrial uses. The project site abuts a high-density residential apartment complex, and its frontage directly faces a neighborhood of' single-family homes. The residential surroundings limit the ability of the site to be converted to more intensive industrial uses because of the negative effects on air qual�ity, water qu�ality, and noise�. The project is not attractive for industrial investment and reuse because of the adjacent residential uses. The project site neither induces nor restricts conversion of adjacent industrial lands to residential or other uses., The property is physically independent of the other industrially zoned lands. It does not share or need access, utilities, or reciprocal easements. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 3 INTER N ATIONAL kos,11,1011"ari. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 493 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's The site has had little capital investment since construction in the 196,Os and appears to have reached the end of its useful life. The buildings are of little value for reuse due to their age a�nd simple construction. The rents and lease rates are toward the, low end of the range in Chula Vista and the region, with rents between approximately 1 and 6 dollars per square foot of building area, which is 7 percent to 43 percent 3 of the City average of 14 dollars per square foot of building a�rea. Industrial reuse of the site is likely to be economically infeasible due to site re,mediat,ion costs and because a major underground drainage,channel divides the property and poses limitations on site use. A more intensive industrial use would be incompatible with the residential neighbors, just as the existing use is. These factors make productive higher and better industria�l operations, un�reali'stic for the site., As discussed in the Fiscal Impact An�alysi's, the property would not be able to financially support industrial redevelopment.The proposed townhome condominiums are the highest and best use of the property. This boundary between residential and industrial uses does not logically extend farther than the project site. The inclustrially zoned sites between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5 are not attractive or suitable for new residential development. Like the adjacent lands along L Street to the north, they were developed more for commercial uses than traditional industrial use. The Sweetwater Unified School District property to the north was already considered for residential development well before and independent of any such consideration for the project site. The large, well-maintained buildings along L Street are occupied by viable commercial uses(Avis, Napa Auto Parts, Harbor Freight,.fitness center,,and office uses),which ma�kes them more expensive a�nd less attractive to redevelop. As su�ch, the unique aspects of the project site and its surroundings restrict and limit the imp�lica�tion�s of the, proposed land use and zoning change to this property. The proposed reside,ntial uses will positively contribute to community character, housing availability, and business vitality along Broadway. i MINIMAL EFFECT ON INDUSTRIAL JOBS, REVENUE, OR CAPACITY The proposed conversion of the 7-acre project site will have a minimal effect on industrial jobs, revenue, or capacity. It represents an i'nsignifi'ca�nt amount (0.37 percent) of the total 1,88,5 acres of lands zoned Limited Industrial in the City. Even the entire industrial node between L Street and Moss Street represents less than 2 percent of total industrially zoned lands.See Exhibit 6,Citywide Industrial Lands,in Appendix A. While the project would req�uire the existing operations to leave the site,that does not mean the relatively few jobs they generate would be lost. Rather,they could relocate nearby in the City. There is weak demand for i'ndustrial space in the immediately surrounding area as evidenced by the vacant industrially zoned l�and along Industrial Boulevard, the little or no capital investment in the subject property and surroundi'ng area, and the relatively low value of the few recent improvements. There are two vacant inclustrially zoned sites on the west side of Industrial Boulevard: a former amusement park and the former Toys "11" Us. One of the newest fa�cilities in the area is the self-storage facility on the 1.2- acre parcel between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard on the nort'h side of L Street. Another self- storage facil�i'ty is proposed for the former Toys "R" Us site.,The number and value of the jobs from these 676 Moss Street Rent Roll,, 2018; Employment Lands Analysis, Kosmont, 2020 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 4 INTER N ATIONA��L kos,11,1011", camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 494 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's properties is low., and self-storage doe�s not contribute meaningfully to the community through jobs, housing, or street activation. The new Bayfront Development Project will provide additional new, more competitive planned industrial land west of Interstate 5. This will likely further diminish the demand and value of the project site for inclustrial use. See Exhibit 5 in Appendix A for the relationship to the Bayfront Development Project. The new residents at the project site will help increase demand for and revitalize the commercial uses along the South Broadway Corridor by being within co�nvenient walking distance to neighborhood businesses. Furthermore, the new housing stock will be attractive to and support the future 2,000,jobs from the Bayfront Development Project. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Kosmont Companies is summarized below.The analysis,concludes the proposed residential condominiums would generate significant positive revenues for the City annually in perpetuity, whereas the existing industrial use creates a net fiscal deficit annually in perpetuity. S' fficant�Blenelf'it Ignt ( I The project will remove and replace the blighted site, and incompatible industrial uses with a $77 million investment in modern market-rate condominiums that will increase the value and quality of life for the neighboring residents and the entire neighborhood. As documented in the Fiscal Impact Analysis submitted separately, the project will generate a significant, positive net revenue of approximately $311,000 over a 20-year timeline. The existing inclustrial use creates an annual net fiscal deficit of approximately$1,300 to$1,80�0,for a cumulative average deficit of approximately$29,000 over a 20-year timelin�e. Compared to the existi'ng u�se�, the project will provide a $340,000 benefit to the City over 20 years, not including any additional fees or improvements. Combined with an estimated$1.35 million toward new parks and completion of the Moss Street frontage, sidewalks, curbi'ng, and landscaping,the project will have a significant long-term economic benefit for the immediate neighborhood and the City as a whole. Jobs-Housing Ratio, The site h�as less than 0.05 percent of jobs in the City, and the project would result in a 0.16 percent increase in housing un itS.4 It is likely that all or some of the current jobs would simply relocate to more appropriate and attractive available spaces nearby. In the un�likel�y worst-case scen�ario where the existing 37 jobS5 on the site are not relocated or replaced in the City, the project would still have an extremely small impact (0.2 percent), on the current jobs-housi'ng ratio. Further, new residents in the project will increase demand for more local employment and businesses, such as along South Broadway to the east. 4 Based on the SANDAG Regional Growth forecast of 821,146 civil�ian jobs and 88,186 hou�sinig units, in Chula Vista in 2020. 5 The businesses included up to 37 full time employees in January 2020 based on calls to each business: Hawthorne Equipment Rental (14);SW Mobile Storage(6); Rapid Prep/Boat repair(7)�; Kleen Blast(10). ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 5 I N T E R N ATIO N A��L kos,111011", camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 495 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's The 30 to 40 current jobs are insignificant compared to the 2,000 permanent jobs projected for the Bayfront Development Project. Hawthorne Equipment Rental pla�ns to move its operations to the former amusement park site on the east side of Industrial, so those 14 jobs will not be lost, but simply relocated a few hundred feet as a result of the project. Industrial Redevelopment Scenario The project site could not be,feasibly redeveloped for new industrial uses. Kosmont Companies evaluated the potential market value for the site and potential industrial uses that are allowed by the zoning, concluding the industrial condominiums represent the most valuable use of the site in an industrial redevelopment scenario. Based on anticipated construction and potential project sales prices, development of industrial condominiums is not feasible because the residual land value would be lower than the value of the existing land and improvements of the site. The most likely sce,nario if the, site remains industrial is an eventual sale and reassessment without additional improvements to the existing structures.The reassessment would lead to an increase in taxable value,creating a net revenue of approximately$155,000 over 20 years.,This is slightly less than half of the net reven�ue that would be generated by the proposed residential condominiums (approxim�ately $311,000). SUMMARY FINDINGS The proposed project would include the re�zoning of the site from Limited Industrial (I-L) to Residential High (R-3).The Employment Lands Analysis evaluates how rezoning could potentially impact the demand for industrial land within the City. An analysis, of San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projections of industrial employment within the City concludes that land currently des,ignated for inclustrial use�s within the City(2,145 acres) sign�ificantly exceeds the projected demand for industrial land through the 20�50 SAN�D�AG projection horizon (888 acres at a 0.4 floor area ratio [FAR]). The proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone wo,uld not impact the ability of the City to meet future clemand. While the property is not currently zoned for office use, the analysis concludes there may be a potential deficit in land designated for office uses in the City (160 acres) relative to the demand (205 acres at a 1.0 FAR) th�at may exist withi'n the 2050 SANDAG projection horizon. Th�is projected demand may be satisfied by greater development intensity (above 1.0 FAR) or the inclusion of and technological shifts in the office, market that drive reductions in space requirements per employee. Professional and administrative office uses are not allowed by the property's existing zoning, so the proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone would not affect available office lands in the City. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 6 INTER N ATIONAL kos,11,1011"ari. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 496 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's CURRENT INDUSTRIAL MARKET TRENDS Pursuant to data from CoStarl,the City's industrial market comprises approximately 9.8 million square feet of building area (gross internal area) as of Yea�r 2020.The vacancy rate for industrial properties in the City is approximately 4.6 percent, and market rents average approximately$14.00 per square foot.,Year over year (2019 versus 2020),, industrial vacancy has increased by 1.1 percent, driven by negative absorption of 113,0�00 square feet, while rent has increased by 4.6 percent. New b�uilding deliver�ies, including the Otay River Business Park, are expected to add approximately 178,000 industrial square feet within the next two years.As illustrated in Figu�re 1,Industrial NetAbsorptio�n, Net Deliveries,and Vacancy within City of Chula Vista, vacancy in the City is lower than in the greater San Diego market, though projections suggest industrial vacan�cy will increase with�in both the City and the greater San Diego ma�rket in the next few years. FIGURE'k INDUSTRIAL NET ABSORPTION, NET DEI JVERIES,,AND VACANCY WITHIN CITY OF CHIJI-A VISTA 2,50 8% Forec,ast '71% 2,00, (J) 150 6% 5% 1,00 N gym VON- 'Jill fff 4% 5,0 f ji, 04 01 31% 70 %tool �.5,0 2% 1-0 0, .......... 1,5 0 1............... L-4............ ................... .......... ............4, 2,014 2015, 2016, 2017 2,018 20 19 20,20 2021 2022 2023 N e t A�b si oil��r p t i o n Ne�t Deliveries Vaciancy San Diego Vacancy Sou�rce:CoStar,20,20, ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... INTER N ATIONAL kos Page 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 497 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's As illustrated in Figure 2, Industrial Market Rent Growth within City of Chula Vista, inclustrial rent growth has been reasonably strong over the last six years, ranging from roughly 4 percent to 8 percent,tho,ugh it is pr�ojected to decrease in the near future. FIGURE 2.-IM)USTRIAL,MARKET RENT GROWTH wrrHIN CITY OF CHULA VISTA 9 1310 Forecast 8% fpfoi:W 7% liffffffffffff Alp lif 16% 5% 4% 3% ik Okf 2% .......... % 0% 2 011�4 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20,21 2022 211,023, Specialized Industrial Logistics F I e x Chtfl,a ViSta Sian Diego Source:CoStar,2020, As illustrated in Figure 3, Industrial Market Rent per Square Foot within City of Chula Vista., rent growth has, resulted in average industrial rental rates within the City growing from approximately$10 per square foot in 2014 to approximately $14 in 2020. Flex inclustrial and the broader San Diego m�a�rket have commanded rents roughly 40 percent and 20 percent higher, respectively, than the City average., F-)GURE 3.INDUSTRIAL MARKET RENT PER SQUARE 1'---"00TwrrHIN CITY OF CHULA VISTA $22 1 I F'orecast $20 /Oo $18 $16 $14 ,urow- Aw1wo Oil, 0, $12 /00 "fif..............vo,"01"i 'alovom, $10 .11"poompfollff'sIM, $8-4--J--- 20 14 ,21015 2016 2110 17 20 18 2019 2020 2021 2022 20,23 E .13peciahzed Industrial Logistics Fl�ex, C h!u I a V i sta 01 1 Diego Source:CoStar,2020, ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... INTERN ATIONAL kos Page 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 498 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's As previously stated, it is anticipated approximately 178,000 square feet of industrial space is expected to be delivered in the City within the next two years. As illustrated in Figure 4, Past and Future Industrial Deliveries in Square Feet within City of Chula Vista., substantially all of this additional space is currently expected to be delivered in mid-to late- 2020. , a FIGURE*PAST AND FuTURE INDUSTRIAL DELIVERIES IN S�QUARE FEET WITHIN CITY OF CHULA VISI-A 200,0 0 0 ...... .................. ............................. ........ .............. �F lut u re "10 0 0 0 0....——— ...... ..... ............. ......... ....... ....... IM11))HU)"MI)MMA WA111)"OURM MINA11)), R)l ININVOI)MI11)",10i"UH,W"UHUNA1111)) W"UNT4 RIWNUHWW)A�)URIVRI MIN)MIN)MAIMM loiiiiw,MINAIN)MAIMM )VIN)"WRO11)"1111101)",H111010),H)IMN WA1111 10)"), IMMA W11PRill"MINAII)PPIU)"N'ZONE 11JI'ViAN)MR)"M NRiiii,W/Ml HOW AUJIM)MON)AP JAW11)))VIN)'Mil, ......................................A........................I............................................... ......................6......................A, ..................... 1 41,11,11,11111,....................... 2017 2018 2019 2020 20201 Proposed AH-rftne Average Source:CoStar,2020, LONG-TERM IND,U�STRIAL MARKET DEMAND, A determination on the sufficiency of existing industrial zoned land in the City was completed by evaluating the following: Industrial Employment: Long-term industrial employment within the City as projected by SANDAG for 2020, 2035, and 2050. Industrial Employment Density: Existing industrial building area (square footage) that currently supports the existing industrial employment. This es,tim�ates the average amount of industrial biuilding area required for each industrial employee. Required Industrial Building Area: The required amount of industrial building area (square footage),to support future industrial employment. Required Industrial Land: The land area required to construct the projected amount of required industrial building area. Industrial Employment Analyzing future industrial demand utilized SANDAG estimates of current and future industrial employment in the City.Aggregation of projected manufacturi'ng jobs,wholesale jobis,and transportation and warehousing jobs for SAN�D�AG Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), within the City identified the projected industrial jobs(see Appendix B and Appendix C).This analysis suggests there are currently 8,990 industrial jobs in the City, and there are projected to be 9,944 industrial jobs in 2035, and 11,204 industrial jobs in 2050 (refer to Table 1, Estimate of Lands Required to Support City of Chula Vista Industrial Demand). ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 9 INTER N ATIONA��L kos,11,1011", camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 499 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's TABLE 1: ESTIMATE OF LAND ACREs REQUIRED TO SUPPORT CITY OF CHULA VISTA INDUSTRIAL DEMAND 2�020 2035 2050 Industrial Employment in Cityl 8,990 91944 11,204 1 Required Industrial SF 9,378,220 10,373,417 11,687,828 2 Assumed Vacancy 4.6% 7.0% 7.0% 3 Required Industrial SF w/Va�cancy 91,830,419 11,154,212 12,567,557 4 1 ncrease i n SF f rom 2020 Su pp�ly 1,3231793 217'371138 General Plan Industrial Acresi 21,145 21145, 21145 AN DAG Estimated of'Current Acres 731 731 731 5 Required Acres at 0.40 FAR 76 157 6 Tota I Re q u i�r�e d Acre s 731 807 888 Required Industrial Acres at FAR 2020 2035 2050 7 0.25 852 9�82 0.40 807 888, 0.5�5 786 845 Surplu�s Industrial Acres at FAR 2020 2,035 2050 0.25 11293 1�163 0.40 1,338 11257 0.55 11359 11300 Effective Building SF/Job 11043 8 Current Inventory FAR 0.31 91 1. Source:SAND�AG Series 12 2050 Regional Growth Forecast;manufacturing jobs,wholesale jobs,and transportation and warehousing jobs. 2. 2020 inclustrial building inventory from CoStar(20,20)�.Required squaire feet util�izes existing emiployment density as of 2020(1,043 square feet per industrial employee)on a go forward basis to estimate future square foot demand based on industrial employment growth. 3. Existing industrial vacancy is 4.6%(CoStar);7%utilized as a stabilized figure in the future from 2012 AECOM Analysis. 4. Projected industrial employees multiplied by 1,043(square feet),plus 7.0%vacancy factor. 5. SANDAG 20�10 existing inclustrial land area. 6. Projected increase in required industrial building area divided by square feet in,an acre(43,560),divided by 0.40 FAR. 7. The range of FAR reflects the range given in the City's General Plan. 8. 2020 inclustrial building inventory divided by 2020 estimate of industrial employees. 9. 2020 industrial building inventory divided by square feet in an acre(43,560),divided by SAND,AG 2010 estimate of existing industrial land area. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 10 INTER N ATIONA��L kos,11,1011"ari,, campli 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 500 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's Industrial Employment Density Leased industrial building area divided by the current estimate of employees in industrial sectors gives the estimate of current employment density. This yields an average of 1,043 square feet of industrial building area per employee. For r�eferencel, in 2012, AECOM prepared a Cumulative Employment Lands and Fiscal Impact Analysis (2012 AECOM Analysis) in which an assumption of 900 square feet per employee was used. Although the 2012 AECOM Analysis estimate is reasonable, the more conservative estimate, of 1,043 square,feet per employee is used herein as it assumes more industrial building area is required per employee in current and future demand estimates. The current employment density of the project site is approximately 1,225 square feet of building area per employee,which is roughly 17 percent lower than the conservative estimate and 36 percent lower than the 2012 AECO�M Analysis. ReqWlred Industrial Building Area The building area required for each employee (1,043 square feet) multiplied by the estimated number of industrial employees in 2035 and 2050 gives the estimate of requ�ired inclustrial building area�. Including a stabilized vacancy factor of 7 percent (carried over from the, 2012 AECOM Analysis), the City will require approximately 11.2 million and 12.6 m�illion square feet of inclustrial building a�rea in 2035 and 2050, respectively. This represents an increase of approximately 1.3 million and 2.7 million square feet over' cu�rrent inventory levels (refer to Table 1)1. ReqWlred ln&strial Land A higher FAR decreases the amount of land needed to support the required industrial building area,while a lower FAR increases the amount of land req�u�ired. This analysis used a FAR of 0.40 to estimate the amount of industrial land area required to support the estimated increase in industrial building area. For reference, the 2012 AECOM Analysis al�so used a 0.40 FAR for General Industrial, though a 01.50 FAR was used for Research/Limited Industrial in that analysis., Based on current building profiles, the 0.,40 FAR appears appropriate as a general assumption, and it yields a demand for 76 additional acres of industrial land in the City by 2035, and an additional 157 acres by 2050. Based on SAND�AG a�n�alysis, a�pproximately 731 acres of industria�l property were in u�se in the City a�s of 2010. Given the current inventory of approximately 9.8 million square feet of industrial building area within the City (and assuming no significant ch�ange in industrial l�a�nd area between 2010 and 2020), the current inventory of industrial building area has a FAR of approximately 031. This is reflective of the historically lower bu�il�ding intensity per acre of land than currently seen in the new bui'ld/go for�wa�rd industrial m�arket. For referen�ce, if the existing industrial building area (currently developed at a 0.31 FAR) is redeveloped at a higher FAR, the existing industrially developed land area would support additional industrial building area. With the existing inventory of' 731 acres and the demand for 76 and 157 additional acres by 2013,5 and 2050, respectively, the total amount of industrial land required within the City is estimated to be approximately 807 acres for 2035 and 888 acres for 2050. Pursuant to the City's General Plan,the City has 2,145 acres of industrially designated land.Thus,as shown in Table 1,there is currently a surp,lus of more than 1,200 acres of industrially designated land at the 2050, ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... JA Page 11 INTER N ATIONA��L kos,11,1011", camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 5 0 1. of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's horizon on the analysis.As such,this analysi's concludes there is more than an adequate supply(8.91 times the estimated demand') of industrially zoned land within the City. The City requested an evaluation for the potential for and land use impacts of a new trolley station at L Street.,This analysis considers the process and factors that go into a new statio�n, including the land use implications. Ultimately, the project is an attractive,, appropriate transitional use between the existing uses on L Street and a�n�y likely uses in the event an L Street station is desirable. POLICY, PROCESS,AND CRITERIA While a new station at L Street is not beyond consideration, the planning process is complex, long term, and requires extensive long-range (often decades) planning on behalf of the City, SAND,AG, and Metropolitan Transit System (MTS)l. Such a process is beyond the means, timeline, and responsibility of the applicant of a relatively small development project. L Street is roughly midway between the existing Blue Line trolley statio�ns at Palomar Street and H Street and approximately one-quarter mile north of the project site.The project is approximately 0.6 miles from the Palomar Street station and approximately 1 mile from the H Street station to the north. The E Street, H Street, ancl Palomar Street trolley stations each required significant capital investments and transportation improvements with long-term planning and coordination with MTS and SANDAG.The areas around each station con�tai'n and/or are planned for intensive development, revitalization, and redevelopment. These are reflected in the existing Downtown Third Avenue, Chula Vista, and Broadway Activity Centers in the Urban Core north of the project and the Palomar Gateway and West Fairfield Districts to the so�uth. Numerous plan�n�ing documents were evaluated for guidance regarding a potential station at L Street., These included multiple SANDAG and MTS plans, guides and studies, the Chula Vista General Plan, Bayfront Development Master Plan, and the 2012 a�nd 2017 Blue Line station studies by T.Y. Lin for the City. There is no existing policy that recommends, suggests, or supports a new trolley station at, L Street,, The complete lack of any mention of an L Street tr,ol�ley in all studies and l�ong-ter,m transportation planning documents suggests sign�ificant constraints and limitations preclude such consideration. Consultation with SAND,AG and MTS indicated any consideration of a new trolley is the responsibility of and requires very long-range and complex review and coordination with MTS, SANDAG, and the City, not a project applicant. Each noted there is no fixed process or criteria for construction of a new station; however, consideration generally involves a cost-benefit analysis based on ridership, land use, construction, operational maintenance impacts, and costs. 6 2,145 total acres — 731 acres in use — 7 rezoned to residential = 1,4017 surplus acres. 1,4017 surplus acres/2035 demand of 76 acres= 18.5x 2035,demand. 11407 surplus acres/2050 demand of 157 acres=8.9x 2050 demand. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... JA Page 12 INTER N ATIONA��L kos,11,1011", camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 502 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's Initial reactions from both SANDAG and MTS suggested a new station at L Street would not be likely based on the following constraints: The Blue Line is already at or near capacity on many trips. There is little room on the trains for new riders cluring peak hours. A new station would add delays to the existing ridership. Significant constru�ction, operational, mainten�ance, and security costs a�re not l�ikely to be recovered. The 2017 study indicates the cost for grade-separated trolley stations at E Street and H Street is roughly$40 m�il�lion ea�ch. That cost jumps to an estimated $270 million combined for the E Street and H Street stations if grade separation of heavy rail is included as preferred by the City. By means of comparison, MTS noted other at-grade stations currently under consideration have significantly more capacity for expanded ridership and far greater development density, yet are still not proving economically feasible. The Mid-Coast extension is expected to increase demand and capacity challenges on the Blue Line. PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH POSSIBLE TROLLEY USES It is noted that i'n the event a new station is deemed appropriate, the proposed Residential High land use and R-3 zone are consistent with the patterns used around the E Street and H Street trolley stations.The density exceeds the minimum 18 dwell�i'ng un�its per acre for urba�n a�reas cited in the SIDIVITS D�esigningfor Transit and the 20 dwelling units per acre cited in the,SANDAG Transit Oriented Commun�ities. Residential High (R-3) is located adjacent to Mixed-Use Commercial and Transit Focus Area and within one-h�alf block of both stations. See Exhibit 3, E and H Street Stations—Surrounding Land Uses, i,n Appendix A. Although L Street is on the extreme southern edge of the Urban Core, a similar pattern of Mixe�d-Use Transit Focus Area and/or Commercial designations could be applied to properties on L Street.There are, however, single-fam�il�y neighborhood�s on the north side that are un�likely to change. The proposed Residential High (R-3)would be a seamless transitional use and density between any such uses,on L Street and the stable single-family residential uses south of Moss Street. More intensive mixed-use transit or commercial uses on Moss Street would not be compatible based on the limited size and capacity as a two- lane, Class III Collector, non-Circulation Element road. See Exhibit 4. Area of Consideration with L Street Station, in Appendix A. TRANSITIONAL USE The proposed project is consistent with and is the most a�ppropria�te tra�nsitional use between the exi'sting residential and industrial uses. As noted above, it is also consistent with the possible future redevelopment of the industrial lands to the north, in�clu�ding u�ses consistent with a L Street trolley (L Street Area). The project neither induces nor restricts the existing or future use of the adjacent sites. Rather, it reflects the logical land use and zoning that would be applied in the absence of the legacy inclustrial uses on the property. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... JA Page 13 INTER N ATIONA��L kos,11,1011", camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 503 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's The project would have the same zoning as the adjacent multi-family project to the east. Its redevelopment with townhouse condos will not create a new or inappropriate land use or zoning relationship., The project would simply extend the boundary between the Residential High (R-3), and Limited Industrial (I-L) several hundred feet to the west. Simultaneously, the project would, consistent with best planning practices, create an identical land use and zoning relationship on both sides of Moss Street. This would improve the land use pattern and relationships along Moss Street. It is a logical extension that removes an awkward and incompatible situation and does not logica�ll�y extend beyo�nd the project site. See Exhibit 4,,Area of Consideration with L Street Station, in Appendix A. The industrially zoned sites between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5 are not attractive or suitable for new res,idential development. Like the adjacent lands along L Street to the north,they were developed more for commercial uses than traditional industrial. The large, well-maintained buildings along L Street are occupied by viable commercial uses (Avis, Napa Auto Parts, Harbor Freight,fitness center, and office uses),which make them more expensive and less attractive to redevelop. Overall', the �pr�oject strengthens and enhances the character of the existing residential neighborhood on Moss Street by removing incompatible, and blighted industrial uses. It is consistent with any future uses associated with a possible future L Street trolley station. is, TAPS Em The project will neither induce nor prevent potential future uses of other industrial lands in the area. It will generate a signifi'cant positive annual revenue for the City in perpetuity. Redevelopment of the site for a more intensive industrial use is not feasible.The best prospect for maximizi'ng tax revenue from the property as zoned would generate less than one-half of the projected net positive revenue as the proposed project. It will not materially affect the jobs-housing balance, nor the available lands to meet future industrial demand. It wil�l contribute positively to the community character of southwest Chula Vista by enhancing the existing residential neighborhood and supporting the future Bayfront Development Project. It is consistent with a�nd im�plemen�ts the policies and goals of the General Plan. Finally, it i's a�n appropriate transitional use between the existing and possible future uses of adjacent lands,, including the possible future uses associated with a new trolley station at L Street. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 14 INTER N ATIONAL kos,11,1011"ari,, campli 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 504 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Rezone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's AEC,OM, 2012. City of Chula Vista Employment Lands Analysis City of Chula Vista, O�ctob�er 2015. General Plan: Vision 2020 City of C,hu la Vista, Municipal Code, Chapter 19, Planning and Zoning. 2'020 Kosmont Companies, 2020. 676 Moss Street Fiscal Impact Analysis Kosmont Companies, 2020. City of Chula Vista Employment Lands Analysis Metropolitan Transit System�, 2018. Designingfor Transit Michael Baker International, 2020. 676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis Michael Baker International, 2020. 676 Moss Street General Plan Amendment Justification Report San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2010.Series 12.-2050 Regional Growth Forecast. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2014. Transit Oriented Communities in the San, Diego Region:Context Report T'.Y. L i n I n t e r n a t i o n a 1., 2 0 12. Ch ula Vista L igh t Rail Corridor Imp�ro vem en ts Project Study Report T'.Y. Li n I n te r n a t i o n a I 1 2 0 17.Ch ula Vista L igh t Rail Corridor Imp�ro vem en ts Fin a/Sup�plem en tal Project Study Report ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Page 15 INTER N ATIONAL kos,11,1011"ari,, campli 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 505 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Change Analysi's AppcA%ndix A: Exh*lb*lts EXHIBITS. 1. Existin�g General Plan Designation 2. Project Site and Areas of Consideration 3. E and �H Street Stations,—Surrounding Land Uses 4. Area of Consideration with L Street Station 5. Bayfront Project 6. Citywide Industrial Lands 7. Nearby Pub�lic Facilities ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA Appendix INTER N ATIONAL kos,nlollarj. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 506 of 767 C3Project Site LIN Area of Consideration Project Site General Plan Amendment Shopoff Realty Investments proposes an amendment to the City of Chula Vista's General Plan to allow development of a new condominium complex on a degraded 7-acre limited industrial site at T- 676 Moss Street(Project Site). The general plan amendment will convert the land use designation on the Q Project Site from Limited Industrial to High-Density Residential(R-3). Area of Consideration Adjacent to the project site is an area of approximately 30 acres of limited industrial land(Area of Consideration). Most of the Area of Consideration is owned by the Sweetwater Union I-lighschool District,and is developed with a mix of industrial,commercial, and office uses. In the future the Area of Consideration may have potential for redevelopment and conversion to more intensive residential or commercial uses.Most existing structures and uses would need to be removed from the Area of Consideration.for significant redevelopment to be viable. The 676 Moss StreetProject does not PROJECT propose to change any land uses in the Area of Consideration.This analysis was conducted to evaluate the compatibility of the project with both existing and potential.uses in the Area of Consideration.The project E is highly compatible with both the existing industrial uses and potential cornmercial,residential,or mixed uses. P w M 5 X L) 1""l t i I a i s t a /2",W, ��"011014?1)1 4 C3 z 0 500 676 MOSS STREET Michael Baker 0 1 Feet Existing General Plan Designation I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Source:Chula vista Open GIS Portal Exhibit 1 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 507 of 767 MProject Site Area of Consideration Not Subject to Change Limited Industrial Low to Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Use Residential $�n P -�ect to Change Not Su' 1�� - Naturally affordable housing - Stable Neighborhoods - New Development - Industrial uses west of Colorado Ave. - Mixed Use Residential along Broadway Area of Consideration Potential uses for the Area of Consideration include: - Limited Industrial(existing) - High Density Residential - Urban Core Residential - Mixed Use Residential - Mixed Use Commercial - Mixed Use Transit Focused Area 676 Moss Street�Project - Creates consistent and balanced residential land uses on both sides of Moss Street from Broadway to Colorado Avenue. 0 Strengthens and enhances the character of the existing residential neighborhood on Moss Street by removing incompatible and blighted industrial uses. - Is compatible with: o Existing light industrial uses in the Area of Consideration. o Existing light industrial uses at 694 E Moss Street. o Potential high density residential, V 'a urban core,transit-focused mixed use,and commercial visitor uses in the Area of Considerati( Neither requires nor precludes redevelopment in the Area of Consideration. M Preserves industrial uses west of T, 5 Colorado Avenue. A X Invests millions of dollars into an Ln undcrutilized and blighted property, Provides a logical land use transition 2 and buffer from low-medium density V L) residential south of Moss Street.'rhe .1 roject would buffer homes south of C,1""l t i I a I s t a Moss Street from: o Existing limited industrial uses in the Area of Consideration. o Any potential urban core, transit focused,or commercial z development in the Area of Consideration. 0 500 676 MOSS STREET Michael Baker 0 1 Feet Project Site and Area of Cons id lunration I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Source:Chula VIsta Open GIS Portal Exhibit 2 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 508 of 767 Existing Stations �RLM gp WE=I %MMMI Existing Station Quarter Mile Radius 14 31" RLM All LM R UR E Street Station C '000 $0 7, RM M MUR General Plan Land Use Designations surrounding the E Street Station f include: V W Jigh Density Residential I U M - Mixed UseTransit Focus Area ",Ii,If OSP RLM", k,f, ,/,III, C C) I - Urban Core Residential f Commercial Visitor MIN Open S,pace f Mixed Use Commercial 0 Public/Quasi-Public V "N MUR Residential Medium I figh Density RMR,,� Commercial Retail M!W ........... M U H Street Station p, 1,0�A UR ...... 'C General Plan Land Use Designatioi s "y -1 Street Station surrounding the I include: 0S Residential High Density /7, hv, C R M Mixed Use Transit Focus Area LM - Urban Core Residential. * Commercial Visitor gf Industrial fool Open-Space 0 VWX P 0S Mixed Use Commercial ............... MEN, Public/Quasi-Public 12 5, 0 UR Y Imp ications on 676 Moss Street Project 0 0S The High Density Residential C 0 1 L designation proposed for the project co OSP site is reflective of comparable land C W rg,g I uses within a quarter mile of the L and RIP, H Street Trolley Stations.If an L Street CR,,,L M Station was proposed or desirable, the proposed condominiums at 676 1011 f� �RM A Moss Street would complement and N 115 viability of the station. strengthen the E U C The high density residential would be P, compatible with other potential transit- 01, pp, supportive uses,such as Mixed Use 11 JJJJJ �fj R Transit Focus,Urban Core Residential, M, and Commercial Visitor. MUR E 5 MUC 0 , \ co, X L RLM 3/1 I'l t i I a i s a 17"' W UG) RLM ........... UR MURM CR z C, RLM LM I h,U I a J�,Hlh f'%,fJ",, RLM,"W'-, J"f W U, 11111i.,�tolil/ 0 500 676 MOSS STREET Michael Baker Feet E and H Street Stations - Surrounding Land Uses I IN T E R IN A T 1 0 N A L Source:Chula VIsta Open GIS Portal Exhibit 3 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 509 of 767 MProject Site Area of Consideration Not Subject to Change Limited Industrial Low to Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Use Residential T L A 0 0 Potential L Street Station Potential Station 1/4 Mile Radius L-Strieet Station The project would neither require nor preclude the construction of a new f MTS trolley station at the intersection of Industrial Boulevard and L Street. Existing residential-uses north of L Street may need to be redeveloped with higher density residential or mixed use commercial to create densities and intensities necessary to s-upport an L Street Station. PENN,,, The industrial property along the west side of Industrial Boulevard is not suitable for new residential uses due to the limited vehicular and pedestrian access and proximity to Interstate 5. 676 Moss Street Project 'j" The high density residential condominiums at 676 Moss Street are compatible with neighboring uses both with or without an L Street Station. The project would meet SANDAG minimum density requirements(20 du/ac)necessary to support a trolley station. E 676 Moss Street is not ideal for Urban Core Residential or Mixed Use V Residential because Moss Street is a two lane,Class III Collector with no room for expansion.These uses �4 along Moss Street would necessitate significant right-of-way improvements and street widening to create appropriate vehicle accessibility. M J,g 1101 5 Additionally,Urban Core or Mixed X Uses could overwhelm the existing Ln s low-medium residential developments, Very high density uses(Urban Core) 2 would be better suited along L Street, which has sufficient street width and infrastructure to support densities 1""l t i I a I s t a greater than 27 du/ac. S,ANDAG ce A conversation with SANDAG indicated that adding a new trolley z station is a highly involved,complex process.MTS may not have capacity J011 for a new station due to high existing ridership levels on the Blue Line. 0 500 676 MOSS STREET Michael Baker 0 1 Feet Area of Consideration with L-Street Station I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Source:Chula VIsta Open GIS Portal Exhibit 4 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 5 10 of 767 C, 0 0 P Q, INN kn�g, el tA oil 00 PON PON q 1,-dk�,(- I L V -5 AWP I,Id f I A A 7 ChulaVista I lh��I A A, I Ilk,rl� W, W IN Al 00 grq- W t-Ip, WR A 0, `0 IS iw�"n ly 14f; Ogg "In"I'lI 6[1 blik, P qdi-, hw h 'J, WHO R on 0 N I (4 0 Oqi W/�,�Junjoi @ h h'v,d g, 4 Ulf U) h WIT 01, �S "'A C', rh ti Inp I A 15 ve A "W J k-v, 0, 0 f"A "I V/1 f,,A[Iipf�ot 0� LAI(,n i U,�III/, S� ho,(A so to rA �,0000 0 !"n "N C', �'O atr, W'01 -k WAX, r10 Q AL 5 I IV/ N I IN ruf rr I f k,I 119 np M *%eo 3 1,4 E N TZ N. U, Ilk 7� 0 t� Q, IT M E Ilk, r > eg effl, "Y' Q "luill P"I A Al I/W FIN, 1714 X L,,,i F,,",r e �,,i J # 112 10 ION p, [i I I zt vi�t Cf) 'A 01 0 7 1, ff Y,...... as as W so f 'A" on, ,k �1�, < /g, Harbor Side A Area of Consideration Bayfront Project 676 Moss Street,Project L Street Station Project Site The Chula Vista Bayfront project will create: The 676 Moss Street Condominiums would The southern quarter of the Bayfront Project is Potential L Street Station - 275,000 square foot convention center complement the Bayfront project by adding new unlikely to create enough jobs to independently - 1,600 Tesort-hotel rooms residential units close to a major employment area. support an L Street Station,as the highest intensity The portion of the Bayfront closest to the project site retail.and employment is based around H Street, Potential Station 1/4 Mile Radius- 200 acres of open space 0 6,000 construction jobs is proposed for industrial,recrea.tio.i-La.1 and open- which is already served by a trolley station.The Existing Stations - 2,000 permanent jobs space uses. addition of a new station would require negotiations IMMEN Ing Station 1/4 Mile Radius - 475 million dollars in yearly revenue between the City of Chula Vista and SANDAG. Exist 676 MOSS STREET --------------------------------------------------- 0 0.25 0.5 Michael Baker: Miles BAYFRON�T PROJECT I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Source:Chula Vista Open G IS Portal Exh,ibit 5, 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 511 of 767 0001 e Project Site C3 Area of Consideration '/,/......................... C3 Industrial Corridor "1111�1,1^le., 400- City Lirnit 1,0 1? '? General Plan Industrial 41 /0 CODE 10/0011/1/// IL 'owwot, q,�voo RTP m J The 1-5 Industrial Corridor contains roughly 470 acres of industrial land. 141 /)rAl -5 INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR ........... .........."",","a/w/ "o, 0 17'........... oir '11 lxlell /0 "Oe <11,51�-ZA 1,11.......... f"W".0e 1)�1111111111............. ,001.11 00/0111 ?0 '0 0,00 v l t 0500 676 MOSS STREET Michael Baker Feet Citywide Industrial Lands I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Soume:Chula Vista Open GIS Portal Exhibit 6 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 512 of 767 Pjrgylo tt, > ar 'T IIC, J1-1 Project Site Ile, 001/0 0000, 1 q 9% i, googno St A %Area of Consideration to ISO FE 7 e', 0` 4 r1J cop/00/0 I Facilities and Services 1P Sc hoo I EducaWnal I gi NIP C boa mu C en r Aeo, ...... C o m m e r c i a I C e n t e r P k KIM, as 0 Park gi Wife �/,/a'% 11 School goo., fffffff woo, Whool 0 No 7, WOO= "r Existirig Mons VD C1 C a BusStops 0 414 3 M q 3W o'j N E EA" 0 es S� C 7 PA4 I 40 e i S m W 2;' 101: 4 ljkj 110 0 ago.......... Y", irk, r 0% Mks V am ISO ir V, IRS0, ................. 2. Son Meg ME No 01 Will J Mon J Rke CoMyOub Il"N two S J g, "(0000101111g, WA UvwT.03 1 Ig I Pill, 0 0 MIN —0 "W, 5 k E I n, 01 I n BaWont n, Irk 0 (DWY z 4r; cull 1`15 S41,111 ZVI let, 0 0 V 01 y(k D to P"'Ji 0 E Eta go xl';'), �6 Harbor,Side, go/o/o/oo,j g/,/// o Pon 71", 01 U, Castle,Park 3 t A,P X 21, YP� 'o gg, J casde Fork > '10. 51, "'t"t I PRO Ell Wk L) z ,, I a FOrK r 1 A -o VIll Chul a"A sl a Tr No o ogog go o gg ogg 'A, 77 mumm o,, go IN A ve > o ol T SDG A E Ww/,�,J go go o < AdaSt 905 NN Change Am�,,.- Irk"I W 2.111 CO jr,/ 0 500 676 MOSS STREET Michael Baker 0 FMM"Feet Nearby Public Facilities I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Source:Chula Vista Open GIS Portal Exhibit 7 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 513 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Pl�an,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's Appendoix Be. a Map of Traff'Ic Analysis Zones Evaluated .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA7611, App�endix Camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 514 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, ReIzone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of ChIange Analysi's VN, ONO Sil .............. 111116[/ LON --........... 0' "00 NIP 0 P.. 1"011 oi\ V01 ov, JViI 0 I"w"00 Me" ......... j1dol IIV IV. j/ko"11111 P, I, -I............. no nf 0"j, 000 %I ow jr ��jjj ell 41V 0/ o,�, .0,0, 011".0 ._Woo ........ 10 VIVO .......... WOMAN of Legend City Boundary 0 0.51 2 3, 4 17AZ's Evaluated ........ .............. Miles .................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. INTER N ATIONAL kos 11,1011, Appendix B, Page 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 515 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's Appendix C. Frojected Industr*ial and Off*ice Develop ent by TAZ (SANDAG Ser'i8es 12) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA7611, App�endix Camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 516 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL AND O�FFICE DEVELOPMENT BY TAZ Industrial �Employment Office Employment TAZ 202200 2035 2050 TAZ 2020 2035 2050 4099 - - 4099 - - - 4103 4 1 O�3 - - - 4140 - - 4140 - - - 4141 1 1 1 4141 - - - 4148 - - - 4148 - - - 4167 1 1 16 4167 4 6 70 4171 9 9 9 4171 2 2 2 4183 1 1 1 4183 93 93 93 4191 5 5 5 4191 16 16 16 4193 3 3 3 4193 11 11 11 4196 3 3 3 4196 17 17 17 4204 2 2 2 420�4 6 6 6 4206 4 4 4 420�6 137 137 137 4207 - - - 4207 - 16 16 4208 3 3 3 420�8 88 88 88 4210 1 1 1 4210 1 1 1 4211 - - 4211 1 4212 - - 4212 18 18 18 4213 3 3 3 4213 5, 5, 5 4214 1 1 1 4214 20 20 20 4216 - - - 4216 5 5 5 4219 12 12 12 4219 165 215 215 4224 7 7 7 4224 10 10 10 4225 - 4225 4 4 4 4226 - - 4226 18 18 18 4227 29�5 291 283 4227 90 90 92 4228 7' 7' 14 4228 18 4229 1 1 1 4229 12 12 12 4231 3 3 3 423,1 14 14 14 4232 1 1 1 423,2 1 4233 9 31 42 4233 27 97 116 4234 17 15 13 4234 184 200 20�6 4235 11020 11012 9�99 4235 442 456 �473 4236 261 259 354 4236 219 219 510 4237 - - 4237 28 28 28 4240 - - 4240 1 4241 11 11 11 4241 16 16 16 4242 3 6 6 4242 23 30 30 4243 - 4243 - - - 4244 - 4244 58 58 61 4245 - - 9 4245 1�49 1�49 161 4246 94 96 135 4246 125 137 30�5 4247 5 5 5 4247 27 27 27 4248 7' 7' 7 4248 14 14 1�4 4249 - - 4249 - - - 4250 13 16 4250 12 28 34 4251 - - 4251 1 1 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA7611, Appendix C, Page 1 Camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 517 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's Industrial Employment Office Employment 'TAZ 2,1020 2,1035 2050 TAZ 2020 2035 2050 4253 3 3 3 4253 8 8 8 4254 6 6 6 4254 30 30 30 4255 17 30 30 4255 138 160 16�O 4256 7 7 7 4256 10 10 10 4259 10 10 10 4259 16 16 16 4260 - - 4260 48 59 59 4261 1 3 3 4261 93 106 1 O�6 4262 3 3 3 426�2 6 6 6 4263 25 25 25 426�3 11 27 27 4264 - - 11 4264 - - 22 4265 - 4265 1 1 1 4266 - - 426�6 20 20 20 4267 9 9 9 4267 61 67 67 4268 13 15 15 4268 27 35 35, 4270 - - 427'0 3 3 3 4271 1 1 1 4271 10 10 10 4272 - - - 4272 30 30 30 4273 - - - 4273 - - - 4275 1 1 1 4275 1 41 41 4276 - - 4276 31 39 39 4277 77 84 84 4277 370 382 382 4278 9 9 6 427'8 18 18 18 4279 2 2 2 427'9 3 3 3 4280 - 8 8 4280 - 24 24 4281 - - 4281 18 18 18 4282 25 25 4282 61�6 648 648 4284 7 7 7 4284 1 1 1 4285 1 1 1 4285 11 11 11 4286 - - 4286 - - - 4287 7' 8 8 4287 �4 17 17 4289 - - 18 4289 - - 21 4290 1 1 1 4290 2 2 2 4291 - - 4291 9 9 9 4293 2 2 2 4293 - - - 4295 29 29 29 4295 161 161 161 4296 - - 4296 - '75 75 4297 8 8 8 4297 134 134 134 4298 - - 4298 - - - 4299 78 78 105 4299 18 18 65 4300 - - 430�O 237' 237' 237 4301 4301 1 4302 - 430�2 3 3 3 4304 8, 8, 8 430�4 22 22 22 4305 3 3 3 430�5 8 8 8 4306 - - 430�6 12 39 39 4307 70 67 64 4307 292 297' 297 4308 37 62 62 430�8 288 327' 327 4309 2 2 2 430�9 2 2 2 4310 42 42 65 4310 6 6 45, ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA7611, Appendix C, Page 2 Camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 518 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's Industrial Employment Office Employment 'TAZ 2,1020 2,1035 2050 TAZ 2020 2035 2050 4311 2 2 2 4311 7 7 7 4312 9 9 9 4312 58 58 58 4313 - - - 4313 8 8 8 4314 1 1 1 4314 3 3 3 4315 14 19 19 4315 87 97 1 O�O 4316 - - 4316 - - - 4317 11802 11809 43 17 99 169 187 4318 - - - 4318 2 2 2 4319 4 4 4 4319 6 6 6 4320 1 1 1 4320 6 6 6 4321 2 2 17 4321 77 103 126 4322 45 50 50 4322 146 161 161 4323 - - 31 4323 - - 1 O�2 4324 3 3 3 4324 20 20 20 4325 15 15 15 4325 5, 5, 5 4326 79 77 74 4326 - - - 4327 - - - 4327 4 4 4 4328 4328 2 2 2 4330 - - - 4330 - - - 4331 14 14 14 4331 62 68 68 4332 - - 4332 32 62 62 4333 - - 4333 5, 5, 5 4334 - - 4334 - - - 4335 - - 433,5 - 4336 - - 433,6 - - - 4337 - 4337 - 333 333 4338 2 4338 - - 19 4339 3 3 220 4339 125 128 56�O 4340 6 6 6 4340 26 26 26 4341 - - 4341 1 4342 3 3 3 4342 - - - 4343 1 1 1 4343 8 8 8 4344 5 5 5 4344 119 119 119 4345 11 11 11 4345 69 69 69 4346 13 14 14 4346 364 371 371 4347 - 38 44 4347 11 513 538 4348 - - 4348 - - - 4349 22 22 22 4349 59 59 59 4350 - - 4350 - - - 4351 4351 - - - 4352 - - 4352 6 6 6 4353 2 2 2 4353 2 2 2 4354 - 4354 14 14 14 4355 - - 4355 8 8 8 4356 64 64 64 4356 130 130 130 4357 1 1 1 4357 2 2 2 4358 �125 �124 118 4358 8 8 8 4359 2 2 2 4359 2 2 2 4360 - - 4360 4 4 4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA7611, Appendix C, Page 3 Camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 519 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's Industrial Employment Office Employment 'TAZ 2,1020 2,1035 2050 TAZ 2020 2035 2050 4361 - - - 4361 1 1 1 4363 - - 436�3 - - - 4364 - - 436�4 - - - 4365 - - 436�5 3 3 3 4366 - - 436�6 �4 �4 4 4367 1 8�7 1 9�5 194 4367 98 1�18 118 4368 - - 4368 33 33 33 4369 6 6 45 436�9 55 55 170 4370 14 14 14 4370 28 28 28 4371 4 4 4 4371 17 17 17 4372 - - 282 4372, - 211 19028 4373 3 3 3 4373 �4 �4 4 4374 1 1 1 4374 18 18 18 4375 - - 437'5 13 13 13 4376 37 37 37' 437'6 132 132 132 4377 - 1 1 4377 6 17 17 4378 11 15 16 4378 98 113, 118 4379 26 26 26 4379 214 214 24 4380 - - - 4380 - - - 4381 - - 4381 4382 - - 4382 - - - 4383 - - 4383 2 2 2 4384 - - 4384 - - - 4385 - - 4385 - - - 4387 - - - 4387 205 205 20�5 4389 1 1 1 4389 2 2 2 4390 3 3 3 4390 2 2 2 4391 4 4 4 4391 2 2 2 4392 12 30 30 4392 38 368 36�8 4393 19 19 19 4393 56 56 56 4394 - 9 9 4394 6 21 21 4395 - 4395 18 18 18 4396 - - 4396 - - - 4397 27 27 27 4397 89 89 89 4398 - 4398 - 3 3 4399 - - 4399 5 5 5 4400 1 1 1 4400 - - - 4401 1 1 1 4401 50 50 50 4402 27'7 27'4 266 4402 799 799 799 4403 - - 440�3 21 21 21 4404 67 67 67 440�4 51 51 51 4405 - 440�5 10 10 10 4406 2 2 2 440�6 2 2 2 4407 2 3 3 4407 30 43 43 4408 89 �140 140 4408 271 473 �473 4409 - - 4409 6 6 6 4410 4410 - - - 4411 - - 4411 4 4 4 4412 154 �168 168 4412 526 580 5,80 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA7611, Appendix C, Page 4 Camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 520 of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's Industrial Employment Office Employment 'TAZ 2,1020 2,1035 2050 TAZ 2020 2035 2050 4413 13 13 13 4413 8 8 8 4414 - - - 4414 8 8 8 4416 18,2 340 591 4416 610 11821 21645 4417 34 32 29 44 17 59 59 59 4418 - - 4418 - - - 4419 4 96 95 4419 86 294 294 4420 4 4 4 4420 5, 5, 5 4421 - - - 4421 7 7 7 4423 4423 2 2 2 4424 - - - 4424 13 13 13 4425 13 13 13 4425 139 139 139 4426 2 2 2 4426 - - - 4427 - - 4427 - - - 4428 160 160 160 4428 557 557 557 4429 3 38 38 4429 35 209 20�9 4430 - - - 443,0 127 127 127 4431 - - 443,1 1 2 2 4432 - 2 2 4432, - 11 11 4433 1 1 1 4433 62 62 62 4434 - - 4434 28 28 28 4435 2 2 2 4435 - - - 4436 - 85 85 4436 12 772 77'2 4438 - - 4438 52 52 52 4439 - 114 311 443,9 - 17167 1;883 4440 - - - 4440 - - - 4441 - 4441 4 4 4 4442 3 3 4 4442 25 25 31 4443 23 23 23 4443 30 30 30 4444 - - 4444 23 23 23 4445 5 5 5 4445 14 14 1�4 4446 1 1 1 4446 5 5 5 4447 - - 4447 1 4448 1 1 1 4448 5, 14 14 4449 2 2 2 4449 4 4 4 4450 2 2 2 4450 1 1 1 4451 7 7 7 4451 16 16 16 4452 4 4 4 4452 16 16 16 4453 23 23 23 4453 12 12 12 4454 2 2 2 4454 - - - 4455 - - 4455 - - - 4456 10 10 10 4456 27 27 27 4457 15 15 15 4457 26 27 27 4458 - 4458 12 12 12 4459 232 228 221 4459 167 167 167 4460 2 2 3 4460 33 33 40 4461 - - 4461 - - - 4462 1 1 14 4462 3 3 27 4463 2 2 2 446�3 - - - 4464 - - 4464 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA7611, Appendix C, Page 5 Camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 52 1. of 767 676 Moss Street—General Plan Amendment, Re�zone,Site Development Plan,Tentative Map Industrial Lands and Area of Ch�ange Analysi's Industrial Employment Office Employment 'TAZ 2,1020 2,1035 2050 TAZ 2020 2035 2050 4465 - - - 446�5 3 3 3, 4466 275 272 266 4466 6 6 6 4468 47 47 47 4468 11 11 11 4469 385 382 376 4469 43 44 44 4470 474 475 465 4470 327 352 352 4471 87 87 88 4471 13 13 16 4472 438 58�4 577 4472 10 785 785 4474 47'5 469 531 4474 89 213, 325 4476 129 169 175 4476 21 80 93 4477 - - - 4477 - - - 4479 131 131 131 4479 32 32 32 4480 59 56 51 4480 32 33 33 4482 189 187 222 4482 3 �4 64 4483 24 45 45 4483 218 307' 307 4485 2 2 2 4485 8 19 19 4486 42 40 37' 4486 1 2 2 4487 7' 7' 7 4487 30 30 30 4489 7 32 32 4489 217 520 520 85990 95944 113204 129270 199632 239880 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PA; INTER N ATIONAL kosA1,1011", Appendix C, Page 6 Camp'll"in 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 522 of 767 Docu,9,I g n E nve I ope I D:A66ADEBC-28 89-4 5 E 1-5AAA-3 92 D 9 D 143 9C B RESOLUTION NO., MPA18-00015; PCZ1 8-0001; PCS 18-0006,DRI 8-0028/1S 18- 0004 and ZAV18-0001 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION7 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: 1)ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; 2) APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN; 3) APPROVE A REZONE; 4) APPROVE A TENTATIVE MAP@ 5) APPROVE A DESIGN REVIEW; AND 6) APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR THE PROJECT FOR A ONE-LOT 141-UNIT- TOWNHOME PROJECT LOCATED AT 676 MOSS STRIEET WHEREAS, the property, that is the subject matter of this resolution, is represented in Exhibit A, attached hereto and 'incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is an approximately 6.94-acre property located at 67 6 Mos s Stre e t(P r0i e ot S ite); and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2018, a duly verified multi-appfication requestmg an amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan (N4PA18-0015), a Rezone (PCZ 18-0001), a Tentative Map (PCS18-0006), a Design Review (DR18-00028), and a Variance (ZAV18- 000 1), including an Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 18-0004) were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department'by Shopoff Realty investments, LLC (Applicant), and WHEREAS duty verified applicatioins were filed with the City of Chula Vista P I Development Ser-vioes Depar-tment by the Applicant as noted above to allow for a 141- unit townhomes (Project) to be constructed on the Project Site; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS 18-0004. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Director of Development Services has determined that the Project could result in significant effects on the enviromnent, However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS 18-0004, and associated Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; atid DOCUSIgn Envelope ID:A66AOEBC;-2889-45El-8AAA-392D9[)1439CB PC ResolutlonMPA 18-00015 PCZ 18-0001 PCS 18-0 OK DR 18-000 1/IS 18-0004 and ZAV18-0001 Juty 22,2020 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing- and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Govemor's Executive Order N-29-20 and the City of Chula Vista Director of Emergency Services' Emergency Order 002-B-2020, in the interest of the public health and safety, members of the Planning Commission and Staff held a hearing via teleconference, In accordance with the orders, the public was able to view the meeting online and not at the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista, after hearing public testimony, staff s presentation and after reviewing all of the subject documents, hereby considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated MI'tigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolutions and Ordinances approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Ptanning Commission of the City of Chula Vista that a copy of this Resolution and the Draft City Council Resolutions and Ordinances be transmi'tted to the City Councit, Presented by: Approved as to form by, Do"-S�ned by: DoauWgned by: ze�— [AAMN 5D4&1845D— %I CF!4005Q135044-4BF--.- Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins Development Services Director City Attorney ITEM 3 PUBLIC COMMENT(S) - 123- THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK - 124 - -Patricla Salvacion C, 0,0 6 r)c PFt From4- Stan Dona Tcre P Th u rscLay,J u ne 18,2Q 20 Z24 pM Patrkia SaNadon "ect FW: M os s street eem ntial b us 1 r*ss fo r the Navy a nd t he sh 1p ya rds Stan Donn,A 1CPp Arojmt Nonage r CRY Of Chula Vista, Devaloprftnt Servk*s Deparhent 276 Fourth Ave n ue, Chu la V1 sta�CA 91910 Ph�6 19)4OM953 Fx(619)4 0"859 Emall sdonrQchLAavietaca-.gov '1%Z1MMK q JrMFV-%M~00 4 01.b r M 0"M q"P—MM 6 4 JJ—J ffim.4 Front:THERESA ACERRO Seft,Th u rsd ay,J u ne 18.p 2 020 12:4 9 PM To:John MoCanh<1m=ann*chu1svJftaca,&ov>,1 Jill Galvez�Jinplvez@chulavlstaca�Pv-%'Steve C.Pad.114 <sp ad[11 a @c h ula vistacs,gov> M I ke a!az<md Jaz I L. P;fi ulavl staca.gov>;M a ry S-a I as.4 MSa las LED chu Jm&t0w,g0v>,-OKa r Rorie ro<o rome ro @c W la vfAaca.g ov>,&Sta n 00 ti n<S do n n @c h ulavistaca.gov>.q Gary Ha I bert I <Gmbe rt@ch u I avlstam-gov>;ErIc C rocke tt 4trOckett@c h u la*Nca 490v>,,r Steve Powe r<S P0 wer@ ch ulav istac 3,gav> Subject.Mo ss st reet esse n flal b a s i ness fo r the Nla%�a nd th e sh 1p yard s IN1 talked to rim at Kleen Blast Abrasives d _ -� M . are an essential business for the ship yards and the Navy 0 They need the rail to get what they need to .PrQdU0e what the Navy and the ship yards need. This 10t Is the ONLY PI&C'a they can-ban If they shut down In September the ship yards and the Navy w111 haVe tx) shut down as well. ThIs zone and plan change can not be approved, They are atrald of Immediate eVict-lon If they PartIcIpate In Process and cornplaln. You can not allow this to happen., This entire project should neve' r have ' otten this far Why In the world did no one talk to these people months ago??7. 7 Patricia Salvacion Frorm THERESA ACERRO - Santa: Thursday,July 21 2020 5*&57 PM To: Oscar Romero;Tiffany Allen Cc: Mary So las;John McCann;Steve C.Pad lfl&-J[11 Gafvez�M ike Diaz Subject: another comment on Moss street pr "ect 01 After further readIng I want to clarify what I said about monitoring of underground water: they found dry cleaning compounds (cancerous)and many other VOCs in the groundwater. You agree that these are potent al con 'rns' I I .- - I ce and need to be m1figated. The rmnstruc;ton could (probably likely would),relesise thiese vapors into the communit"y', and they may 1i nger for yea rs.even after construcflo n has ceased, and people have moved i n. The water needs to be cleaned completely 13EFORE considedn' g allowing children and adults to live,on the land. It"s one thlngjo have exposed Industrial yard with limited ' I workers spending-11m'ted time on site mostly in the open air, but those vapors could easily iritrude and be trapped i W n garages and homes. The city should not allow the health of residents to be possibly put in risk from a source the ci- ty has full knowledge of, making the city totally,liable for any and-all negative health effects, — 126— Patflkia Salvacion Fro rn.b THERESA ACERRO Sent Thursday,Ju�2,2020 1:48 PM Tcr. Oscar Romero;Tiffany Allen Subject Moss Street ProJect Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I se n t you a com me n t.on 6/24 a nd ltva s not Included with the other comments, I was told I was supposed.to send you the comments O' r-Tiff�iny,-1 am sending it revised again, Wed. Jun 24 at 4:12 AM The fact that there is a channel for Telegraph Canyon creek to wh1ch "the propert�. currently drains it (even though it Is a n u ndergrou nd-pipe) ru nn' l pg.th rc Ug h th� property and the daveloper is g1ven special consideration to move home� �Ioser to the street (which he should not receive) potentially causes a dangerous 'situation for children to have water in. a violent storm backing up out of storm drains near their homes. The monitoring wells for-possible Poll-Ution of the ground are a Iso' a tremendous hazard ror a ny 0"1dren who wou Id be livi ng In hom.es -here and a hea-Ith h aza rd fo r th e m a n d th e ir Pa ren ts Both t h ese condilti on s cl ea rly sh-ow th is is an industrial.lot M not a res]d e n t1a I lot an d not a pprop r!ate'for-rezoni n gil Theresa AcerTo very concerned resid.ent —127— Patricia Salvacion From: Greg Moore < SWt Thursday,Ju�Z 2020 628 PM TV, Os ca r Ro m ero;Tiffa ny Afleq TH E RE SA AC E RRO Cr. Mary Salas;John McCann;Steve C. Padifla;All I Galvez;Mike Diaz Subject: Re.,another comment on Moss street project Thanks. I could offer much to both the developer and the opponents from being here everyday but this developer and seller wil squash me like the bug I am 9 1 screw up his sale and their development. If I were evicted before I finish b easily 100-grand in damages. I'm just a bo a f b u 1 Ide r. The t's a rebrement pa cka g e P So t I W's h everyone wel I a nd wis h we we re n't 1 n th 1 s p red Icam ent but dg ht n ow my b read is b uffered by the developer and seller and I would be a fool to cross them before yacht is built. I repty to send noUce and to have thanks to James Omal 6y fo r recently spen ding money a nd more on legal fees to 06� us a guaranteed stay until December, which as you know Rapid prep-my lessor thought they had unb I No-v 30th but found oul only a month ago that their lease ended th Is aug'Ust. 0 M G;its I Ike th e world sto pped w hen I"h-ea rd th at. 6 ecauge o r Th erase work 4arn es h a s te ch n i ca I ly alre4dy helped me.. I muSt hop back on-the bus and keep.head down. P le ase, Se n d-a ny and a I I yo ur-Art a ia,n top to len t frk�nd s,this-way.A cOu pie of g ifted contractors Oo u Id hel p so md c h.. Up h o I sWiyl-floorl ng'-are a cou ple.th ip9s left that outs 1 de rs ca n'h elp-w Kh. Meanwhile, if anyone has' an acre or so for 5-10 yr leaw, Plan B's 100 grand moving expense might be unavoidablel Thank yo% please have a Wonderfu-1 dayb Greg Moore BO ph U Addresv4lihm Chula Vista Ca. 91911 bmt bumm,repower,repaht h*Pwww. est 1903 Drvmng!&,Mors to propul*n wntn"and wvftch boards,Ekcfton k;s and E lecOul Eh9iWeAng fo(Nievyp fto UM commemat.indusbiat. %%rip WI- - 128- After further reading I want to clarify what I said about monitoring of underground Water; 1hey found dry cleaning compounds (cancerous) and many other VOCS in the groundwater. You agree that these are pote' ntlal concerns and need to be mAlgated. The construction could (probably Akely would) release these vapors into the Community, and the'y may linger for years even after construction has ceased, and people have moved in, The water needs to be cleaned completely BEFORE considering allowing children and adults to five on the land. It's one thing to have-exposed industdal yard with Hmited workers spending limfted time on site mostly in the open air, but those vapors could easily intrude and be trapped in garages and homes. The 6ty should nOt allow the health of residents to be possibly putin dsk from a source the city has full] knowledge of, making the city totally liable for any and all negative health effects. - 129 - THIS PAGE LE-FT BLANK- - 130 , Patrir.18 Setvacion 01 ff&V Subject FW;ja M es g reat s pea k!ng A h you ~Ob From:Greg Moore .0 F Sent,Tuesdayo J un e 16t 2 02 0 8;2,0 PM U,James O'Malley 'W bi ect-Ja mes great S pe a k in&with yo u I Ppm4date the extra fime you have given me to dec 1st 2020, Any and ah extra &ne Ym can get takes pressure off of m8. We cotAd finish eadler, b just going to be right about ftt time a rid I,M trying everythIng I tan to get oiA of here b efo re that d ey. Coro n a stol a 3 mo n th s frorn m e( th at 0 id n I hel p. Send real talwt he re that wf 11 help I know I'Ve opposed your'delvelopment in ft past due to how hard It was to find land We and all the time and"ney I spent to build this'place to work well for yacM restomtion. MOst is wasted Wt had do it to fin ish boat Got abo ut 2 00 grand I nto far.A lifty I u st to do prQjects this big, B L4 after being he re 3 years now, I clearly see this land is surrounded byapartments and housing and realize that all the south bay development seems Hke a gocd thing for everyone, Thanks for giving me a solld date, any more Ume, please lot m know. If things stall In bureaucrary I ke sou Mays other p role 0a, it took fo rever but they did ft tight. I dont th i n k you r a pp nNal p mofts M I I go as fast as you thlnk andsomacces going to need my rent just as bad as I dont need mare p re ss u re he re at th e very-eN of a 5 yea rs proje ct, I d ont kn ow how I Pia n to move and then stay to Pay more K yo u Sta I I- Am ost have to ig nore th at stal led optl on a nd let It sft em pty u you 0 n im I I y demm, My parimrs entre Iffe has been real estate, has 60 and been relmd 20 years already,, If you neW funding or help wM this development, just make sure he gets his dam yacht done wtthcd mo 4 16 Ving aga Fn. LO L H is name is J a rn es Ka I ser, everya rve wa nft to be J I m, hes h ap py a nd dch., Wh e n he*s unh ap py he j u st wa Ws a ch eck at ft and gets R off h is d es k an d o nto the PM$d eak, Hes so h ap py y Gag a and Geo rge Bush fty 0 u t to ha 0 9 o u t w ith Ki m. You would like h Im. my problem, I can only go w fast. I cant load vessel down with mre persomel when white fabrle� are everyffhere.but at least we have a now target date we all are agreed on. my world: htpgo-ltvimeo.com�37604030?fbc4id=IwAB2fQA. rnGIVlNdFJ2-R&L0HHgkQb52ASHDJ13 2gkmBgm0vR8CNH1sykFUo Tha nk you, p lea se have a wondeft I de y. Greg Moore —131 — THIS -PAGE' LEFT-B-LAN-K - - -132- THIS PAGE�. LEFT BLANK - 134- Steve Castaneda C h u la V Ista.,cA July 6,2020 Reference: Planning Commission Agenda of July 22,207-0—676 Mass Street Condominiums, S h opoff Re a Ity I nvest M e ints, L.P. -A P P1 Ica nt Dear chaIrman Gutierrez and Members of the chula Vista Planning Commission: I a m writing to u rge your approval of th e.draft M itigated N egative Decilarat-on,Gen era I P la n Ame n d m e nt site rezone, Design Review PermIt and tentative map for a 141-unit mult-famIlY resIdential developMent 10cated at 676 Moss Street I n western Chula VIsta,Your approva I will have a positive a nd last]ng effect o n Out c0rnmUnity and advance efforts to revitalize and 'oprove the heafth of ChUlA Vlsta-s western n eig h borhood s W h�I e s u P port 1 ng e nw"ro n m e nta I J ustice fo r t he e co nom Ica I 1�d 1sadva nt6ged fa M11 ies I ivi ng A in this area. rs When considering the economic,environmental and land use facto there Is a sound JustIfication for the project's approval. The site Is currently occupied by metal Nbrication,salvage, and storage OPerations. r The level of negative Innpact generated from these uses is Intensifled by the predomlinant westerly winds that carry nolse, heavy vehicle exhaust and dust. By redevelot3ing an underutilized industrIal zoned lot, you will help fa milres living directly to the east and the south by reducing noise and airborne Particulate L pollUtIon the�currently experience, It is well known that exposure to such pollut" asthma and other health problems,OsPecially in children. ion is directly lInked to Citing lack of demand f or ill dustria Ily zoned la nd In the a rea,th e staff report 4 ccu rately projects that the future development of hIgh value.,icb producing operations at the wbJect location Is unlikely. While we all wa' nt more good paying clean Industrial jobs,more realistic future uses at thIs location under current zoning,.would not provide appreciable econornic development beneflts and likely bri 0 ftg Unwelcome and damaging-impa cts to the adjoining ne Ighborhoods, We are awa re of the health problems that resu It frorn 1 ri�onsisient and I ncompatib le use patterns which is often descri bed as an issue of envi ronm e ntal Nstice. Nagati've health outcomes are weP do'cumented 1h the neighborhoods of Barrio Logan and westem National City due to the corn ingling of I nd ustria I and resIdential uses, The exist�ng zone (U.M.C. 19.44.010) allows materials Processing., storage, warehoLlSlhg, allto repa1r., extermination operations, plastics manufactueing, steel fabrication, hazardous waste processing and power plants which would be acutely Incompatible with residences direcdyieast and south, You can e ns ure that the Inequities pre.5ent I n-other Comm u nities do not exist he re. AIW�%rnaflvely, more housing Is needed in westem Chula Vista and this development Provides additional opportu n ffies for working farnil les particu larly w1hen thin king about the new jobs that wi I I be created by Chula Vista's Bayfront. This proposal and similar projects will allow workIng families to live closer to Bayfront jo bs a nd reduce the need fOr Wo rkers to drive into Chu la Vista. Th e Pla n nI ng COMMIssion's support wl I I conti n ue th e Morn entu m wel I tinderway to I ncrease our housl ng stock and Improve the flyability and envIronmental conditions for western Chula\is re n r ta s I de ts. I urge a yes vote, I Sincerely,, Stleve C a sta n ed a 13 3— THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK - 136- JLily 13,2020 9 AL 11 001LONG iNDUMY -AS 50C EATIO K OF LAN 011tr.0 COW" Stan Donn,AICP,, Project Manager CHMam" City of C h A Vista,Deve I o p rn o n t Se rvices De pa rtment JeF OtCon nor 2 76 Fo urt h Ave n ue,Ch u la V1 sta.,CA 9 19 20 Hom"d CorporjUon Dear Mr.Donn-4 WE CHAIRMAN Alex Plishrier Lmnar Th e B ui I d I ng In d ust ry Assod abo n(B[A)rep rese n ts ove r 750 com�ia n ies e r'n p I oyl ng ove r TUMURER/59CRX-tAky 400000 1 n d M d ua Is w ho a re e ng aged In p rovidil ng the cc m m un Itl e s I n 98 4 Nego Ca tj nty. John La Rala Eve r s frKe the 2 W8 recession,Sa n Die go Co unVs ho me' b uildi rig a ctivity h a s neve r KG.Fenton Company retu rn e d to thqa p rM uctio ri le v0s se e n T n the first de ca�e of th Is ce nt u ry. POT CHAIRMAN The consequence of thIs fact Is a shortaSe of now housing in our region, Couple this to Dave HammAr I I Huns ake r&"odates 5�n Diego ever expan di ng state ma ridates(regulatioms),N IM 13Y groups o pposed to more housing Ithey already have theirs),,and difficul0es in arranging financing for projecU Oat are Pare Mnckel via b le.,a rtd yo u h a ve t he pe rfect sto rm whi ch h as se en b u 1141 ng a ct IvIty'at 60%of p re b" reces,:�cn leveLs. Th e'B LA e rig a ges wit h eve ry ju risd I d1on I n ou r Co U n ty a n d I m p lot es t hem. to approve Corfomiz BuTMIng ho using projects that Frt withi n your Cftys Genera I Plan. Simply put,the ma-rkefs ab!l ity 1nduWy Associa-0on tp prcvide housing(supply)I's constralned. Your citlzens feel this in higher rents and lack Nzfc n 211 As mcta Ve r. 0 ho a"RuIld r's of hou�llng options when looking to'purchase a home (dema rd)4, The 91A dcms not offer an opInion on specific projecU,but we would ask yo or Pianning Com rnlsslo n a nd CftV Co und I t o a pprove'hous I ng p rojects as d e sc ribed a bove, If we can ffir-rease supply,we can solve our local housing crisis. We need more.attainable housing,so the SIA'respectfully requem that you increase the hQusing supply-by a pptoving housing projects In Chula Vista Sincerely, Michael McSweeney Sra Public Policy Advisor BIA San Diego Building industry Assoetwtion of son ofago county 9201 Spectrum C e ntee B lvd.1 5 ulte 110,S a n D i eq a, CA 9 212 3-140 1 P 858-450-1221 F 851 � 1 3 5— wem.blasandlego..org Oscar Romero From: T H ER ESA AC E R RO Sent: Su nday,J u ly 19,2020 5:5 5 P M h To: Gabriel Innoceng Oscar Romero;T4fiany Allen 10 Subject: planning commission meeting July 24 Follow Up Flag: Fol�ow up Flag Status: Flagged Varning-i 'Eman I have a comment on Shopoff-zoning change document on agenda for the Planning Commission Wednesday, and it won't allow me to submit it. It says 6PM lune 24 was deadline., but the project was not heard on that date it was continued until Wednesday. It is ridiculous to say this conforms to the General Plan, We lack jobs in Chula Vista- especially good payl ng jobs like these busInesses provide. We have a huge defIcIt in industrial and commercial zoned property due to constant zone changes in the east and west, which Is also why we lack jobs and have a mass exodus of the city normal mornings during normal times, This project will make our situatlon worse. Also comments in MND about Income from different uses do not take into account that development fees pay over half of the City's debt payments they do not provide for yearly expenses for libraries, recreation, police., fire, road repairs, maintenance etc, All of which will increase considerably by adding all these new residents, If an honest anallysis were done It would show a. large deficit for the city as ElWs for all projects where zoning was changed show. (4-5 million for the Millenlum change last year.) Theresa Acerro cit y Council Public Comments Oscar Romero From. Greg Moore Sent: Monday,August 03,2020 7:16 PM To: Oscar Romero;James O'Malley Subject: moss st withdraw objection Warning: External Oscar th a n ks, I d i'dnt have a leg to stand on a n d was worried sick I wou Id M got to finis h Email - �—J boat but, loc)ks like James Omalley(shopoff developer) has becomo sensitive to my needs and has at this time addressed them the beat he can and given me time and more hope, given the situation between him and his seller is also difficult, Looks like he had to spend sorne major money to care for current tenants. I'm satisfied I may get to finish and owe a million thanks to you, James and yo u r associates for th 1 nki ng of me. Thank you, please have a wonderful day. Greg Moore Boat Yard San Diego hKP26VM.Mtjg(gean&g.Q.om boat him i rig,repm&w,re paint httD;/Mww,"nd1eqo bvatale*�o pom est I 9a 3 of owing s repah to propulsion mntre4s and SvWt&boards.MaVan k3a and EW tal E�n gineering for Navyp P6mure,Cmwrwdal,Ifldistrial, Oscar Romero From: Tiffany Allen Sent% Monday,August 03, 2020 3,18 PM T o: 'THERESA ACERRO' Cc: Oscar Romero Subject: RE:676 Moss 141 Theresa, P lease su b m It yo U r co m me rts to Oscar Romero at o ro rn erg!2ch u lavista Thank you,, TiffanyAllen I D'Irector CIty of Ch ula ViI sta Deve lo prn e nt Servf1ces Depa arne nt 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista I CA 191910 (t)519.691,5179 1 tatlen@)chulavistaca.gov 9L�r?# 9:��C M(X. T7.P., C H L U%1,51'A From:THERESA ACER1140NUM12=0 Sent:Mon day.,August 3, 2020 Z;48 PM To:Ti ffa n y A I I e n<TAI le n Pc h u)avista ca.]ZO Y> Subject: Re:676 Moss Warnlng: External who should I submit my additlonal comments tc)? Email On Monday,Au gu st 31 2020, 01:29:07 PM POT5 T[ffa ny Ailen <all e n(&,ch u I avistaca.gov>wrote: H!7heresa, You are owect. The aGilon ta ken by the Plan ning Commission is 1 ust a recom mendation, 7he projec�t wil I next be pros ented to th 9 G ity CGu nci I for consid eration and acto n. We are tentatively schedu led for this Itern to go to Co unoll on August 25th. When we lake the Item to City Counc1l, we will include all of the emalls, letters, and e-cornments received by the P�annlng Commisslon. You can also subr-nit addIflonal emalls, letters, e-400mments for the City Gouncil Item, Please let rre know If you have any addItional questions or concerns. Best, Tiffany Allen I Dirertor City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 2 76 Fou r1h Aven ue C hu la Vista I CA 191910 (t) 619.6 91�6 179 1 ta 11qaPc.huJ av 1 stage.gov 1%FY CH U L.�. V I S T-A From: THERESAACERR Sent-.- Saturday,August I p 2020 5.12 PM To I Tiffa my Allen -�TAIlenQch ulavistaca.,go > Subject: 676 Moss 'Warni qg: External Email Tiffanyl am not s ure 'if I need to appea I Plann 1 n g Commission ded si on or not s 1 n ce it seems to be just a reco m m e n datio n to the cou n cil. I s th at correct? Th e re W11 I be a noth er oppo rtu n ity to su bmit co M Man ts to the council? From wording it appears decision has not been made just a recommendation, Is that correct? Theresa -Oscar Romero From: THERESA ACERRO Sent Monday,August 03,2020 4;19 P M To: Oscar Romero Subject: 676 Mc)ss Attachments: 676 Moss.docx Warning.. External The city council needs to not approve this proposed project as shown in the Eni all I plans, which is squeezing an inappropriate number of homes Into too small of a spaceir and Ignoring required distances from property lines other developers and ordinary home owners are required to abide by as well as building on part of a public road. 676 Moss project-, Factual error: property lines less than 15 feet; Approval granted without consideration of situation so rinding to approve not supported by d1scusslon at meeting During the Planning Commission rneeting details of the project were hardly mentioned, Most of discussion was about the businesses being displaced and questionable financial data presented ppy staff, No mention was made as to what kind of jobs were being eli'minated. I don't know where the 40 number carne from, but the type of jobs- engineering, technicalF mechanics was never researched and would have been relevant, since these are not minimum wage jobs, and some of the businesses are having a horrible time relocating, For example: Kleen AbrasIves needs to have direct access to r H line.. With the COVID-19 crisis going on this is the worst possible time to uproot a 1 essential busInesses-most of whom have been here fbr between 20 and 30 years. The plans for project were not discussed in detail at Planning Commission meeting. if you look at the plans you will find these problernst, On east side, north side, and one spot on the west the distance from property line is closer than 15 feet (87"F 12'). Variance was only for front of build"Ing (south). The far west building (1) is right next to the trolley fence. The nolse and vibration will be extreme. No decks due to noise violatlon.. but no way can interior of home meet standard that close even with windows closed requiring ventilation system which is wasteful use of energy, which violates the General Plan. It is a very wasteful use of ene building next to trolley tracks where windows would need to be kept closed on hot days and ventilation used to try to meet noise L standard. There is a vibration that close as well, (General Plan speC;ffically opposes wasteful energy use.) One narrow entrancelexit road (26 feet wide) from/to Moss (and orivate g&reets th roug h o ut p roject a re no wi d er tha n Jfi f 1W .q@0 Is inadeauate for the gyacuation of 141 homes in the."entof earthuuaY&,.fl.re or other disa (Th e f!re ro ad is on I y 2 0 fe et wl d e.) (Wha t does th L3 fire departm en t think about this?Th ey have a 20 -foot wide fire road, but turning a huge truck around on that would be quite an effort.) The project appears to be built over-the end of Arizo[la Street ellminating the entrance/eAt for the Sweetwater bus facility:, and eliminating a potential emergency exit from the property. Isn-t ArIzona a c"Ity street after all these years? Has Sweetwater been Informed they are losing an exit/entrance from their property? 141 homes on tiny piece of land is way too dense and dangerous. When times return to normal, having a hundred plus people trying to exit at same time in the morning through that one narrow entrance/exit would be an intornal nightmare, Same returning in evening, IL MND clegrily reguires 5 monitoring wells be kept until future time when they may not be needed. Where are they? Will they,, can they be protected 'in some way from children tampering with them when It appears the channel easement has been covered by roads and sidewalks and is only 37 feet wide when originally it was stated it needed ig..bg 45 feet wide when variance was c1ranted for less set back in the fro nt o n ly?d Th e site is bifurca ted from th e eas t side of.th e parcel to the west side by a channel easement with a W JIF double-barreled box culvert requiring a 45-mfoot easement creating substantial site planning constraints., of (from varlance ordinance)) No aff-ordable housing Is being prov which is desperately needed. It is irrelevant If the neighborhood already has some. The city needs more and every developer should be required to provide or pay fee. Why is this developer being treated differently? Why Is there no solar being required on buildings without roof decks? Code says new homes need to have wiring for solar so Is that being required? It needs to be made clear to potential buyers how very expensive the HOA fees will be for t h e se town h o u s es beca use of th e n eed to m a 1 n ta i n the private roa d s, roofs., landscaping, sidewalks, landscaping., fire pits, etcL. Oscar Romero From: THERESA ACERRAMNWJ���� Sent: FrIday,August A 2020 8:57 PM Too Oscar Romero Subject-. clarification additional comments on 676 Moss Warning; External E m al"I I Zn the case of the end of Arizona Street: No signs or fences have ever been present to indicate it was private property so adverse possession as a mad which has been paved by city seems to be the case. Sweetwater Union has been using the end of Arizona street as a public street for over 5 yea rs to e nter a n d exit i ts pro perty n ext to the tro I ley tra cks, a nd oth e rs have used 'it to park or turn around or walk their dogs, etc, therefore It actually,.is a public street not private property since no fence or sign has ever indicated it was not a public street., and the street Is paved just like the rest of the street, so anyone would assume it is a part of Arizona Street. California state law: *-Code' Section Adverse Pos4ession Civ. Proc. §§318, .325, 328 fim e P er!od Req Li irea fOr OCGLI pati a r) 5 yrs, (and Payment of Taxes (not relevant)) 2. The three inlets to this underground creek are not shown on the plans, where are they? 3. No affordable ftoj!sing Is being orovided,., which is desperately needed. It is irrelevant if the neighborhood already has some. The city needs more and every developer should be required to provIde or pay fee. Why Is this developer being treated d iffere nt ly? Th is is a vi a I ati o n of: C hu la Vista's Bala nced Com m u nities Pio 1i cy wh Ic h requires that evm new housina develODment over 50 units sets aside 10 percent of the total units to low-and moderate-income households.- I 4. State I a w req u 1 res sol a r o n a I I new h o m es: The California solar mandate is a new bui Id i ng codo that requires now construction hornos to have a solar photovoltaic(Pv� system as an electricity so u rce.Th Is code,wh 1ch went i nto effect o n J an uary 1 P 2020, app I les to both sing le-ft m I Ily homes and mul fim family homes that are up to three stories high. it is rather shocking and surprising that this developer has been allowed to submit plans in violation of so many codes. As a homeowner I would not be allowed to build anything less than 15 feet from my property line., Developers in Otay Ranch were required to provide affordable housingjust las t week.. A t the public mee ting last A ugust, the representa tive sta ted h e ha d met with and contrIbuted to the campaigns of the council people., I am hoping this has had no influence in allowin g so many exceptions to codes, etc. These plans need to be rejected and brought into compliance w1th all codes and policies of the city and state., D e v e o p m e n t e r v I c e s D e p a r t rn e ti t P I a n n 1 n g D i v i s i o n Development Processing (IT-11ULA VISTA APPLICATION APPENDIX B Disclosure Statement PurSLJant to Clity Council Policy 101-01,prior to any action on a matter that req uires d i scret!onary a ction by the City Counc[l, PlannIng CornmIssion or other officlal legislative body of the City, a stat-ement of disclosure of certain ownerships,financial interest, payments,and campalign contributions must be filed. The followling Information must be disclosed: 1, Li5t the names of all person5 having a financlial interest in the project that Is the subject of the application, project or contract (e.g.,owner,applicant,contractor, subcontractor, material supplier), SLF - Mosq Sti'eeL, LLC SRI - Nlosq Streept, LLC Shapoff Land Fujid IV, L.F. Shopoff Land 'Fund V, L.P. Pellotou Parmurs, L-P� 2, If any person*icfenbfied-in section 1 above is a corporation or partnership, 115t the names of all Individuals wIth an �nvestment of$2000 or more'in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. For secgrity u.rp-os%.cs...wc can tiot disclose indlyidil,I investor info but we can,-di,5 -L Qvcrview plca�c see aftil-c-lied 3, If any person*identified in section 1.above is a non-proflit ofganization or trust, list the names of any person who is the director of the non-profit organization or the names of the trustee, bi�neficiary and trustor of the trust. 'N/A ------------ ---------- 4. Please'identify every person,'including any agents,employee5,consultants, or independent contractors,whom you have authorized to represent you before the City in this matter. MatthgLw Brad��Fred Talarigrqk-Edian�3tupp —Aamn Barral.1 Dan Wer --H-iew Peter Duarte, Art Rodriguez, Jeff Chelwick Conner Chelwick, Loulsa Felettoi James O'Malley Mauricio Escob@r, Melissa Stayner 5. Has any person'Identified 'in 1., 2., 3r, or 4., above,or otherw'15e associated wIth this contract, project or appilication, had any finariclial dealings with an official"of the City Of ChUl-a ViSta a5 it relates to this contract, project or application within the past 12 months? Yes No x If yes, brIef ly de5cribe the natu re of th e f Ina incial i nterest th e off icia 1** im ay have i n this contract, r-QFM 4of,9 �26 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista California 919 10 (619) 69 1.5101 �1 ev 07.14 '6��I f/ OWNWO.- "OM0 D e v e o p m e n t le r v i c e s D le p a r t m e n t Planning Division Development Processing ------- ...... My OF -- -------- -------- CHULA VISTA APPLICATION APPENDIX B Disclosure Statement - Page 2 6. H a s a ny perso n*1 d ent1fl ed I n 1 2 3.,o r 4.,a bove,o r ot herwi s e a sso c lated with th Is co nt ract, P roject or application, made a campaign contribution of more than $250 wilth in the past (12) months to a current member of the City of Chula Vista Council ? Yes No if yes which council mernber? 7. Has any person *identified in L,2.0 3.,or 4.,above,or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, provided more than $420 (or an Item of equivalent value)to an off Icial"of the City of Chula Vista in the past(12) months? (Thts includes any payment that confers a personal benefit on the recipient,a rebate or discount in the pr1ce of anything of value, money to retire a legal debt,gift, loan, etc.) Yes N o if yes,wh'['c h offi d a 1** a n d wh a t was the natu re of t h e Item p rov 1 ded? 8. Ha5 any person*identified In 1.,2,, 3.,or 4.,above, or otherwIse associated with this contract, project or a ppl icatlon, been a sou rce of inclo me of$500 or more to a n off icial"of the City of Chula Vista in the past (12) months.? Yes No If yes,w h it h offic I a I** a nd the n atu re of t he item p rovi d ed? Date Sfg ture of co"n ralAtor/Applicant /4rilrit or type name of Contractor/Applic n Pefson Is Ident1fled as:any individual,firm, co-partnershIp,jo�nt venture, association,socia I club, f rater n a I org a n izat 1 on, co r po ratto n,estate,trust, re ce Ive r,syn d I cate,a n y othe r co u nly,city,M u n Ic I pa I I ty, district, or other politIcal subdi0slon,or any other group or combination acting as a unit., official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor,Counctl member, Planning Commissioner,Member of a boa rd, co m m I ss]on o r com rn i ttee of th e City,a nd C ity e rn p loyee o r staff m e rn bers. Th is di'sclos u re Statement m u st b e com p I eted at th e t I m e thie ptoj ect a p plIcatl on,or co nt ract, 1 s s u bm itted to City staff for processing,and updated within one week prior to consideration by legislative body. Last Updated: March 16,2010 Form 509 320 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista California 91910 (619) 691,5101 Rov 07,14 gm-'g�,,v,"/......... v a ggz/ p. �p ....... .. ....... �w '11'1�,`,)"l UNUUUMC7, T" ................. Og 4 17 wr U� 3 PLEX ROWTOWNS BEYOND 12 PLEX ROWTOWNS BEYOND 3 PLEX ROWTOWNS 5 PLEX ROWTOWNS OUR TEAM SHEETINDEX: SITE SLIF-MOSS STREET,LLC ARCHITECTURE A-1 9 4 PLEX ROWTOWNS Elevations SP-1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN A-20 5 PLEX ROWTOWNS Building Plans Contact: James O'Malley SP-2 CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE PLAN A-21 5 PLEX ROWTOWNS Elevations 5 2 Park Plaza,Suite 700,Irvine,CA 92614 SP-3 CONCEPTUAL TRASH STAGING PLAN A-22 6 PLEX ROWTOWNS Building Plans 949.417.1396 1 www.Shopoff.com SP-4 CONCEPTUAL UNIT AND BUILDING MATRIX A-23 6 PLEX ROWTOWNS Elevations PALOMAR ST WHA Architects.Planners.Designers A-1 PLAN 1 Unit Plan A-24 CONCEPTUAL COLORS AND MATERIALS A All A-2 PLAN 2 Unit Plan _d1*r- II41C1YV1;rY MAP Contact: Jeff Chelwick A-3 PLAN 3 Unit Plan CIVIL T.B.PG. �W M SC&E 1 680 Newport Center Drive,Suite 300,Newport Beach,CA 92660 A-4 PLAN 4 Unit Plan C-1 COVER SHEET SITE ADDRESS 949.250.0607 1 www.WHAinc.com A-5 PLAN 5 Unit Plan C-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENCUMBRANCES 676 Moss Street MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL A-6 PLAN 6 Unit Plan C-3 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN Chula Vista,CA 91911 Contact: Brian D.Stup A-7 11 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans C-4 CONCEPTUAL GRADING/STORMWATER 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd,Suite 100,San Diego,CA 92124 A-8 11 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans C-5 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 949-916-3800 1 www.mbakerintl.com A-9 11 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Elevations C-6 FIRE AND CIRCULATION PLAN 618-010-26, 618-010-30, 618-010-31 A-1 0 12 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans STUDIO PAD,INC. A-1 1 12 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans LANDSCAPE ZONING DESIGNATION Contact: PeterA.Duarte A-1 2 12 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Elevations L-1 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN Existing:ILP(Limited Industrial Precise Plan) 23276 S.Pointe Drive,Suite 103,Laguna Hills,CA 92653 A-1 3 13 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans L-2 SCHEMATIC WALL&FENCE PLAN Proposed:R-3(Apartment Residential Zone) 949.770.8530 www.Studio-Pad.com A-1 4 13 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans L-3 SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN A-1 5 13 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Elevations L-4 SCHEMATIC IRRIGATION HYDROZONE PLAN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION A-1 6 3 PLEX ROWTOWNS Building Plans L-5 SCHEMATIC OPEN SPACE ENLARGEMENT PLAN Existing:Limited Industrial A-1 7 3 PLEX ROWTOWNS Elevations L-6 SCHEMATIC SECTION ENLARGEMENT Proposed:High Density A-1 8 4 PLEX ROWTOWNS Building Plans L-7 SCHEMATIC LIGHTING PLAN 676 MOSS STREET CS REALTY SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C 2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 1 1 EVV�N,FA 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 550 f767 Project Summary 1 3 1.2' Total Site Area:+6.94 Acres L+302,254 SF) -3 A 11R110NA STREET 14.41 15.0' T E:� Total Units: 141 Homes 4-7 J, Property Line Cn (97)3-Story Court Towns W F-. UJ -(16)Plan 1:+1,196 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) +1,235 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) 2�' -(16)Plan 2: F10.01 PRIVATE ST.I 11.5 -(34)Plan 3:+1,652 SF,3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Den 7, -(31)Plan 4:+1,758 SF,4 Bed,3.5 Bath,Opt.Den D�- 4 V V V V'V'/v (44)3-Story Row Towns 24' R20.0' Jr. 0 15.01 (24)Plan 5:+1,838 SF,3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Den,Opt.Bed 4 T-Il (20)Plan 6:+2,002 SF,4 Bed,3.5 Bath,Opt.Den �1 0.0. 20.0' 20.0 PRIVATE ST.B �10-0';]7 2 N -a------Fm Density: 20.4 Homes per Acre Parking: TV 0.01 (�DT w 7/'�- = -:� Required: 282 Spaces(2.0 spaces per home) E--[�"I- (141)Homes x 2.0 Spaces 282Spaces W PRIVATE ST.J Property Line -(141)Guest x 0.0 Spaces 0 Spaces 55�- -:::1 Z6 VV VV VV WW Provided: 336 Spaces(2.38 spaces per home) 27 (L 7. -Garage: 282 Spaces(64 Tandem spaces identified with'T') 90.0" Head In: 32 Spaces(9'x 19') Proposed fence line 10'from 24 2/' east track centerline; 10.0' 12.0- z 3.2' F 15.01 Open Space: proposed easement to MTS +504 SF per home,6'min.dimension) Required: 71,120 SF Total L T13 9. j- Existing culvert wl 45'existing R1 0.01 �17 R �6 Provided: 75,112 SF Total 533 SF per home) and proposed easements T.K PRIVATE S Lot Coverage: 34.5%of site L+104,195 SF) 170 T�' on ng ummary 20.0' 24' IV VV9 C�) JVV VV V U) 20. Existing General Plan: Limited Industrial W J 77- t�T - Proposed General Plan:High Density E-- IL on Existing Zoning: Limited Industrial Precise Plan Property Line LLJ f 12.0 Proposed Zoning: R-3 6 1 50 49 ER A AA Aff- T 5 PRIVATE ST.D Lot Area per Unit: +2,143 SF per home(min.1,590 for 4-bed units) R 50' -4 4 15.Q R20.0' PRIVATE ST.D Building Setbacks: Front Yard:15' Interior Side Yard:7' T: 3 24' V 24' ,,1, Rear Yard:17' 7 -J V"" V V V V T 48 12.0 U) .'k'Z' 33 F / - Proposed Setbacks: Front Yard:10'* 1A, 7, Interior Side Yard:12' 34 Rear Yard:15' 47 j Variance will be requested from Planning Commission '77 46 Building Separation: 10'minimum 45 F 10.0'.) 44 24�0' 20.0. 4- Max.Building Height: 45'and 3 Stories 40' 24' 24 43 PRIVATE ST.L 42 5.0' 1 4�'3S 3, V 'V Max.Lot Coverage: 50% Notes: 20'- 8 VV VVVV V 10.0 U 51 1. Site plan is for conceptual purposes only. 36' 2. Site plan must be reviewed by planning,building,and fire departments for code compliance. 3. Base information per civil engineer. 4. Civil engineer to verify all setbacks and grading information -0 10 10 5� Building Footprints might change due to the final design -10 MOSS 5/Ml I elevation We. 6. Open space area is subject to change due to the balcony design of the elevation. 7. Building setbacks are measured from property lines to building foundation lines. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 111 1 CT,,I I W, 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 S P-1 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 20 40 8.0 SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS i CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)J�A"�U 1�C,0 J N I",I C) N'A�I EVV� 1,!F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 551 f767 ----------90.0, Project Summary .4" 152 Total Site Area:+6.94 Acres L+302,254 SF) f7 AR110NA STREET L--- Total Units: 141 Homes W J a t-- - (97)3-Story Court Towns CO w (16)Plan 1:+1,196 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) 2L' N (16)Plan 2:+1,235 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) (L... F10.01 PRIVATE ST 1 (34)Plan 3:+1,652 SF,3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Den 4- (31)Plan 4:+1,758 SF,4 Bed,3.5 Bath,Opt.Den V Vv (44)3-Story Row Towns 20.0' , 2 R20.0' 150. -(24)Plan 5:+1,838 SF,3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Den,Opt.Bed 4 -(20)Plan 6:+2,002 SF,4 Bed,3.5 Bath,Opt.Den ----------------------- F 10.01 �� 20. 28.. Density: 20.4 Homes per Acre PRIVATE ST.B �10-U 20.0' R20.0 A Open Space: R8,0,-> Required: 71,120 SF Total L+504 SF per home,6'min.dimension) N -(32)2 Bedroom x 400 SF= 12,800 SF W D--- PRIVATEST..J 0. :I::--- I I" .0, 55� V -(34)3 Bedroom x 480 SF= 16,320 SF (if -E::::- - .01 1 -(75)4 Bedroom x 560 SF= 42,000 SF a. U VV /V Provided: 75,112 SF Total*L+533 SF per home) V P 0 90' -Common: +35,543 SF 22.0' -Private Ground: +8,040 SF(6'Min.Dimension) -Decks: +10,283 SF(6'Min.Dimension) 24' 32 -Roof Decks: +21,246 SF(6'Min.Dimension) 9 Additional open space areas not counted towards total: R1 0.0 1 1 1 J I I I I PRIVATE ST.K -Landscape Area:+46,552 SF -PrivateGround: + 1,160 SF(less than 6'Min.Dimension) 17.0' All open spaces counted towards the total provided open space 20 E 24' Z 4 meet the General Plan's exterior land use/noise compatibility C�) VV U) -8.1 9 2-C W I threshold of 65 dB CNEL for new residential development. LI-j Decks/Roof Decks eliminated from provided o.s.due to noise D-- 12.0 disqualification.Decks/Roof Decks locations are shown,but not W A h included in above total. 0- 5 EE A AAL -Roof Decks within 90'of the railroad centerline are excluded PRIVATE ST.D 10.01 R20.0' from the Open Space calculation due to noise disqualification. R.0, 1 - -, -"- - 15.Q R20.0' PRIVATE ST.D -Decks within 180'and direct line of site to the railroad 24' to noise disq ialificati n. 24" V V V 1 0 7/7 12.0 U) W F 10.01 24ff 4- 40' ?4' 24' PRIVATE ST.L 5.0' VV V/V'/`J 20' �kvv V V V V V,V"I"'I'll Notes: -F 7J4 J 1. Site plan is for conceptual purposes only. 10.0 51 2. Site plan must be reviewed by planning,building,and fire 1 2 PEI It 42- departments for code compliance. 3. Base information per civil engineer. 4. Civil engineer to verify all setbacks and grading information 0 -10 -10 5� Building Footprints might change due to the final design M()SS S/R[I elevation We. 6. Open space area is subject to change due to the balcony design of the elevation. 7. Building setbacks are measured from property lines to c building foundation lines. CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE PLAN C�I I I I CV,,I�I A\�1J:I��, 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 SP-2 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 20 40 8.0 SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS i CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 CIOUNI",I MN(GH��,EVV�N,FA 2021-01-,D5 Agenda Packet Page 552 f767 Project Summary IT Total Site Area:+6.94 Acres L+302,254 SF) J t Total Units: 141 Homes W Cn -(97)3-Story Court Towns g: LU A NI (16)Plan 1:+1,196 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) (16)Plan 2:+1,235 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) 2�' PRIVATE ST.I (34)Plan 3:+1,652 SF,3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Den 4 (31)Plan 4:+1,758 SF,4 Bed,3.5 Bath,Opt.Den D__ V V V V IV T (44)3-Story Row Towns 24' (24)Plan 5:+1,838 SF,3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Den,Opt.Bed 4 (20)Plan 6:+2,002 SF,4 Bed,3.5 Bath,Opt.Den NNE MMEMMVMMMN Density: 20.4 Homes per Acre PR_VATIE ST. N R3. MEN MANMNNMNZN N_I 17�071 L\i N A AA�MA ki PRIVATE ST.J W E 6 V V V V V V (L A A A A A A A A 2/' X -Story Row Towns Trash Storage:3 13 A e -gallon carts per home (2)96 PRIVATE ST.K C�) V V V V 24' U) W V7 V7 El J IL 6 400 SIF Bulky V V V V V V V V V V A A T/ Item Pickup RRV i PRIVATE ST.D V V --_EMMMMM5�M MOMMOMM 37.1' 4 HUY NN ME ME ME ME PRIVATE ST.D Typical(2)96-gallon carts staging 6— �4' 24' 'VV VV V� V VV VV A A co 48 3,7 L"I rz 60 A A A A A A A A A 8'Trash lane w/ yf 47 z L* z minimum 37.1' 46 A A A A A�A inside radii R3 11 ME 37Y 44 ----------—-------------------e---------- _'t I — — Trash Storage:3-Story Court Towns 40' 24' 24' cl 43 42 41 4�' y6 37 36 35 MERE ME PRIVATE ST.L (2)96-gallon carts per home /A V V V VV �v VV VV VVV Notes: 'X V 1. Site plan is for conceptual purposes only. 7 71 2. Site plan must be reviewed by planning,building,and fire departments forcocle compliance. 3. Base information per civil engineer. 4. Civil engineer to verify all setbacks and grading information 0 10 10 5� Building Footprints might change due to the final design -10 MOSS S/Rll elevation We. 6. Open space area is subject to change due to the balcony design of the elevation. 7. Building setbacks are measured from property lines to building foundation lines. CONCEPTUAL TRASH STAGING PLAN C�I I I I CV,,I�I A 1',�1J:I��, D I I G 1',�I�S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET SP-3 REALTY 0 20 40 8.0 SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS 4—� CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 1")J�A"�U 1�C,0 J N I",I C) N'A�I F IVV� 1,!F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 553 f767 Building Building Type Number of Bldg Number Bldg SF Bldg Unit Mix Name Bldgs on Site (lot coverage) "�1�7 77 / AFIZONA 5 (1)Plan 5 4 4' A/A AA/ 3 3,14,18 2,499 SF LU 3 Plex Rowtown F/J (2)Plan 6 0. �P 5A U) AAA LU FR LP P IL 21� PRIVATE ST.I 1.5 7//,, T— /67 4 VV VV V (2)Plan 5 200, R20.0' 1'.01 4 Plex Rowtown 2 16,17 3,294 Sr I' �P5 (2)Plan 6 F 10.01 20.0' P �P�5A LP 28.6 PRIVATEST.13 moc 20.0- 20.0' &AA �A 0 777 ,1/1' �-: - (3)Plan 5 Z co PRI TE ST.J 1 5 Plex Rowtown P 5 �HA �P5 3 5,8,13 4,089 SF 5.51 T� 1/1 6� �p P6V 2)Plan 6 0.0 2 /VV VV L 24' (4)Plan 5 A AA AA 15.01 6 Plex Rowtown 2 6,7 4,884 SF �1 3 �HA �HA �HA �P 5A �P 6� (2)Plan 6 Y F PRIVATE ST.K P 1 11)01 H-d �VP 3 Pf 21' AV VV P� 20H V L10 co (2)Plan 1 D D:— LU T 11 Plex Court 1 4 7,690 SF (2)Plan 2 12 (4)Plan 3 .0 Townhorne LLJ P2 I �"111� (3)Plan 4 A AA A PRIVAT ST. LL --F — 00. 1.01 4 R 5.0', 15.R20.0' PRIVATE ST.D, P �P 3A �P 4A IT; V 2 U� I//V V V I '.0 ff-t7', 4� VP VP P 3� P-11 V V//, 16 i17A FAR IAA�AA�Afl A J (2)Plan 1 45 1W, `0`7 0 �/l (2)Plan 2 */ --------------21.0' 12 Plex Court 0 9,10,11, 40' 24" 24' /�3 r)Q C PRIVATE ST.L 8, 5c-01 4'� Townhome 12,15 (4)Plan 3 P2 V 20' VV VV VV vilv' (4)Plan 4 0 TT %1.2' A P�A �P 3A 4A P P 1 �P Project Summary MOSS STREE' Total Site Area:+6.94 Acres L+302,254 SF) 1 11 501 P1 I VP /'VP vp� vp� V Total Units: 141 Homes V, *(97)3-Story Court Towns P2 (2)Plan 1 -(16)Plan 1:+1,196 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) 13 Plex Court (2)Plan 2 -(16)Plan 2:T 1,235 SF,2 Bed,2.5 Bath(Tandem) Townhome 2 1,2 9,173 SF (5)Plan 3 -(34)Plan 3:+1,652 SF,3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Den P2 (4)Plan 4 -(31)Plan 4:+1,758 SF,4 Bed,3.5 Bath,Opt.Den *(44)3-Story Row Towns A -(24)Plan 5:+1,838 SF,3 Bed,2.5 Bath,Den,Opt.Bed 4 �P 4A �P 3A �N� Lp�� P1, -(20)Plan 6:+2,002 SF,4 Bed,3.5 Bath,Opt.Den Density: 20.4 Homes perAcre Building Square Footage is per building,not a total.See Project Summary for total building coverage. Lot Coverage: 34.5%of site L+104,195 SF) CONCEPTUAL UNIT AND BUILDING MATRIX C�I I I I C T,, I I A 1',�1J:1 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 SP-4 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET REALTY SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 1 IVV�N,FA 2021-01,05 Agenda Packet Page 554 f767 —Plan 1 ±1,196 SF 2 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths 2-Car Tandem Garage Storage:240 Cubic Feet 271411 OL 00 251011 ................................. % .............. E N T�)( UP .................. 471611 .......... 711 3!xX"11 2-CAR GARAGE CTS PDR 10'-2"x 39'-6" Re6vde� -LtN-. UP DN DIN DIN Private 'Storage/ DINI BE: �40 C.F. LIVING 31,x MASTERNI., DROOM 4'-9- T 111- 4" 10-0"x BATH 25A ROOF DECK 1 V-41"x 164" 185 S.F. _LL ASTER B:_DROOM 12-6"x1l'-11" 117 -BATH 2 3'8"x5'6" DECK KITCHEN 11--3"X 6-0" W.I C 67 S.F. LL ------------------- FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR ROOF DECK PLAN 1 Unit Plan I I I I CV, I I A\HIJ:1 1,11 1 Gl',H I�S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 2 4 8 REALTY SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. W AIIIIII CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBAWHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)i UVI�Ui�C,OUN I,,"I '\N(A�I EVV�Nk F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 555 f767 '.1 FPlan 2 ±1,235 SF 2 2 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths Bed r 2-Cair Tandem Garage Storage:220 Cubic Feet 271411 271411 UP Private Storage UP > 4 0 ENTRY - ------ C -�3' S DECK D DN Re' 6-0"x 12-9" Bf:DROO 12 :h 76 S.F. ..................... 711 10'-1 x 10'-13" F------- 111-10")(91-2� 1�---1�1 I i(:" L IiAU 7 "�� L" 'j 4 -�ATH�2 UN TTTF I - 11 � / � 251011 J I ) � ...................................... -7— ROOF DECK W.I.C� 13-11"x 17'-0" MA(ZTPQ rzpn 235 S.F. Om J) 12'4"x1 V-1 10 Pr�vpte Storage tl 0'2`��-6` KITCHEN MASTER (Over�&ad) BATH E 1�z 471611 ....................... ................................ ...................... 2-CAR GARAGE 10'-2"x 39'-6"CLR, Pr�vate SforaqIE� 1 0'2'-W-6� 1 TO_C�F .............. .... (Overh&4 .................... . ........................ ...................... ............ —————————————— FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR ROOF DECK PLAN 2 Unit Plan ,'M C�I I I I CV,,I I A l',�1J:1 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 VB A-2 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 2 4 8 REALTY SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. W AIIIIII CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)j�A 11�U 1�C,0 j N I",I C) N(,t�I EVV�\1,!F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 556 f767 Plan 3 ±1,652 SF 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths Den/Opt.Roof Deck 2-Car Garage Storage:260 Cubic Feet 211011 01. 10 ------------- K- FE� 7 UP DECK E I AYU JP 0.. 13--0"x 6-0" 78 S.F. ASTER BEDROOM Private Storage 77 131-211 x 121-611 11-�3�xX"11 1 1, ROOF DECK -/If"" 12'-1 O"x 17'-1 KITCHEN 220&F� DIN CTS 1 X3 UP DN L LI N. DN VIASTER C:�] 341011 1 1 1 ININ�� BATH 13 11 —o—ra—g ——————————— — 20 -6" 1'-8"x 1 V- Prlvclfe St 371011 260-C-.F (Overheao) Ji/ 1BAT"-1 AR GARA-E----- T- U 20'-5"x 20'-5' CTS R I IVIN 0 134"x 14'.4" DROOIA 2 0, T BEDROO —1ax1 1 7 01 LL�AILI L--------------------------- FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR ROOF DECK PLAN 3 Unit Plan I I I I CV, I I A 1,HIJ:1 1,11 1 Gl',H I�S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-3 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 2 4 8 REALTY SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. W AIIIIII CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBAWHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)i UMII�Ui�C,OUN I,,"I '\N(A�I EVV�Nk F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 557 f767 Plan 4 ±1,758 SF 3 Bedrooms 3.5 Baths Den(Opt.Bed 4) Opt.Roof Deck 2-Car Garage Storage:300 Cubic Feet 211011 151811 0 EDROOM 4 up� —/�O'-3"x 10'.51 ASTER BEDROOM F 1 T-2"x 12--9" GRE-1 ROOM ROOF DECK 13--0"x 201-611 d:A Ll v�lkk� 12'-1 Oax 20'-6" 270 S.F. E8ATH 3 ri 11 UP 3"y3' DIN e lrbI Z'---ll� DIN ,�j MASTER LIN. DIN BATH PI Sto—ra—ge —————————— ---- 34161, 40'5" 20'5.x7�6" 3601 371611 W.I.C.1 (Overhead) BAT H 2 LAU 2- AR GARA E 20'-5"x 20'-5" P) KITCHEN '_1 III S U F— EDROOM 2 0 O'-lu x 11',6" BEDR PD� 10-1 x 10'-2 DECI Oil P 13'-0"x 6- 78 S.F. IL————————————————————————— —- 471 FIRST FLOOR THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR ROOF DECK Building electrical cabinet PLAN 4 1 Unit Plan CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-4 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 2 4 8 REALTY SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBAWHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 558 f767 Plan 5 ±1,838 SF 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths Den(Opt.Bed 4/Bath 3) 2-Car Garage L�l 211011 01 Storage:300 Cubic Feet El EN��y DECK UP 131-011 x 61-011 W.1.C. 78 S.F. MASTER BEDROO 1 T-O"x 13'-0" DEN'OPT.BED 4) UP Private 16--O--x1 5m-1 1 Storage 1 Trash 161-10 rD:E:NT1I -_�6�- le -1 L111 371611 DN DN IVIASf� BATH Ix Private Storage ------- 2 0'_&"x-7-6 401011 -7- 36-0-(a-.F, BATH� (Overhead�- LI�N LAU DINING 14'-011 x 101-311 2- AR GARA E 0'-5"x 20'-5 P mr1mr1r1inrin n rLA U KDR001VI I/P// I TS ——A 01-211 x 10'411 101-0"x1l'-4, KITCHEN P 0 P x/ F-- 10 11 3 FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR PLAN 5 1 Unit Plan CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-5 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 2 4 8 REALTY SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBAWHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 559 f767 Plan 6 ±2,002 SF 4 Bedrooms/3.5 Baths Opt.Den/Roof Deck 2-Car Garage Storage:315 Cubic Feet 221011 UP-4- EN Y jzy ..7 UP W.I.C. BEDROOM 4 13-1 O"x 101-71, 1 MASTER BEDROONI WING -011 x 131-311 Private 11 x 14-3" 14' Storage ROOF DECK F'BATH Trash 13'-1 O`x 26'-5" w.l.c- .0 L IFNT 393 S.F. tRq�le' MASTER 371611 DN BATH UP DN DECK DI I G 401011 D N Private Storage 21��`W 6" 61-0"x 1 V-71, 17'-3"x 1'-6" 7-3'�Xl 315--C-.F— 70 S.F. 7 7 (Overhead)— BATH 2 LAU x- 2- AR GARA E- I><I I'-X x 20'-5 LIN. F) CTS BEDROO A 2 Rr-npnnRA q 1.10'-5"x 10-1 10'-7"x 10'-1 KITCHEN ------- PDR( I FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR ROOF DECK Building electrical cabinet PLAN 6 Unit Plan CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-6 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 2 4 8 REALTY SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBAWHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 560 f767 0 0 El EJ El L \711 7 1 "'Jil jl 7 :10D11 k��M�0 � —-------- Plan 2 UP > v vv vv vv vv ±1,235 SIF D DN' Plan 4 Plan 3 2 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths EN Y C, ±1 S' ±1,652 SF 2-Car Tandem Garage 3 Bedroor /3.5 Baths 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths 76 �s R Den(Opt.Bed 4)/Opt Roof Deck Den/Opt.Roof Deck Planll 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage ±1,196 SF EN 2 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths 2-Car Tandem Garage DECK 51 P UP 6-0- 1 L 78 S.F 1-0'.� y VTy IN KITCHE IN i T-T GR T ROOM EA 13A"x 20'-6 KITCHEN L CTJ UP DN PDR 2-CAR GARAGE 2-CAR GARAGE -2'39'-6' 10'-2'x 39'-6'CLR.. N 10' DIN D mw L UP ------ ---------- 20� )T CF. 260 C�— 'K LIVING 1,�INI LAU x --2-AIR CARA E— AR CARA E-- 20'-5"x 20'� 20'-6'20'-5 KITCHEN Cts LIVING 1 11 i 0 u Ei)> 0 --- 1 D CK 3 6-� 78 E SF. LAU 3�ECK <1 KITCHEN 13'-O"x 6-0' 6,0�. F1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L-------------------------------- SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 7-A �Y -V J BUILDING 4 SITE MAP: 11 PLE 11 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans 111 1 CT,,,I I W, 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-7 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 l"01UN I",I I t���,EVV�\l,FA 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 561 f767 F) F_171 __J IL t1i JEEA1 Dlffl D 2 LN AT 2 -------------- �j ROOF DECK 13YV�1T-V rAS W.I.C. 235 S F. �?��Oom MASTER RPDR OM 0 124"�1 V-1 1 ROOF DECK R OM 12'-10N20'-6!' MASILH 270 S.F. ROOF DECK 220 S.F. 12--1 ON 17--l" DN DN 1E VIASTER BAT LLIN. LIN. !H ASTER cl C] omim � r] -LtnN-. DN C ID I (I ��I DN W.I.C. B TH 2 WJLC,� BATFi:��] Lai",- c] V ASTER BATH ROOF DECK 11 A"x 164" 2 ASTER B DRO M Bg 1 81�7 12--6.,1 L TH 2 W.I.C. ROOF THIRD FLOOR 7A, BUILDING 4 SITE MAP: 11 PLEX 11 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans ,'\Pr,H1f I CV,, I W, 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-8 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C101UN I",I MN(GH��,EVV�\1,FA 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 562 f767 FS �,M V I 0-M �/........... i;"n r� ............./ ir ---------------- gg N HH gn �'g L NOR, 0, �W 6 I I.J............................... 'O'UNN NOTE:6 GARAGE ELEVATION IS THE SAME LEFT WEST AS GARAGE ELEVATION FOR 12 FLEX-SEE REAR NORTH SHEET A-1 2. ....................... `/�,/"///�`1/1'/'1`1`............. M/A ......... ------------------------------ ----------------------- ------ n n 4 ................. Al W mo p/s/ ........................... RIF ............ -k "All"� MATERIALS: INTERIOR COURT I EAST FRONTI SOUTH F-1] Roof:Flat With Parapet F-61 Stucco Column F-2] Stucco F-71 Horizontal Railing BUILDING 4 F-3] Horizontal Lap Siding F-8] Metal Sectional Roll-Up Garage Door F-4]Vinyl Windows Utility Cabinet 11 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Elevations r_5] Entry Door C I I I I C T I I A IIJ I I I I G 1',1 S CONSTRUCTION:R2 VB SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET A-9 REALTY 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS NOTE:ARTIST CONCEPTION;COLORS,MATERIALS AND APPLICATION MAY VARY FINISHED GRADE VARIES,REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL FOR WALL,TREE,SHRUBS AND PATIO WALL LOCATIONS,REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 1 EVV�N,FA 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 563 f767 I"X" 0 0 0 FrAI><1 El Ern-f:-1 1:1 0 El M L 40� —ct !0� LLJ --4 �-4 FM v E:1 El 01 F I VOL] LL -r-------- 0 0,71 0 F] Plan 2 ±1,235 SF Plan 4 Plan 3 2 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths ILL�L 6� 1-j 1 ±1,758 SF ±1,652 SF 2-Car Tandem Garage 3 Bedrooms 3.5 Baths 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths UP > Den(Opt.Bed 4)Opt.Roof Deck Den/Opt.Roof Deck UP > Plan 1 D DN 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage ±1,196 SF y E,,I 2 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths 76 R C:] 2-Car Tandem Garage ENT v EDROO UP 0'-3"xlC'5' UP 0'64" 78 S.F DECK 1 7" jv�ITIYP JI y 7-�'- GREAT ROOM KITCHEN 17X 11 .............. T-S' 3-2"20'-6!' up KITCHEN 11 EIN R ATH gj PDR 2-CAR GARAGE 2-CAR GARAGE 10'-2'39'-6' 10'-2'x 39'-6'CLR. mw DIN L N I'Nj DN UP 'PTVCF�sto� ---------- –2� 'R T,C F. P < LAU LIVING "'IN CTSF 4'-91. x 2--AR CARA AR GAR--E-- 20'-6'20'-5 20'-5"x 20'5 K CHEN IT 31 7 Cts LIVING 1 ffLUAu L Lfl) 0 0 0 a, L�- LAU KITCHEN 3 67 S.F. 6\ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L-------------------------------- SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR V 1 -V J BUILDING 12 SITE MAP: 12 PLEX 12 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans ,'WCH11 I CT,,, I W, 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 0 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY S'U1,11V11TTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 1")1 UMII�Ui�I',01UN I",I I EVV�\I,!I A 201 Agenda Packet Page 564 f767 -71 X ED ilt, IL I �Tfl Dlffl D 2 L N AT 2 ------------- �j ROOF DECK 13Y 1'�17'-D" A rSBJE W.I.C. IF 235 S F. 1�3T 2?9�OOM ................ MASTER BEN OM ................. 11-111, 12'-10N20'-6!' ROOM MA,ER ROOF DECK 270 S.F. ROOF DECK DN 12'-1 17-1 2208N S.F. DN DN r7 MASTER LIN. LIN BAT !H ASTER W.I.C. B TH 2 I-C�I BATF� cl LZ�0 ROOF DECK 11�-4-x 164" 1 2 2 2 ASTER B IROOM BEDROOM 81�7 12'-6"XI'-11" 10`V�1M-j 1 ��TH 2 L I.C. ROOF THIRD FLOOR BUILDING 12 r-SITE 'MA'P: 12 PLEX 12 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans ,'\Pr,H1f I CV,, I W, 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 1 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY S'U1,11V11TTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C101UN I",I MN(GH��,EVV�N,FA 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 565 f767 ',"-',,'I',"_","I I I"/, I'll I�11I /""/,�,,";,,1,, ",,�',,11/'�"',""",,� �w`"x A"'W I'M J R ----------................ ............................................. ................ .......... ...................... ffig KIM ......... HF H i RRAI ?6ffi ......... )T I........................ ............... NOTE:SAME ELEVATION APPEARS IN BOTH RIGHT SOUTH 11 FLEX AND 13 PLEX BUILDINGS. REAR EAST X o .......... pw/d"/"'�� ----------------------------------------------------------- Fli 'x/' n MHEST PARAPET, b n F_ .............. RI IN, ............... N 0, pt V� J- "g, 0- al"! NOTE:SAME ELEVATION APPEARS IN BOTH MATERIALS: INTERIOR COURT NORTH 11 FLEX AND 13 PLEX BUILDINGS. FRONTI WEST F-11 Roof:Flat With Parapet F-61 Stucco Column F-2] Stucco F-71 Horizontal Railing BUILDING 12 F-3] Horizontal Lap Siding F-8] Metal Sectional Roll-Up Garage Door F-4]Vinyl Windows Utility Cabinet 12 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Elevations F-5] Entry Door ,'M C�I I I I CV, I I Al',�1J:1 1,11��l G 1',�I�S CONSTRUCTION:R2 VEI A-1 2 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:ARTIST CONCEPTION;COLORS,MATERIALS AND APPLICATION MAY VARY FINISHED GRADE VARIES,REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL FOR WALL,TREE,SHRUBS AND PATIO WALL LOCATIONS,REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 1")1 UMII�Ui�i"OUN I",I I EVV�N,F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 566 f 767 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LK 0 0 0 0- 0 El El tdn I LI V//y M rl 0] C _77 E30 0 F1 El L111 rl=1 —If—-------- L r�, 'i Plan 2 ±1,235 SF Plan 4 Plan 3 2 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths ±1,758 SF ±1,652 SF 2-Car Tandem Garage 3 Bedrooms/3.5 Baths/ 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths UP > Den(Opt.Bed 4)/Opt.Roof Deck Den/Opt.Roof Deck Plan 1 up riii�St—ge 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage ±1,196 SF DECK N 6A.. 9�. 2 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths �1 Z-R' r 76 S.F. 2-Car Tandem Garage ENT zx --------------I OM4 UP ER 0.5.� DECK up UP NTRY y 131-01.�6-0' 78 S.F. JIN_,71N Fv"! --A GREAT ROO, KITCHEN 11"'.W-6- KITCHEN IN 7-- UP DN' F- 'J' i"A UP CTS7 'all, ±1'652 3 Bed rooms 2 Bat 0 L L L v v v v v I /�j t R jDeckD R Deck" e Op a,je 2-Ca G 'p 2-CAR GARAGE 2-CAR GARAGE CTS )R j 10'-2'x 39',6 10'-2'x 39'-6 CLR. DN sfora — 'I i O'C'F DN UP -————————— I�NIN 20 W6" p ...... 260 CF ----- ----- LIVING LAU ICTS_ 4�Y 2-AR CARA A E-- 1j lu --- U-0 x zu 5' 20'-5 x 20'-5 KITCHEN OTS 7" R LIVING 4—S 0 DECK 38'.56" DECK p El Wxs'�O. 78 S.R LAU E7'SR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR TA V 1."M _7 7 BUILDING 1 SITE MAP: 13 PLEX 13 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 3 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY S'U1,11V11TTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 567 f767 > F1 CEJ LE� v cz� cvJ cl cl c:1 c� '7773 F Ht� -- --------- ........ 4� m m! ELI rl- L lu-------Ai F-71 DN B DROON 2 DN 7A LIN ------------- ------------- ROOF DECK Dom W.I.C. IN AT 2 235 S.F. ROOF DECK ROOM :T1:111T11 61, r L 1TAONNY-6- MA51ER 270 S F. 717 ROOF DECK —----- 12--1"17 4-- BATH 220 S F. ...................... N�..... ......... D MASTER BATH LIN. LIN.. C= ASTER C—�] L— I---) DN E ED ��IATH EI A, 1� r--:31 FIN LIN. W.I.C. W.I.C.. B TH 2 BATI-i::2 /STE 01 10 0"OU-6" ------- BATHA ROOF DECK 11'4-x16--4` 2 ASTER B DROOM UHUU �1..xjj.j. 12',1"x1',11" TH 2 E-q ROOF THIRD FLOOR -Al A, '-V 1Z 7 BUILDING 1 I-SITE 'MA''P: 13 P 13 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Building Plans CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 4 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. w CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 568 f767 0/0, ..................................... 0 j ............................ ............................................................. ......................................... .......... --- —------------ 0 6" ............ ........... pp,ogu "'AmN V, ............... NOTE:6 GARAGE ELEVATION IS THE SAME RIGHT NORTH AS GARAGE ELEVATION FOR 12 FLEX-SEE REAR WEST SHEET A-1 2. ......... 14 ---------- 'N ''M ------------------------------------------------------------- )n nHIGMT ......................... ME` 0712 R 441" LM MR, J- + L 15") ED H' MATERIALS: INTERIOR COURT SOUTH FRONT EAST F-11 Roof:Flat With Parapet F-61 Stucco Column F-2] Stucco F-71 Horizontal Railing BUILDING 1 F-3] Horizontal Lap Siding F-8] Metal Sectional Roll-Up Garage Door F-4]Vinyl Windows Utility Cabinet 13 PLEX COURT TOWNHOMES Elevations F-5] Entry Door CONSTRUCTION:R2 VB A-1 5 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:ARTIST CONCEPTION;COLORS,MATERIALS AND APPLICATION MAY VARY FINISHED GRADE VARIES,REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL FOR WALL,TREE,SHRUBS AND PATIO WALL LOCATIONS,REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. C)2020WILLIAMHEZMALHALCHARCHITECTS,INC.DBAWHA.12018317111-13-20 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 569 f767 DECK 13-0"�6-0 W.I.C, W.C. L 78 SF MAST:R BEDROOM MASTER BEDROO I 4- IV NG IT-0 xl3'-G' �11 4`3 JTP ��aASTTHR A N UP D MAS DN �=t ri DN BATH DECK I DINING 6'-""11 T 2 BATH ]N �j D MING �)n 0 ><� 11] co 14'-0100A'� LI. 1,1 �-j A F777 ROO xj 3� LEA LAU P 3 �S BED" 13'� 1 7" 13 0, KITCHEN cull PDR - L D [L THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR Plan 6 Plan 5— ±2,002 SF ±1,838 SF 4 Bedrooms/3.5 7Baths\,3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths Opt.Den Den(Opt.Bed 4/Bath 3) je 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage ---------El L'EN� up B UP '�JDJ.1'010M 4 0'-7" �L DEN i OPT.BED 4) �-t. �!� S'—a. ATH 126`5" ..... �W.I.C. 393 S.F ROOF DECK Storage----------------21�y"7-6:��Zq at�-------------- 2-AR GAR AR GAR I'-3'x 20'-5 0'-S'x 20'-5 IL----------------------------11-------------------------------------------------------- ROOF FIRST FLOOR X J'i BUILDING 14 F-sITE MAP: 3 PLEX 3 PLEX ROWTOWNS I Building Plans CT,,, 1AJ',H1J:W, 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 6 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY S'U1,11V11TTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)PAJ11il('11�i"01UNIP", \1,FA 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Puket Page 570 f767 "a 'PON// 71 Hf SO W, EEW H RIGHT I EAST REARI NORTH HGHST FAOJW' J11 9� �"V R R .71 MATERIALS: LEFT WEST FRONT SOUTH F-11 Roof:Flat With Parapet F-61 Stucco Column F-2] Stucco F-71 Horizontal Railing BUILDING 14 F-3] Horizontal Lap Siding F-8] Metal Sectional Roll-Up Garage Door F-4]Vinyl Windows F-9] Utility Cabinet 3 PLEX ROWTOWNS I Elevations F-5] Entry Door I I I I CV, I I 1 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 7 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:ARTIST CONCEPTION;COLORS,MATERIALS AND APPLICATION MAY VARY FINISHED GRADE VARIES,REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL FOR WALL,TREE,SHRUBS AND PATIO WALL LOCATIONS,REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)i UVI�Ui�C,OUN I",I I EVV�Nk F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 571 f767 D DECK W..C. 13-0`6-0` MAST:R BEDROOM MASTE BEDROO ------- IV NG El 4 4".A-A- IT-0 x 13'-G' �11 4`3 UTP FD �BJE ROD X-----L� .x 3T 13 V�- -- -- i�TL----- El 7�!O,ASTIER UN-El f AT UP DN -DN MA t:t D I N BATH DE 6-4ox CK I DINING B H 2 A LEA I BATH2_ flN z LAU D!NING 14-0 x IDA` Ll P 11 7 n 7- T-- 3 Ts BED" BEDRWRA q 1 L(t KITCHEN 13 0, KITCHEN 0 PDR ED 1---) VD THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR Plan 6(ADA) Plan 5 ±2,002 SF ±1,838 SF 4 Bedrooms/3.5 Baths 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths Opt.Den Den(Opt.Bed 4/Bath 3) 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage El E 4 NT UP UP iOPT.BE TI E Up 7D �z 1 ROOF DECK BATH 13'40N26"Y ———— 393 S.F 01 D�N — ---------- 21�yw-6;�t.sta.g. 20'WW L ---------------- 2-AR GAR E- AR GAR 0'-5'x 20'-4 x 20'-4 L--- ------------ -------------- -------------- --------- ROOF FIRST FLOOR �,V 4 01 BUILDING 16 �--SIT I E MAP: 4 PLEX 4 PLEX ROWTOWNS I Building Plans ,'W C�I I I I CT,,,I�I Al',�1J:I��, 1,11��l C,1',��I�S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 8 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY S'U1,11V11TTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 �")j UMII�Ui��',01UN I",I I EVV�\I,!F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 572 f767 A 14, 'g"Z111" 'j J/1"', u 4 7�- p/dip/m/ ,ro '��j'qq R R pis P, Vol 0 "F` q -- - ---------- RIGHT NORTH REAR WEST .............. '04 "0 IV ............. F.F MATERIALS: LEFT SOUTH FRONT EAST F-11 Roof:Flat With Parapet F-61 Stucco Column F-2] Stucco F-71 Horizontal Railing BUILDING 16 F-3] Horizontal Lap Siding F-8] Metal Sectional Roll-Up Garage Door F-4]Vinyl Windows F-9] Utility Cabinet 4 PLEX ROWTOWNS I Elevations F-5] Entry Door CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-1 9 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:ARTIST CONCEPTION;COLORS,MATERIALS AND APPLICATION MAY VARY FINISHED GRADE VARIES,REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL FOR WALL,TREE,SHRUBS AND PATIO WALL LOCATIONS,REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. C 2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)i UVI�Ui�C,OUN I I I EVV�Nk F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Nge573.f767 DECK 13'-0"x 6A.' W.I.C. MAST R BEDROO ----- MAS BEDROO ------- IVING 14 "xl4'-3" UP ':3�1] LIN ��BASTTHR IN. UN- 7 El M A BAITH UP DN MAS 9=11 DN BATH t=t tn DN DN DECK 6-0"�1 T BATH 2 LAU BATH LIN 70 Us q:r:T� —211,---,1 ---- ------- c C3 cj- IIIING. n�z k i"" U. ------- ----- ------ -7 �-4�=l SEDII�l UN.11V I IL 3 BED OM c TS KITCHEN KITCHEN E-D -D 10 PDR RD L7 ROO 12 B x 11 JJB��o 1 IE E t ill F P THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR Plan 6(ADA) Plan 5 ±2,002 SF ±1,838SF 4 Bedrooms/3.5 Baths 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths Opt.Don Den(Opt.Bed 4/Bath 3) 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 11 El y E �y ------- up UP 7110! I'll, I L aths/ a 3) th _E� LEI 13'-lO"x26'-5' BATH I ��7 I I I i i I� 393 S.F. ROOFIDECK FO I ...... ----------------2j7 �tp stom ------------------- (0-rh..d) (0-h..d�- 2-AIR CARA -2-A R GAR E- 0'5 x 20'-4 x 20'5 L---------------------------- --------------------------- ----------- ------------ ---------- ROOF FIRST FLOOR V. , V, I 'v BUILDING 13 SITE MAP: 5 PLEX 5 PLEX ROWTOWNS I Building Plans CV,, I W, 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-20 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY S'U1,11V11TTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 1 EVV�\1,FA 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 574 f767 ............/ P, ""Y ........... ......... IT Of iw R R EH H RIGHT I EAST REARI NORTH 10/1 V ........./,��/,�,, g 7", HCFW PARAkt J .2 ,04 RE]. E MATERIALS: LEFT WEST FRONT SOUTH F-11 Roof:Flat With Parapet F-61 Stucco Column F-2] Stucco F-71 Horizontal Railing BUILDING 13 F-3] Horizontal Lap Siding F-8] Metal Sectional Roll-Up Garage Door F-41 Vinyl Windows F-91 Utility Cabinet 5 PLEX ROWTOWNS I Elevations F-5] Entry Door C�I I I I CV, I I A 1J:I D I I G 1',�I�S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-21 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:ARTIST CONCEPTION;COLORS,MATERIALS AND APPLICATION MAY VARY FINISHED GRADE VARIES,REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY S'U1,11V1ITTAL FOR WALL,TREE,SHRUBS AND PATIO WALL LOCATIONS,REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)i UVI�Ui�C,OUN I",I I EVV�Nk F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 575 f767 UP DECK 13-0"�6'-0' N.I.C, W.I.,.lir 78 S.F. FE1 MASI],..LB'E�00� MING 14"T UP :!d n n n U N.. ---------- BATH 11 11N DN ATH ti t::f DN DN M t=t 0-n 0 DECK I DINING — 6'-0"1 tl,3 -0 F-7 7 t� E A�ST E OR B T� H 7g WS17" BATH 2 U BATH-4_ flN cj j�I LAU �-4 1=1 z:1�-j LIN. P -IT 11 F- OTS V-2`00� 3 ROO B L7 KITC HEN KITCHEN Es P ED D THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR Plan 6(ADA) Plan 5 ±2,002 SF ±1,838 SF 4 Bedrooms/3.5 Baths/ 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Baths/ 7\ t Bath 3) Opt.Den Den(Opt.Bed 4/17\ 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage E Ry --------4 NT Y U UP t U I P.ftl)4) $i --F]� ROOF DECK BATH 13-101�26`5` 393 S.F. �J z' 4 DN -P�Sf—go----------------2 M.9--------------20SW� 315-�_ --- 300-c4 -2-AR CA E- AIR GAR 01-6 x 2'-4 �0'-T x 20'4 L--------------------------- ----- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------- ---- ROOF FIRST FLOOR 7A, 'V BUILDING 7 SIT I E MAP: 6 PLEX 6 PLEX ROWTOWNS I Building Plans CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-22 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON METHOD OF CALCULATION. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY S'U1,11V11TTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 576 f767 M ....................................... 'j I gm E: R R 10. Vj RIGHT NORTH REAR WEST MR/ "T tkZ ME// ....... .......... Y, HG*Sr PMM& 4 HH R v, 78 H EIR R R' F-F MATERIALS: LEFT SOUTH FRONT EAST F-1] Roof:Flat With Parapet F-61 Stucco Column F-2] Stucco F-71 Horizontal Railing BUILDING 7 F-3] Horizontal Lap Siding F-8] Metal Sectional Roll-Up Garage Door F-4]Vinyl Windows F-9] Utility Cabinet 6 PLEX ROWTOWNS I Elevations F-5] Entry Door ,'M C�I I I I CV, I I Al',�1J:1 1,11 R'S CONSTRUCTION:R2 V13 A-23 REALTY SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET 0 4 8 1.6 SHOPOFFINVESTMENTS NOTE:ARTIST CONCEPTION;COLORS,MATERIALS AND APPLICATION MAY VARY FINISHED GRADE VARIES,REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS. CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL FOR WALL,TREE,SHRUBS AND PATIO WALL LOCATIONS,REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 CIOUNI",I MN(GH��,EVV�N,FA 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 577 f767 Trim Trim --------------- co 1 Stucco 1 ..................... Garage Door Garage Door .................................................................... ............................................................. Stucco 2 Stucco 2 Front Door Front Door Siding Siding Court Town Rowtown Color Scheme Color Scheme CONCEPTUAL COLOR & MATERIALS I I I I CV, I I A\HIJ:1 1,11 1 Gl',H I�S CONSTRUCTION:R2 VB A-24 SPRINKLER SYSTEM:FULL 13 676 MOSS STREET REALTY SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS AIIIIII CHULA VISTA,CA CITY SU1,11AITTAL C)2020 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS,INC.DBA WHA.1 2018317 1 11-13-20 C)i UVI�Ui�C,OUN I,,"I '\N(A�I EVV�Nk F A 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 578 f767 SITE TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET GO 0 GENERAL NOTES 5 0 51 1. GROSS AREA:7.29 ACRES CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 2. NET AREA:6.49 ACRES(0.35 AC MOSS ST.RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION) 3. TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 4. PRESENT ZONING:ILP(LIMITED INDUSTRIAL PRECISE PLAN) 5. PROPOSED ZONINGi(HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL ZONE) LOMAR ST 6. PRESENT USE:INDUSTRIAL FABRICATION,REPAIR AND SALVAGE 0 A E AVE j," Ij, -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS(CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX)20.4 Di 7. PROPOSED USE:MULTI 8. INTENDED OCCUPANCY USE:RESIDENTIAL R-2(CONDOS) "N 615-olo-Ifi-oo VICINITY AfAP -Ea UNION HIGH GO OOL DISnUCT 9. 1 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL "o T.B.PG. NOT TO SCALE QUInNAM DEM DOC.NO.2016-06-802 10.TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE:SHOWN CREATED BY BRENNER ASSOC.LAND SURVEYOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY, OCT.22,2018. DATE: 11.PRIVATE STREETS A THRU M ARE PROPOSED AS A PRIVATE STREET TO BE MAINTAINED BY HOA. 24' DIMENSION VARIES 12.SEWER:PROJECT PROPOSES ONE SEWER CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING SEWER MAIN IN MOSS STREET AT THE 12' 12' DIMENSI IES 24' SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE. A SEWER PUMP STATION IS PROPOSED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC 4 ON VAR 0' STREETS A AND E.A SEWER FORCE MAIN WILL PUMP SEWAGE SOUTH OVER THE EXISTING BOX CULVERT.THE 3 AN.(TYP) TMIN.(TYP) Awl" FIRE LANE J 12' 12' PROJECT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER MAIN IN THE ON-SITE STREETS AND WILL BLDG. BLDG. CONNECT TO EXISTING PUBLIC SEWER MAIN. _15�% I a i"""""1111111111�' I 1 13.DOMESTIC WATER:WATER WILL BE SERVED FROM EXISTING PUBLIC WATER LINE IN MOSS STREET.PROJECT ==_I !�2 z : 1z"1, 1.5% 15% CD WILL CONSTRUCT NEW PRIVATE WATER MAIN WITHIN PRIVATE STREETS TO PROJECT ENTRANCE ALONG WITH NEW �7 6"CONCRETE CONCRETEAPRON CONCRETE APRON(SLO METERS. AND LENGTH VARY)PE RETE CURB 0"CURB 9 14.FIRE WATER:A SEPARATE PRIVATE FIRE MAIN WILL CONNECT TO THE PUBLIC WATER MAIN IN MOSS STREET. CURB R BIBON 6"CONIC IBBON 0"CURB le I PER SDRSD G-01 7� GUTTER PER SDRSD G-01 PAVEMENT GUTTER PRIVATE FIRE WATER SERVICE WILL INCLUDE FIRE HYDRANTS AND FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICE LATERALS. PAVEMENT- 15.STORM DRAINAGE:STORM WATER RUNOFF WILL COLLECT ON-SITE AND DRAIN INTO 810-FZETENTION STRUCTURES THROUGHOUT THE SITE.OVERFLOW DRAINAGE WILL DISCHARGE TO PRIVATE STREET DRAINS.FROM THERE IT TYPICAL SECTION TYPICAL SECTION WILL FLOW INTO A PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AND DISCHARGE INTO THE EXISTING TELEGRAPH CANYON DOUBLE(10 FOOT X 12 FOOT)BOX CULVERT. 24"PRIVATE STREET/FIRE LANE 24'PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE 16.PHASING-PROJECT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN SEVERAL PHASES WITHOUT REGARD TO SEQUENCE. N.T.S. N.T.S. 1 7.SEE SHEET 3 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR PROPOSED GRADING CONCEPT. 2 18.ELECTRICAL,TELEPHONE AND CABLE TV:ALL SERVICES TO THE SITE WILL BE PROVIDED FROM MOSS STREET. 19.REMOVAL AND RECOMPACTION SHALL BE PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT;COMPRESSIBLE MATERIALS WITHIN AREAS PLANNED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED BUILDING STRUCTURE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED TO COMPETENT MATERIAL Z .V AND REPLACED WITH COMPACTED FILL SOILS. m Lj P/L 20.PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY DEMOLITION OR GRADING PERMIT,THE PROJECT APPLICANT SHALL �u m EX.R/W EX R/W 2 x (SOUTH) w D (NORTH) DEMONSTRATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT THAT ALL OFF-ROAD 72' CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE USED ON THE PROJECT SITE IN EXCESS OF 50 HORSEPOWER WILL BE 36' 36'ROW DEDICATION EQUIPPED WITH ENGINES MEETING THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY(EPA)TIER IV FINAL OFF-ROAD ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS. -------------- 21.THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA: 20' 26' 10, < 16' 4.5'LANDSCAP _j If PARKWAY I 1 0 F # EASEMENT DESCRIPTION REFERENCE SHEET o 1 EXISTING BOX CULVERT(6.5') SHOWN ON SHEET C-3 Ld 77-::z 2 STORM DRAIN(15') SHOWN ON SHEET C-3 X o Eli .......... RIGHT-OF-WAY(36'R/W AT MOSS g,�;" - 3 SHOWN ON SHEET C-3 .10POSED MONOLITHIC CURB,GUTTER, STREET) AND SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-03 Rnt; 4 SEWER ACCESS EASEMENT(20') SHOWN&NOTED ON SHEET C-5 EXISTING 60"RCP STORM DRAIN(COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO P.N ZC30006,SID 20304) 0 EXISTING 12"PVC WATER u) SITE ADDRESS: < (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.11031) EXISTING 12"PVC SEWER 676 MOSS STREET (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.04071) CHULA VISTA,CA 91911 80 40 0 80 160 240 < ME PROPOSED MOSS STREET(WESTERLY P.L.) SCAl_E.- 1"=80' N.T.S. OWN E R/APPLI CANT: SHOPOFF LAND FUND V,LP 0 JAMES O'MALLEY z 2 PARK PLAZA,SUITE 700 q_ P/L -J, mm SWEETWATER AUTHORITY IRVINE,CA 92614 EX.R/W L)Ln m -Of II- EX.R/W < -1936 x (SOUTH) LLj (NORTH) ,A* (949)417 Puxoc SIMI 1 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS 72' m L)0 1 .......... MAP SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SWEETWATER L P ..........01....... CID 36' 36'ROW DEDICATION AUTHORITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 11/09/2020 16' 20' 20' 16' WATER FACILITIES AND ITS DESIGN STANDARDS(STANDARDS). AMES UMALLLY DAIL Qo 10 5'LANDSCAPE� > 5.5' PARKWAY 2.THE WATER FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS MAP,INCLUDING _j 1ja&VESSi %VESSIi SDWK RELATED APPURTENANCES REQUIRED BY SWEETWATER AUTHORITY CIVIL ENGINEER 0 x STANDARDS,SHALL BE INSTALLED AND APPLICABLE FEES IN �............ w ONAL LEGEND ACCORDANCE WITH SWEETWATER AUTHORITY RATES AND RULES MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL UTILITY PROVIDERS PAID,PRIOR TO FINAL PARCEL MAP RECORDATION. BRIAN STUP.P.E. < PROPOSED MONOLITHIC CURB,GUTTER, 9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD. w _j AND SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-03 PROPERTY LINE ELECTRICITY&GAS SAN DIEGO,CA.92124 ui [L P-6/30/ 0 EXISTING 60"RCP STORM DRAIN(COUNTY (858)614-5000 o SAN DIEGO GAS&ELECTRIC ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER < OF SAN DIEGO P.N ZC30006,SID 20304) EX.LOT LINE 800-411-7343 0 618-010-26,618-010-30&618-010-31 or c EXISTING 12"PVC WATER STREET CENTERLINE 1��� 11/09/2020 (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.11031) SEWER Ln ---------- EX.EASEMENT CITY OF CHULA VISTA BASIS OF BEARINGS BRIAN STUP,j P.E DATE > EXISTING 12"PVC SEWER 619-397-6000 < (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.04071) ----- EX.TEMPORARY NORTH 18'22'05"WEST BEING THE BEARING OF THE CENTERLINE WATER OF BROADWAY PER RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO.9615. PROPOSED MOSS STREET(EASTERLY P.L.) CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SWEETWATER AUTHORITY SHEETINDEX 619-409-6751 N.T.S. PROP.EASEMENT BENCHMARK C-1 COVER SHEET 0 Q_ C-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENCUMBRANCES 1_ STORM DRAIN THE BASIS OF ELEVATIONS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTH o EX.RIGHT OF WAY C-3 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN C;TY 01 VISTA AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88)PER NATIONAL C-4 CONCEPTUAL GRADING/STORMWATER co 6 9-397 6000 GEODETIC SURVEY BENCHMARK DESIGNATION;FOUND WELL r- PROP.RIGHT OF WAY C-5 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN (o MONUMENT AT CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF MOSS STREET EX R/W EX.R/W CALTRANS C-6 FIRE AND CIRCULATION PLAN (W�ST) (E ST) EX.BUILDING AND BROADWAY,STAMPED-RCE 32133". lo 72' 760-639-6177 LYING WITHIN QUARTER SECTION 165 OF RANCHO LA NACION, 36' 36' EX.POST TELEPHONE TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH,RANGE 2 WEST,CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AT&T SAN DIEGO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA. PROJECT AREA SUMMERY: 16' 26' 26' 16' EX.VALVE 855-327-0860 EXISTING LOT AREA: o ELEVATION:54.15(NAVD88) 618-010-26:0.67 AC 0 PARKWAY @mH EX.MANHOLE CABLE TV 618-010-31:6.61 AC ............. cr EX.SIGN T;MEgWARNER CABLE 6 8-0 0-32: 240 SF pi 7 4-03-4000 FLOOD ZONE TOTAL 7.29 AC U MORMONISM EX.FIRE HYDARANT ZONE X CONTIGUOUS SIDEWALK-/ EXISTING AC BERM Fif TRASH/REFUSE INSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 06073C2152 F PROPOSED LOT USE: o U REPUBL;CgSERVICES DATE JUNE 11,2004. 1 LOT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES of EX.TREE 619-42-400 PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, m EX.CONTOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT EXISTING 15"VCP SEWER CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY CONDOMINIUM MAP STATEMENT 36'DEDICATION IN MOSS STREET:0.35 AC (CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG.NO.11031-03) THIS IS A MAP OF A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SCHOOL DISTRICT m 619-425-9600 SECTION 1350 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED LOT AREA: INDUSTRIAL BLVD. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ONE LOT:6.94 AC SWEETWATER UNION HIGH IS 141. (CLASS 11 COLLECTOR) SCHOOL DISTRICT 619-691 C-1 -5500 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. N.T.S. < San Diego,CA 92124 NOVEMBER 09,2020 Phone:(858)614-5000 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERINTLCOM 2021-01-05 Agenda Pai Page 579 f767 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENCUMBRANCES TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA APN 618-010-16-00 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 660 L STREET QUITCLAIM DEED DOC.NO.2016-061-0802 ............................... '',",i, I I I 't-1 I 1 1 ] � n j I I ? EX.FIRE HYDRANT J. 42 NAI WOO�E 0 _12�0. 0 APN#618-010-31 EXISTING FENCE 1.0 ARIZONA SMEET Z 1_-A 00 ...... ------ C LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1110� 04 LEGEND EXISTING FENCE PROPERTY LINE REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,DESCRIBED AS cl 2 -4PN -0 FOLLOWS: r'0 #618-010-32 0 no E OFF EX.LOT LINE pX ROTECT IN PLACE RCP SWILY) Zo 2 x Lj STREET CENTEIRLINE IF 28.50(30 APN 618-010-31: Z::> < EX.EASEMENT Al ............. 'v .... o,v SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY 638 FEET OF EVEN WIDTH,AND LYING EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY 240 FEET ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF QUARTER SECTION 165 LYING EX.TEMPORARY EVEN WIDTH THEREOF,ALL BEING LOCATED IN THE RANCHO DE LA NACION,IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, k CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.166 MADE BY MORRILL,FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. j W "Alp EX.BUILDING APN 618-010-26: d bq APN# p EX.POST TO BE REMOVED THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF QUARTER SECTION 165 OF RANCHO DE LA NACION,IN THE CITY /618-010-26 EX.VALVE OF CHULA VISTA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.166,FILED IN AND RELOCATED @MH EX.MANHOLE THE OFFIC E OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,MAY 11,1869,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EXISTING BUILDIN EX.SEWER MH c� EX.SIGN BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 240.00 FEET OF THE (TO BE EX.CATCH BASIN CA ASTERLY HALF OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY QUARTER OF SAID QUARTER SECTION 165,DISTANT THEREON To BE REMOVED EX.FIRE HYDARANT < WEST,300.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF MOSS STREET(80.00 FEET WIDE);THENCE RIM 33.27 NORTHE �7 NORTH 18,19'00 co E 11:17�3 RCP SNEELLYY)) FH 0 or I I U697 300 REP 0 ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE,BEING PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 150.00 FEET NORTHEASTERLY, I I 1�11* / :� RIGHT ANGLES,FROM THE ORIGINAL LOCATED CENTER LINE OF SAN DIEGO AND ARIZONA 9 EX.TREE MEASURED AT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S MAIN TRACT(SAN DIEGO-SAN YSIDRO),NORTH 18-19-00-WEST,293.76 FEET TO A POINT IN THE 30.00' ARC OF A NON-TANGENT 397.25 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, 0 CA L CA CONCAVE SO EX.CONTOUR UTHEASTER Y,A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 56-55-53"WEST TO SAID POINT; THENCE SOL 1 0 m THWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35o 56'48"A :22 ST TRACK DISTANCE OF 249.23 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 10'FROM EA 50.00, 1 L 0 NORTHEASTERLY 15.00 FEET,MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTER LINE OF SAID MAIN TRACK; IPROPOSED ESMT TO MTS 87-0170-B 0 EX.EASEMENT THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 18'19'00"EAST,89.11 FEET TO A POINT DISTANT THEREON on 0 7EUPORARY I<0 NORTH 18'19'00"WEST,300.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF SAID MOSS STREET;THENCE PARALLEL WITH "�UPORARY EXISTING JUNCTION C0NS7RUC770N H CONS7RUCTION STRUCTURE AT BOX 1 00 PLAN REFERENCE NUMBER cf) EA T SAID CENTER LINE,NORTH 710 41'00"EAST,135.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF CUL NN ION� �:',`IEXIITING CULVERT EASEMENT Ld in ........... CONN <: TION Co '_ W CATCH BASIN EC CT C BEGINNING. Vp'1R.TE IN P To 87- 47-1'x- BE RE VE z 3'x: CL v)0 TO BE REMOVED) RIMOVIGATI 14 < 5c- EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID PROPERTY LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500.00 FEET MEASURED RIM 30.50 L 8:85 5014"P C IN < 8"PVC ELY) VERTICALLY FROM THE CONTOUR OF THE SURFACE THEREOF-PROVIDED,HOWEVER,THAT GRANTOR,ITS 4 FL 2 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,SHALL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER TO ENTER UPON INTO OR THROUGH THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY GRANTED HEREIN OR ANY PART THEREOF LYING BETWEEN EXISTIP41G CUL ERT CONNECTION, SAID SURFACE AND 500.00 FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE. IF CE - ---------------- 7.50 .EJL2�GRAPH CANYON .......... (DT � CHANNEL 87'02�47-B 10"RCP BOX CULVERTS___��, EX.4 84"RCP So ........... --,TRANSITION STRUCTUR 14 01 J-t ------- F- 3: EXISTING UTILITY PLAN REFERENCES U-1 0 C14 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS(LOS ANGELES u EXISTING EASEMENTS co DISTRICT)TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL DACW Ell 00 U) DESCRIPTION DISPOSITION DOC.# 09-87-0016 5 PUBLIC HIGHWAY-SAN DIEGO LANDS,INC .. ............ 2700 Q CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG 11031 Q0 TO REMAIN BK.863,PG.128,9/16121 .00'� I I 1- 87-0170 A 10 Of N71*58 I a 01 7 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT-SIDGE TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.74-154472,6/11/74 1 < Y\ 0 7"" 71"" (�)CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG 04071 > 01 _j 8 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT-SIDGE TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.74-232956,8/27/74 EN STATE OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION CE 9 RAILROAD EASEMENT-SO,AZ&EASTERN RAILWAY CO. TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.77-302949,7/27/77 4�-B EXISTINGF� c!) AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DWG.NO. C) JULY 1970 10 FLOOD DRAINAGE CHANNEL EASEMENT TO REMAIN INSTR.79-044389,1/29/79 57709 11 FLOOD DRAINAGE CHANNEL EASEMENT TO REMAIN INSTR.83-199081,6/14/83 EXISTING 00 (�)CITY OF CHULA VISTA DWG 60-1 L < _j TO REMAIN INSTR.85-341634,9117/85 S, 0 a. IL 12 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT-SDGE B 13 FLOOD DRAINAGE CHANNEL EASEMENT I -_ -I I i r I @ SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WO A3403 < 44 Z 50' UILDING _j cn REMOVE PORTION INSTR.89-011720,1110/89 V) I s, 87-0->47-81 (TO BE EXISTING SWEETWATER AUTHORITY MAPBOOK#165 87-0170-A TO REMAIN INSTR.89-011720,1/10/89 z 45.00' OLISHED)� WALL f" < 87-0247-Al 87-0170-B "PEM EXISTING < COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PIN.ZC,3006,SD20304 TO BE QUITCLAIMED INSTR.89-011720,1/10/89 BUILDING < 87-0170-C TO REMAIN INSTR.89-011720,1110/89 10 2�2 cn (��)MBI GROUND SURVEY/POTHOLE DATA(DEC.2018) F- (TO HE V) 14 FL20D D INAGE CHANNEL EASEMENT I �;z< an, REMOVE 1111ON -011721,1/10/89 DEMOLISHED) I E <.V) > 1 T___ R�89 �01< m:�0 REMAF N 1�N N:j 87_0247-A TR 89-011721,1/10/89 0 < IL 87-0247-Bl TOBEQUITCLAIMED INSTR.89-011721,1110/89 0 [z<0 DE 0 'o ME TS < < EASE N AND RESTRICTIONS(PER FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PRELIMINARY REPORT ORDM NUMBER ....... EL 6 NCS-88 424-SD UPDATED AND AMENDED JUNE 7.2018. 0 EASEMENTS PLOTTED PER BRENNER A:ASSOC.LAND SURVEYORS ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY,DATED OCTOBER 22,2018. �p�p EXX CATCH BASIN EX'FIRE HYDRANT Ozo I p(TO BE REMOVED) ....... ..... V) C4 Vz >[L EX CATCH BASIN �%VRE EXISTING FENCE I<V) ...... �""!............. < z 3: .......... b U. D CIL 0 Ld 01 0 0 i-�7 0 0 0 30.00 E_ 12 0' of C-) 5"PVC SEWER 2 2_. 0 EX. EX.2"PVCSEWER0 or 'EWER LLI 2"PVC S 2 N� n2 Ex.15W TERAL X.DRIVEWAY :?j'1 L j "I---------- EX.DRIVEWAY DO EX DRIVEWAY----- ............... 40 20 0 40 80 120 EX.SWR LATERAL or EX�1 EX 400 EX.SWR LA L 41 DO ASIN ��.YT'PVC SEWER _EX.12"PVCWATER(I&6 -X". SCALE. 1"=40' 47_Ld 7 EX.AC BE EWER L _z 1:_ EXJ8'"PVC SEWER MOSS EX.12 7' 7 S7REET 3 FX.15"FVC SEWER(2) 7 N71*36'10'E— EX.12"PVCLjSFWER EX.8"PVC WATER 0 20.9;rw" 7 i W 6-4 =�X VPC�IEER C_ 11m 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. WER 4,�L 2 < E 60"FCP So EX.8"VCP SE PUBLIC S7REET 3 2 San Diego,CA 92124 IL 2 COL DO -5000 A VE 4 VE NOVEMBER 09,2020 Phone:(858)614 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 580 f767 050'±TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT I (87-0170-B INSTRA.89-011720,1/10/89, CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TO BE QUITCLAIMED-PER ALTA) al25'EASEMENT DIMENSION VARIES 24' DIMENSION VARIES (87-0170-C INSTRA. TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 3-MIN-(TYP) 12- 12- 3-MIN.(TYP) 89-011720,1/10/89) BLDG. BLDG. <�>27.00'EASEMENT 13'± o 15% (87-0170-A INSTRA. CONCRETEAPRON(SLOPE AND LE BLDG BLDG. 676 MOSS STREET AND LENGTH VARY) CONCRETE APRON IN 0 CUR THV NO.' 89-011720,1/10/89) NO. B G 0"CURB 0 CURB RIBBON 0"CURB R� 118' 24'PRIVATE ST.K 17' PAVEMENT IBBON CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA GUTTER DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY APN 618-010-16-00 SECTION D-D ,--�#E�TWATER,UNION,HIGH.,SCHOOL DISTRICT,,, FF=40.0 660 L STREET ........... I FF�40.0 �,,-'QUIf6LA'IM 6`EEb DOC.NO.2616-"06-1-0802 N.T.S. .................... ;.................... ........ ....................... DEEPENED 3,� OFFSITE EXISTING DEEPENED V-DITCH ...... FOOTING TOP OF BOX EL.=35.0± FOOTING ............ M7-1-4466�E EXISTNG DEPTH 1 .27 420.73' PROPOSED 30"-\j 1 2 o JE 30.60 1� T VAR�ES(±l') I oo IE I STORM DRAIN 8.5' (TYP.) I o s (IE=26.2±) 4 -0 c I - o 2 24' 4' IE .10 EXISTING ARIZaVA S7REii GRADING TABULATIONS 12' c15 - oo (ID FF=38.9 CONNEC-60N TO 01 PAD 1=38.2- OX CULVERT TO j 16 SITE GRADING REMAIN ................... U) Lo L) 7 ""a-, C; w U-I E ASEMENT z "m I, ! - w %OF TOTAL SITE TO BE GRADED: 100% B oo o PROPOSED 6.5' 0 m TOTAL AREA OF ONSITE TO BE GRADED: 7.29 AC. c 6 17111 111GF 38,2GF..,2GI s4.1 I)c, A 11, - TO CITY OF CHU�A VISTA 2 LL m 11 (3 ,�m U) LL ,11 c. -OF AMOUNT OF CUT: 0 CUBIC YARDS 27' 0 11� w o' Ilb AMOUNT OF FILL: 10,000 CUBIC YARDS PROPOSED 15' no z in Z LL< OFFSITE STORM INUE LL AMOUNT OF EXPORT: 0 CUBIC YARDS 3 16 LL(L 2.70/ 135.44 EASEMENT TO EXISTING DOUBLE BOX CULVERT 4 2 PRIVATE ST.1, RI IE 28.50 AMOUNT OF IMPORT: 10,000 CUBIC YARDS THE CITY OF z Ku,SWILY) z D w I/'37.QGF...37.9 GF,1,38.2 GF .2 GF 38.4 GF REMEDIAL GRADING EXPORT: 15,000 CUBIC YARDS CHULA VISTA 45'EXISTING AND PROPOSED EASEMENTS IE 29.80 % 01111, a. <o� INTERgEPT, Lu _EX30-SO FF=38.9 IE NOTES NOTE:QUANTITIES SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE EXCAVATION SD 1. ALL BOX CULVERT DIMENSIONS PER U.S.ARMY CORPS OF t 9 uj _--EXISTINGOFFSITE AC BERM FOR BUILDING FOOTINGS,UTILITY TRENCHING AND ENGINEERS(LOS ANGELES DISTRICT) w , ca, 5 ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO BULKING/SHRINKAGE. 3r cy TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL DACW-09-87-0016 2. SEE SHEET C-2 FOR EXISTING EASEMENT 13. o PROPOSED 30*STORM DRAIN(REROUTED). 1. -41 OFFSITE DRAINAGE PASSES THROUGH SITE, -o 18* 18-SD,� NO ONSITE CONNECTIONS SECTION A-A 1� ,- SE�-S�hmmm LEGEND PRIVATE ST.B IE 28.18 ---F-FF=38.9 IS IE 28.79 N.T.S. 16! ,j -'36 PAD=38.: �qo� .9 1 - 1 .11 v PROPERTY LINE 37.9'GF 37.9GF 38.2G 38.GF 38.4 GF PROPOSED 15'STORM DRAIN EASEMENT <@>50'±TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF 04LLA VISTA 2 STREET CIENTERLINE < (87-0170-B INSTRA.89-011720,1/10/89, IE 29.92 cl U) w eq�- ------------ o TO BE QUITCLAIMED-PER ALTA) PRIVATE ST.J EX.EASEMENT < > o 25'EASEMENT 37.9 GF�37.9 GF 38.2 ------ PROP.EASEMENT c14 TRA 24' BUILDING NUMBER 89-011720,1/10/89 FF 389 0 20'± (87-0170-C IN IL I o z PAD=38.2 1 0 w 027.6'E�SEMENT ')H�- k--� EX.DIRECTION OF FLOW 10", PROPOSED FENCE LINE 6 (87-0170-A INSTRA. BLDG. 10-FROM EAST TRACK q _6 T u- c, m-o BLDG. 89-011720,1/10/89) 1 NO. PROPOSED ESMT TO MTSI Z u. -j (36) EX.CONTOUR w 0 Lj NO. I� j I u- u Rwr I o --x EX.STORM DRAIN 2,000 OF cl) BIOCLEAN UNIT no >- 12'±1 5' 25'LANDSCAPV AREA 5' 0 9 UNDERGROUND BlOcLEAN UNIT c c c) 13'± MNS-4-8. <: STORAGE MIN -8-24 to cn IE 30.50 8'PVC IN SD- STORM DRAIN SDWK� SDWK -,IE 29.00 8-PVC IE 26.59 18"IN B IE 25.97 18"OUT PAD-393 (n u 4;�3.77 OUT t EL STORM DRAIN PIPE FLOW DIRECTION < A ME 31- 39.5GF 139.5GF 1 39.2 FF=39.0 FF=39.2 PROPOSED 6.5'STORM BIO-FILTRATION SYSTEM IE 26.65 DRAIN EASEMENT TO THE 176=11 ...... s s CITY OF CHULA VISTA (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-4) SEE SECTIONS A-A AND .0 ------- x DEEPENED DEEPENED o TOP OF EX.BOX CULVERT '0 EXIST F RI -------- ........ yr T/BOX FOOTING ,o UNNLL;l I VNTE ST.K "��"47/7'97'1/1`1 �r- --- ---��NDSGAPE I--- ---,.: I FOOTING > F BOX EL.=34.0± -j > IE 9.70* 0.Elz ........................................................... EXISTING DEPTH FF FINISH FLOOR cD 3p,clv� FS FINISH SURFACE 8.4""1 5' VARIES(±l') T LL 0 x < L 24' V 39.5 GF 39.5 GF 39.2 04 0 ? GF E 33.00 T- PROPOSED 18" FLOM DRAT W L GF GARAGE FLOOR co F- 7eAINNNSETR 6 5' PRIVATE STORM 7 FF=40.0 DRAIN(IE=27.40) OVERLAND 89 i20.1/10/89) co .......................................................... SWALE L) DRATNAGF LU6btELd1> U) 001 PAD=39.3 (87 0170-C INSTR. GB GRADE BREAK > F-: N71138707 IM PROPOSED 6.5'EASEMENT 27' &,?, "1� 0� -011720 _j W (0 �'89 1/10/89) FS 35.1 SPOT ELEVATION m 81 0 .11 >=w 4j x OUBLE BO F- LU TO CITY OF z In u- c!) o u- X CULVERT� u- < EXISTING D FLOW DIRECTION > 45.0'EXISTING AND PROPOSED of I 0- x R < BOX CULVERT EASE1.1-1.1- 45 0'FLOOD DRAINAGE ------ CL _j CHANNEL ESNIT(87-0247-Al -L---F-FF=40. PROP.SID CLEANOUT(SDRSD D-09) NOTES INSTR.B9-011721 1/10/89) PAD=3 6 Q6) PROP.CURB INLET(SDRSD D-02) 1. ALL BOX CULVERT DIMENSIONS PER U.S.ARMY CORPS 39.1 GF gcfi',,c,4 uj OF ENGINEERS(LOS ANGELES DISTRICT) z 1 25. PJRIVATE ST.D 39.1 GF 39. 3F 4'SID - -i ro w < - (5 r)ne < TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL DACW-09-87-0016 IE 20.93 -51 b PROP.CATCH BASIN(SDRSD D-08) DIMENSIONS VARY(MINIMUM S TBACK 5.0') 2.4X IE 26.19 18"SO 18"SD S -12..w <O.gx ic�......:-z�2'(n E 2. SEE SHEET C-2 FOR EXISTING EASEMENT 13. IE 27.09 IE 1.25 z' a--(n EX.CATCH BASIN > z <-�IE 29.03 PRIVATE ST.D EXISTING 60" cn < ToRm DRAIN oo am s ec�",mm 0 _j 1 11 37.5 GF 37.9 GF 39.5 GF 39,8GF ZL m PROP.MONOLITHIC CURB,GUTTER, m: SECTION B-B 0 IE 25. L 37.9 GF'38.2 G-FL th-2G F' 39.1 rFL39.1 7) 0- 1 11, 8 Se SIDEWALK(SDRSD G-03) 0 0 IE 25.. N.T.S. 24V z<u 4 FF=40 .3 o. -D GUTTER FF- PROP.RIBBON u- PAD=39.6 uj 38.7 w PAD=38.0 no -L BIOCLEAN UNIT', ozo MWS-L-8-24 NOTE: o IE 2n3.55 0 SEE SHEET C-5 FOR WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. v) < LU m LL 0-- j m < 04 (n > I �> - [" o>w z CONINE 0 15.0, 1 4 EASEMEN D 15 BLDG. (CITY 0 FL-h -FF=39.2 FT co a ........ IE 23 PAD:37.2-L--1 < 'A. NO. 1 27.21 77�! CHULA PAD=38.5 VISTA) to 0 'o < I ':�" ING 1 38.4 GF 38.4GF 38.7 3F 7.5' z C1 36 7 GF 37.1 GF 37.1 GF 37.4 GF 37.4 GF EXIST 38.0 GF 38.0 GF 3s.4 F <La 60"STORM > -mmIs o CMU WALL PER (if c� DRAIN PER SO I.Ox o 18 0 SID 20304 2. LANDSCAPE Of IE 27.65 ka"8% n JE 27.65 PLANS 1 24! PRIVATE ST.L FF=40.0 36.9GF�11-2GF,j 17.IGF I&I GF 38.4 GF' 38.7 G' U DEEPENED FG=±37.0 iFrIPE D RAMP a_ ckf 0 D o SDRSD G-31) X CONNECTION -FF=37.7 FF,=39 2 of =37.0- PA"D=38.5 LA -T23.50 PROPOSED FOOTING EXISTING OFFSITE 3 PAD 13 AC BERM 01 EXISTING R/W E Ii m R/W /-EXISTING R/W 40 20 0 40 80 120 -Z/ 30"PROPOSED RCP 1 31.00 ------ cr EX.SO m EXISTING 0 CROSS GUTTER T ON SCALE-- 1"=40' STORM DRAIN /,EXISTING CURB CONNECTI PROPOSED 6" TYPE D RAMP TYPE C RAMP EX.SO INLET DUSTING SIDEWALK� PER EX.CATCH CURB AND GUTTER TF2 W SORSD G-1 (SORSD G-31) (SDRSD G-29) EX.SO EXISTING SIDEWALK IE=±28.0 b BASIN S7REET < CROSS GUTTER u SECTION C-C --77 420.941 (SDRSD G-12) Q EXI TYPE A RAMP TO BE DEDICATED TO THE N71 38'10'E 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. z -;npSD G-27) CITY OF CHULA VISTA VEXISTI R/W C r < NOVEMBER 09,2020 Phone:(858)614-5000 -r- San Diego,CA 92124 u) N.T.S. INTE RNATION AL MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 581 f767 CONCEPTUAL GRADING/STORMWATER TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA F�%�l 80- 80 3 —D 15'PROPOSED REAR YARD SETBACK (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) R/W 21.0' 24.0' 24.0' 24.0' L'i 7.6' 7.6' 14.8' 15.8' 5.0' 3.0' 3.0' 3.0' —7� z ll�j �'1 93.0' k 112.5' 133.7' 91.3, 37.5' 16.2' 60.......................................................... ............... .......... .......................................................... ........................... .............................. ...... ..................... ...................................... --- _________ 60 BIOCLEA jo I—=.2 UNI r) SW ETWATER LL LIJ > 2 BUILDING 5 BUILDING 7 BUILDING 16 BUILDING 15 BLDG. Of F- A _j UNI IN HIUH m 2 111 Mt 0 _j 13 Dill RICT 4, �.................... < ............... -m, E A D TE ry Of PAD ELEV 38.3 F- PAD ELEV 36.9--N 0 '7 .............. ——Z'"I.................................................... ................ 40-- ................... ........... _j PVT.ST.K E Z:ST. < C) �PAD ELEV 38.5 F PVT.ST TD �PAD ELEV PAD ELEV PAD ELEV 37.0 38.0 37.2 04 BIOCLEAN EL PVT.ST.L UNIT..... TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANN 2-12'XlO'BOX CULVERT 0R, �7 (DACW 09-87-0016) ........................................................................... .............. ....................................................................... 20--", ..............................1.......................................... 20 27'EXISTI NG DOUBLE BOX CULVERT L1j T �__��PROPOSED EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA.SEE 14 z A < SHEET C-3 R DETAILS. ME a_ f I I . 0 0 OSS STREET --115 ---17'7—"7- 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 a- CROSS SECTIONI'A' 80 40 0 80 160 240.01 SCALE: HCRIZ 1"=40' SCALE: 1"=80' VERT 1"=10' UD _j Z _j CIL MANHOLE WETILANDMEDIA VERTICAL -----------------I - > BED ---------------------- UNDERDRAIN PATENTED _j P ERIMETER VOID AREA vb C/11 RIM/FG > a_ %v' 1��J<CURBI OPENING Q0 INLET PIPE IE IN FLOW OUTLET PIPES CONTROL (PER PLAN) < R ER < I................. F-- o ............ 'E o IE OUT o -, -_��_Z'� I IE PER PLAN IE PER PLAN (PER PLAN) NOTE:DIMENSIONS PER PLAN ------- -------—----------- --------- ----FCURB OPENINGf o J 0 NOTE: DIMENSIONS PER PLAN a-. of o PRE-FILTER DRAIN DOWN LINE� u CARTR DGE of ,3`0-� LEFT END VIEW uj m PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW m BIOCLEAN STORMWATER of m BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM BIOCLEAN STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM BIOCLEAN STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM ,C-4 ITLA7PAWIP < or-110, 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. San Diego,CA 92124 NOVEMBER 09,2020 Phone:(858)614-5000 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 582 f767 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA RA N NT IX 1111 HYDI/ATE) P E (IIIIII E)� C'4 L Q 0 _w-p_I- NEW MH NEW MH no IE 29.47 1E 29.82N Q FF=38.9 8A Lu w NEW Mi m cl) wr 0. 11 co co 0� w 0 1E 31.52 u- - . m 11 f < ce) ss-s sS__ss_ 00 Z 0 J) ILL LL< u_< PRIVATE ST I LL 0- 0- W. ZD 2 0 CL NEW MH Elf JE B.9 4 FF=38.9 71' PAD=38.2 LEGEND < 9 EXISTING PROPOSED LJ SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY --------------- -t 8"SEWER PRIVAT -------- EASEMENT s S C---= s I .=�- . - M PRIS(ATE E SEWER LINE(SDRSD SP-02)-ss-s E 2M8 58 -FF=38.1 .9 IF PAD=38.2 WATER LINE(SDRSD WP-02) STORM DRAIN Ss ss-SS----.e MH/ PRIVATE ST.J- 11 31 11 FIRE HYDRANT(SDRSD FW-01) mm W_W__V�-__ -qo-.0 SEWER MANHOLE(SDRSD SM-01 0 'SENO MH#9 > < �TA &M-03A) FF=38.9 r) I.E.IN SOUTH(18.71) 27 LU 0 I.E.OUT NORTH(18.66)i: _PAD=38.2 0 L----L OZ2 SEWER CLEANOUT(SDRSD SC-01) 11 USVG -0 06- ci 10 6 M.- 0 01/08/1954 m = - :2 V�) FIRE LINE(PRIVATE) F- C, 1 0 0 LL EL ub-----------4 SB� w�_j(71 CA w J awo BIO-FILTRATION STRUCTURE SEWER ELECTRICAL 3: =�L <0 (PER DETAIL SHEET C-4) cn uj 0 FF=40.0 _-J'] w STREET LAMP(PRIVATE) CABINET co SEWER LIFT STATION z NTH 8-HR PAD=39.3 �.x: EMERGENCY STORAGE a-V)0 REDUCED PRESSURE co Ll DETECTION ASSEMBLY < (SDRSD WR-01) q4 - ----------------- < 4'WATER SEWER FLOW DIRECTION ME �4' 0 4A E MH PRIVATE ST.K TELE.RAIH CANYON I.ANNIL F- > �36 1 25.95 '<7"f-P JO.0- 2 12'x10'RCP W CULVERTS 12' 12' T/V, -IY6 LANDSCAPE 39. (SEE SHEET C-3 FOR EASEMENTS) SEWER LATERAL(SDRSD SS-011)-ss--su- IN MH co IE 8. 36,8* ----------------------- < LANDSCAPE FIR 0 DUCTILE IRON -3. E LANE �Lmm FORCEMAINS j FF=40.0 PAD=39.3 PROP.RIBBON GUTTER 6"CURB 3 ...... Uj: ---- -L CURB U) 1.5% 1.5% < > 0 -U_< 9;�� NOTES LL a- LL QO PVC DOMESTI U) WATER(PRIVATE) Ui 1. SEE SHEET C-3 FOR GRADING AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS. > w LLi!F _j �-L FF=40.3 6f 2. A 20'ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF in __F PAD=319_ CHULA VISTA FOR ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED SEWER LOCATED AT 0 CD .0 �Ii: 5' ------ 0 Z FIRE 1 0 1- Z: I - 0 a_, THE WEST SIDE OF PRIVATE STREET A.EASEMENT TO COMMENCE 8"PVC _j c5 3' z T, Vj C4 L'i AT THE INTERSECTION OF MOSS STREET AND PRIVATE STREET A, < WATER E N W 0 uj < PRIVATE ST.D--- 2- AND CONTINUE NORTH THROUGH PRIVATE STREET A. ;;� w 11111 11 V�--V*----3 NEW MH .1<C5"O� 3: H_ V A-Al Z,�_ 3.ALL PROPOSED SEWER MAINS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF GASKETED (PRIVATE) NEW MH V) PVC PIPE AND SEALED MANHOLES. 0 8"SEWER PRIVATE --::::�PRIVATE ST.D 1E 34.38 U-) IE 31 1 It Jz ss 0= S& < -STORM DRAIN �Z_ N.. MH SS--Ss--c-m= ss�-s 8"PVC SEWER J L, - _�-1 :�-0, (PRIVATE) -A '0.3 0 FF=4 (PRIVATE) 0 0 PAD=39.6 L>_ FFJ8.7 > >CL PAD=38.0 < _j 12 7) Ln, U) 6.-L m: C"-c' C'z. 0 I J_ L< LU C)um Q.- I-_ 1��' tp_ ' �(IX,FIRE HYDRANT TYPICAL SECTION C4 F--C; Z 0 24'PRIVATE STREET FIRE LANE a- OF=37.9 15 0 Do- FF=39.2 N.T.S. -PAD=38.5 V) N r- V<'Vi SEWER ACCESS P D=372-0 EASEMENT, 000 zo SEE NOTE 2 0 I NEW MH f IE 33.15 Li w cl� NEW MH 1,EW RIVA"-ss- < 0 WATER P_RIVAT�E_- EX SEWER M F 0 IE 29.67 -L-, -1E 1.. �E ST 1� < I V11-V11-W-_V, C� I.E.114:20.27 w (I- F- 0 0 DUAL 12" RIPDA&METERS of EX,12"SEWER 8 ---- 8 8 (CITY OF CV,D�VG 11031-03) RPDA -F=37.7 RIPDA FF=39.2 1 3:< EX.SEWER MH > I.E.114:22.5 C-) PAD=37.0-(1794 DUAL 2- _PAD=38.5_T__ R DA& 4 E�.SWR LATERAL PROPOS R/W M TERS' of EX.SEWER MIT 0 .............. -EX.SE 0 LEAN:20,54 WERMH-- or RIM 35.40 Ld _FX-12"PVCSEVVE-R- jCITY OF CV,DWG 11031_0�3) EX.SWR I.E 25 00 ERAL -EX.SWR LA CO E'� HL24.70 12"SELY� �FXX'SEWER MH JZ� EX.12"PVC WATER TY OF CV,DWG 0407,02 EX.12"PVC WATER LE,IN:20.31 IN 40 20 0 40 80 120 8"PVC SEWER W_ (TOBEREMOVED W_ or ...mm..w DO EX.SEWER MH r-__fX.,SWR LATERAL EX.SWR L RIM 35.08 2 (C TY OF CV, MOSS ST (CITY OF cv, (CITYOF V,DWGC'4071-02)] EX.8"PVC WATER SCALE 1"=40' FL 22 78 1 _DWG 04071-02) DWG 04071-02) .12"PVC SEWER L. _FF PA7 (SWEETWATER AUTHORITY,MAPBOOK N165)�" X EW RM FL 22 2 NftL PVC SEWER 1.E.1:2.35 N EX.8' Exc CONENCTS LATERA WOODLAWN EX,SE E MH EX 8"VPC SEWER z TO EX.SEW COLORA 0 EX.8"VCP SEWER I.E.25.02 AVE. OF CV,DWG'04071-0�) -5 irk sa Blvd. < RIM 35 08 C 9755 Clairemont Me FL 22.6,0812::NWLY) NOVEMBER 09,2020 San Diego,CA 92124 m 8�12 NELY) Phone:(858)614-5000 FL 22.7 AVE. PER MSD DWG 9-2 INTERNATI ON A L MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 583 f767 FIRE AND CIRCULATION PLAN TENTATIVE MAP - CHULA VISTA TENTATIVE MAP NO. 18-0006 676 MOSS STREET CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA i___'J L� EX7�TIRE HYDRANT EX.FIRE HYDRANT -------------- (`5 PROJECT SUMMARY: IF 150'FIRE P LL rr I SITE APN:618-010-26,618-010-30 8:618-010-31 80 GF TOTAL SITE AREA-7.29 ACRES A A I A 0 Ewl wl)V) U) -1)FOR THE FOLLOWING 0 SEE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN(SHEET SP C, Z w �_jm ,---- F:::G INFORMATION: TOTAL PROPOSED UNITS 0'FIRE PU no in 15 PARKING REQUIREMENTS .0 EN SP CE REQUIREMENTS 0 P A z Z r -LOT COVERAGE 0- 0 4 -1 r F_ 7 F n (TYP) �f LEGEND: uj 9 w 5 M 3t 01 G HANDICAP STALL(ADA) PRIVATE ST.B 01,/ 24'FIRE LANE IS GUEST PARKING FIRE HYDRANT -L"'LR�-PUL'- 150 FOOT FIRE PULL G (D PRIVATE ST. FIRE"HAMMERHEAD"TURN < 150'FIRE PULL 9 AUTO-TURN DATA FOR CITY OF CHULA VISTA FIRE O:z LADDER TRUCK AND SOLID WASTE TRUCK 0 -10",TRACK 6'-10",LENGTH 41'-11" (WIDTH 9' z1 cn Lj < 0 =m:� GARAGE.A MINIMUM OF 24-FEET TO BE La 0 INDICATES DIRECTION OF PARKING 0 CL a- 7D W PROVIDED BEHIND GARAGE FACE FOR PULL OU MOVEMENT. -7 Z 3�: CL V)0 < < ,I NOTE: k1i G LANDSCAPEAREA 150'FIRE PULL 1) FIRE ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE MARKED AS FIRE LANES IN PRIVATE ST.K ACCORDANCE WITH CVFD STANDARDS. 2)REMOVABLE BOLLARDS SHALL BE PLACED NEAR THE 20-FOOT WIDE EMERGENCY INGRESS/EGRESS TO MOSS STREET. 3)PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS ROAD SHALL MEET H-20 LOADING < 0 5q o --z �::j REQUIREMENTS OR SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR A TRAFFIC INDEX u ,- /�) �(�( / 1 10 G (T.I.)OF 5. z < F-: U) LLJ Lu LO 0 Zt of m > _j w CD G 00, 0 Z: 16 0 (3) < I-�1 11 L,�_,11��_11 L�,, V�0 F— _j z G 24 RELANIE FI LSL < 1 0'FIRE PULL I"6"",, <z—V) F- U) z -PRIVATE ST. 0 Z a-an V) < < PRIVATE ST.D < (n F-- co.< M.2 0 0 G m�o:M > 7 < z< 0 _j uj no m: an U) 12 Z 0 w EX.FIRE HYDRANT 25 C 4 1— a_ I V)C5 CD Z > 0 Z o< 15 .00 _w ZOL� < < L_10�11RE PULL 0 o- F-- 24 FIRE LANE PRIVATE ST.L 0 0 Of G 0 G G�G 0 0 ------------ Q_. (c)f _j of 5'I FIR�PUL GO ———————————————--17——————— 4.0 2.0 9 4.0 8.0 120 m of MOSS STREET m 1 40' ,V EO F—c-i w- < WOODLA 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. z COLORADO –6 rk WIN C < Ir San Diego,CA 92124 ,TM AVE. AVE NOVEMBER 09,2020 Phone:(858)614-5000 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERINTL.COM 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 584 f767 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT STATEMENT: ......... The overall landscape concept for the Chula Vista project is to provide this new residential community and adjacent existing communities with an attractive walking experience while adding visual interest,social functionality and minimal strain on local resources. ON The Design Objective: iMR as well A five foot wide,pedestrian walkway system will meander through the community connecting it to Moss street as the proposed attractive amenities like the central shade structure,tot lot,active lawn&smaller seating nodes.These amenity areas will allow for local residents to walk their dogs,stroll,hold small social gatherings as well as larger group events. L The use of low maintenance and water wise plants will be incorporated and designed to be attractive,using dramatic and �J FRI, unique succulents and grasses in mass groupings with a mix of contrasting groundcovers.The overall landscape will be A", I IH compliant with the City of Chula Vista's Chapter 20.12 Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. 12 LEGEND V 1. Community recreational area with bbq counter,Tot lot,overhead structure with ADA compliant seating for social 4 gatherings and special events. 2 J 2. Proposed wall,fence and gate,per Wall&Fence Plan. �V A, 3. Enhanced vehicular entry,with precast pavers. Proposed tree,per Planting Plan. falli V f 4. 5. Public concrete sidewalk,per Civil and City Standards. 6. 5'wide community sidewalk,natural color concrete with light broom finish&narrow trowel joints. v, t DO I I .............. 7. 4'wide residential unit entry walkways,natural color concrete with light broom finish&narrow tooled joints. 4 Z 8. Private patio/yard,homeowner maintained&installed. R//I�'f", k;, i 9. Common area landscape,HOA maintained. gg 10. Natural color concrete driveway with light broom finish. 0 11. Guest parking and accessible parking stall per City Standards ......................... 12. Public utilities,water,sewer and gas line per Civil Plans. 13. Property line. J _J 14. Mailbox CBU boxes(per USPS approval). 15. City R.O.W. M� A 16. Short term bike parking(6 bike racks to accommodate 12 bike stalls). 1["M 17. Existing box Culvert per Civil Plans. rP/111111'11111�1,11 18. Community dog bag station(black in color),for pet owners. 19. Enhanced color paving at open space/with.05 top cast finish&sawcut joints 10 20. Proposed illuminated site plan/directory on painted precision cmu wall. ce Enia5ernent 21. Proposed bulk trash pickup area. *Entry monuments,per separate permit submittal. 21 4 1�7 .............. ............. mf Community Recrea Area-.Fire-pit with seating F J ---------- 17 19 2,114 3 �:,Jp (D Noy .......... P I "low" M 0 6 _F Y, rO C, V z) 11 _F1 �J ........... L U16 1P '0 W S S OTREET f *Conceptual imagery only _7 7 15 5 ......17--1111--,",� 0, 411 *Conceptual imagery only Community recreational area.Fire pit with seating .......... 00011 Allm" A/ A/ I_,,,f if 0 20' 40' 80, rm"MrMM7 Schematic Landscape Plan Scale:V=40'I SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS 6th City Submittal—TTIM Project No.:SR105 Date:Nov.13,2020 Lml REALTY SHUPUFF INVESTMENTS 676 Moss Street Site Chula Vis a CA into Vahue 11_alndscal�;n Architcctum 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 585 f767 Proposed rear yard let Back Property Line Proposed Project Setbacks WALLLEGEND I 5 Front Yard:10'-0" (D (D�(DA Interior Side Yard:12'-0" ---------- 6-10"High painted precision wall,with precision cap. Q ........ Street Side Yard:12'-0" 4'-0"High colored precision CMU patio wall,with precision cap. Rear Yard:15'-0" 6-6"High(118"sq.&16"x1 2")painted CMU pilasters,with precision cap. c� 4'-0"High metal patio gates. 5'-6"High wood pedestrian gates. Q_ 5'-6'High illuminated site plan/directory on painted precision wall. 4 E3 T-0"High stucco or painted precision CMU primary project entry 9 monument/signage .............. 6-6"High vinyl fence(white or tan color). V �N ADA Path of Travel Entry monuments,per separate permit submittal. All proposed perimeter walls to be sealed with an anti graffiti Property Line sealer(Prosoco Blok Guard)or similar. 2 Proposed interior side yard Y" 11P 10 Set Back Property Line 77 _J 0. t 9i 11 0 < 40�' lv� L��_ A ff �y-Tm�y' 3: 1-41 Xl�'I I " t's.1 1, 'Ill k7- 01�1' Property Line I V �1 I I T, if if -L--F---F-L---F 0 f5 ff 7E Property Line 3 0 0 f kl, if, C" 2 D PI > & > 7-7 a- Al I 'k fF 1 4 Proposed interior side yard Set Back f I Side Yard Setbacl, 7 fi(�F�ff T-"I ___L_F_J__T__I— ............................ ............... U, "Proposed vine wire lattice attached to existing block wall I project side only. F MOSS STREET Proposed front yard 0 20' 40' 80, Set Back *Conceptual imagery only Scale:1 40'-0" Schematic Wall & Fence Plan SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS 6th City Submittal-TTIVI Project No.:SR105 Date:Nov.13 Lm2 REALTY FF INVESTMENTS H"'Oh Ono 5 UFU 676 Moss Street Site Chula Vis a CA I widscal�;n Architcctulc op��'wrhvnd"Jl into Vah"�e 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 586 f767 PLANTING LEGEND SHRUBS and GROUND COVER WUCOLS(R3) Symbol Type/Form Suggestions Trunk Size Wucols(R3)Qty. 'J Aeonium Aeonium Low PALMS Syagrus Romanzoffiana Single 36"Box Medium 0 Vertical Palm tree option @ Moss Street) Anigozanthos Kangaroo Paw Low Agapanthus Dwarf Lily of the Nile Low TREES Agave sp. Agave Low Aloe sp. Aloe Low Specimen Olive sp.(Field Grown Olive) Multi B&B-10'x10'Low 3 !C', Bougainvillea sp. Bougainvillea Low Vc�l Bougainvillea La Jolla La Jolla Bougainvillea Low Focal Koelreuteria paniculata(Golden Rain Tree) Single 36"Box Low 8 Magnolia g.'Little Gem'(Little Gem Magnolia) Buddleja'Purple Haze' Purple Haze Summer Lilac Low ,7, Canopy Platanus racemosa(California Sycamore) Single 24"Box Medium 19 4 Buxus m.japonica'Green Beauty' Japanese Boxwood Low Deciduous Callistemon citrinus'Liftle John' Dwarf Bottlebrush Low 9 Street Tristania conferta(Brisbane Box) Single 24"Box Medium 51 Carex Sedges Low 0 Carissa m.'Green Carpet' Dwarf Natal Plum Low Evergreen Arbutus unedo(Strawberry Tree) Multi 24"Box Low 13 Chamaerops humilis Mediterranean Fan Palm Low Flowering V VI) VI) Cordyline austral is'JeI0 1' Burgundy Spire Tm Dracaena Palm Low I + Deciduous Lagerstroemia i.xf.'Arapaho'(Crape Myrtle) Single 24"Box Medium 43 Cordyline'Pink Passion' Pink Passion Dracaena Palm Low + Flowering Koelreuteria bipinnata Single 24"Box Medium 6 Dasylirion longissimurn Mexican Grass Tree Low d". Vertical Myrica californica(Pacific Wax Myrtle) Multi 24"Box Low 31 .......... Buffer Brachychiton populneus Single Delosperma 000peri Trailing Ice Plant Low Tristania conferta(Brisbane Box) Single Arbutus Marina Single Dietes bicolor Fortnight Lily Low C, Silver Carpet Medium Geijera parvilflora(Australian Willow) Single 24"Box Low 49 Dymondia margaretae Low 2 1 Evergreen Rhus lancea(African Sumac) Hernerocallis x'Alabama Jubilee' Alabama Jubilee Daylily Low 10 Columnar Cupressus sempervirens(Italian Cypress) Single 15gal Low 89 Iris sp. Iris Low + J Columnar Podocarpus macrophyllus(Maki) Lavandula stoechas'Larkman Hazel'HazeITM Spanish Lavender Low Total 306 Ligustrum japonicurn"Texanum" Japanese Privet Low Lonicera sp. Honeysuckle Low NOTES: Nassella pulchra Purple Needlegrass Low 1. Irrigation(including spray and/or drip)will be provided,in the Construction Document phase,and to be Nassella tenuissima Mexican feather grass Low installed per local California water regulations(AB1 881)and City of Chula Vista's Chapter 20.12 Chula Vista A Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. Deer Grass Low Muhlenbergia rigens, 2. Transformers,back-flow preventers&other above-ground utilities to be screened with landscape as permitted Pittosporurn tenuifoliurn Silver sheen Low per local codes®ulations. 0 3. The plant palette listed provides a list of plant material to select from when preparing final landscape Rhaphiolepis indica'Clara" India Hawthorn Low 0 Wildberry Breeze Shrub Rose Low construction documents for this project.However,substitutions may be required due to availability,soils tests, Rosa rugosa'Jacrulav' E or other conditions. Rosmarinus p.'Huntington Carpet' Groundcover Prostrate Rosemary Low 4. All trees within 10'of hardscape to be installed with deep root barriers. 5. There are no existing trees to remain. Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Low 6. Provide vine wire lattice attachment on perimeter wall interior side only along Rosmarinus,officinalis'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary Low fk ------- F-- L + Villa Marina Apartments only. Trachelospermurn jasminoides Star Jasmine medium Xylosma congesturn'Compact' Compact Xylosma Low + > VINES&ESPALIERS WUCOLS(R3) Bougainvillea'Monka' Bougainvillea Low f (Oo-La-La@ Bougainvillea) 27 Pandorea jasminoides'Lady Di' White Bower Vine medium + f AJ 1) Trachelospermurn jasminoides Star Jasmine medium 2 I d I Macfadyena unguis-cati(Yellow trumpet vine) medium To soften wall and discourage graffiti.) I�j i 5. + -PLANTER SHRUBS and GROUND COVER BIO WUCOLS(R3) Agave sp. Agave Low *Conceptual imagery only note#7 0 7 C) Aloe sp. Aloe Low Bougainvillea sp. Bougainvillea Low Bougainvillea La Jolla La Jolla Bougainvillea Low Carex Sedges Low Cadssa m.'Green Carpet' Dwarf Natal Plum Low 14 7 Nassella pulchra Purple Needlegrass Low '01 0 Nassella tenuissima Mexican feather grass Low Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Low MOSS STRE E T 0 20' 40' 80, rm"MrMM7 Scale:V=40'4' Schematic Planting Plan SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS 6th City Submittal—TTM Project No.:SR105 Date:Nov.13 Lm3 REALTY FF INVESTMENTS H'06h Ono 5 UPU 676 Moss Street Site Chula Vis a CA I andscal�;n Architcctum 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda racket Page 587 f767 'J r 7 n8 > > > > C' > SITE DEVELOPMENT SYMBOL NOTES CITY 5 HYDRONE 1: 114,334 Sf HOA-RESIDENTIAL CORRIDORS&PRODUCTION;LOW WATER USE SHRUBS,GROUNDCOVER AND TREES WITH IN-LINE M EMITTER DRIP IRRIGATION.PLANT FACTOR=0.1-.0.5 HYDROZONE2: 4,335 sf V VI) VI) HOA-COMMON OPEN SPACE HIGH WATER USE LAWN PLANT FACTOR 0.8 c' 2 10 _J Z") 0. 5 0 fk I ugij�j f AJ 192 I d I 15 z I n-14 _F__F__F__I— MOSS STRE ET .L I 0 20' 40' 80, rm"MrMM7 Scale:V=40'4' Schematic Irrigation Hydrozone Plan SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS 6th City Submittal—TTIVI Project No.:SR105 Date:Nov.13,2020 L4 REALTY FF INVESTMENTS H'01h Ono 5 UPU 676 Moss Street Site Chula Vis a CA I andscal�;n Architcctum op�I'wrhvnd�y into Vah"�e 2021-Ol-,05 Agenda Packet Page 588 f767 10 Waste Receptacle Proposed Tree Per Planting Plan Sheet L-3 ADA Picnic Table etal Bench 1 Metal Bench vent lawn for 1;;mpr community e Free Standing BBQ Grill Enhanced Paving Temporary Use Bike R ......... . ........... f 41, ,F Standard Mailbox Unit ;4,"a ........... ,e d, oqlI;�, /-4, "N -Z I, t Lot ages 5-12 P 0 t on'Plinth Common Concrete Walk Mailbox Event Lawn Metal Bench Tot Lot �If, Trash Receptacle Dog Waste Station Overhead Structure Event Lawn W Event Lawn r1mg, BBQ Counter Pot on Plinth 0 4' 81 16, Trash Receptac e BBQ Counter Overhead Struc-- Enhanced Paving ADA Picnic Table B ik' e Ra Scale:1/8"=1 lo-o" Schematic Open Space Enlargement Plan SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS 6th City Submittal—TTIM Project No.:SR105 Date:Nov.13 L-5 REALTY ��I—I�" �, FF INVESTMENTS Jp"' '01h moo SHUFU 676 Moss Street Site Chula Vis a CA �lb 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 589 f767 i;,;milli,l, IN J -Private patio entry ........ A'/ 0& 14 v ;,777 ............. .......... ............ �............... Ilk Future 1-.A. V Proposed Tree Per Planting Plan Shee L-3 (m) S''S 'T''R E E T 'Al All Sect. 5'-Walkmy� +10'HOA y, q/ 70116,,�, 77,77", Plan View-'Moss Street' 0 4' 81 16' Building 14'Al'-Proposed Landscape Buffer Scale:1/8"=T-O" T.� C U14 :7� -J Key Map-N.T.S Schematic Section Enlargement SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS 6th City Submiffal—TTM Project No.:SR105 Date:Nov.13,2020 Lm6 5 UFU REALTY A O'k FF INVESTMENTS 4 H'01h Ono 676 Moss Street Site Chula Vis a CA )1 �'b I andscal�;n Architcctum 2021-01,05 Agenda Packet Page 590 f767 LIGHTING SCHEDULE SYMBOL MAN U FACTU RER/MODEUDESCRI PTION QTY r P Spectra Lighting,Element Series/Model:ELIE-FLT/T. Per SPECTRA c, Modern Street Post Light.Provide lamp shields to minimize light spillage into adjacent Elec. 77,,� L I G H T IN G �J 0 Cast Aluminum,Powdercoat,DBZ(Dark Bronze),Pole Lamp:Per Elec.Eng.,Per Elec.Eng.,Per Elec.Eng. Element series Accessories:12'to15'Post Height-Per Elec,Eng.Dark Bronze Colo Modern-Post Top Shade Structure Downlight-Kichler model#16017AZT27 6 Cast Aluminum,Textured Architectural Bronze,Surface Mounted Bracket Lamp:LED,5,25 W-1 2W,2700K Warm White u Tree uplight,Staked-Kichler model VLO#16018-16020 16 Order#1 6019AZT27(35FIood) A V Cast aluminum,Textured Architectural Bronze,Staked 4 L Lamp:LED,5,25 W-1 2W,2700K Warm White 7�, Wall-All Up-light. 1 9 Kichler VLO 12V LED Flood Variable Lumen AZT 16022AZT27. Brass,Textured Architectural Bronze,Surface Of Lamp:LED o' V VV VI) d Kichler model#15PR75 AZT.L.V.Transformer. 3 7-1111111111---,...... -voltage transformer.Install in HOA building cabinet where possible. Low Cast Aluminum,Textured Architectural Bronze,Wall d". 75 Exterior Electrical GFI Outlet 6 _J "X 5F To be coordinated with Electrical Engineer. Exterior Grade.,Exterior Grade.,Per Manufact. v J) c, 2 5 cy, T Overview Features Specifications 7 NOTES: -lights,path lig hts/bol lards,etc.),proposed herein,to The Hemet efie,ffam a ro— 1. Site Lighting&Landscape lighting(landscape up r- 2800 Lm cc, < prate package 0 5i2eS,Pti(a� t n sy�tpms ail rne-trep nptlo�,, MQK.300W4QD0K 7 be coordinated with Electrical Engineer in future Construction Document phase.Photometric Plan to de.�i ned to,ulrbarr area,,boild- Silwon.9.,k,,t A"yla""t,a be provided by Electrical Engineer in future phase and to conform to local City lighting standards. il�lj$oad5 and po[lr area, X. V 2. All site lighting to have shield covers to minimize light spillage into neighboring properties. V I J ld Pf 0 E I x T T _J 7 7— f k A6 L 17 4 77-7/1, 17 J -F _F _17— 4 f AJ 1) 12 I d I _L6 Jfl'l 7 6� 4 Z 6FI 1/0 V J, J I n14 @ I_F _F F _F -A i K/� Tonceptual images(provided herein are conceptual and subject to change) MOSS STREET Tonceptual images(provided herein are 0 20' 40' 80, conceptual and subject to change) Scale:V=40'4' Schematic Lighting Plan SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS 6th City Subnl Project No.:SR105 Rev.Added Jan. Date:Nov.13,2020 L-7 5 UPU REALTY A O'k FF INVESTMENTS H'01h moo 676 Moss Street Site Chula Vis a CA I i ndscol�;n Architcctulc 2021-01-05 Agenda Packer Page 591 f767 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5,2 02 1 File,ID: 20-0463 'TITLE ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, 'THE PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE,AND TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30) 2020 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council receive the report. SU'MMARY California Government Code Section 66000 requires local agencies assessing Development Impact Fees (DIFs) and sewer capacity charges to make available to the public specified financial data each fiscal year (FY).This report satisfies that requirement and has been available in the City Clerk's Office for public review since November 25, 2020.An equivalent report for the Parkland Acquisition and Development(PAD) fees is included in this report for ease of'reference and convenience to the public. Local agencies are also required to make findings every five years for any DIF funds that remain unexp�ended. These findings must identify the purpose of the fee and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. In the F'Y 2017 report, the City identified unexpended funds that were on deposit for five or more years and elected to make required findings. No findings are required this year, and the next five-year findings will be prepared in conjunction with the annual report to be prepared for FY 2022. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project 11 as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change to the environment; therefore,pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus,no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. 1111. 0 0 1 PIi3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 592 of 767 DISC'USSION The City of Chula Vista assessed several types of DIFs,PAD fees,and sewer capacity charges (also referred to as the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve fees) during the fiscal year ending June 30�, 2020. The major categories, of facilities financed via DIFs include roadways,traffic signals, pedestrian bridges, sewer, and various other public facilities (including police stations,fire stations, recreational facilities,and others). The subject fees are updated from time to time through either a comprehensive D�IF program review or a Co�uncil-appr�oved automatic annual adjustment, based upon appropriate indices specified in the relevant Chula Vista Municipal Code sections or City Council resolutions. There were,no comprehensive DIF updates completed in FY 2020. In October of 2019,the following automatic index-based annual adjustments went into effect: Eastern Transportation DIF (ETDIF) $1,,455.00 $1,.470.51 $15.51 Average claily vehicle trip Western Transportation DIF (WTDIF) $438.70 $447.,47 $8.77' Average claily vehicle trip Bayfront DIF (BFDIF) $1,060.50 $1,081.79 $21.�29 Average claily vehicle trip Traffic Signal Fee $39.92 $401.�56 $0.64 Average claily vehicle trip Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF $1,484.00 $11500.00 $16.�00 Equivalent dwelling unit Otay Ranch Village 1, 2, 5, & 6 $921.00 $931.00 $101.00 Single-family dwelling unit Pedestrian Bridge DIF Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian $2,613.00 $2,641.00 $28.00 Single-family dwelling unit Bridge DIF Pu�blic Facilities Development, Impact $10,932.00 $11,175.00 $243.00 Single-family dwelling unit Fee (PFDIF) Park Development Fee $7,894.00 $8,019.00 $125.00 Single-family dwelling unit Tru n k Sewe r Ca pita I Rese rve Fee $3,851.00 $3,892.00 $41.00 Equivalent dwelling unit Other fees addressed in this report remained at the same rate as in the previous fiscal year. Page 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 593 of 767 DEVELOPMEN'T IMPACT FEES Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (ETDIF)1 The ETDIF fee was established on January 12, 1988 via Ordinance 2251 to finance and coordinate the construction of new transportation facilities in the eastern territories of the City (i.e., generally east of Interstate 805) as well as to spread the costs associated with the construction of the program facilities equitably among the developing properties within the benefit area. The ETDIF is subject to an annual index-based adjustment. In October 2019,the fee increased from$1,455.00 to $1,470.51 per average daily trip (ADT). The per�-trip fee,example fees for various selected land use types, and detailed FY 2019-20 financial information are,presented in Attachment 1,Schedule A. Western TransDortatio�n Development Imp ct Fee (WTDIFJ The WTDIF fee was adopted on March 18,2008 via Ordinances 3106 through 3110 to finance and coordinate the construction of new transportation facilities in the western neighborhoods of the City(i.e.,to the west of Interstate 8,05, but generally east of Interstate 5) as well as to spread the costs associated with the construction of the program facilities equitably among the developing properties within the benefit area. The WTDIF is subject to an annual index-based adjustment. In October 2019,the fee increased from$438,.70 to$447.47 per ADT. The per-trip fee,example fees for various selected land use types,and detailed FY 2019- 20 financial information are presented in Attachment 1, Schedule B. Bavfront TransDortatio�n Development Impact Fee [BFDIF) The B,FDIF was established on November 18, 2014 via Ordinance 3327 to finance and coordinate the construction o�f'new transportation facilities in the Chula Vista Bayfront area, as well as to spread the costs associated with the construction of the facilities equitably among the developing properties within the benefit area.This fee is applicable to new development in the Chula Vista Bayfront area,generally described as properties west of Interstate 5,and between E Street and Naples Street. The BFDIFis subjectto an annual index-based adjustment. In October 2019,the fee increased from$1,060.50 to $1,0�81.79 per ADT. No financial activity was recorded in F'Y 2019-20 for the BFDIF. Traffic Fee The Traffic Signal fee was adopted to finance and facilitate construction of traffic signal improvements required to mitigate increases in traffic volume caused by new developme�nt. This cit,ywide fee is assessed per ADT. The Traffic Signal fee is subject to an annual index-based adjustment. In October 2019, the fee increased from $39.92 to 40.56 per trip. Detailed FY 2019-20 financial information is presented in Attachment 1, Schedule C. The municipal code chapters for all three of the'Transportation DlFs(ETDIF,WTDIF,and BFDIF)were consolidated with Ordinance 3440,effective November 1,2018. P �3ge 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 594 of 767 Poggi Canyon Sewer,Basin Development Impact Fee The Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin fee was adopted to finance and facilitate construction of'the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer, serving properties within the benefit area. This, fee is applicable to the Poggi Canyon Basin. The fee was originally set at$400 per equivalent dwelling unit(EDU) in 1997. In June 2009, the Po�ggi Canyon Sewer DIF was updated and the fee was reduced to $265 per EDU. The fee remains unchanged since the 2009 action.The fees for land use types,as well as detailed FY 2019-20 financial information,are presented in Attachment 1,Schedule D. Salt Creek Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee The Salt Creek Sewer Basin fee was adopted to finance, and facilitate construction of the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer, serving properties within the benefit area. 'This fee is app�licable to the Salt Creek Sewer Basin, a portion of the Upper Otay Lake Basin north of the Salt Creek Sewer Basin,Wo�lf Canyon Basin, and a portion of the Lower Otay Lake Basin east of the Salt Creek Sewer Basin. In July 2015,the City Council considered and approved a comprehensive update of the Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF. 'The 2015 action confirmed the existing rate of $1,3,30 per EDU and authorized annual index-based updates. An index-b�ased update was imp�lemented in October 2019,increasing the fee from$1,484 to$1,500 per EDU. The fees for land use types,as well as detailed FY 2019-20 financial information, are presented in Attachment 1, Schedule D. Otay Ranch Village 1. 2. 5,&6 Pedestrian Bridge Development Imp ct Fee The Otay Ranch Village 1, 2, 5, &6 Pedestrian Bridge fee was adopted to finance and facilitate construction of pedestrian bridge facilities serving the subject villages.A comprehensive update of the fee program was considered and approved by the City Council in Dec�ember 2015,. The 2015 action reduced the fee from $11,114 to $8,44 per single-family dwelling unit and authorized annual index-based updates. An index-based update was implemented in October 2019, increasing the fee from $921 to, $931 per single-family dwelling unit. The fees for land use types,as we�ll as detailed FY 2019-2,0 financial information,is presented in Attachment 1, Schedule E. Ot,a je 11 Pedestrian Brid ment Im, act Fee ,y,,,,,,,,,,,R,a,,nch Villag ge Develo,,p, ,, �� � ��� ��p The Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge fee was adopted to contribute to the funding and construction of two pedestrian bridges serving Otay Ranch Village 11, one crossing Hunte Parkway and one crossing Eastlake Parkway. The Eastlake Parkway pedestrian bridge is a shared obligation of the Eastern Urban Center(Millenia) Pedestrian Bridge DIF discussed below. The Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF is subject to an annual index-based adjustment. In October 2019, the fee increased from $2,613 to $2,641 per single-family dwelling unit. The fees for all land use types, as well as detailed FY 2019-20 financial information,are presented in Attachment 1, Schedule E. P �3ge 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 595 of 767 Eastern Urban Center(Millenia) Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee The Eastern Urban Center (Millenia), Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee was adopted to contribute to the funding and construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge in the Millenia project area. 'This facility is a shared obligation of the Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF previously discussed. The Millenia Pedestrian Bridge DIF was established with an initial rate of$615.13 per single-family dwelling unit via Ordinance 3273,adopted in August of 2013.The fees for land use types,,as well as detailed FY 2,019- 20 financial information,are presented in Attachment 1, Schedule E. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) The PFDIF was adopted to finance and facilitate construction of public facilities necessary to serve new development. The fee includes seven components for residential development, and five categories for commercial and industrial land uses. All components are subject to an annual index-based adjustment. In October 2019,the combined fee increased from$10,93,21 to$11,175 per single-family dwelling unit.Detailed FY 2019-,20 financial information is presented in Attachment 1, Schedule F. The components of the PFDIF, including current fees for single-family residences are as follows: • Administration Program ($,691) - Administration of the PFDIF program, oversight of expenditures and revenues,preparation of updates,calculation of costs,.etc. • Civic Center Expansion ($3,196) - Expansion of the Civic Center per the 1989 Civic Center Master Plan to provide sufficient building space and parking needed to serve new development. The Civic Center Master Plan was updated in July 2001 to include impacts of Otay Ranch development. Project phases included the remodel and expansion of City Hall,remodel of the Public Services Building and remodel of the former Po�lice Facility, Community Development and Legislative Buildings. Includes associated capital expenses. • Police Facilities and Equipment($1,925) -Improvements per the Civic Center Master Plan to provide sufficient building space and associated facilities needed to serve new development. Improvements include construction of a new police facility, upgrading the communications center and installation of new communication consoles. This fee also includes the purchase and installation of a computer- aided dispatch system(CAD),Police Records Management System,Mobile Data Terminals,and police, vehicles,. • Corporation Yard E,xpansion/Reloc�ation ($516�) - Relocation of the City's Public Works Center from the Bayfront area to the more centrally located site on Maxwell Road. Also includes the purchase of new vehicles directly attributable to new development and the need to maintain an expanding infrastructure network. • Library System Expansion ($1,837) - Improvements include construction of the South Chula Vista Library and future planned libraries and installation of an automated library system.This component P �3 g e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 596 of 767 is based on the facility needs identified in the Library Master Plan and is applicable to new residential development only., • Fire Suppression System Expansion ($1,615) - Projects include the re,location of Fire Stations 3 and 4, construction of a fire training tower and classroom,purchase of a brush rig,installation of a radio communications tower and construction of various fire stations in developing areas of the City.'This fee currently reflects the nine-station network called for in the 1999 Fire Station Master Plan. This fee also includes the purchase of fire apparatus for new stations, as required to serve new development. • Major Recreation Facilities($1,395)-Component added in November 2002 to build major recreation facilities required to serve new development such as community centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior/teen centers. This component is based on the facility needs identified in the Park &Recreation Master Plan and is applicable to new residential development only. Although the majority of the public facility project costs are borne by new development, it is important to note that some public facility projects contain both a City and new development cost share. The City share often reflects "jo�int impetus" projects,which are necessitated by growth and non-gro�wth factors and/or the City's obligation to correct pre-existing space/equipment deficiencies. The PFDIF fees only relate to new development's cost share for each component. Parkland Acquisition and Development Fees, The Parkland Acquisition and Development (PAD) in-lieu fee was adopted by the City to acquire neighborhood and community p�arkland and to construct parks and recreational facilities. The acquisition component of the fee is set at$,12,676 for areas east of Interstate 805 and$4,994 for areas west of Interstate 8,05,per single-family dwelling unit. The development component of the fee is applicable citywide and is subject to an annual index-based adjustment. Due to increasing parkland development costs, the City of Chula Vista City Council approved Resolution No. 2018-,163 on August 7, 2018,increasing the development component of the PAD Fee.The fee increase took effect 60 days after City Council adoption,on October 7,2018,and no annual indexing occurred in 20�18. The 2018 action increased the development component of the PAD fee from $5,768 to $7,894 per single-family dwelling unit, increasing the combined fee from $18,444 to $20,570 and from $10,762 to $12,88,8 for areas east and west of Interstate 805,respectively.In October 2019 the development component of the fees were increased from $7,8,94 to $8,0�19 per single family dwelling unit, increasing the combined fee from $20,570 to $20,695 and from $12,888 to $13,013 for the areas east and west of Interstate 805, respectively. The PAD fee is applicable to new residential development only. In FY 2013-14,the fee requirement for hotel and motel developments was eliminated via Ordinance 3303. The fee requirement for Accessory Dwelling Units was eliminated via Ordinance 3424.The fees for residential land use types,as well as detailed FY 2019- 20 financial information are presented in Attachment 2. P �3ge 6 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 597 of 767 Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fees The Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve fee was established in 1985 by Ordinance, 210�7 to finance all or a portion of the cost to enlarge sewer facilities to enhance efficiency of utilization and/or adequacy of sewer capacity. The fee program was last comprehensive,ly updated in 2014, decreasing the, fee per EDU from $3,478 to $3,450. The 2014 action also authorized annual index-based updates. An index-based update was implemented in October 2019, increasing the fee from $3,851 to $3,892, per ED�U. Detailed FY 2019-20 financial information is presented in Attachment 3,. Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin D�IF Repealed On August 7, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3461, which repealed the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin DIF. This action was taken because there were no remaining properties to be developed within the boundaries of the drainage plan that would be sub�ject to the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin DIF. At the time of this action,staff estimated that the completion of all improvements identified in the nexus study would cost approximately $12 million, which is higher than the fund balance of$3.9 million. Staff is working with a consultant to obtain grant funding to augment the current balance in order to complete the improvements. Interfund Loans On February 17, 2015,the City Council approved an Interfund Loan Policy,along with a series of resolutions affirming and consolidating various interfund loans between DIF, PAD, and Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds.Pursuant to the Policy,all interfund loans will accrue interest charges equal to the City I s actual pooled cash investment return.As a result of this change,the interest charges to date for all existing interfund loans were recalculated. The total amount due, as reported in the attached schedules may, therefore, vary significantly from the amounts presented in prior reports. In addition, interest rates will no longer be reported for interfund loans in this report, as the, applicable rate will vary based upon the City's actual investment returns. FY 2019-20 Financial Information Detailed FY 2019-,20 financial information is presented in the Attachments as follows: • Attachment 1, Schedules A through F, reports the required financial information for all DIFs except the PFDIF.Attachment 1,Schedule F reports the required financial information for the PFDIF and its components. • Attachment 2 reports the required financial information for the PAD fees. Attachment 3 reports the required information for the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve fees. The schedules contain the following items: The amount, description,and purpose of each fee. Beginning balance as of July 1, 2019. Fees received during the FY ending June 3 0, 2 0 2 0. Other miscellaneous revenues received during the FY ending June 30, 2020. P �3ge 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 598 of 767 • Interest earned from investing the cash balances available in each fund or from interfund loans during the FY ending June 30, 2,02,0. • Expenditures from each of the funds during the FY ending June 30, 2020. • Ending balances as of June 30, 202,0 for each fund-unaudited figures. • Outstanding balances of interfund loans made from DIF/PAD/Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve funds,as of the end of FY 2�019-20. • A description of each capital and non-capital project with expenditures funded entirely or in part by DIF/PAD/Trunk Sewer funds in F'Y 2019-2,0 and the percentage of the project funded by this fee through FY 2019-20. More detailed information on capital projects is availab�le in the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget. • Identification of an approximate, date, by which the construction of public improvements will commence�. In an effort to make information readily available to interested parties,cop�ies of this report were sent to the San Diego Building Industry Association, Baldwin & Sons, Brookfield Homes, CalAtlantic Homes, Chelsea Investment Corporation, Chestnut Properties, HomeFed Corporation, KB Home Coastal, Meridian Development, Pacifica Companies, Shea Homes, Sudberry Properties, Cornerstone Communities, Trammel Crow Residential,Silvergate Development, Lennar and Ryan Companies. DIECISIOM-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal.Gov't Code§87100,etseq.,)., Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT This is an informational report and there is no fiscal impact associated with accepting or rejecting the report. ONGOING FISCAL IMPAC0111 This is an informational report and there is no fiscal impact associated with accepting or rejecting the report. XYTACHMENTS 1. FY 2019-20 Financial Information for all DIF,s,including PFD�IF (Schedules A though F) 2. FY 2019-20 Financial Information for PAD Fees 3. FY 2019-20 Financial Information for Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fees Staff Contact:Kim Elliott, Development Services Department P �3ge 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 599 of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE A EASTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (ETDIF) FY 19/20 ACTIVITY Description of�Fee: To finance the construction of transportation facilities required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development in eastern areas of Chula Vista Amount of the Fee $ 14,705 per single family equivalent dwelling (low density) $ 11,764 per single family equivalent dwelling (med density) $ 8,823 per multi-family equivalent dwelling (high density) $ 235,281 per general commercial gross acre $ 132,345 per industrial gross acre FY 18/19 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Sub-Fund 590920, TRANS DEV DIF Beginning Balance*, 07/01/19 $ 8,210,9150 Revenues, TDIF Fees Collected 21042,242 Interest Earned 622,414 Transfer-In - Total Revenues 21664,656 Expenditures: CIP Project Expenditures (946,052) City Staff Services (192,1287), Bank Charges (51000) Refund (20�370) Total Expenditures (11163,709) Ending Balance*, 06/30/20 $ 917111897 *Unaudited Note: As of July 1, 2017, the City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 591, 593, and 225 were consolidated into fund 590. Sub-Funds to fund 590 are shown on tables,above. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 600 of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE A,.1 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT PEES(TDIF) FY 19120 ACTIVITY FY�19120 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Appropriation %Of Project Future Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as,of 6/30/20 Funded by TDIF Appropriations Scheduled 1� I I 1� 1� CTY0208 CIP Mngmt& Equipment Purchase $ 131395 $ 20518,73 36.43% $ 20016 STI-0261 Willow St Bridge Widening $ 212361,492 $ 37,194,097 13.31% $ - 2000 STI-0444 Willow St Bridge Repl Env Mit Compi $ 81F825 $ 400,1000 55.74% 2019 STM0331 East Orange Extension $ 25,931 $ 319611564 99.96% $ - 1999 STM0350 South Circulation Network $ - $ 1851000 100.00% $ - 2010 STM0357' Rock Mtn Rd Heritage-La Media $ 41881 $ 807,000 93.80% $ - 2004 STM0359 Rock Mtn Rd-SR125 Overpass $ 11Y 649 $ 300,1000 100.00% $ - 20015 STM0374 Heritage Rd Olympic to Main $ 31705 $ 150,000 100.00% $ - 2011 STM0375 SR125 @SanMgl Rnch 1/21nterchg $ 21F333 $ 1721869 100.00% $ - 2011 STM0382 Bike Lane a�long East H Street $ 31,392 $ 21760,124 84.94% $ - 2014 STM0386 Heritage Rd Bridge Improvmnts $ 11377.0123 $ 41648,51089, 21.56% $ - 2014 STM0388 Main Street Widening FY16 $ 48,080 $ 300,000 100.00% $ 268�374 2015 STM0389 Heritage Rd Widening FY16 $ 321249 $ 400,1000 100.00% $ - 2015 TRF0274 Tra�ff ic Count Stations $ 52,684 $ 755,000 71.52% $ 40,000 1990 TRF0325 Transportation Planning Progrm $ 1001001 $ 9151000 45.90% $ 401000 20014 TRF0357 SR125 Corridr and Arteria�l Ops $ - $ 100,001 100.00% $ - 2008 TRF0364 Trans Dev Impact Fund Update $ 121311 $ 2551000 100.00% $ - 20018 TRF0389 Adptv Trfc Signl Systm Expansn $ 994�149 $ 11509,500 36.34% $ - 2014 TRF0396 Trfc Mgmt Cntr&C,ommunictn MP $ 71F442 $ 3191938 13.13% $ - 2015 TRF0403 Tra�ff ic Signa�l Comm Improve $ 258�064 $ 11600,000 100.00% $ 250�000 2017 TOTAL: $ 51210,706 $ 56,776,054 FY19/20 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION: Oustanding Description of Loan Loan Amount Advance to PFDIF(Fire Suppression) affirmed and consolidated via Council Resolution No.2015-035 on February 17', 2015 $8,150,862 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 60 1. of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE B WEST�ERN TRANSPORTATION DEV�ELCIIPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 19/20 ACTIVITY Description of Fee: To finance the construction of transportation facilities required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development in western areas of Chula Vista. Amount of the Fee: $ 4,474 per single family equivalent dwelling unit(low density) $ 3,579 per single family equivalent dwelling unit(med density) $ 2,684 per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit(high density) $ 89,494 per regional commercial gross acre $ 26,8,484 per high rise office gross acre FY 18/19 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Sub-Fund 590922 S,ub-Fund 590,923 S,ub-Fund 590,924 Sub-Fund 590925 Western'Trans DIF Western Trans DIF Western Trans DIF Western Trans DIF Regional Arterial Sys Ras CIP Non Ras Non Ras CIP Beginning Balance*, 07/01/19 141)132 3941al 9 37410 75,830 Revenues WTDIF Fees Collected 1017)773 - - - Interest Earned 17,507 - - - Total Revenues 125,280, - - - Expenditures: Bank Chrages - - - Refund (59,528) City Staff Services, (537) - - - CIP Project Expenditures, (47,761) - - - Total Expenditures (107,826) - - - Ending �Balance*, 06/30/20 158,586 394,919 37,410 75Y830 *Unaudited Nolte: As of July 1, 2017, the City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 591, 593, and 225 were consolidated into fund 5910. Sub-Funds to fund 590 are shown on tables above. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 602 of 767 ATTACHIVIENTA SCHEDULE C TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 19/20 ACTIVITY Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic signal improvements required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development citywide. Amount of the Fee: $ 40.56 per trip FY 18/19 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Sub-Fund 590354 TRAFFIC SIGNAL Beginning Balance*, 07/01/19 $ 929,193 Revenues Traffic Signal Fees Collected 400,088 Interest Earned 46�1081 Miscellaneous Revenues 0 Total Revenues 446,169 Expenditures: Refund (619 13) City Staff Services (114,72) Bank Charges (532) Transfer-Out (15110145) CIP Project Expenditures (22259,19). Total Expenditures (382,881) Ending Balance*, 06/30/20 9921481 *Unaudited Note: As of July 1, 2017,the City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 591, 593, and 225 were consolidated into fund 590. A Sub-Fund to fund 590 is shown in the table above. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 603 of 767 ATTACHIVIENTA SCHEDULE CA TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 19/20 ACTIVITY FY �19/20 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT' Total Appropriation % Of�Proje,ct Funded Future Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/20 by Traffic Signal DIF Appropriations Scheduled CTY0208 CIP Mngmt& Equipment Purchasi $ 21625 $ 205,873 19.43% $ - 2006 STL0405 ADA Curb Ramps FY2014/15 $ 471,379 $ 493,948 9.59% $ - 2015 STL0420 PalornarSt/Orange Ave Sidewalk $ 267,248 $ 11,315,000 23.78% $ - 2016 TRF0337 Traf Signal Left Turn Mod Pro�g $ 271,185 $ 226,649 100.�00%, $ - 2006 TRF0354 Traffic Congestion Relief Prog $ 332,234 $ 11,406,365 3.91% $ 501000 2006 TRF0384 Hazel Cook Elern Schl Ped Impry $ 461,546 $ 715,000 48.11% $ 161,60�O 2013 TRF0388 Trfc SgnI Modf at 41ntersectns $ 531,492 $ 11,264,078 31.25% $ - 2015 TRF0389 Adptv Trfc SignI Systm Expansn $ 501,479 $ 11570,500 6.37% $ - 2015 TRF0390 Trfc SgnI &Ped F'ac Modf Palomr $ 521,381 $ 434,744 10.96% $ - 2014 TRF0394 Ped Crosswlk Enhancmnt @Uncnti $ 309,062 $ 828,316 37.31% $ - 2015 TRF0398 Trfc Signal @Jacqua St&Main $ 371,399 $ 1651000 69.70% $ - 2015 TRF0400 Signal Retiming of Yellow $ 11595 $ 200,000 55.00% $ 200,000 2017 TRF0402 Trfc Signal Mod @ Broadway/F&,G $ 436,953 $ 989,750 8.08% $ - 2016 TRF0404 Traf Sig Retime/Install Fiber $ 309,244 $ 1,,9176,700 4.64% $ - 2018 TRF0405 Ped Countdown Inst&Signal Mod $ 421,681 $ 1159019�00 16.03% $ - 2017 TRF0407 Traffic Sig Mod at 5 Intersect $ 142,304 $ 11,432,448 64.23% $ - 2019 TRF0412 Traffic Signal Upgrades Two Sites $ 137,167 $ 11,344,862 8.44% $ 210,000 2019 TOTAL: $ 277737973 $ 16,160,133 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 604 of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE D SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 19�/20 ACTIVITY Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin �DIF(PC Sewer Bas,in DIF)Sub-Fund 43076�6 Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF(SC Sewer�Basin DIF)Sub-Fund 430,767 Description of Fees: Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF: �For the construction of a trunk sewer in the P,oggi Canyon Sewer Basin from a proposed regional trunk sewer west of 1-,8015 along Olympic Parkway to the boundary of'Eastlake. Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF: For the planning,design,construction and/or financing of the facilities. Amount of the fees: Sub-Fund 430766 Sub-Fund 430767 Poggi Canyon Sewer Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF Basin DIF base fee per equivalent dwelling unit(EDU) $ 265 $ 1,500 1.0 EDU per single family,attached or detached $ 265 $ 1,500 0.75�EDU per multi-family dwelling unit $ 199 $ M25 Commercial land use $265/EDU $1,500/EDU Industrial land use $265/EDU $1,500/EDU 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 605 of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE D,.1 SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 19�/20 ACTIVITY FY 18/19 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION: Sub-Fund 430766 Sub-Fund 430767 Poggi Canyon Sewer Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF Basin DIF Beginning Balance*, 017/01/2019 $ 151)260 $ (4,603,758) Revenues DIF Fees Collected 13,945 8201,549 Interest Earned 66,089 36,231 Transfer-In - - Total Revenues 80,034 856,780 Expenditures: Contracted Services (24,,4016) - City Staff Services (11,773) (19,264) Bank Charges (76,1) (487) Interest Expense (4,50,312) Transfer Out Total Expenditures (36,940) (470,063) Net Balance Sheet Activity (3,,785) Ending Balance*, O�6/30/2020 $ 194,354 $ (41220,826) *Unaudited 'As of July 1,2017,City implemented a new ERP finance system,which conso�lidated multiple funds. Former funds 431,432,and 551 were consolidated into fund 430. Sub-Funds to fund 430 are shown on tables,above. 2 In FY 2008 the City changed the presentation of the Sewer DIF Funds from Special Revenue Funds to Enterprise Funds to�better match standard financial reporting practices. Beginning FY 16/17,the City started reporting the cash balance instead of fund balance in the Sewer DIF Funds in this report for comparison purposes. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 606 of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULEE OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE �D�EV�ELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FY 19/20 ACTIVITY Otay Ranch Village 1, 2, 5 &6 Pedestrian Bridge �DIF (OR Vil 1 &5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Sub-Fund 580940 Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Sub-Fund 580941 Otay Ranch Millenia Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge (DIF) ( OR Millenia EUC Pedestrian Bidg�e DIF), Sub-Fund 580981 Description of Fees: OR Village 1 &5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement between Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5 &6. OR Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement in Otay Ranch Village 11. OR Millenia EUC Ped Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement in OR Millenia (EUC). Amount of the fees: Sub-Fund 580940, Sub-Fund 580941 Sub-Fund 580981 OR Village 1, 2, 5 &6 OR Village 11 Millenia EUC Ped Bridge DIF Ped Bridge DIF Ped Bridge DIF per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached $ 931�.010 $ 25641.00 $ 615.13 per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit $ 6901.00 $ 15958.00 $ 456�.10 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 607 of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE E.11 OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FY 19/20 ACTIVITY FY 18/19 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Sub-Fund 580940 Sub-Fund 580941 Sub-Fund 580,981 OR VILLAGE 1,2,5&6 OR VILLAGE 11 EUC MILLENIA PED BRIDGE D,IF PED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIF Beginning �Balance*, 07/01/19 $ 11716,368 $ 31182,231 $ 405,508 Revenues D�IF Fees Collected 70,373 - - Interest Earned 41,992 73,195 81549 'Total Revenues 112,365 73,195 81549 'Expenditures Supplies &Services - - - City Staff Services (1 1368�) (31167) (371274) Bank Charges (495) (8,46) Refu n d (624) - - 'Total Expenditures (21487) (41013) (371274) Ending Balance*, 06/30/20, $1,826,246 $3,251,413 $376,783 *Unaudited 'As of July 1, 2017, City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 587, 588, and 7'18,were consolidated into fund 580. Sub-Funds to fund 580are shown on tables above. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 608 of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULEF PUBLIC FACILITIES D�EV�ELOPMENT IMPACT FE�ES(PFDIF) FY 19/20 ACTIVITY Description of Fees and amounts: Administration�: Administration of the Public Facilities DIF program,overseeing of expenditures and revenues collected,preparation of updates, calculation of costs,etc,. Single-Family$673[DU;�Multi-Family$637[DU;Commercial$2,148/Acre; Industrial$679/Acre. Civic Center Expansion: Expansion of the 1989 Civic Center per the Civic Center Master Plan to provide sufficient building space and parking due to growth and development. The Civic Center Master Plan was updated in July 2001 to include the Otay Ranch impacts. Single Family$3,133[DU;�Multi-Family$2,968/DU;Commercial$9,997/Acre-, Industrial$3,159/Acre. Pollice,Facility: Accommodation of the building space needs per the Civic Center Master Plan,which included the newly constructed police facility, upgrading of the communications center and installation of new communication consoles. Also included is the purchase and installation of a computer aided dispatch system(CAD), Police Records Management System,and Mobile Data Terminals. Single-Family$1,873/DU;Multi-Family$2,022/DU;Commercial$8,846/Acre; Industrial$1,907/Acre. Corporation Yard: Relocation of the City's Public Works Center from the bayfront area to the more centrally located site on Maxwell Road. Single-Family$502/DU;Multi-Family$403/DU;Commercial$8,552/Acre; Industrial$4,028/Acre,. Libraries(Residential Only): Improvements include construction of the South Chula Vista library and Eastern Territories libraries,and installation ofa new automated library system. This component is based on the updated Library Master Plan. Single-Family&Multi-Family$1,801/DU- �Fire Suppression System: Projects include the relocation of Fire Stations#3,construction of a fire training tower and classroom,purchase of a brush rig,installation of a radio communications tower and construction of various fire stations in the Eastern section of the City.This fee also reflects the updated Fire Station Master Plan,which includes needs associated with the Otay Ranch development. Single-Family$1,583/DU;Multi-Family$1,139/DU�;Commercial$4,186/Acre; Industrial$833/Acre. Recreation(Residential Only): New component adopted in November 2002 to build major recreation facilities created by new development such as community centers,gymnasiums,swimming pools,and senior/teen centers. Single-Family&Multi-Family$1,367/DU. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 609 of 767 ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE F.1 �PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES(PFD�IF)l FY 19/20 ACTIVITY FY 19/20 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Police Corp Yard Fire Supp. Rec. Gen.Admin. Civic Center2 Facility Relocation Libraries System Facilities Sub-Fund Sub-Funids Sub-Fund Sub-Fund Sub-Fund Sub-Fund Sub-Funid 560896 560895/560897 J 560898 4 560899 560�900 560901 b 560902 TOTAL Beginning Balance*,07/01/19 $2,748,049 $(6,654,847) $ (1,353,333) $ (2,019,130) $ 8,6,68,,410 $ (5,298,445) $ 6,171,340 $ 7,147,93�9 Revenues: DIF Revenues 383,926 1,778,967 1,121,629 272,,043 11,040,309 819,443 785,733 6,202,050 Investment Earnings 144,341 78,672 (6,5,599) 2,594 463,405 (175,857) 40,129 487,685 Other Revenue - - - - - - Reimbursement-O�th Agencies - - Transfer In - - - - 151,045 - 151,045 Total Revenues 528,267 1,857,639 1,056,030 274,,63�7 11,503,714 794,631 825,862 6,840,780 Expenditures: Personnel Services Total - - - - - - - Supplies&Services (5,175) (6,280) (11,455) City Staff Services (292,992) (1,656) (15,0914) - (309,742) Other Expenses (18,792) (92,833) (3�7,130) (8,026) (39,381) (3�04,905) (1,135) (502,202) Other Capital (118,125) (23,481) CIP Project Expenditures (157,838) (1,046,,725) (1,204,563) Transfer Out(Bou�nded Debt Services) (2,868,3,87) (1,595,763) (729,725) (5,193,875) Transfer Out(Interfund Loan Repaymei Total Expenditures (311,784) (2,968,051) (1,632,893) (855,,876) (60,755) (462,743) (1,071,,341) (7,221,837) *Unaudited Ending Balance*,06/30/20 $21964,532 $(7,765,259) $ (1,930,196) $ (21600,369) $10,111,369 $ (41966,557) $ 51925,861 $ 61766,882 'As of July 1,2017,City implemented a new ERIP finance system,which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 567,571-576,and 582 were consolidated into fund 560. Sub-Funds to fund 560 are shown on tables above. 2 This Sub-Fund includes the amount set aside for the acquisition of the Adamo property in Sub-Fund 5608915. 3 For Sub-Funds 560895 and 5,60897,includes restatement for fund 451 closeout 4 For Sub-Funds 560898,includes restatement for fund 451 closeout 5For Sub-Funds 560901,includes restatement for fund 451 closeout 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 610 of 767 ATTACHMENT 2 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES) FY 19/20 ACTIVITY Description of Fee: In lieu fee for providing neighborhood community park and recreational facilities. Aquisition Development Total Areas East of�1-805 Fee Fee Fee Amount of the F'ee-� $12,676 $8,019 $20,695 per single family dwelling unit $9,408 $5,952 $15,360 per multi-family dwelling unit $5,932 $3,753 $91,685 per mobile home dwelling unit Areas West of 1-8,05 Amount of the F'ee-� $4,994 $8�101 9 $13,013 per single family dwelling unit $3,707 $5,952 $,9,659 per multi-family dwelling unit $2,337 $3,753 $6,090 per mobile home dwelling unit FY 19/20 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 715 FUND 716 PAD FUND WPAD FUND Beginning �Balance*, 07/01/19 $ 33,0123,563 $ (71759,01601) Revenues: Park Dedication Fees 784,528 103,371 Interest Earned 9941907 42,929 Transfer In - - Total Revenues 1,;7791435 146,3010 Expenditures,- Supp�lies and Services - - City Staff Services (24,953) (1 7412) Other Expenditures (91024) (223,617) Other Refunds - Transfer Out Interfund Loan Repayment) CIP Project Expenditures 'Total Expenditures (33,977) (225,029) Ending Balance*, 06/30/20�' $ 34,769,021 $ (718371789) *Unaudited The ending balance includes fees paid by specific developers for specific parks within those development. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 611. of 767 ATTACHMENT 2 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES) IFY 19/20 ACTIVITY IFY 19/20 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded Future Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/20 by PAD Fees Appropriations Scheduled RECO261 Otay Ranch Community Park $ 162 $ 6971764 100.00% $ 20,08 REC0308 P-3 Neighborhood Park (ORV2) $ 137453 $ 122,000 100.00% $ 20�08 REC0309 P-2 Neighborhood Park (ORV2) $ 21128 $ 122,000 100.00% 20,08 TOTAL $ 15,1744 $ 941)764 IFY 19/20 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATIONI: Oustanding Description of Loan: Loan Amount Advance from Eastern PAD Fund to Western PAD Fund affirmed and consolidated via Council Resolution No. 2015-034 on February 17,1 2015 $9�2195238 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 612 of 767 ATTACHMENT'3 TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY 19/20 ACTIVITY Description of Fee: For the enlargement of sewer facilities of the City so as to enhance efficiency of utilization and/or adequacy of capacity and for planning and/or evaluating any future proposals for area wide sewage treatment and or water reclamation systems or facilities. Amount of the Fee: $ 3,892 per equivalent dwelling unit of flow. FY 19/20 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 413 TRUNK SEWER (TS) Beginning Balance*,07/01/2019 $ 57,565,016 Revenues Interest Earned 2,829,745 Sewerage Facility Participant Fees 3�,425,882 DIF-Swr Basin Tel Cyn Transfer In Reimb-Other - Total Revenues 6,255,627 Expenditures: Supplies&Services - City Staff Services Other Expenditures (5,524,056) Depreciation - CIP Project Expenditures 255,197 Total Expenditures: (5,268,859) Net Balance Sheet Activity 1,095,469 Ending Balance*,06/30/20 $ 59,647,253 *Unaudited In FY 20,018 the City changed the presentation of the Trunk Sewer Fund from a Special Revenue Fund to an Enterprise Fund to better match standard financial reporting practices.Beginning this year,the City is reporting the cash balance instead of fund balance in the Trunk Sewer Fund in this report for comparison purposes. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 613 of 767 ATTACHMENT'3 TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY�19120 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES IFY 19/20 EXPENDITURES: %Of Project PROJECT Total Approp. Funded by Future Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/20 TRUNK SEWER Appropriations Scheduled SWR0272 Moss St SwrImpry @Railrd Crsng $ 212 $ 83,207 100-00% $ - 2012 SWR0274 East H St Sewer Main Upsize 794.1 1,493,966 100-00% - 2013 SWR0275 Reline Force�Mn @�G St Pump Stn 484,917-54 1,525,685 98-99% - 2013 SWR0290 TlgrphCyn BsnSwr Imprv5th&I-5 21,5,64.77 949,839 100-00% - 2014 SWR0291 J St Junction Box Swr Study 49,450.74 99,224 16-67% - 2015 SWR0292 IndtrI Blvd&Main St S,wr Impry 198,609-99 228,596 80.42% - 2016 TOTAL: $ 755,549 $ 4,380,518 FY 19/20 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION: Oustanding Description of Loan: Loan Amount Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF affirmed and consolidate via Council Resolution No.2015-029 on February 17,2015 $18,6017,9152 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 614 of 767 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5,2 02 1 File,ID: 20-0472 TITLE RESOLUTION OF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 8 (GREENS FEES) OF 'THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND ESTABLISHING NEW GREENS FEES AT THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY The Chula Vista Golf Course (CVGC) hosts over 60,000 rounds of golf and over 400 tournament and banquet events each year. The rates charged for the use of this facility have not been increased in over 12 years and lag far behind other municipal courses in the area. In order to address deferred maintenance and to continue the program of upgrading the facility and increasing the quality of the experience for our customers, staff is recommending the fees be increased to a level more commensurate with comparable local courses. Adoption of this resolution would also authorize the City Manager, or designee,to amend Chapter 8 (Greens Fees) to increase the greens fees by a maximum of three percent (3,%) per year for the next five (5) years through 2026,to accommodate inflation and increases to the minimum wage. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project)' as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus,no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION While the demand for golf has declined over the past 20 years, Chula Vista Golf Course (CVGC) remains a local favorite. It is both affordable and accessible to the public. CVGC hosts over 60,000 rounds of golf and over 400 tournament and banquet events each year. The course serves 13 boys and girls high school golf teams that compete in the Sweetwater High School District. CVCG is home to the weekly Chula Vista Rotary 1111. 0 0 1 PIi3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 615 of 767 and the facility supports the community through hosting celebrations of all kinds including numerous fundraisers. The Touchstone Golf Foundation has raised over $40,000 in the last 2 years for non-pro�fits. Membership of the Chula Vista Men's and Women's clubs total over 300 players. For 32 years CVGC was leased to a turnkey operator with the City getting paid rent but having little input on the operations or maintenance of the facility., During that time an estimated $4 million of differed maintenance accrued. It was decided that a new operating model was necessary so the City could be more involved in the management of the asset. In November 2016, the City retained Touchstone Golf, a professional go�lf course management company to run the daily operations and work with the city on making improvements to the facility. Under Touchstone's Management,working closely with City staff,the course has seen gradual improvement and progress is being made on several of the deferred maintenance items but like most asset management projects that start with a deep deficit there is still millions of dollars of improvements needed at the facility. Unfortunately, many deferred maintenance issues remain along with normal wear and tear problems that require daily attention. Immediate improvements that need to be addressed are ADA improvements, resurfacing fairways,irrigation repairs,greenside bunker renovation,tree work,tee leveling,and equipment replacement(Attachment 3). Without these improvements the golf course will fall further behind the other courses in the marketplace. While we have managed to sustain a small profit for the City every year and have avoided investing any money from the general fund, we are working with revenues based upon a 14-year- old fee structure. This fee structure has not kept up with inflation, increase in minimum wage and utilities which hampers our ability from making any significant progress on the major issues that exist at the facility. Attachment 1 to this report shows CVGC's current fee structure compared to those of other local municipal and public courses. The CVGC is the lowest in virtually every category. Attachment 2 is our current rate structure compared to the rates proposed by this action. These new rates, while still low are more in line with comparable courses. Attachment 2 shows the projected annual revenue increase generated by the rate change. Even with this modest increase in fees, based on current annual rounds, we will not be able to address all items identified in Attachment 3 but will prioritize ADA and access issues first. The closure of the course during the p�andemic dramatically reduced the funds on hand so we are hopeful that funds will be available for these improvements to take place during the 2021/22 fiscal year. If approved this action will amend the City's Master Fee Schedule to reflect these new fees and will authorize the City Manager or her designee to increase the fees a maximum of three percent per year as needed to accommodate inflation and increases in the minimum wage for the next five (5)years,through 2026. Chula Vista Golf Course is committed to providing an enjoyable golf and dining experience at an excellent value. For the property to be successful fee increases will be required from time to time to offset increased expenses and provide funds for necessary improvements. In our current climate Go�lf has a great opportunity to capture more golfers and continue to bring them back to Chula Vista. P �3ge 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 616 of 767 DECISION-MAKER C"ONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property holdings within 1,00�O feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action.Consequently,this item does not present a disqualifying real property-r�elated financial conflict of interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 187022(a)(7) or (8), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Go�v't Code §87100,et seq.),. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT When the new rates take effect in the third quarter of the current fiscal year it is anticipated that the Golf Course will see an increase in revenue which will be offset by the needed deferred maintenance remediation. There will be no significant impact to the general fund in the current fiscal year. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT In upcoming fiscal years as the facility condition improves the increase in rates may result in a modest increase in revenues to the general fund. A'I"TACHMEN"rs 1. Comparable Fee chart for local Municipal Golf Courses 2. Proposed new Fee Schedule for CVGC 3. February 2,6,, 2 0 2 0 Letter from Touchstone Golf Staff Contact:Rick Ryals,Real Property Manager P �3ge 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 617 of 767 Attachment 11 Competitive Rate Comparison Chula Green and Cart Chula Vista Balboa Coronado Eastlake Eastlake Vista Bonita '.Balboa Non- Coronado Non- "on- Non- Resident Fe�e Rates ident ident dent Res" res, Resi resi*dent Resident Weekday Standard walking $ 20 $ 25 3)2 32 40 $ 38 42 $ 33 $ 38 $ 46 $ 37 $ 55 $ 56 $ 62 $ 55 $ 100 Standard riding Senior walking $ 11 22 Senior riding $ 23 $ _'3 7 $ 55 $ 55 Twilight walking $ 13 $ 16 $ 22 $ 191 $ 24 $ 23 $ 26 Twilight riding $ 26 $ 29 '36 $ 29 $ _33 4 $ 35 $ 38 $ 45 $ 55 Super Twilight walking $ 10 $ 13 Super Twilight riding $ 20 $ 20 Early Bird Back 9 $ 12 $ 15 $ 20 $ 14 $ 18 $ 20 $ 25 walking Early Bird Back 9 $ 19 $ 22 $ 28 22 $ 26 $ 31 $ _`36 $ 30 30 ridinE Resident carlds $ 12 $ 25 Weekend Standard walking $ 29 $ 38 46 $ 40 $ 50 $ 4_3 $ 49 Standard riding $ 42 $ 51 $ 60 $ 55 $ 65 $ 61 $ 69 75 $ 125 Senior walking Senior riding Twilight walking $ 16 $ 19 28 24 30 $ 26 Twilight riding $ 29 $ 32 $ 42 34 40 3 8 433 $ 50 $ 55 Super Twilight walking $ 15 $ 15 $ 24 $ 30 Super Twilight ridin 25 $ 25 34 $ 401 9 Early Bird Back 9 walking_ $ 1�4 $ 17 $ 24 $ 18 $ 2.) $ 20 $ 25 Early'Bird Back 9 $ 21 $ 24 $ 3'2 $ 26 $ 31 $ 36 riding 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 618 of 767 Competitive Market Analys is Chula Vista Golf Course Proposed CuOrent Proposed Non Planned Green and Cart Fee Non- Resident Percent Percent CV'GC' CV Non- Resident % resident In,c re, as e,i Jft Rates Resident Increase Increase Increase Residen't Resident, Changes changes Increase Rev,enue, Weekday Standard walking 2'0 25 22.00 27.00 2.00 10.0% 1 2.00 8.0% 1552 $ 3' 104.,00 Senior walking 15.00 4.00 36.4% 11543 $ '46J72.00 Twilight walking '''13, 16, 15.00 1 9�.00 2.00 15.4% 3.Ov 18.8% 1478 $,, , ,4,434.00, Super Twilight walking $ S , 10 , 10.00 13,.0 u" 0.00 0.0% 3.Ov 30.0% 1762 5�286.00' Earlv Bird Back 9 walking 12 , ,S, - 15 , 13.00 37 ' 331 L16.(0 1.00 8.3% 1.00 6.7% 3 7.00',1 ...... ............................ Weekend Standard walking 11's", 11,191 31.00 39.00 2.00 6.9% 1.00 2.6% 1924 "1 1924.0o" Twilight walking 116 19 19.00 21.00 3.00 18.8% 2.00 10.5% 1584 31960.00, Super Twilight walking 13 , ' '' 16, 13.00 16.00 0.00 0.0% 3.00 18.8% 976 $ ,, ,2',9'28*,00,, Early Bird Back 9 walking $ 14 , 17 15.00 18.00 1.00 7.1% 1.00 5.9% 563 561100 Resident cards 12, 20.00 8.00 66.7% 644 .5�'452.,001 Total 68,708.00,', EGol:f:Cart Rates, Shared Carts $,15 Individual Rider Carts $20 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 619 of 767 To�U C H ST 0 NE (3',L��0�,i� F' February 26 1h 2020 Mr. Rick Ryals City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 919 10 Re: Chula Vista Golf Course Major Projects and Capital Improvements Dear Rick: As you know there are a number of improvements necessary to bring Chula Vista Golf Course up to an acceptable standard that will enable us to retain our current customers and attract new customers. This proposal has been created with the mindset that we will take an incremental approach to improving the golf course over time. Below you will find a list of projects that we need to address as soon as possible. Attached are additional items that are important but not as time sensitive,but none the less important, including the ADA project. Fortunately,,the net income from the golf course is more than sufficient to cover the total cost. Immediate Prpjeets Description Est. Cost Reseal and level asphalt in the handicap parking areas. Demo existing Parking Lot parking barriers and add wheel stops achieve ADA compliance parking $341000 areas Cart return area and Seal and level concrete path and concrete cart return area. Seal and level ramp from parking lot asphalt in same area. Achieve safe path of travel from parking lot to pro $201000 shop. I 9th Hole Install lift to the I 91hhole and upgrade bathroom to be ADA compliant $759000 Oven Currently staggering cooking for events $5�000 Install 351,000 square feet(I acre)of Paspalum Sod in bare spots on.various Fairway Sod fairways to improve playability(quality) for the golfers. Golfers have a $251000 basic expectation that they will be able to play off grass.oh Install new bridge for cart and walking traffic to cross over the river on the Cart Bridge Hole 3 3,dhole. Existing bridge is closed due to structural rusting causing it to be $651000 unsafe. Tree work Trim Various trees and remove dead trees and stumps from the course for $40,000 Second AC Unit for safety purposes Vista Room Install second AC unit for Vista Room. K000 0 Total, $272,000 We look forward to working with the City to ensure the golf course and restaurant is properly maintained for the benefit of the community. If you have any questions or feedback feel free to contact me anytime. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, Steve Harker President &CEO Cc: Armando NaJera, Chris Gilfillen 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packefouchstone Golf, 1052 Overlook, �Berkeley, CA 94708 (510) 9119-3017 Page 620 of 767 Chula Vista Golf Course Additional Capital Improvements and Equipment 20�2O�-2021 Description Est. Cost Beverage Cart Beverage cart needed fo�r course. Can double for events in the evening $17,200 Dance Floor Second dance floor needed for events $800 Banquet Chairs 100 Brown Banquet Chairs,220 Chiavari Chairs,currently renting for $81000 larger events. Bunker Renovation Rebuild and reshape 3 to 5 greenside bunkers to improve their drainage, $301000 sand quality,and playability. The current bunkers are well below standard. Tee Box Leveling Strip,level,and re-sod 2 to 4 tees on the golf course to improve playability $301000 and turf coverage. Golfers expect a level tee with grass. Create architectural plan to Split the middle room into half storage and Bridal Suite/D�emo old other half bridal suite.Bar in inoperable and needs to be demo creating $251000 bar area space for storage. Currently losing weddings and quinceaneras due to not having a bridal suite. Replace exterior lights with LED light to saving energy and money over Led Lighting time. Add 2 LED lights to driving range for night lit putting green and tee $151000 box. Carpet&Dance Floor Carpet banquet room and add permanent dance floor $351000 Tractor Repair New tires and clutch needed for tractor WOOO Paint exterior of I" I . clubhouse Exterior of clubhouse is dated. $20,000 Total: $204,200 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 62 1. of 767 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 8 (GREENS FEES) OF THE CITYS MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND ESTABLISHING NEW GREENS FEES AT THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course (CVMGC) hosts over 60,000 rounds of golf, over 400 annual tournament and banquet events, 13 boys and girls high school golf teams, weekly Rotary meetings, and numerous other community celebrations and events including fundraisers; and WHEREAS, the greens fees charged at the CVMGC have been in effect since 2008; and WHERAS, staff s analysis shows that the greens, fees, charged at the CVMGC are lower than other local municipal and public golf courses; and WHEREASI the revenue currently generated by these greens fees is not sufficient to adequately maintain CVMGC and address years of deferred maintenance; and WHEREASI staff recommends amending the Master Fee Schedule to increase greens fees at the CVMGC, as provided on Exhibit "A", to generate additional revenue to offset increased expenses and provide funds for necessary improvements; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager, or designee, to amend the Master Fee Schedule to increase greens fees at the CVMGC by a maximum of three percent (3%) per year for a period of five (5) years, through calendar year 2026, to account for future increased expenses and provide funds for necessary future improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it approves amending Chapter 8 (Greens Fees) of the City of Chula Vista's Master Fee Schedule, as provided on Exhibit "A"', and establishes new greens fees at the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course, as provided in the amended Master Fee Schedule. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to amend the Master Fee Schedule to increase greens fees at the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course by a maximum of three percent (3%) per year for a period of five (5) years, through calendar year 20�26. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 622 of 767 Presented by Approved as to form by Eric Crockett Glen R. Googins Deputy City Manager City Attorney 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 623 of 767 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE hxhl*bl*t "All Chapter 8 - Greens Fees Chula Vista Municipal Golf Co u rse City of Chu!a Vista 276 Fourth Avenu�e, Ch�ula Vista,, CA 91910 STANDARD GREENS FEES RESIDENT' DISCOUNTS L Mondaythrough Friday(exc. legal holidays) An annual resident discount card may be Number of holes................................................... 18 purchased�. Residency requirements m�ust be met Standard greens fees.......................................$2_7�5 to purchase the discount card. Resident discount rate...........................................$22,0 Annual resident discount card ........................... 2. Saturdays,Sundays and legal holidays $12-01-:12, Number of holes................................................... 18 One of the following forms of identification will be Standard greens fees.......................................$39,8 required to show proof of residency: Resident discount rate...................................$.31.29 3. Monday through Friday(exc!. legal holidays) 1. Driver's license Number of holes......................................................9 2. Current ut,ility bill Standard greens fees.......................................$1_6"5 3. Parcel map showing location of Chula Vista Resident discount rate.....................................$1.312 property ownership 4. Monday through Friday,twil�ight Resident rates also apply for non-residents of the City of Chula Vista who are members of either the Number of holes......................................................9 Chula Vista Men's Golf Club or the Chula Vista Standard greens fees.........................................$1,9� Ladies' Golf Association, and have paid a one time Resident discount rate ................................$153 fee to the City of Chula Vista. 5. Monday through Friday, super twilight One-time,i non-resident exception fee ...............$25 Number of holes......................................................9 SENIOR RATES Standard greens fees.......................................$130 Resident discount rate.......................................$10 Qualifications and restrictions: 6. Saturdays,Sundays and legal holidays 1. Chula Vista residency. Said residency shall be Number of holes......................................................9 verified by driver's license or voter registration Standard greens fees......................................... ca rd. $18-7 2. The individual must be at least 62 years of Resident discount rate....................................... age. $1.54 ............ 3. Play is restricted to weekdays only, holidays 7. Saturdays,, Sundays,and legal holidays,twilight excluded. Play is restricted to Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.to 12:00 noon. Number of holes......................................................9 Senior discount cards Standard greens fees......................................$Z Yearly discount card ...........................................$12 Resident discount rate.....................................$,196 Monthly discount card........................................$50 8. Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, super No new monthly discount cards will be issued after twilight 07/25/2006,. Existing monthly cardholders are Number of holes......................................................9 "grandfathered". Standard greens fees.........................................$,15 Resident discount rate.......................................$15 Senior Greens Fee,.............................per round (residents Number of holes............................................9 or 18 With yearly discount card... ......... $11 With monthly "grandfathered" discount card $3.00 City of Chula Vista www.chulavistaca.gov 6,19-397-6000 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 624 of 767 May 2010 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FEE BULLETIN 8-100 Page 2 of 2 JUNIOR MONTHLY TICKET A Junior Monthly ticket shall entitle a junior to play a maximum of 18 holes per day after the hour of 2:�00 �p.m., subject to any rules, regulations or restrictions imposed by the management of the Chula Vista Golf Course. Juniors are defined as non�-college students, who have not reached their eighteenth birthday or completed their sen�ior year of high school. Monthly ticket......................................................$25 RAIN CHECKS No rain checks wil�l be given for any fee category., LEGAL HOLIDAYS For purposes of these golf course feesy legal holidays are defined as follows: January 1..........................................N�ew Year's Day Th-irdmo-r,idav --Luth�-&�-,-Ki-Li-gJI)ay February 12.................................. Lincoln's Birthday Third Monday in February....Washington's Birthday March ........Cesar Chave Last Monday in May............................Memorial Day July 4............................................Independence Day First Monday in September...................... Labor Day September 9 ..................................... Admission Day Second Monday i'n October...............Columbus Day November 11 ......................................Veterans' Day Fourth Thursday in November.............Thanksgiving Fourth Friday i'n November..................Thanksgiving December 25............................................Christmas City of Chula Vista www.chulavistaca.gov 6,19-397-6000 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 625 of 767 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5,2 02 1 File,ID: 20-0491 'TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, WAIVING MINOR IRREGULARITIES, AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE "MAJOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FY 2018/2019 (STM0397)" PROJECT TO FRANK AND SON PAVING, INC., AND, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR(4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY On October 28, 2020, the Director of Engineering and Capital Projects received six (6) sealed bids for the advertisement of the "Major Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2018/2019 (STM0397)" project. The project is included in the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 and is funded by TransNet and the Sewer Facility Replacement Fund. The proposed resolution, if approved, would 1) accept bids; 2) waive minor irregularities; 3) award the contract for,this project to Frank and Son Paving, Inc. in the amount of $2,044,644.72; and 4) appropriate $25,8,00 from the available balance of the Sewer Facility Replacement Fund. The appropriated Sewer Facility Replacement funds will be used to rehabilitate a sewer access road near Greenwood Place�. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE'W The Development Services Director, has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and has determined that the project qualifies for,a Categorical Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15,3011 Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Section 15302 Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction), and Section 15303 class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the proposed actions would not result in a significant effect on the environment, create a cumulative impact,damage a scenic highway,or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.Thus,no further environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. 1111. 0 0 1 PIi3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 626 of 767 DISCUSSION The"Major Pavement Rehabilitation FY2018/2019(STM0397)project will primarily consist of the following improvements: • Roadway rehabilitation at various locations in the City of Chula Vista using asphalt concrete, and rubberized asphalt concrete pavement overlays, as well as Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane (ARAM) chip seals�- • Modification of pedestrian ramps,spandrels,cross gutters,and driveways at various locations; • Modification of existing signing and striping at various locations; • Modification of an existing raised median on Third Avenue at D Street; and • Rehabilitation of a sewer access road. Biddina Process On October 9, 2020, Engineering and Capital Projects' Staff advertised the project. Six (6) sealed bids were received on October 28,, 2020. The submitted base bid totals from the prime contractors were as follows: Ranking Contractor Submitted Base Bid Amount 1 Frank and Son Paving, Inc. $2)068)234.21 2 Hazard Construction Company $2)082)419.70 3 Eagle Paving Company, Inc. $2)098�558.00 4 ONYX Paving Company, Inc. $2;324�000.00 5 TC Construction Comp�any,,Inc. $2)465)041.15 r 6 7 Calmex Engineering, Inc. $2)562)263.42 During Staff s review of the bid proposals received, minor computational errors were discovered that resulted in an administrative adjustment to the submitted base bid amount for Frank and Son Paving, Inc. Section 4 of the Bid Proposal Requirements and Conditions provides the process for administrative adjustments for arithmetical errors. The administrative adjustment to the submitted bid amount did not change the lowest responsive bidder for the project. The submitted and adjusted base bid amounts are as follows: Frank and Son Paving, Inc Base Bid Amount Submitted $2)068y234.21 Adjusted $2)044y64A.72 The lowest responsive b�idder for the project, Frank and Son Paving, Inc., has acknowledged the minor arithmetical errors in the submitted bid proposal and indicated that they will honor the adjusted base bid amount (Attachment 1). The adjusted base bid of $2,044,644.72 is below the Engineer's Estimate of $2)392o7O�0.0�O by$348,0�55.28 (or approximately 15,%,). Frank and Son Paving,Inc.'s Contractor License No.612,545,as well as all listed sub-contractor's licenses,are current and active as of November 2020. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Frank and Son Paving, Inc.in the amount of$2,044,644.72. P �3ge 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 627 of 767 Disclosure Statement Attachment 2 is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement. WaLye Statement The Contractor that is awarded the contract and its sub-contractors are required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for work under this contract. The prevailing wage scales are those determined by the Director of Industrial Relations,State ofCalifornia. ChanLye Orders Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.56.160.C.2 authorizes the City Engineer to approve, change orders up to the remaining CIP budget availab�le for this CIP project. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT" Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found that Mayor Salas and Co�uncilmember McCann have property holdings withing 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. However,the decision solely concerns rep�airs, replacement or maintenance of existing streets, water', sewer', storm drainage or similar facilities, and the member�'s property will not be affected disproportionately to other properties receiving the same services. Consequently, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 2, sections 18,700 and 18702.2(d)(1), this item does not present a real property-related conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal. Gov't Code § 8,7100.,et seq.). CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the re�so�lution will appropriate $25,800 of Sewer Facility Replacement funds to STM0397 and initiate the construction phase. Sufficient funding is availab�le to award the contract and for said appropriation. The following is a summary of anticipated project costs: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount $2,044)644.72 13. Contract Contingency rox. 28%) $578,895.47 C. Construction Inspection (Approx. 12,%) $240)00�0.00 D. Project Closeout(Approx. 2,%) $50.,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $2;913)S40.19 AVAILABLE FUNDING A. Transnet- STM0397 (Acct#: STM0397-227) $2,798)215.19 B. CalRecycie Grant- STM0397 (Grant#-. TRPIO-18-0049) $8%525.00 C. Appropriated Funds (Sewer Facility Replacement Fund) $25,800.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $2)913;540.19 ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Upon completion of the project,the improvements will require routine street maintenance. P �3ge 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 628 of 767 ATTAC14MENTS Attachment 1 -Acknowledgement of Errors Attachment 2 -Contractor I s Disclosure Statement Staff Contact.- Tim Jones,Asso�ciate Engineer P �3ge 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 629 of 767 RESOLUTION NO. 2020- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, WAIVING MINOR IRREGULARITIES, AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE "MAJOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FY 2018/2019 (STM0397)" PROJECT TO FRANK AND SON PAVING, INC., AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS,, Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.56.160 authorizes the City to contract for public works; and WHEREAS on October 9 2020 the Department of Engineering and Capital Pro ects, solicited bids for the "Major Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2018/2019 (STM0397)1� project in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.56.160.A- and WHEREAS on October 28 2020 the Director of Engineering and Capital Pro ects received six (6) sealed bids for the "Ma or Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2018/2019 (STM0397) prej ect; and WHEREAS, the apparent low bid for the project was submitted by Frank and Son Paving Inc. in the amount of $2,044,644.72 (after administrative adjustment)�, which is below the Engineer's estimate of$2,392,700.00 by $348,055.28 (or approximately '15%),-, and WHEREAS, staff has determined that the bid submitted by Frank and Son Paving Inc. is responsive in all material respects to the bid specifications/requirements, and that Frank and Son Paving Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, staff recommends, awarding the contract to Frank and Son Paving Inc. in the amount of$2,044,644.72. NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista awards the contract fo�r the "Ma or Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2018/2019 (STM0397)"' project i to Frank and Son Paving Inc. in the amount of$2,044,644.72. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista appropriates $25,,800 from the available balance of the Sewer Facility Replacement Fund to STM0397. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista authorizes the Mayor, or designee, to execute the project contract on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, and directs a copy to be kept on file with the City Clerk. Presented by Approved as to form by 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 630 of 767 William S. Valle! Glen R. Googins Director of Engineering and Capital Projects City Attorney 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 63 1. of 767 On Of Department of Engineer"i,,,mg & Capitalt Proects CHULAVISTA November 9, 2020 Mrs. Alicia 'Vasquez Frank and Son,Paving Inc. 101,9 Third Avenue ChUla Vista, CA 91911 Sub�nct,: Submitted Bid Package Major Pavement Rehabilitation FY 18/19 (STM103197) Mrs. Vasquez, On jOctober 28, 2020, the City of Chu�a Vista opened bids forthe Major Pavement Rehabilitation F�Y 18/19 (STM0397), project.The bild s,ubmitteld bly Frank and Son Inc. ("Friank and Son"'), at '$2,068,2314.21, isthe apparent lowest blid. Pe'rthe blild package, please submit the origirial bid documents to thie City of Chula Vista's City Engineer at 2761 Flourth Avenue, Bulliding B, Chula 'Vista,, CA 919110. During review of the bid packagle submitted electronically on Planetffids by Frank and Son, several cialculatio�n errors were rioted loin t,he �Bid Propo4 (Attachment 1,). The errors are SUrnmarized below: FRANK AND SON SUBMITTED CORRECTED ITE M DESCRIPTION QTY U N IT UNIT PRICE 'TOTAL T'OTA L 35, ADDITIONAL SWEEPING 14,p931 CL L F $1.01 $15t 139.810� $15,080.31, 36 INSTALL AND MAINTAIN 6, EA $400.00 $2,400.00 TRANSNET SIGNS $24 00 10.00 The corrected Grand Totalto be used for,award of the contract will be,$1944 644 72.. Add'itlonally, as th�is, project is partially fUnded by a Calrecycle Grant, Calrecycle Forni 168, is reqUired to be submitted. The form is incluided in appendix E of thile project special provisions and is listeid on the Bid Submittal Checklist. pleasie corriplete and submit Calrecycle Form 168 (Attachnillent 2). Finally, please confirm or correct, Frank, and Son's con tact 'i nformatio n as shown below: Activie mailing address:. 1,01,9 Third Aveniue Chula,Vista, CA 91911 P h o n le': (619) 422-83122 Email.- franknsic- V1 ri 1, _y a In SUmmary, please subrn'it the original bid package, cot-riplieted Cialrecycle For"m 168 and this letter s igned no later than November 131h,2020., Faillure�to do so may result i'n a rejection of your bid. By signing this letter YOU acknow[edge the calculation errors noted above and confirm the accurall of the contact information pr�ovided., 0'e,// Sign: jk eo� Plrint niamile and Ititle�,, Attach m le nts: Attachment 'i— Fr&nk andSon submitteld Bid �Proposal Attachment 2Calrecycle Form 168 C,10 A 919 11" tV1CC, ,,:C1Aer:, 27/6 1'bUflti Uatildhngl; (21!3" !V), fi x(61,1',))691-l" N Pubtlit Works,Center: 1900 ', laxwt,�11 R(,,,iiik1 (1 1 \11, (--'101TY OF CH'LJ,1...,,A 'V11ST,A D'1S(."J—J0SSURE,`,d S"I"A. "I"EMENT PUrsua,rit to C"OU111CH 1-110HICY 101-01, pi-jol—to at'j,y actl*011 Upon matters that'. �vjfl require discretiortal-V ciction b, the C',"muncil 1�31,aannllv, C',0MIMSSIon arid all o'd-wr official bodies io�t-the("'ity ofChi.,d,,.-t Vista (thie "GtY'�, y a statemei-it of disclosure of"certain owtwrishil,,) or t-itucil.-II.-At'd iriterests, picayinents, or cauipcaf,g"11 contribUfi0t'IS f6i r a C i ty e I e ct i o ri in ii s t b e fii I c d. 'T"h Ic fc)I I o VV I rl g i 11 t"O I-[Y),a t i 0 1`1 111 Lj s It hi c d i s c I ol s e d List flie �,iaines olit"all persons having a 1`in,i�al interest in the property that is the stibject of the 1, SLIPP111i applicatiot''i or the contract, e.g.,, wvvner, appliclat-it, contriictor, SUbco'no-ac tot Inatei"lia i e r. ""''............... 'Arz 2 4— 117,any person* idetitif-wid pursit,u,u,"it tio rterti oine (1) a'b(-,)\/e �is, a corporation, p1t,"Inerst-iij), list tlie nam,es of all indivIdUals with, a t,\Av,o 010LIsard diollars, ($2,0100) irivestinent In flic businiess ('cor�'poi-,att'oi-i/par�'triersi,�itr,,)) entit.Y. c, 61f .I............ ........... 3. If I person* identified pUrSUA11"It tO rte�rn one F above is a non-prol"it organization or trL]S'(,,,, 11st tl-ie rmnies of ain 'I as director ot* the iwn-profit organization, or, as trUStee or y person sery riig bieneficiary or t,ri,,,istior ofthe trust. .................. 4. Please identit"y ever,,y, persc)[11, irtc]uding any, agents, eti,,i C011SLIltant's, undepiell"iden't R 01 'have assigried to rept-ese�rvt YOU befi re Me("t 'n 41 C0nt'rcact(')rS you 0 1 is rnatter. .............. J,je.,�..... e� .......................> financii dealings vvid-i ari officilE: (,,)f't"e 5 1 persion" associated Nvitl-i this contract ['i,,u] cin)l " I'll Cit it relates'to this contract �Nvithin tile past twelve (12, month's"? Y"-S I as I No ........... 29 111r,wicv.", llocnnyenr�l SIA10397 Ad,rcrusc Pejckc,�t�,c (N)19:07 11"1(,J'f Alev 04 0,18 101!lk if N es,briefly describe the nature of"the financial interest the official" rna have iri this conti7c,ict. y Flav('3,., YOL) rna,de a coritribtlt I Oil Of" tT101-e tfmn tw() hUndf-ed fift, ,y dollars ($250.) Nvithin the past tweive (12) rn(.i�niths 'to a CUrretit metnber ol"the 1,111 aa Vista, C"At'y COL'Incl"I Yes I�if e,is N d which Clouricil nieniber? or Ite,in ofe(]Lllivi,�Allenl v� '7. 1-lave you proviclied rnore th,,,an thr(.�,,e 11�utidred f6i-t*y dolla:rs ($3140,' A ah.te, to an offimat** of the ("'ity in t1w past twe[v,e (12) months`?� ('11111's irichides 'being a source of' micOlTw, moriey to ivtit-e '(a.,, legal debt,,gill 1, loan,et.c.) �,'es No "o If N"'es, NvIiict",i of1(`"jc.i,(,.fl** arid whal wastfie nature ofite,n'i provided,, /01 JP I," fl .......... 91 le ........... 1110 1 "IM 11011, '1101110 Date .......... -/A`)j,,1 Ili cant S i g n al U 11"C"'0 F C 0 1,11 1 1 L�tot 00? "I ......... XL I C a n Nw,iw ofCotnpariy',, irm or Ejrrrt�/) Prin't ol ri type narne (:A C ontractot ppi I'le L t e Person is defined as,- an fitrin, co-partne-s'flp, .101 association, soc,�.ta] club, .1 t I i � int velltLlf'e, fi-aternal oi-ganizaticyri, corporation, estate,, trtist, recek,,c�,,r syndicale, any other C()Lttlt,y� City ITIL111[cipality', (fistrk,"A, or ot[ier pollitical SUbdivill,ilk.mi, ot-any,other gr()UP or combin,"'ttion acting as a Ullit. Iq 011"icial iflCkides, bia 'is, not, Himited to:� Mayor-, C"Ouricil rrietn'ber, F1 an ni ng Comi-nissioner, Mei nber ot'a bloard, con-irnission, or COMmi'lalee of"the Gt)�,,, elni.,)k)�,yee, or staffnierribers. 3 0 .,vhqirepoint co"Wip pen,ional tjoncs,2 chubvistaca g�ov 0ocninents SINI(MV,"'-4thcrrv,w hicka!""e, M031)7 v "al V,01N,,� �Sjvc 11"lov-"ll ech 9, 7 11 l k Re v,0 1()8�0 19 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5, 2021 File,ID: 20-0528 'TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE,CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC. FOR CIP STL0443 "SIDEWALK REHABILITATION CITYWIDE (MEASURE P)" TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM CONTRACT AMOUNT AND EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY On November 8, 2016, Chula Vista voters approved Measure P,authorizing a one-half cent sales tax increase on retail sales within the City for a period of ten (10) years to repair failed or failing assets throughout the city., Sidewalk rehabilitation was included in the Measure P Funding Plan. The cost and time required to complete the work associated with CIP STL,0443 "Sidewalk Rehabilitation Citywide (Measure P)" project ("Project") exceeds the limits in the existing contract. Adoption of this resolution would increase the maximum contract value from $1,130,000 to $1,5 10,000 and extend the term to April 1, 2022,allowing for the completion of the Project scope. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE'W The proposed Project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it has been determined that the Project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Class I (Existing Facilities) and Section 15061(b)(3),because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.Thus, no further environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSIO�N/COMMI'TTEE RECOMMENDAI`rION On October 22, 2020, the Measure P COC recommended allocation of additional funds for CIP STL0443 "Sidewalk Rehabilitation C�itywide (Measure P)"to complete the scope of the Project. DISCUSSION On August 13, 2019,the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved Resolution 2019-159 approving an Agreement with Southern California Precision Concrete,Inc.to provide sidewalk rehabilitation services with 1111. 0 0 1 P �3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 635 of 767 a maximum contract value of$1,130,000 and Agreement term commencing August 13, 2019�,and ending on August 12, 2021 for completion of'all required services. The Project was divided into four quadrants. Work has been completed on two of the four quadrants. The cost and time required to complete the,remaining two quadrants exceeds the limits in the Project contract., On October 22, 2020�, the Measure P COC recommended allocation of additional funds for the Project to complete the scope. City Council adopted Resolution 2020-274 on December 1, 2020, which added $747,783.54 in Measure P funds to CIP STL0443,,increasing the total Project budget to $1,877,783.54. In addition to the Project budget increase in Resolution 2020-274, an amendment is needed to increase the contract value limit in order to complete the Project. Adoption of this resolution. would increase the maximum contract value of the Project contract from$1,130,000 to$1,510,000 and extend the term to April 1, 2022 allowing for the completion of the Project scope. I)ECISIOM-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-spe�cific and consequently, the real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal.Gov't Code§87 100,et sea.). Additionally, the decision so�lely concerns repairs, replacement, or maintenance of existing streets, water, sewer, storm drainage or similar facilities, and no City Council member's property will be affected disproportionately to other properties receiving the same services. Consequently, pursuant to California Code of Regulations T'itle 2, sections 1870�O and 18702.2(d)(1)),this item does not present a real property- related conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal. Gov't Code§ 87100, et seq.). Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Council member,of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURREN"I",-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the resolution will result in no additional impact to the Measure P Fund as sufficient funding is available in CIP STL0443. ONG�OING FISCAL IMPACT Upon completion of the project,the improvements will require only routine City sidewalk maintenance. ATTACI IMENTS 1. THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE C�ITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC.TO PROVIDE HORIZONTAL CONCRETE SLICING SERVICES Staff Contact:Jonathan Salsman P �3ge 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 636 of 767 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC. FOR CIP STLO�443 "SIDEWALK REHABILITATION CITYWIDE (MEASURE P)11 TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM CONTRACT AMOUNT AND EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on August 13, 2019, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted Resolution 2019-159 approving an Agreement with Southern California Precision Concrete, Inc. ("Contractor") to provide sidewalk rehabilitation services; and WHEREAS, the cost and time required to complete the original scope of work exceeds the limits in the Project contract', and WHEREASI on October 22, 2020, the Measure P Citizen Oversight Committee recommended an allocation of additional funds for CIP STL0443 "Sidewalk Rehabilitation Citywide (Measure PY' ("Project") to complete the scope of the project; and WHEREASI on December 1, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted Resolution 2020-274 which amended the fiscal year 2020/2021 budget and transferred $747,783.54 to CIP S,TL0443 "Sidewalk Rehabilitation Citywide (Measure P)" increasing the total Project budget to $1,877,,783.54 to complete the additional scope; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the Third Amendment to the Agreement to allow the Contractor to complete the sco e of the Pro ect. P i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it approves the third amendment to Agreement No. 19074, between the City and Southern California Precision Concrete, Inc., in the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute same. Presented by Approved as to form by William S. Valle Glen R. Googins Director of Engineering & Capital Pro ects, City Attorney j 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 637 of 767 THIRD�AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC.TO�PROVIDE HORIZONTAL CONCRETE SLICING SERVICES This THIRD AMENDMENT ("Third Amendment") is entered into effective as ofJanuary 19, 2021 "Effective Date" by and between the City of Chula Vista ("City") and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC. ("Contractor/Service Provider"') with reference to the following facts: RECITALS WHEREAS, on August 1.3, 2019, City and Contractor/Service Provider previously entered into CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONTRACTOR/SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC. TO PROVIDE HORIZONTAL CONCRETE SLICING SERVICES �"Original Agreement"'; and WHEREASI on June 1, 20201 City and Contractor/Service Provider entered into a First Amendment to the Original Agreement ("First Amendment") to allow reimbursement of costs, authorized by the City outside of the Fixed Unit Prices in the Original Agreement, and allow the Contractor/Service Provider to substitute a "Horizontal Slicing" (Task No.1) location for "Report/Photo of"Not Found" Locations" (Task No. 2) as more specifically set forth therein; and WHEREAS, on July 1,2020,City and Contractor/Service Provider entered into the Second Amendment to the Original Agreement ("Second Amendment") to resolve the anomalies discovered with the City's driveway apron locations as more specifically set forth therein. The Original Agreement, First Amendment, Second Amendment, and this Third Amendment may be collectively referred to herein as the "Agreement"; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor/Service Provider now desire to again amend the Agreement to increase the maximum contract value fro�m $1�13000 to $1�5 10,000 and extend the term to April 1, 2022 allowing for the completion of the project scope� as more specifically set forth below.� , NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual obligations of the parties set forth herein, City and Contractor/Service Provider agree as follows-, 1. Exhibit A, entitled Amended and Restated Scope of Work and Payment Terms is hereby attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Except as expressly provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, First Amendment, and Second Amendment shall remain in full force and e ffle c t. City of Chula Vista Amendment to Agreement No.:�1 90�74 Consultant Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE.,INC. Rev,8/23/16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 638 of 767 3. Each party represents that it has full right, power and authority to execute this Third Amendment and to perform,its obligations hereunder, without the need for any further action under its governing instruments, and the parties executing this Third Amendment on the behalf of such party are duly authorized agents with authority to do SO. City of Chula Vista Amendment to Agreement No.:�1 90�74 Consultant Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE.,INC. Rev,8/23/16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 639 of 767 SIGNATURE PAGE TO THIRD AMENDMENT TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONTRACTOR/S�ERVICE PROVIDER SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC. TO PROVIDE HORIZONTAL CONCRETE SLICING SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONCRETE, INC. BY: BY.- �Kevin Yocum MARIA KACHADOORIAN �Chief Operatin�g Office�� CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: GLEN R. GOOGINS CITY ATTORNEY City of Chula Vista Amendment to Agreement No.: 1 90�74 Consultant Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE.,INC. Rev,8/23/16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 640 of 767 EXHIBIT A AMENDED AND RESTATED SCOPE OF WORK AND PAYMENT TERMS 1. Contact People for Contract Administration and Legal Notice A. City Contract Administration: ,Gregory Tscherch, P.E., P.L.S. 276 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 409-1974 gtscherchgchulavistaca.gov For Legal Notice Copy to: City of Chula Vista City Attorney 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 619-691-5037 CityAttorneygchulavistaca.us� B. Contractor/Service Provider Contract Administration: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE, INC. 320 State Placel Escondido, CA 92029 (760�) 658-6116 kevingpcctriphazardremoval.com 2. Required Services A. General Description: Contractor/Service Provider shall provide on-call horizontal concrete slicing services at the direction of the City Engineer in strict accordance with the Contract Documents, as identified below, all, of which are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement as if set forth in full: 1. The Agreement and all exhibits thereto, and any change orders, amendments, and supplemental agreements duly authorized and executed by authorized representatives of the City and Contractor/S ervic e Provider. 2. All permits for the project. 3. The City of Chula Vista's Standard Special Provisions, Standard Special Provisions ("Greenbook"), Special Provisions, and Standard Plans. �4. All referenced technical special provisions, specifications, plans, and other reference materials for the project. 5. The Request for Proposals for the project dated May 3, 2019 and all attachments, exhibits, and City of Chula Vista Amendment to Agreement No.:�1 90�74 Consultant Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE.,INC. Rev,8/23/16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 64 1. of 767 addendum thereto. 6. Contractor/Service Provider's bid documents submitted in response to the request for bid, and any postbid documentation submitted prior to the award of the project contract. B. Detailed Description: ,The Contractor/Service Provider shall perform all on-,call horizontal concrete slicing services under this Agreement in strict accordance with all laws/regulations and the Contract Documents. The City intends to assign to Contractor/Service Provider a specific scope of work for on-call horizontal concrete slicing services at periodic intervals on an as-needed basis (each a "Task Order"), as determined by City in its sole discretion. The City intends to assign Task Orders to Contractor/Service Provider utilizing the following process: - City will provide the Contractor/Service Provider with a list and/or plats detailing the specific locations of repair; -Contractor/Service Provider will perform horizontal slicing of heaving in sidewalk between 0.75" and 1.49" in differential height and in compliance with ADA requirements; - Contractor/Service Provider will remove and clean up to the satisfaction of the City Engineer any and all existing asphalt and/or concrete ramping("wedges") coincident with the heave repair prior to each slice; - Contractor/Service Provider will report to the City each completed location, accompanied by "befo�re and after"pictures of each heave repair; - Contractor/Service Provider will report to the City each heave location included on the City- provided list and/or plats that is not found in the field after full inspection of the site within a reasonable distance from the identified location, not requiring a remobilization (minimum 50- foot radius), of the reported repair; -In non-driveway apron locations where the Contractor/Service Provider finds a "Report/Photo of"Not Found" Locations"' (Task No. 2) that no heaving exists, Contractor/Service Provider shall substitute such location with any additional unidentified location(s) eligible for a "Horizontal Slicing" (Task No.1) that fall within the height differential range of 0.75" and 1.49", and that are within a reasonable distance from the "Not Found" location but not less than a 50 foot radius for the "Not Found" location(s); Under this scenario: 1) All, additional slicing work shall be at the contract price for Task No. 1. 2) If no additional slicing locations exists within a reasonable distance, the location will then fall,under "Report/Photo of"Not Found" Locations" (Task No. 2). 3) All non-driveway apron locations that are outside the range of 0.75" and 1.49" shall fall under "Report/Photo of"Not Found" Locations" (Task No�. 2) if no additional locations are found within a reasonable distance. 4) There will be no charge for remobilization. 5) Contractor/Service Provider shall still report to the City on the original location(s) as a "Not Found" location; - In driveway apron locations there are anomalies in the City's heave location data. The heave database appears to have incorrectly identified driveway apron locations with steep slopes as heaves. To address these anomalies, provide better value for services rendered and efficiency to the Contractor, when.the Contractor/Service Provider finds a "Report/Pboto of"Not Founci' City of Chula Vista Amendment to Agreement No.:�1 90�74 Consultant Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE.,INC. Rev,8/23/16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 642 of 767 0 Locations" (Task No. 2) at a driveway apron location that no heaving exists, Contractor/Service Provider shall not charge the City for "Report/Photo of"Not Found" Locations" (Task No. 2)�; Under this scenario: 1) All additional slicing work shall be at the contract price for Task No. 1. 2) Contractor/Service Provider shall substitute such location with any additional unidentified location(s) eligible for a "'Horizontal Slicing" (Task No.1) that fall within the height differential range of 0.75" and 1.49", and that are within a reasonable distance from the "Not Found" location. 3) Contractor/Service Provider shall not charge the City for locations that are found to be "Report/Photo of"Not Found" Locations" (Task No. 2) and that are located between the driveway apron and the adjacent panel in each direction. 4) There will be no charge for remobilization. 5) Contractor/Service Provider shall still report to the City on the original location(s) as a "Not Found" location. - Other related duties as assigned. Contractor/Service Provider acknowledges and agrees that the City may deviate from the above process if it determines, in City's sole discretion, that a different process will be more efficient or otherwise beneficial to completion of the Required Services. 3. Term: In accordance with Section 1.10 of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin August 13, 20191 and end on April 1, 2022�for completion of all Required Services. 4. Compensation: � A. Form of Compensation FX] Fixed Unit Price.For the completion of each Deliverable of the Required Services, as identified in section 2.13.1 above,, City shall pay the fixed unit price associated with each Deliverable, in the amounts set forth below: Task No. Deliverable Unit Unit Price 1 Horizontal Slicing SF $50.00 2 Report/Photo of EA $100.00 ""Not Found" Locations B. Reimbursement of Costs FX_� invoiced or agreed-up�on amounts as follows: For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Contractor/Service Provider in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Contractor/Service Provider at the rates or amounts set forthbelow: City of Chula Vista Amendment to Agreement No.:�1 90�74 Consultant Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE.,INC. Rev,8/23/16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 643 of 767 Outside Services (City-Approved) Cost Plus 10% Other Actual Identifiable City-Approved Cost Plus 10% Direct Costs Notwithstanding the foregoing,the maximum amount to be paid to the Contractor/Service Provider for services performed through August 12, 202 1� shall not exceed$1�5 1 O�000�. 5. Special Provisions: 0 Permitted Sub-C ontractor/S ervice Providers: "None" FX_1 Security for Performance: Contractor/Service Provider shall procure Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for the Required Services. Such bonds are to be issued by a Surety authorized to transact such business in the State of California and listed as approved by the United States Department of Treasury Circular 570 with an underwriting limitation sufficient to issue bonds in the amount required by the Agreement. Approved entities are listed on the United States Department of Treasury's website -www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570.htm. Any renewal certificates required during the course of the Agreement must be renewed and received by the City within fifteen (15) days prior to expiration and must meet the same criteria. No substitutions shall be allowed. FX_1 DIR/Prevailinv� Waves. Contractor/Service Provider and its subcontractors of every tier shall comply with all Federal and State law prevailing wage requirements for all persons employed to perform the Required Services, including but not limited to payment of prevailing wages at the specified rates. The prevailing wage rates are determined by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and are available at the City and on the DIR's web�site. Prior to commencing the Required Services,the Contractor/Service Provider shall provide the City with a list of its subcontractors and the classifications and wages of workers that will be employed to perform the Required Services. If Contractor/Service Provider desires to modify the list during the term of the Agreement,, Contractor/Service Provider shall immediately provide an updated list to the City. To verify compliance with State prevailing wage requirements, Contractor/Service Provider shall be registered with the DIR's online registration of contractors and shall furnish and submit certified payrolls and other required documentation directly to the DIR. Contractor/Service Provider and its subcontractors of every tier shall comply with all requirements of Labor Code section 1776. This Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.4. In addition to Federal and State law prevailing wage requirements, Contractor/Service Provider shall also comply with the following in its performance of the Required Services: Labor Code 1810: Hours in legal day's work; Labor Code 1813: Penalty for exceeding legal day's work; and City of Chula Vista Amendment to Agreement No.:�1 90�74 Consultant Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE.,INC. Rev,8/23/16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 644 of 767 0 Labor Code 1815: One and one-half time rate of pay. Contractor/Service Provider acknowledges and agrees that a failure to comply with any requirements of this section authorizes the City to withhold payments under the Agreement. Nothing contained in, or not contained in, this section shall be construed to in any way limit Contractor/Service Provider's obligations to comply with any applicable Federal, State, or local law or regulation. 0 Employment of Apprentices Contractor/Service Provider and its subcontractors of every tier shall comply with all requirements for employment of apprentices as provided by any applicable law or regulation, including but not limited to Labor Code sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7. Information regarding apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the DIR. Z Non-Collusion Affidavit. Prior to commencing the Required Services, Contractor/Service Provider shall provide a fully executed and properly notarized Non-Collusion Affidavit, in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. Z Workers' Compensation Insurance Declaration. Prior to commencing the Required Services, Contractor/Service Provider shall provide a fully executed and properly notarized Workers' Compensation Insurance Declaration, in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. � City of Chula Vista Amendment to Agreement No.:�1 90�74 Consultant Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRECISION CONCRETE.,INC. Rev,8/23/16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 645 of 767 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5,2 02 1 File,ID: 20-0435 TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE,PROPERTY LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH PIMA MEDICAL INSTITUTE,INC.FOR USE OF CITY-OWNED REAL ESTATE AT 1771 FOURTH AVENUE RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY In 2009, the City of Chula Vista and the Pima Medical Institute (PMI) entered into an agreement to locate their veterinary training classroom on the site of the Chula Vista Animal Care Facility (ACF). That Property Use License Agreement has expired and both parties are seeking to extend the partnership,term. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The activity is not a "Pro�ject P) as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required,. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION Since 2009 the City of Chula Vista Animal Care Facility has worked collab�orlatively with the Pima Medical Institute. PM1 is a private educational organization dedicated to providing medical education and training. PMI's veterinary school is co-located at the ACF with their students gaining valuable hands on experience helping with spay/neuter surgeries,x-ray services,and general veterinary care. This benefits the ACF with extra support for animal care.PMI also provides in-kind contributions for ACF use such as equipment for surgery and x-ray. In addition, PMI will share the cost of an automatic gate to assist security needs of both ACF and PMI.This partnership provides support to overall animal care services while enhancing the educational experience of veterinary students. 1111. 0 0 1 PIi3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 646 of 767 DECISION-MAKER C"ONFLIC'Ir Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property holdings within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action.Consequently,this item does not present a disqualifying real pr�oper�ty-r�elated financial conflict of interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(7) or (8), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code §87100,et seq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURREN'T-YE,AR FISCAL IMPACT There is no net fiscal impact to the General Fund. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact., AT'TACHMEN'TS 1. Amendment to Land Use License Staff Contact.-Amanda Mills,Administrator P �3ge 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 647 of 767 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROPERTY LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH PIMA MEDICAL INSTITUTE, INC. FOR USE OF CITY-OWNED REAL ESTATE AT 1771 FOURTH AVENUE WHEREAS, the Pima Medical Institute (PMI) has been located on site of the Chula Vista Animal Care Facility since 2009. That agreement term expired and is being extended in this amendment; and WHEREAS, the partnership provides a way for the City to improve overall animal care services while enhancing the educational experience of veterinary students; and WHEREASI there is no fiscal impact to the General Fund. By contractual agreement, PMI provides equipment for surgery and x-ray and agrees to reimburse City an equal share of the cost of an automatic gate. NOW, THEREFORE,, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it authorizes the Amendment of a Property License Agreement with Pima Medical Institute, Inc., in the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute same. Presented by Approved as, to form by Amanda Mills Glen R. Googins Animal Care Facility Administrator City Attorney C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Tei-np\BCL Technologies\easyPD F 8\((�,BCLC6�,28OF4743\(6-�,'�BCL((�,28OF4743.docx 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 648 of 767 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROPERTY LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND PIMA MEDICAL INSTITUTE,INC. FOR USE OF CITY-OWNED REAL ESTATE AT 1771 FOURTH AVENUE�CHULA VISTA THIS FIRST LICENSE AMENDMENT, hereinafter called the"First Amendment,"is executed between the City of Chula Vista, a California chartered municipal corporation,hereinafter called "City,"and Vocational Training Institutes,Inc.dba PIMA Medical Institute,Inc.,hereinafter called"Licensee,"together the"Parties,"to amend the terms and conditions of Licensee's use of certain real property owned by City. RECITALS WHEREAS, on June 29,,2009,the City Council approved a license agreement(License Agreement)with Licensee for a portion of City-owned property located at 1173 Fourth Avenue for establishing a classroom and lab setting for use as a part of its Veterinary Assistant/Technician training programs,as set forth in section 1.02 of the License Agreement; and WHEREAS, said License Agreement named an incorrect address,as the property is located at 1773 Forth Avenue,with the classroom for Licensee's use is at 1771 Fourth Avenue.This First Amendment corrects the address as 1771 Fourth Avenue;and WHEREAS, the License Agreement provided for an additional five-year extension upon expiration of the original ten-year term;and WHEREAS, the ten-year term of the License Agreement expired on June 3 O�,2019 and Licensee has continued operation under the five-year option period,which is July 1,2019 to June 3 0!� 2024-and WHEREAS, the Parties mutually agree to exercise the five-year extension option and to modify the License Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the License Agreement as follows: 1. The License Agreement is amended to add the following section: Section 1.04 Parking. Licensee faculty and staff may utilize the parking spaces directly in front of the licensed facility.Licensee hereby acknowledges that said parking is not sufficient for faculty and staff. Overflow parking shall be allowed only on the street, where allowed.The spaces past Licensee's licensed facility are for City Staff use only. The spaces in the main parking lot are for customer use only until 5:30 PM. A vehicle of First Amendment PIMA License-Agreement Number 2020-129 1771 Fourth Avenue Page I of 3 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 649 of 767 any Licensee staff or student found parking in unauthorized spots is subject to towing at owner�s expense 2. Sectlion2.01 Term is amended to reflectthatthe currentterm is five years,July 1,2019 to June 30,2024�with the provision for one additional five-year extension,July 1,2024 to June 30,2029,by mutual consent of the Parties. 3. Sectioil 3.02 Utilities: The last sentence in this section is omitted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "Licensee shall reimburse Chula Vista Animal Care Facility (CVACF) annually for an amount equal to two thirds(2/3rds)of the total water bill for the meter serving 1771 and 1773 Fourth Avenue for the previous 12 month period. City shall provide Licensee with copies of bills from that 12-month period to sup-port the amountinvoiced. Electricity serving the automatic electric gate shall be provided by Pima at their cost. 4. Section 5.03 B. shall be amended to add the following:"Said access to the Animal Shelter as well as any equipment and sup lies shall be under the direct supervision of p 1 CVACF staff,or their assigned representative.If providing direct supervision incurs additional staff time, such as unlocking or locking facility doors after hours,Licensee will be charged for the time and will reimburse City for same. 5. Section 6.Improvements: This section and accompanying Exhibit E shall be amended to add the following subsection and to update Exhibit E: Section 6.01.1 City and Licensee agree to install an automatic electric gate, controller and electric service to the location.. The cost of these improvements shall be divided equally between Licensee and CVACF. Bids will be solicited from responsible contractors and all work shall be done at prevailing wage. The successful bid shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Exhibit E, Animal Shelter Improvements and Ownership. City and Licensee agree that Licensee will replace the existing X-ray machine,Item Number 078481785,the Sedecal Veterinary X Ray System,with the same or comparable X-ray system at Licensee's expense. Licensee agrees to pay for maintenance and repairs,and any additional insurance coverage related to the X-ray system or its use required by City. Licensee will retain ownership of the new X-ray system. 6. Exhibit C shall be amended to include the following: 14. Licensee shall provide appropriate Personal Protective Equipment(PPEs)for all PIMA staff and students. 15. Use of controlled subs,tances in the treatment of ACF animals will be supervised by an authorized veterinarian and logged in accordance with all VMB and DEA requirements. 16. Disposal:With prior authorization,Licensee may dispose of animal cadavers in the CVACF cooler for disposal pickup under the CVACF contract.If the First Amendment PIMA License-Agreement Number 2020-129 1771 Fourth Avenue Page 2 of 3 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 650 of 767 quantity will exceed the contraefs average maximum capacity,,Licensee will be billed for additional service at the same rate established in City contract. 7. All other terms and provisions of the License Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. LICENSOR: CITY OF CHULA VISTA,A MUNICIPAL CHARTERED CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA By:__ Date: Name Printed: Title: LICENSEE: Vocational ining Institutes,Inc DBA PIMA Medical Institute, Inc By: 7--—L. t Date: Name Printed: Vaez--) OA fl-�� Title:- PA*,.,C�s j D j4;-YT 4::.-0 Approved as to form: City Attorney First Amendment PIMA License-Agreement Number 2020-129 1771 Fourth Avenue Page 3 of 3 2021-01-05 Agenda Packet Page 651 of 767 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5,2 02 1 File,ID: 20-0518 TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND CITY OF LEMON GROVE FOR PROVIDING ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES RECOMMENDED AC1710N Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY The City of Lemon Grove has contracted with the Chula Vista Animal Care Facility(CVACF)to perform animal shelter and control services to Lemon Grove and its residents. ENVIRON'MENI'Al.REVIEW The activity is not a "Pro�ject)) as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMIT-FEE RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION Since 2009, the City o�f'Lemon Grove has contracted with the Chula Vista Animal Care Facility to provide animal shelter and control services to its residents. The City of Lemon Grove desires to continue to contract for these services,and their City Council approved the attached agreement on December 1, 20,201. The City of Lemon Grove contracts for Animal Control services. Animal Control officers use the CVACF for shelter services when they impound animals. Lemon Grove residents bring stray animals and relinquishments to the shelter as well.The attached agreement is for a o�ne-year term effective July 1, 20,201, with five additional one-year options to extend the contract. The pricing is based upon their portion of Animal Control costs and animal intake using an average of the most recent three calendar years. In 2019, animal intakes from the City of Lemon Grove comprised approximately 6.9%of the animal intake,with a 3-year average of 6.3%. The contract price of$271,963 for FY21 is commensurate with that proportion of shelter and animal control use. 1111. 0 0 1 PIi3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 652 of 767 DECISION-MAKER C"CINFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cat.Gov't Code§87 100,et s,eq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the resolution results in no net fiscal impact to the General Fund. These funds are currently budgeted in the Animal Care Facility budget for fiscal year 2020-21. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no new ongoing fiscal impact to the General Fund resulting from approval of this resolution as the appropriation is fully offset by the revenue generated through this contract.Future allocations for these costs will be considered as part of the normal budget process. ATTACHMENTS 1. Agreement Staff Contact.-Amanda Mills,Animal Care Facility Administrator P �3ge 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 653 of 767 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND CITY OF LEMON GROVE FOR PROVIDING ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Lemon Grove has contracted with the Chula Vista Animal Care Facility to provide shelter and medical services to its residents since 2009; and WHEREAS, the City of Lemon Grove desires to continue to contract for these services for a one-year term with 5 one-year extensions, beginning July 1, 2020; and WHEREASI there is no fiscal impact to the General Fund as the costs are fully offset by the revenue generated through this contract. The contract pricing is based upon animal intake for the most recent calendar year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it approves the Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and City of Lemon Grove Providing Animal Shelter Services, in the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute same. Presented by Approved as, to form by Amanda Mills Glen R. Googins Animal Care Facility Administrator City Attorney C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Tei-np\BCL Technologies\easyPD F 8\@,BCL@,BC0E9FE9\@�),BCL@ ,BCOE9FE9,docx 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 654 of 767 AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND CITY OF LEMON GROVE PROVIDING ANIMAL CARE AND ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES This agreement ("Agreement"), dated ............. 20—,-for reference purposes only, and effective as of the date last executed is between the City of Chula Vista, ("City"), a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California, and the City of Lemon Grove ("Lemon Grove"), a municipal corporation of the State of California. The City of Lemon Grove may be referred to herein individually as Id Party 11 and the City of Chula Vista and the City of Lemon Grove may be referred to herein collectively as "Parties." This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts: RECITALS WHEREAS, City owns and operates an animal care facility, located at 130 Beyer Way, Chula Vista, California and provides a full range of animal control services to the citizens of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, Lemon Grove desires to enter into an agreement with City, whereby City' will provide animal shelter and animal control services for the impounding, adoption, redemption, and the care and disposition of dogs, cats, and other small animals; and WHEREAS, City has the authority to enter into contracts with other agencies to provide such services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. TERM 1.1 Term. This Agreement shall be for a one (1) year term commencing on July 1, 2020. (A) Options to Extend. Parties may extend the Agreement for five (5) additional one (1) year terms. (B) Notice. Lemon Grove shall provide written notice to City at least sixty (60) calendar days, but no more than ninety (90) calendar days, prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement expressing its intent to exercise an option to extend this Agreement. ARTICLE II. SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1 General Serv''tices,. City shall provide general animal control, shelter, and related administrative services to the residents of Lemon Grove to the extent and in the Animal Control Services Agreement Page 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 655 of 767 manner set forth herein. (A) Field Services. City shall provide the "Field Services" in the type and manner provided for below. (1) Officer. City shall provide a uniformed Animal Control Officer ("Officer") to patrol Lemon Grove in the manner and to the extent that City deems appropriate, unless a specific request is made by Lemon Grove7 in which case such request shall be a priority. (a) Hours. The Officer shall conduct patrols four (4) days per week, Monday through Thursday, not to exceed 32 hours per week. Hours of operation: 9:00am-5:30pm (b) Hours. Should Lemon Grove desire to extend the City's patrol days to five (5) days per week, Monday through Friday, or Tuesday through Saturday whichever is mutually agreed upon. Not to exceed 40 hours per week (Hours of operation 9:00am-5:30pm), during the term of this contract, Lemon Grove will notify the City in writing, thirty (30) days beforehand, to request said increase. The City must consent to the increase and Lemon Grove agrees to reimburse the City for any associated staffing costs related to the increased dates/hours. The City will prepare a written amendment to this contract for the increased dates/hours and for the reimbursement amount located at 4.1(A). (i) Overtime Hours. City will respond to the best of its ability to reported emergencies occurring prior to or after the patrol hours identified above in Section 2.1(A)(1)(a). Lemon Grove shall pay for any and all costs associated with such emergency responses in the manner set forth in Section 4.1(A)(2). (2) Type of Services. Except as provided in Article III, Field Services shall include emergency transportation of injured or sick animals, the issuance of citations for violations of state and local laws and ordinances, impounding of strays, investigation of biting incidents, vicious or dangerous animals complaints, trapping of animals, investigating humane complaints, investigating barking dog or animal noise complaints, picking up dead animals, and educating the public about pet responsibility. (3) Responses to Requests for Service. All requests for service will be handled in a reasonable time and manner and based on the priority system set forth below (see Priority Response Chart and Guidelines). Animal Control Services Agreement Page 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 656 of 767 (a) Priority Response Chart. of Service In Pro Not in g ress ............ Dangerous Animal Threatening Human 1 3 ......................................................................... Possible Rabid/Biter Animal at Large 1 3 ...................................... ............................................................................ Iniury to Animal 1 3 .................. Crue,,,,,,,!ty',j9,,,,,AnimaI 1 3 I ............ ............ Animal Inside Vehicle 1 3 -——---------- ................................................................................ _f4hting nimals 1 1 3 ....................... Dog Harassing Livestock 1 3 Sick or Minor Injury to Animal 2 3 ......................................... ............ Animal Welfare Investiciation 2 3 Quarantine Biter Animal 3 N/A . ............... .. .................. ........... .......... ...............................I.,.,.,.,.,.,................. ............................. Confined Stay Animal 3 F i e I d R e I i n 3 N/A ............. Dog Running at La 3* 4* . .............. ............... W i N/A N/A .......................................... .......................................... (b) Priority Level Response Guidelines Level 1 First priority, Officer will respond ASAP Level 2 Second priority, Officer will make every effort to respond within 12 hours of receipt Level 3 Third priority, Officer will make every effort to respond within 24 hours of receipt Level 4 Fourth priority, Officer will make every effort to respond within 72 hours of receipt *During normal business hours an Officer will respond ASAP (4) Additional Field Services. City shall conduct the following additional field services as requested. (a) Special Enforcement. City will conduct special enforcement animal control patrols as needed or as requested by Lemon Grove, provided there are no conflicts with the City's needs. This will include special animal control patrol hours, sweeps and enforcement. All overtime costs for special enforcement patrols will be paid in the amount and manner set forth by Section 4.1(A)(2). (b) Special Events. City will provide Animal Control personnel for scheduled special events as requested, provided there are no conflicts with City's needs. These events will be performed on an Animai control Services Agreement Page 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 657 of 767 overtime full recovery basis and all-overtime full recovery costs for special events will be paid by Lemon Grove. (5) Livestock. Livestock will be removed under contract with a separate agency chosen by the City Animal Care Facility. The contracting agency will be capable of removing livestock and will provide its own equipment and personnel. Actual trailering, board and other fees related to livestock will be paid by Lemon Grove. (B) Shelter Services. City shall provide the shelter services to the residents of Lemon Grove in the manner and type described below: (1) Shelter Location. Shelter Services shall be provided at the facility located in the City of Chula Vista at 130 Beyer Way. (2) Hours of Operation. The facility hours are currently 10:00am to 5-.00pm, Tuesday through Friday, and 10:00am to 4:00prn on Saturday. The facility will be closed on Sunday, Monday, and all major holidays. (a) Changes in Hours of Operation. City shall notify Lemon Grove of changes to facility hours in advance of such changes. (3) Types of Services. (a) Strays. City shall accept strays at no charge to the Lemon Grove residents. (b) Relinquishing Animals. Lemon Grove residents may relinquish owned animals to the facility for euthanasia or adoption as space allows. There is a fee to the customer for the service. (c) Redeeming Animals. Lemon Grove residents may redeem animals from the facility. (d) Holding. City agrees to hold all dogs and cats for the minimum holding period required by the California Food and Agricultural Code and other applicable state law. As per applicable state code sections, animals with communicable diseases and severe injuries or illness may be euthanized prior to the expiration of the normal holding period. Veterinary medical care will be provided as needed for all impounded animals for the duration of their hold period as needed. City will attempt to notify owners of identified animals that their animal is in the custody of the City Animal Care Facility and advise them of the holding period. Lemon Grove shall relinquish to City for disposition in accordance with all applicable laws, policies or procedures as deemed appropriate by the City Animal Care Animal Control Services Agreement Page 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 658 of 767 Facility Administrator all animals held in the animal care facility and not claimed or adopted. Upon payment of all appropriate fees, City will release' to the legal owner, any impounded domestic 'animal. City will have discretion without recourse to Lemon Grove to release animals under special circumstances regardless of payment of fees. (i) No Medical Research. City will not sell or give any live animal to a medical research facility at any time or from any jurisdiction. (e) Spaying and Neutering. City will ensure all dogs, cats and rabbits adopted from the shelter are spayed or neutered at the time of adoption. Additionally, the City Animal Care Facility will provide the public with low-cost spay/neuter information and assistance. This service is made possible through grants and donations as available. (f) Administrative Hearings. City will conduct all impound and administrative hearings as required by law, including Lemon Grove's Municipal Code. Lemon Grove will provide a hearing officer if City is unable to provide one due to conflicts of interest or prejudice or if the Lemon Grove Municipal Code specifies the hearing officer will be an officer from Lemon Grove. The fees per Hearing are listed in Section 4.1(D). (g) Maintenance of Facility. City shall maintain its facility in a humane manner and shall keep its facility in a sanitary condition at all times. All services furnished by City shall be provided in accordance with local laws and the laws of the State of California. City shall use humane methods in the care, euthanizing, and disposition of any animal coming under its jurisdiction. (C) Administrative Services. City shall provide the following administrative services. (1) Meetings. City will provide a representative to attend any Lemon Grove meetings that involve animal control issues upon request and with reasonable notice. (2) Meet and Confer. A City representative will meet and confer in good faith with an Lemon Grove administrator over operational issues associated with the administration of this Agreement. (3) Reports. City will provide monthly reports to Lemon Grove. These reports will include the number of impounds, redemptions, euthanizations, service responses, and adoptions. Animal Control Services Agreement Page 5 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 659 of 767 (4) Notification. City shall establish a notification policy for its officers with the assistance of Lemon Grove officials. The policy shall identify the types of incidents for which City Animal Control will be required to notify designated Lemon Grove officials. Notification shall include the nature, circumstances, and status of the incident. City will also provide, if requested, copies of all supporting documents and information involving the incident. Lemon Grove will provide a list of its designated city officials to City and the recommended methods to contact the designated individuals. (5) Testimony. When requested by Lemon Grove, and at no additional cost, City shall make its employees and/or other percipient witness under its control, available for any challenge stemming from the services provided herein (including but not limited to Municipal Code citations) as needed to testify in a court of law, administrative or other proceeding. This duty shall survive the termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE 111111. EXCLUDED SERVICES 3.1 Excluded Services. The following services are not included in the Scope of Services covered under this Agreement (A) Indigenous Animals. City will not trap skunks, opossums or other indigenous small animals for the purpose of nuisance control. Wildlife will only be handled for purposes of public safety or for humane reasons. Cat traps will be provided and monitored by City. Only dangerous snakes will be removed from private property. (B) Dead and Injured Animals. Dead animals on private property are the responsibility of the property owner. Sick or injured animals are the responsibility of the animal owner. (C) Licensing. All dog and/or cat licensing will be provided and monitored by Lemon Grove. Lemon Grove has provided the City some license tags to issue following Lemon Grove instructions. License fee revenue will be realized by Lemon Grove as a deduction from the monthly amount due. ARTICLE IV. LEMON GROVE OBLIGATIONS 4.1 P,ayment. Lemon Grove shall pay the City the following in the amount and manner set forth herein. (A) Monthly Payments. Commencing on July 1, 2020 Lemon Grove agrees to pay City $22,664 per month for FY 2020/2021 (July 1, 2020- June 30, 2021). Animal Control Services Agreement Page 6 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,0 of 767 (1) Invoices and Payment Date. The City Finance Office shall submit quarterly billing to Lemon Grove on 'or before the 15th day' of the month following the billing period and that amount shall be due and payable within thirty (30) calendar days of the invoice date. (2) Overtime for Animal Control Officers. Overtime costs for Animal Control Officers accrued in response to reported emergencies occurring prior to or after regular patrol hours or for additional Field Services identified in Section 2.1(A)(4) will be billed on a monthly basis in addition to the regular billing identified in section 4.1 (A). The overtime rate is with a minimum of two hours of overtime plus a call back rate of$50 per response. (3) Redemption Fees. Monthly payments shall be reduced by any Redemption Fees collected under this agreement. (4) Late Payments. A penalty of five percent (5%) will be assessed on late payments. Additionally, a one and one half (1 Y2%) finance charge per month will be assessed on the original delinquent amount. (B) Pricing of Contract Extensions. Pricing for contract extensions for each subsequent fiscal year shall be based on an average of Animal Intakes from the preceding three (3) calendar years, and the estimated cost for Animal Control Services four (4) days per week. Pricing cannot increase or decrease by more than 5% from the prior year. (1) No later than April 30 each year, the City will notify Lemon Grove of the actual Animal Intakes for the preceding calendar year, and the proposed contract pricing for the upcoming fiscal year. (2) If Lemon Grove desires to execute an option to extend, it shall notify City in writing no later than May 31 of each year that it accepts the proposed contract pricing for the upcoming fiscal year and, thereby, executes an option to extend the contract for a one (1) year term. (C) Cat and Dog Spay/Neuter Clinics. As long as the Animal Care Facility receives grants and donations for monthly low cost spay/neuter clinics, this service will be provided at no cost to Lemon Grove. If grants/donations do not cover monthly clinics Lemon Grove will pay $1,500 per clinic up to 4 clinics per year. (D) Administrative Hearings. Lemon Grove will pay $500 per hearing if City provides the Hearing Officer and $300 per hearing if Lemon Grove provides the Hearing Officer. Animal Control Services Agreement Page 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,1. of 767 4.2 Vehicles and Supinfies. Lemon Grove shall provide a vehicle and supplies shall be provided by the City when responding to an On Call, 4.3 Support Services. (A) Provision of Data. Lemon Grove shall provide City with a current listing of all animal licenses issued, including permits or licenses for dogs, cats, dangerous dogs or animals, exotic animals, kennels, pet shops, ranches or farms, dog shows, obedience trials and circuses. (B) Notice of Scheduled Meetings. Lemon Grove shall notify City at least 72 hours in advance of any animal-related issues, which are anticipated to be scheduled on an agenda for the City Council or any legislative or administrative body of Lemon Grove when City employees will be required to appear. (C) Police Services. Lemon Grove shall provide all police services necessary to carry out its duties including police backup upon request of a City Animal Control Officer. (D) Weapons. Lemon Grove shall permit City Animal Control Officers to carry and use tasers and tranquilizer guns within the Lemon Grove city limits while on duty in their animal control uniform (E) Legal Representation. Lemon Grove will provide legal representation in cases of public nuisance, dangerous and potentially dangerous animal cases, and for lawsuits, claims, or litigation pertaining to these cases. ARTICLE V. FEES 5.1 Fees, Ch in Grove Residents. Lemon Grove residents shall be required to pay fees for certain services provided for Animal Care and Control., (A) Relinquishment and Redemption. Fees will be charged in accordance with City's master fee schedule unless otherwise agreed to separately with Lemon Grove. 5.2 Fie ates., On occasion, City may be required to update fees to account for increased costs. As new fees are adopted, for the purpose of this Agreement, such fees shall replace those currently in effect. Animal Control Services Agreement Page 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,2 of 767 ARTICLE V11. INDEMNITY 6.1 Lemon Grove to Indernnffy, Lemon Grove shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons in any manner arising out of, related to, or in connection with the destruction of any animal delivered to and accepted by the Animal Care Facility. In addition, this indemnity provision shall cover any alleged acts, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of Lemon Grove, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. This indemnity provision, however, does not include any claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses (including without limitations, attorneys fees) arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. 6.2 C!"! "Lit , to Inden, "injf�L City shall indemnify and hold Lemon Grove, its elected officials, employees, officers, agents and representatives harmless for any liability, including but not limited to claims asserted or costs, losses, attorney fees, or payments for injury to any person or property caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the City, or its employees, agents, and officers, arising out of any services performed under this Agreement. City's duty to defend and indemnify shall not extend to any claims or liabilities arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of Lemon Grove, its agents, officers or employees. 6.3 Costs of Defenise and Award. Included in the obligations in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, above, is the Indemnitor I s obligation to defend, at Indemnitor's own cost, expense and risk, any and all aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Indemnitee, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers. Indemnitor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Indemnitee, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expense and cost incurred by each of them in connection therewith. 6.4 Insurance Proceeds. Indemnitor's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Indemnitee, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers. 6.5 Enforcement Costs. Indemnitor shall pay any and all costs Indemnitee incurs P.nforcing the indemnity and defense provisions set forth in Article VI. 6.6 Survival. Indemnitor's obligations under Article VI shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Animal Control Services Agreement Page 9 2021-0,1-05 Agenda Packet Page 66,3 of 767 ARTICLE V111. FORCE MAJEURE 7.1 Definition. An Event of Force Majeure means an occurrence beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of a Party, including but not limited to unusually severe weather, flood, earthquake, fire, lightning, and other natural catastrophes, acts of God or the public enemy, war, terrorist act, riot, insurrection, civil disturbance or disobedience, strike, labor dispute, road impediments, expropriation or confiscation of facilities, changes of applicable law, laws or orders related to pandemics, such as COVID-19, or sabotage of facilities, so long as such Party makes good faith and reasonable efforts to remedy the delays or failures in performance caused thereby. 7.2 Force MqLqure. City shall be excused for any delay or failure to perform its duties and obligations under this Agreement to the extent that such failure or delay is caused by an Event of Force Majeure as set forth in section 7.1. Delay or failure in performance by a Party which is the result of an Event of Force Majeure set forth in section 7.1 shall be deemed excused for a period no longer than the delay or failure in performance caused by such Event. City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to temporarily suspend, change and resume the type and frequency of services provided to comply with Federal, State, County and City laws or orders in response to an Event of Force Majeure. Examples of changed or limited services include but are not limited to closing the shelter to the public or offering essential services by appointment only, such as identifying a lost pet, and suspending in-person services such as vaccinations, licensing, owner surrenders, microchipping, trap rental, and spay-neuter services. Resources and staffing allowing, City will make reasonable efforts to educate the public of service changes through its webpage and social media platforms, as well as to provide services such as adoptions and licensing through its website or by email. 7.3 Notiic,e. City shall give written notice to Lemon Grove as soon after becoming ww aware of the delay or failure in performance caused by an Event of Force Majeure as is reasonably possible, but in any event within five (5) working days after City becomes aware of such delay or failure. 7.4 No Adj",ustme'llts, No Event of Force Majeure shall be a basis for monetary adjustment to amounts payable under this Agreement. ARTICLE Vill. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 8.1 Termination for Conyenie,nce. Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least ninety (90) days before the effective Animal Control Services Agreement Page 10 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,4 of 767 date of such termination. If the Agreement is terminated by Lemon Grove as provided for in this paragraph, City shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for all servides performed prior to' the effective date of 'Such termination. 8.2 Term"11,m0on Ifor Cause,.., If, through any cause, either party shall substantially fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner any obligation under this Agreement, or violate any of its covenants, agreements or conditions, the Party not in breach shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notification of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before termination. If the Agreement is terminated by Lemon Grove as provided for in this paragraph, City shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for all services performed prior to the effective date of such termination. ARTICLE IX. NOTICES 9.1 Method of Notification. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by personal delivery or first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the Administrator, or his/her designee, designated below for the respective party. 9.2 Designation and Contact Information. The following, including their respective addresses, are hereby designated as Administrators for the purposes of this Agreement only: (A) City of Chula Vista Deputy City Manager, and/or his/her designee 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (B) City Lemon Grove City Manager, and his/her designee 3232 Main Street Lemon Grove, CA 91945 9.3 Cfi.angps. If the Administrator, designee or address of either party changes, notice of the change shall be sent to the other party. After the receipt of the notice of change, all future notices or demands shall be sent as required by the notice of change. ARTICLE X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10.1 Headin All article headings are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. Animal Control Services Agreement Page 11 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,5 of 767 10.2 Gender & Number. Whenever the context requires, the use herein of (i) the neuter gender includes the masculine and the feminine genders and (ii) the singular number includes the plural number. 10.3 Reference to Pa[@g1@phs. Each reference in this Agreement to a section refers, unless otherwise stated, to a section this Agreement. 10.4 1 n 11 ,porporation of Recitals and Exhibits. All recitals herein and exhibits attached hereto are incorporated into this Agreement and are made a part hereof. 10.5 Covenants and Conditions. All provisions of this Agreement expressed as either covenants or conditions on the part of the City or Lemon Grove shall be deemed to be both covenants and conditions. 0 10.6 Integration. This Agreement and any exhibits or references incorporated into this Agreement fully express all understandings of the Parties concerning the matters covered in this Agreement. No change, alteration, or modification of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, and no verbal understanding of the Parties, their officers, agents, or employees shall be valid unless made in the form of a written change agreed to in writing by both Parties or an amendment to this Agreement agreed to by both Parties. All prior negotiations and agreements are merged into this Agreement. 10.7 Severa,§�� In the event that any phrase, clause, paragraph, section or other portion of this Agreement shall become illegal, null or void, or against public policy, for any reason, or shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, null or void, against public policy, or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining portions of this Agreement shall not be affected and shall remain in force and effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. 10.8 Draft"Ing A,mWg, ,.., The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the m[ties* right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the decision of whether or not to seek advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision that is the sole responsibility of each Party. This Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the Agreement. 10.9 Conflicts Between Terms. If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this Agreement and any exhibits, the main body of this Agreement shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this Agreement, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control. Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this Agreement, the exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Animal Control Services Agreement Page 12 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,6 of 767 Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this Agreement. 10.10 C 0 n )1 W i j�atic,e With Law. The parties shall, at their sole cost and expense, comply with all the requirements of municipal, state, and federal authorities now in effect or which may hereafter be in effect related to this Agreement. 10.11 Go,vern'1R9-.LawW This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be deemed made and entered into in San Diego County, California. 10.12 Adni,in'lfst:ra�ti've Clail,'ms R,pgMgq!m]2�ge1ngtsAanWd Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Lemon Grove shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement 10.13 Fees. In the event any action or proceeding shall be instituted in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation the enforcement of any indemnification obligation contained herein, the losing Party shall pay to the prevailing Party a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing or defending such action or proceeding and/or enforcing any judgment g ra nted. 10.14 Jurisdiction and Venue., This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 10.15 Munic'impa,l P,owers, Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as a limitation upon the powers of the City as a chartered city of the State of California. 10.16 A,,,Ss.!9BMent., Lemon Grove shall not assign this Agreement or any right or privilege hereunder to any Party without the express written consent of the City. Consent to an assignment by the City shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any such assignment without such consent shall be void. Animal Control Services Agreement Page 13 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,7 of 767 10.17 No, Waiver. No failure of either Party to insist upon the strict performance by the other Party of any covenant, term or condition of this Agreement, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement, shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition. No waiver of any default hereunder shall be implied from any omission to take any action on account of such default. The consent or approval to or of any act requiring consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary future consent or approval for any subsequent similar acts. No waiver of any breach shall affect or alter this Agreement, and each and every covenant, condition, and term hereof shall continue in full force and effect to any existing or subsequent breach. 10.18 Addiffilonial R , Ms., No rights other than those specifically identified herein shall be implied from this Agreement. 10-19 Gumulat"I've Remedl;esi. All rights, options, and remedies of City contained in this Agreement shall be construed and held to be cumulative, and no one of them shall be exclusive of the other, and City shall have the right to pursue any one or all of such remedies or to seek damages or specific performance in the event of any breach of the terms hereof or to pursue any other remedy or relief which may be provided by law or equity, whether or not stated in this Agreement. 10.20 Indepenident Contra,ctor', Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, all persons employed in the performance of services and functions for Lemon Grove under this Agreement shall be City employees, agents, or contractors thereof. No Lemon Grove employee shall perform services or functions that City is obligated to provide under this Agreement. All City employees who are employed by City to perform the services pursuant to this Agreement shall be entitled solely to the rights and privileges given to City employees and shall not be entitled, as a result of providing services pursuant to this Agreement, to any additional rights and privileges given to Lemon Grove employees. Lemon Grove shall not be liable for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, or the compensation to City personnel, agents, or contractors performing services pursuant to this Agreement, or any liability other than that provided for in this Agreement. Unless specified otherwise, Lemon Grove shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any City employee, agent, or contractor for injury or sickness or any other claims arising out of his or her employment. City is an independent contractor, and no agency relationship, either expressed or implied, is created by the execution of this Agreement. 10.21 Good Faofth. The Parties promise to use their best efforts to satisfy all conditions to this Agreement and to take all further steps and execute all further documents reasonably necessary to put this Agreement into effect. Both Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith with City's Animal Care Facility Administrator regarding operational matters upon request. Animal Control Services Agreement Page 14 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,8 of 767 i"1 1 2 L1 t 10.22 Sl�trtnsl. ALfth,or* ,1,. The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to 'sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or Parties hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist. [Signature Page Follows] SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND CITY OF LEMON GROVE PROVIDING ANIMAL CARE AND ANIMAL CONTROLSERVICES CITY OF CHULA VISTA Date, Approved as to form: ............... Glen Googins Gary Halbert City Attorney City Manager Attest: Kerry Bigelow City Clerk CITY OF LEMON GROVE Date: Approved as to form: Animal Control Services Agreement Page 15 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 66,9 of 767 .......... .................................... .............. ....... Kristen Steinke 01110 W City Attorney C"Ity Mil,nager Attest: ............ ............... ------------------ S I I Cl he dy"'A"',-n"a p,'.0 City Clerk Animal Control Services Agreement Page 16 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 670 of 767 OWN v V CIT I L Am I EME AU L N A T N 0Wft.,jft "Waft CITY OF C H U LA V I STA January 5, 2021 File ID: 20-0519 TIT1,E RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE F'IS,CAL YEAR 2020/21 OTHER GRANTS FUND BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $25,000 TO THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY GRANT FOR UNANTICIPATED GRANTS (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY The Animal Care Facility has received unanticipated revenue in the amount of $25,0010 from a private foundation grant that needs to be appropriated in the FY21 Budget. Staff requests, that $25,0010 be appropriated to the Supplies and Services budget of'the Other Grants Fund for the Animal Care Facility Grant budget;this appropriation is fully offset by grant revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The activity is not a "Project 11 as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION The Chula Vista Animal Care Facility received a grant in the amount of $25,0010 from the Roy & Marian Holleman Foundation.These funds will be used to improve on-site safety for animals and staff. DECISION-MAKER CONFLIC'I" Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently,the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 187022(a)(11), is not applicable to this decision for purposes of determining a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal. Gov't Code§87100, et seq.). 1,/ . 01 (,) l Pzige 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 67 1. of 767 Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of'interest in this matter. CURRENT-YEAR.FISCAI,IMPACT There is no net fiscal impact to the General Fund. Approval of the resolution will result in a General Fund appropriation of$25,0001 offset by unanticipated grants. ONGOING FISCAL IMPAC IT There is no ongoing fiscal impact. ATTACHMEN'TS None Staff Contact:Amanda Mills,Animal Care Administrator P zi g e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 672 of 767 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 OTHER GRANTS FUND BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $2500 TO THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY GRANT FOR UNANTICIPATED GRANTS (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Animal Care Facility applied for and was awarded grant funding through the Roy&Marian Foundation and was awarded $25,000; and WHEREASI the Animal Care Facility will use these funds to improve on-site safety for animals and staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it approves an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Other Grants Fund Budget by appropriating $25,000 to Animal Care Facility Grant for Unanticipated Grants (Supplies and Services expense category). Presented by Approved as, to form by Amanda Mills Glen R. Googins Administrator City Attorney 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 673 of 767 Paul Written Commiunications From: Nicholas David Paul Sent:Tuesday, December 08,, 2020 7:55 PM To: CityClerk<CityClerk c,hulavistac,a.go�v> Subject: Public comment Warni*ng: External Food Insecurity and access to healthy nutritious foods is a huge issue for southwest Chula Emallil Vista. Has there been any consideration in adding a community garden space to the new clevelopment? 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 674 of 767 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5,2 02 1 File ID: 20-0407 'TITLE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.26 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH ENERGY BENCHMARKING AND CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (FIRST READING) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY In 2018 the State of California adopted Assembly Bill 802 requiring commercial and multifamily buildings above 50,000 square feet to benchmark their energy consumption annually using Energy Star Portfolio Manager and disclosing that information to the State. Energy benchmarking is the measuring of a building's energy consumption and comparing it to similar buildings in similar climate zones. The Energy Star program is designed to assign a score to each benchmarked building on a scale of 1-100. This rating is similar to the Miles Per Gallon(MPG)rating of a car in that it tells you how energy efficient a particular building is. A rating of 50 indicates that the building, from an energy consumption standpoint, performs better than 50% of all similar buildings nationwide,while a rating of 75 indicates that the building performs better than 75%of all similar buildings nationwide. Conversely,seeing that a building uses more energy than 80 or 90%of similar buildings can be a convincing indicator for building improvements. In September 20117,City Council adopted the,2017 Climate Action Plan(CAP)to help address the local threat of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and lowering Chula Vista's vulnerability to expected climate change impacts. The CAP includes a strategy to create more energy-efficient buildings by requiring enerIgy-savings retrofits in existing buildings. Benchmarking facilitates building performance reporting and public disclosure,with the goal of creating efficient buildings and the potential for ordinances to conserve energy. To better represent the building stock in the city and to maximize a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, staff propose to exceed the AB802 requirements by lowering the threshold to buildings 20,000 square feet and above and to require potential cost-effective upgrades for existing commercial and multi-family properties. Most buildings below 50,000 square feet in Chula Vista are older and less efficient, so there are many opportunities for improvement. The proposed benchmarking requirement and potential requirement for upgrades for existing multi-family and commercial properties above 20,000 square feet are intended to support that effort and align with the strategy outlined in the CAP. 1,1. 0 0 1 P �3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 675 of 767 Some, of'the key benefits of this ordinance include reducing GHG emissions in Chula Vista, lowering the carbon footprint of existing multi-family and commercial buildings, help,ing building owners save money through cost-effective efficiency measures and improving the quality of Chula Vista's building stock. Additional benefits include helping building owners understand and manage their buildings'energy use and educating tenants and real estate professionals about building energy performance. City staff plan to collect the data and report to the State on behalf of the, City's building owners to help improve their performance over time. Having access to Chula Vista multi-family and commercial building data in this manner will allow staff to provide educational outreach tailored to individual building owners and be able to track opportunities for energy efficiency programs, as it can often be a challenge to gain access on local building data. ENVIRONMEN'TAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the Project qualifies for a Class 8 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the state CEQA Guidelines. The proposal seeks to help address the local threat of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and lowering vulnerability to anticipated climate change impacts. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. In addition, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Development Services Director has also determined that the Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15 061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMIT'TEE RECOMMENDATION The Sustainability Commission (SS,C) on August 10th,2020 supported the proposed requirements. DISCUSSION In 2018 the State of California adopted Assembly Bill 802, requiring commercial and multifamily buildings above 50,000 square feet to benchmark their energy consumption annually using Energy Star Portfolio, Manager and disclosing that information to the State. Energy benchmarking is the measuring of a building 11 s energy consumption comparing it to similar buildings in similar climate zones. The Energy Star program is designed to assign a score to each benchmarke�d building, on a scale of 1-100 This rating is similar to the Miles Per Gallon(MPG) rating of a car in that it tells you how energy efficient a particular building is.A rating of 50 indicates that the building, from an energy consumption standpoint, performs better than 50% of all similar buildings nationwide,while a rating of 75 indicates that the building performs better than 75%of all similar buildings nationwide. Conversely,seeing that a building uses more energy than 80 or 90�%,of similar buildings can be a convincing indicator for building improvements. In September 20�17,City Council adopted the 2017 C�limate Action Plan (CAP)to help address the local threat of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and lowering Chula Vista's vulnerability to expected climate change impacts. The CAP includes a strategy to create more energy-efficient buildings by requiring energy-savings retrofits in existing buildings. Benchmarking facilitates building performance reporting and public disclosure,with the goal of creating efficient buildings and the potential for ordinances to conserve energy. To better represent the building stock in the city and to maximize a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, staff propose to exceed the AB802 requirements by lowering the threshold to buildings 20,000 square feet and above and to require potential cost-effective upgrades for existing P �3ge 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 676 of 767 commercial and multi-family properties. Most buildings below 50,000 square feet in Chula Vista are older and less efficient,so there are many opportunities for improvement. This proposed ordinance is designed to meet provisions under AB 802 for a local program exemption, meaning buildings subject to A13802, will no longer be required to report the state, and will instead submit their benchmarking report to the City. Having access to data on Chula Vista buildings in this manner will allow the City to offer tailored programming and assistance to building owners, with the goal of reducing GHG emissions and minimizing climate change impacts. In turn,the City will annually remit benchmarking data in bulk to the California Energy Commission for applicable Chula Vista buildings on their behalf. This proposed ordinance is intended to align with the strategy laid out in the CAP and to increase compliance with AB802,. Parameters include the fo�llowing: 0 Require commercial buildings 20,000 square feet and above to b�enchmarktheir energy consumption annually using Energy Star Portfo�lio Manager 0 Enhance market transparency for building efficiency by making energy performance data available online and requiring buildings to disclose performance to existing and prospective owners and tenants 0 Require low performing buildings to implement cost effective measures to improve their energy performance 0 Require buildings to measurab�ly improve their energy performance over each 5-year period or undertake an audit 0 If the least efficient buildings do not make efficiency progress on their own by the second 5-year deadline, they will be required to make minimum improvements (10-15%) identified as cost- effective in their audit 0 For Multifamily Buildings: • Require one-time prescriptive upgrades inside older multifamily rental units where tenants pay energy bills • Limit audits to buildings with significant owner-paid energy use • Gradually phase-in requirements to give the affected buildings,energy performance industry and City staff time to build capacity • Allow flexibility for buildings to take different paths to efficiency and exemptions for buildings that are already relatively efficient • Avoid requiring upgrades that are not cost-effective Some o�f'the key benefits of this ordinance include reducing GHG emissions in Chula Vista, lowering the carbon footprint of existing multi-family and commercial buildings, helping building owners save money through cost-effective efficiency measures and improving the quality of Chula Vista's building stock. Additional benefits include helping building owners understand and manage their buildings'energy use and educating tenants and real estate professionals about building energy performance. Not all currently required buildings in Chula Vista have been reporting to the state since AB802 was enacted and with this ordinance, staff will be able to provide assistance with benchmarking and create educational opportunities on the process. Having a local benchmarking ordinance will increase the compliance with the P �3ge 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 677 of 767 A A a, Ab Minimum City/Stafe Adopt Covers Min.�B,uil�ding �B,ench- Publ�ic Audit�Req. Performa ed Multifamily Size(sqft), marking �Discl�osure nce Sfandard ---------------------------------------- A Is a A A A a All a 11 do The proposed Energy Benchmarking Ordinance requires that buildings 20,000 square feet and above, approximately 47% of the commercial building stock in Chula Vista, benchmark their energy consumption using Energy Star portfolio manager and report to the City annually. Buildings would be required to meet a threshold and if they do not perform, they will be required to conduct an audit and implement energy efficiency improvements by year 10 of benchmarking. C=imerclal Building Stoc,k,'T'ypies in Chula Chula Vista Commerd'al Building Vista Stocl(vs Benchmarkling Requirement 0 ff i c e B u i I d i n g s m lridtjsb,W�Buildings ujuj, Retad Buddirigs Total Required to berichmarl< Table 2: Proposed Requt'rement.S.- P �3 g e 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 679 of 767 Who What When ------------------------------- ------------------ a A A 0 a Is a 0 A Ask dr w W 1 Mr.,1 M,ILTIM I IlIgH IM 911LIFIVORN I VWB Mall VONS oil IKLVJ I triss4ld I t I gro,I ................... Base1ine Year ENE�RGY STAR Score EUI Improvemenf Targef (Energy (For the commercial and Use per Square Foof) Multifamily Buildings) 0-45 30% 46- 65 20%, 66-79 10,70 Benefits of implementation of the proposed ordinance Benchmarking has a wide range of benefits,including the following: 6 0 Building owners can save money through cost-effective efficiency measures and benchmar,king can 5 help building owners to better understand and manage their,buildings'energy use. 6 MY 0 Bein"able to measure building energy consumption against similar buildincTs and against their own 6 6 historu helps building operators make more informed decisions. Y 0 Education of tenants and real estate professionals about building energy performance because of the increase in property values of a more eneriyy,efficient buildintT M.7 6 0 Allow owners to market buildings in compliance as efficient and hiah performing. 0 Improve the quality of Chula Vista's commercial building stock 0 Reduce greenhouse emissions and help inform future energy programs and services by staff which is in line with the 2017 Climate Action Plan. 0 City staff will be able to help building owners take advantage of rebates and incentives and will 6 provide feedback on what building owners could be doing to improve their building's performance. Exemptions These proposed energy efficiency requirements will affect about 47% of multifamily and commercial buildings are an effort to bring existing buildings closer to the energy efficiency of current energy code for new buildings, keeping in mind that all new commercial buildings will be required to install photovoltaic panels by year 20,30, per California energy code. The required updates are cost effective energy efficiency measures that have been adopted by other cities and have been widely available for years. 'The ordinance requirements will serve to building owners and staff as a tool to improve the energy efficiency of buildings in the City reducing carbon emissions and boosting building values. The Owner may receive an exemption from filing a Benchmarking Report for a reporting year, subject to Conservation Section approval, by submitting evidence in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Conservation Section that any of the following conditions apply: P �3ge 7 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 68 1. of 767 • The entire Property did not have a Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for at least half of the year required to be Benchmarked. • The entire Property was not occupied, due to renovation, for at least half of the year to be Benchmarked. • A demolition permit for the entire Property has been issued and demolition work has commenced. • The Property did not receive Energy or water services for at least half of calendar year required to be Benchmarked. • The Property is in Financial Distress. • Disclosure of the Property Energy usage data would result in the release of proprietary information that can be characterized as a trade secret or would otherwise violate a customer's right to privacy under the California Constitution or other applicable law. COVID-19 And impacts on the proposed ordinance COVID-,19 has impacted the commercial building stock and City staff'plan,s to take this in consideration when establishing a baseline year and will follow State recommendations. In addition, City staff is open to any Council recommendation regarding COVID 19 and the impact on the commercial buildings. City staff recognizes the struggles all businesses are experiencing during this time and wants to help building owners and businesses lower their operating costs without burdening them with additional requirements., However, it is important to lower carbon emissions in the City and imp�lement the Council-ap�proved Climate Action Plan. Next Steps Once City Council adopts the Multifamily and Commercial Energy Benchmar�king Ordinance,staff will submit the ordinance for approval by the California Energy Commission (CEC)i. City staff will also begin working on outreach and education and will create an associated website to house this information. Staff will assist building owners with their ENERGY STAR account set up,as needed. Buildings will have to be b�enchmarked and must report to the City by May 20thof each year. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently,the real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under,the Political Reform Act(Cal. Go�vt Code§87100.,et seq.). Staff is not independently aware,and has not been informed by any City Council member,of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Based on the number of buildings that would be covered under this ordinance and the amount of time needed to assist with benchmarking disclosure and to implement outreach and education to the building owners,this is estimated to cost approximately$89,000 annually. However,as the bulk of the work P �3ge 8 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 682 of 767 implementing this ordinance takes place from January 1 to June 30 annually, 75% of the total estimated cost is$66,750,which would impact the current fiscal year budget and would be covered by the general fund. ONGOING FISCAL IMPAC'I" Staff will prepare, a fee study and will track the ongoing fiscal impact in order to create a proposed annual benchmarking fee which would cover the implementation costs. The fee will be subject to adjustment annually based on full cost recovery. Preliminary analysis estimates the fee level to be approximately$110 per property. This fee will cover administrative costs like assistance, with reporting, education of building owners and trainings and will offset the general fund impact. This expected fee amount is minimal compared to the size and value of the building. Buildings will gain conspicuous utility savings over time that will surpass the fee charged by the City. Other cities like Berkeley and Los Angeles charge an administrative fee. ATTACHMENT'S 1) Conservation and Energy Benchmarking Ordinance 2) Conservation and Energy Benchmarking Ordinance Summary 3) Conservation and Energy Benchmarking Ordinance Overview 4) Memo- Cost Effectiveness of Audits and Retro-Commissioning Staff Contact:Barbara Locci, Economic Development Department P �3ge 9 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 683 of 767 City of Chula Vista Draft Ordinance . Multifamily and Commercial Benchmark'i'ng and Con�servati'on Ordinan�ce v2.7 Summary of Changes in v2.7 e Added language giving City Manager implementation authority(final page) Summary of Changes in v2.6 Removed initial bench�marking fee value of$186.501 instead giving City manager authority to set and adjust fee to recover costs Summary of Changes in v2.5 • Added compliance timeline for direct disclosure of audit/Rx report (90 days) and for satisfying the requirement to confer with non-residential ten�a�nts about co-i'nvestme�nt (18,0 days) • Minor clarifications of disclosure requirement deadlines Revisions for clarity to the cost-effective ne�ss exemption for the Minimurn Improvement Requirement Policy Overview • Require annual energy benchmarking for buildings 20,000 square feet or larger • �Enhance market transparency for building efficiency by making energy performance data available online and requiring buildings to disclose performance to existing and prospectlive owners and lessors • Require buildings to measurably improve their energy performance over each 5 year period or undertake an audit, and in certain cases, Retro-Commissioning • If the least efficient buildings do not,make efficiency progress on their own by the second 5 yea�r deadline, they wil�l be required to make minimum improvements (10-15%) identified as cost-effective in their audit For Multifamily Buildings: • Require on�e-time prescriptive upgrades inside older multifamily rental units where tenants pay energy bills • Limit audits to buildings with significant owner-paid energy use Gradually phase-in requirements to give the affected buildings, energy performance industry and city staff time to build capacity • Al low flexi bi I ity for bu i Id i ngs to ta�ke d iffe rent paths to eff icie ncy a nd exe m ptions for build�ings th�at are already relatively efficient • Avoid requiring upgrades if that are not cost-effective 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 684 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.26 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH ENERGY BENCHMARKING AND CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the CCWG recommended twelve climate protection measures, including requiring energy-savings retrofits in existing buildings at a specific point in time, which were included in the 2017 Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, 'as a component of the 2017 Climate Action Plan, staff proposed developing a residential and commercial energy conservation ordinance for City Council consideration; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2017, City Council adopted the 2017 Climate Action Plan and directed staff to implement the measures based on funding levels; and WHEREAS, through its 2017 Climate Action Plan, the City committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 15%below 2005 levels by 2020 and 55%below 2005 levels by 2030; and WHEREAS, through its 2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory, approved May 26, 2020, the City's 2016 emissions were 12%below 2005 levels; and WHEREAS,, the State of California passed Assembly Bill 802 in 2015, codified in California Public Resources Code section 25402.10; establishing annual energy benchmarking requirements for certain buildings larger than 50�,000 sqft and creating a path for building owners to access whole building data from utilities under certain conditions; and WHEREAS Califomia Code of Regulations Title 20 Division 2 Chapter 4 Article 9 Section 1684 (3) established an exemption for properties that benchmark under local benchmarking programs meeting the requirements of Section 1684 (b) WHEREAS, staff is presenting to Council an ordinance amending Chapter 15.26 of the Municipal Code and adding Section 15.26.050 requiring multifamily and nonresidential buildings of at least 20,000 square feet to annually benchmark energy use, disclose energy performance information and periodically undertake audits or energy upgrades-, and 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 685 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 3 WHEREAS, Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, Sections 10-106 and 10- I 10. establish a process for local governments to apply to the CEC for a determination that a locally adopted building energy efficiency standard meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 2 5402.1(h),(2)- and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Sections 17958 and 18941 of the Health and Safety Code, before making any modifications to the Califomia Building Standards Code, the City must make an express finding that such modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geologic or topographical conditions. Modifications to the Califomia Building Standards and Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, are reasonably necessary due to local climatic conditions. As a result of high summer ambient temperatures and periods of heat waves, average load demand and peak load demand of energy used in Chula Vista is an important factor concerning public safety and adverse economic impacts of power outages or power reductions. Reduction of total and peak energy use, as a result of incremental energy conservation measures required by this Ordinance, will have local and regional benefits in the cost-effective reduction of energy costs for the building owner, additional available system energy capacity, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the City affirms that the requirements below will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by Califomia Building Code; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to preserve and enhance the environment of the City of Chula Vista and is not subject to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant negative impact on the environment. The proposed ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies for the enhancement and protection of the environment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby adopts this resolution and directs staff to prepare and present for City Council consideration proposed local amendments to future versions of Califomia Energy Code requiring increased local energy efficiency standards and the necessary future cost- effectiveness studies,, consistent with this resolution. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 15.26 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by addition of the sections 15.26.050 as follows: 15.26.050 Mandatory Benchmarking and Conservation Requirements for Multifamily and Commercial Buildings 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 686 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 4 A. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this section to promote ongoing energy conservati on in buildings in order to reduce GHG emissions resulting from energy consumption. B. Applicab�ilit . This section a plies to Properties within the City of Chula Vista with a Y p 0 Gross Floor Area of at least 20,000 square feet, and having either(i) no residential utility accounts, or(ii) five or more active utility accounts of one utility type, at least one of which is residential. An overview of the applicability of select ordinance requirements appears in Table 15.26.050(B) below. 'Table 15.26.050(B) Applicability Overview Section Nonresidential Multifamily Properties Properties Benchmarking Requirements Applies Applies Section 15.26.050(D) Direct Disclosure and Public Disclosure Requirements Applies Applies Section 15.26.050(E) Conservation Requirements Applies to Properties with Applies Section 15.26.050(F) (1-4, 7, 8) Significant Common Load Minimum Improvement Applies to Properties with Requirements Applies Section 15.26.050(F) (5) Significant Common Load Applies to buildings,constructed Multifamily Prescriptive Upgrades before 2006 for rental tenant spaces Section 15.26.050(F)(6) Not Applicable where utility costs are borne by tenant Compliance Schedule,Records Maintenance, and Failure to Comply Applies Applies Sections 15.26.050 (G),, (H) and(1) EXEMPTIONS: Properties owned by any of the following are exempt from Section 15.25.050: (a) the County of San Diego; (b�)the State of California; (c) the United States of America; (d)the Metropolitan Transit Service; or (e) the Chula Vista and Sweetwater School Districts. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 687 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 5 C. Dqfinitions. For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Audit Template" means the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE), online application for entering, validating and submitting data generated by an American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers ("ASHRAE"), 211 audit and Retro- Commissioning, located at [it p t 5,,:J) s, t_ILLL�figi, y_ ,Y� :�.�yz "Base Building Systems" means the systems and subsystems of a building that use or distribute Energy or water or impact the Energy or water consumption, including the building envelope; the heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; air conveying systems; electrical and lighting systems; domestic hot water systems; water distribution systems; plumb�ing fixtures and other water-using equipment; and landscape irrigation systems and water features. Base Building Systems shall not include: 1. Systems or subsystems owned by a tenant or for which a tenant bears full maintenance responsibility, that are within the tenant's leased space and exclusively serve such leased space, and for which the tenant pays all the Energy and water bills according to usage and demand as measured by a meter or sub-meter; 2. Systems or subsystems owned by a residential unit Owner that exclusively serve the residential unit of that Owner; 3. Systems or subsystems that operate industrial applications such as manufacturing. "Baseline Year" means a Covered Property's first year submitting a Benchmarking Report pursuant to this section or CA Assembly Bill 80�2 if applicable, or, the most recent year a Covered Property was subject to the Conservation Requirements, whichever is later. "Benchmark"means to complete and electronically submit the Chula Vista Benchmarking Report via ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. "Benchmarking Report" The report generated by ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager when a completed Chula Vista Benchmarking Report is submitted to the City, including both the information required to be input into ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager and the information generated by ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. "Conservation Section" means the City of Chula Vista's Office of Sustainability Conservation Section. "Covered Property" means a Property that meets the applicability requirements of this section. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 688 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 6 "Energy" means electricity, natural gas, steam, heating oil, or other products sold by a utility to a customer of a building, or renewable on-site electricity generation, for purposes of providing heat, cooling, lighting, water heating, or for powering or fueling other end-uses in the building and related facilities. "Ener y Audit" means systematic evaluation to identify potential modifications and 9, improvements to a building's equipment and systems which utilize energy in order to optimize a building's overall energy performance. "EUI" or"Energy Use Intensity" means the Energy consumed per square foot of a building per year, as calculated by ENERGY STAR9 Portfolio Managerg by dividing the total Energy consumed by the building in one (1) year (measured in kBtu or GJ) by the total Gross Floor Area of the building. "EUI-EVN" or"Weather-normalized Energy Use Intensity" means the weather- normalized Energy consumed per square foot of a building per year, as calculated by ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager by dividing the total weather normalized Energy consumed by the building in one (1) year(measured in kBtu or GJ)by the total Gross Floor Area of the building. "ENERGY STAR Certified" means a building which has earned an ENERGY STAR9 Score of 75 or higher, indicating that it performs better than at least seventy-five percent (75%) of similar buildings nationwide and completed an ENERGY STAR Certification application and received EPA approval. "ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager" means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) online application for measuring, tracking, and managing a building's Energy, water and greenhouse gas emission data and benchmarking it's performance, located at https://Www.energys,t,ar.,,gov/. "ENERGY STAR Score" means a number ranging from I to 100 assigned by the EPA's ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager as a measurement of a building's Energy efficiency, normalized for a building's characteristics, operations, and weather, according to methods established by US EPA's ENERGY STAR9 Portfolio Manager. "Financial Distress"means a Property that: 1. Had arrears of property taxes or water or wastewater charges that resulted in the Property's inclusion, within the prior two (2) years, on the City's annual tax lien sale list; or 2. Has a court appointed receiver in control of the asset due to financial distress; or 3. Is owned by a financial institution through default by the borrower; or 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 689 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 7 4. Has been acquired by a deed in lieu of foreclosure; or 5. Has a senior mortgage subject to a notice of default. "Gross Floor Area" or"GFA" means the total number of square feet measured between the principal exterior surfaces of enclosing fixed walls. This includes all fully enclosed space within areas inside the outside surfaces of the exterior walls of the building(s) including lobbies, tenant areas (occupied and unoccupied), common areas, meeting rooms, offices, break rooms, atriums (count the base level o�nly),, restroorns, elevator shafts, stairwells,, mechanical equipment areas, basements, storage rooms, mechanical space such as boiler rooms, elevator shaft, hallways, stairwells, and connecting corridors between buildings. This does not include exterior spaces, balconies, patios, exterior loading docks, driveways, covered walkways, outdoor play courts (tennis, basketball, etc.), parking, open-air stairwells, breezeways, interstitial plenum. space between floors (which house pipes and ventilation), or crawl spaces. "High Performance Building" A Property that submitted a Benchmarking Report for its most recent benchmarking compliance deadline and either(i) achieved a Verified ENERGY STAR Score of 80 or greater or (ii) achieved ENERGY STAR Certification, or (iii) achieved LEED Existing Building Certification for three (3) of five (5) preceding years. "Industrial Occupancy" means any building or portion thereof classified under occupancy groups F-I and F-2 ("Factory and Industrial") or H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4, and H-5 ("High Hazard") under Califomia Code of Regulations Title 24 Section 302 (2016) as amended. "Master Metering" or"Master Metered" means measuring a buildings electricity or gas consumption for the purposes of utility billing from multiple tenant units together, rather than using individual meters or sub-meters for each dwelling units. "Mechanical Equipment" means centralized building systems or devices,, that are fixed in a location for uses associated with structures, and relating to water use, drainage, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and similar purposes. "Multifamily Property" means a residential Property that contains five (5) or more Multifamily Dwelling Units. "Nonresidential Property 11�means a Property or part thereof used for purposes other than human habitation. "Owner"'An individual, individuals, or entity possessing title to a Property, the board of directors, or managing partners in the case of a cooperative apartment corporation, association, or partnership, or a master tenant in a triple net lease arrangement, or the authorized representative thereof. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 690 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 8 "Previous Baseline Year"means a Covered Property's first year submitting a Benchmarking Report pursuant to this section or CA Assembly Bill 802 if applicab�ly, or, the second to last year in which the Covered Property was subject to the Conservation Requirements, whichever is later. "Property" means any of the following: 1. A single building; 2. A campus of two (2) or more buildings which are owned and operated by the same party, have a single shared primary function, and consisting of: a. Buildings that are behind a common utility meter or served by a common mechanical/electrical system (such as a chilled water loop) which would prevent the Owner from being able to easily determine the Energy use attributable to each of the individual buildings; and/or b. Buildings or parts, of buildings that have an individual Gross Floor Area of less than 20,000 square feet. "Retro-Commissioning" means a systematic process for optimizing existing systems relating to building performance through the identification and correction of deficiencies, in such systems. "Significant Common Load"means a multifamily residential with Master Metering, Mechanical Equipment or where the total non-rentable portion of the Gross Floor Area is 10,000 square feet or more. "Site EUI (Energy Use Intensity)" means the Site Energy Use divided by the property's Gross Floor Area as calculated by ENERGY STAR9 Portfolio Managerg. "Site Energy Use" means the total amount of all the energy a property consumes on-site, regardless of the source, as calculated by ENERGY STAR(t Portfolio Managerk. It includes energy purchased from the grid or in bulk (which are the amounts on utility bills), as well, as renewable energy generated and consumed on-site such as from solar and wind (excess renewable energy generate on-site and sold to the utility is excluded from site energy use)�. "Source EUI (Energy Use Intensity)" means the Source Energy Use divided by the property's Gross Floor Area as calculated by ENERGY STAR9 Portfolio Managerg. "Source Energy Use" means the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate a property, as calculated by ENERGY STAR9 Portfolio Managerg. In addition to what the property consumes on-site, Source Energy Use includes losses that take place during generation, transmission, and distribution of the energy. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 69 1. of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 9 "Verified ENERGY STAR Score" means an ENERGY STAR Score based on data that has been verified by a Professional Engineer (PE) or Registered Architect (RE). D. Benchmarking Requirements. Owner shall Benchmark in accordance with the following on or before the compliance deadlines specified in Section 15.26.050(G)(1): (1) Establish an ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager account (if Owner has not already done so), add Covered Properties completing all required fields (if Owner has not already done so), and maintain current all required fields. (2) Annually collect data, according to the schedule set forth in Section 15.25.050(F)(1)(a) related to the property's total energy usage for the entire prior calendar year in accordance to the latest guidance under Building Energy Use Data Access, B,enchmarking, and Public Disclosure Regulations, Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 20, Division 2, Chapter�4, Article 9, Section 1.680, and following, including, but not limited to, those related to obtaining customer consent. (3) Annually sub�mit an energy benchmarking to the Conservation Section report according to the schedule set forth in Section 15.25.050(F)(I)(a). The energy benchmarking report shall be generated using ENERGY STAR Portfolio by responding to the Conservation Section's designated Data Request for the appropriate compliance year. (4) Benchmarking Reports shall at minimum include the following: a. Descriptive Information. Basic descriptive information to track and report a property's, comp�liance with this Chapter, including, but not limited to, the property address(es), Gross Floor Area, property type, year(s) built, and the individual or entity responsible for the Benchmarking Report; and b. Energy Information. Information necessary to Benchmark Energy usage shall be determined by the Conservation Section and shall include, at a minimum,, the following information and derivatives thereof: i. The ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager ENERGY STAR Score for the property, and ENERGY STAR certification status, where available; and ii. The weather-normalized Site and Source Energy Use (kBTU) and Energy Intensity(EUI) per unit area per year (kBTU per square foot er year) for the property; and p 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 692 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 10 iii. The Site and Source Energy Use (kBTU)�, and Energy Use Intensity(EUI)per unit area per year(kBTU per square foot per year) for the property; and iv. The annual carbon dioxide equivalent emissions due to Energy use for the Property as estimated by ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager-, and v. Monthly and annual Site energy use by energy type and share of energy use supplied by on and off-site renewab�les. (5) Starting in 2022, Owners may be assessed an annual Benchmarking Filing Fee to recover the costs of implementation, enforcement, administration and infrastructure for this Section. The City Manager may adjust the Benchmarking Filing Fee annually. (6) Owners shall run the Data Quality Checker available within ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager and shall correct all missing or incorrect information as identified by ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager prior to submitting the Benchmarking Report to the City. (7) Exemptions from Benchmarking Requirements. a. The Owner may receive an exemption from filing a B,enchmarking Report and remitting the Benchmarking Filing Fee for a reporting year, subject to Conservation Section approval, by submitting evidence in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Conservation Section that any of the following conditions apply.- i. The entire Property did not have a Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for at least half of the year required to be Benchmarked; or ii. The entire Property was not occupied, due to renovation, for at least half of the year to be Benchmarked; or iii. A demolition permit for the entire Property has been issued and demolition work has commenced; or iv. The Property did not receive Energy or water services for at least half of calendar year required to be Benchmarked; or v. The Property is in Financial Distress; or vi. Disclosure of the Property Energy usage data would result in the release of proprietary information that can be characterized 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 693 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page I I as a trade secret or would otherwise violate a customer's right to privacy under the Califomia Constitution or other applicable law. E. Direct Disclosure and Public Disclosure Requirements. Properties shall comply with Sections 15.26.050(E)(I)I, (2), and(3)below. (1) Direct Disclosure of Benchmarking Report. Owners shall provide a web link or hard copy to their most recent Benchmarking Report to: a. Existing tenants and current owners with an interest of 5% or more, within 90 days of annual Benchmarking compliance deadline. b. Prospective buyers prior to close of sale and prospective tenants prior to lease signing or lease renewal. (2) Direct Disclosure of Audit and Retro-Commissioning Reports. Owners shall provide Energy Audit and Retro-commissioning Reports produced for compliance with Section I 5.26.050(F)(4), if applicable, to all existing residential and nonresidential tenants within 90 days of the Conservation compliance deadline. Owners shall confer with any nonresidential tenants that pay utility costs, identifying energy efficiency investment opportunities and assessing the potential for mutually beneficial co-investment arrangements, in accordance with procedures established by Conservation Section within 180 days of the Conservation compliance deadline. (3) Public Disclosure. The City will make data public. a. The Conservation Section shall make the following information available to the public on the intemet, as reported by Owners, and update the information at least annually: i. Summary statistics on overall compliance with Section; and ii. Summary statistics on overall energy consumption of Covered Properties subject to this Section derived from annual benchmarking reports; and iii. For each,building subject to this Section-. iv. Address and property use type(s); and v. Annual summary statistics derived from the submitted benchmarking report, including all information required under Section 15.26.050(D)(4). 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 694 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 12 b. Exemption. Properties with more than half of Gross Floor Area used for Industrial Occupancy are exempt from the Public Disclosure requirements (Section 15.26.050(E)(3)). F. Conservation Requirements. Conservation Requirements apply according to the compliance deadlines specified in Section 15.26.050(G). Properties meeting the requirements for a High Performing Building (Section 15.26.050(C)) are exempt from all requirements in Section 15.26.050(F)�. (1) Multifamily properties are subject to the Multifamily Prescriptive Measure requirements (Section 15.26.050(F)(6))by their first five (5) year Conservation Requirement deadline. In addition, multifamily properties with Significant Common Load must meet either the Performance Targets (Section 15.26.050(F)(3)), or, the Audit Requirement (Section 15.26.050(F)(4)) and Minimum Improvement requirement(Section 15.26.050(F)(5)). (2) Non-residential must meet either the Performance Targets (Section 15.26.050(F)(3)), or, the Audit Requirement (Section 15.26.050(F)(4)) and Minimum Improvement requirement (Section 15.26.050(F)(5)). (3) Performance Targets. Every five (5) years demonstrate that: a. Property has decreased its Site EUI-"by at least the Improvement Target in Tab�le 15.26.050(F)(3)(a)below from Baseline Year; Table 15.26�.050(F)(3)�(a) Baseline Year ENERGY Improvement Target STAR Score 0-45 30% 4,6-65 20% 66-79 10% 80+ None b. Or if Property was not eligib�le for an ENERY STAR Score in the baseline year, Property has reduced its weather-normalized Site EUI by at least the Improvement Target in Table 15.26.0�50(F)(3)(b) below from Baseline Year. 'Table 15.26.050(F)(3)�(b) Baseline Year Site EUI-W`N improvement Target (kBTU/sf/year) 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 695 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 13 80+ 30% 51-79 20% 19-50 10% 0-18 None c. Tables 15.26.050(F)(3)(a) and 15.26.050(F)(3)(b) shall be updated periodically by the Conservation Section subject to City Council approval. (4) Audit Requirement. Every five (5) years an Energy Audit and Retro- Commissioning shall be performed in accordance with the following specifications. a. Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Specifications i. Audit Type. A Level 1, or greater, Energy Audit in conformance with the current ASHRAE Standard 211 "Commercial Building Energy Audits"' at the time the Audit is initiated. Before Owners choose an ASHRAE Level I Energy Audit they must obtain also obtain a quote for a more extensive audit and discuss the additional value with the audit provider. Owner's shall document fulfillment of this requirement as specified by the Conservation Section. ii. Retro-Commissioning. Retro-commissioning requirements shall be performed in accordance with industry standard practices, including current ASHRAE Guideline 0.2 "Commissioning Process for Existing Systems and Assemblies" at the time the Retro-Commissioning is initiated. 1. Applicability. Retro-commissioning requirements shall apply to properties that meet all of the following: a. At least 50,000 square feet of conditioned space; b. Existing Mechanical Equipment; c. Digital controls in place that are reparab�le or in good working order in the opinion of the auditor. 2. Exemption. Properties that have experienced major changes in operations during prior six months or have planned to make major changes in the following year. 3. The Retro-Commissioning of the Base Building Systems shall include, at minimum, the following: 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 696 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 14 a. Heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems and controls; and b. Indoor lighting systems and controls; and c. Water heating systems; and d. Renewable energy systems. iii. Audit Professional Qualifications. Audits shall be signed and performed directly by or under the direct supervision of, an individual whose job duties do not regularly occur at the Property and who has two or more years of auditing experience and possesses one or more of the certifications specified in Table 15.26.050(F)(4)(v) or other qualifying certifications as specified by the Conservation Section. iv. Retro-Commissioning Professional Qualifications. Retro- Commissioning shall be performed directly by or under the direct supervision of, an individual whose job duties do not regularly occur at the Property and who has two or more years of auditing experience and possesses one or more of the certifications specified in Table I 5.26.050(F)(4)(v) or other qualifying certifications as specified by the Conservation Section. v. Qualifying Professional Certifications. Table 15.26.050 (F),(4)(v) Qualifying Proiessional Certifications Professional Qualifying Certification Type Energy Audit 1. An accredited certification that has been designated a or Retro- "Better Buildings Recognized Program"' by the DOE Commissioning meeting the criteria set forth in the Better Buildings Professional Workforce Guidelines (BBWG), for Building Energy (any listed) Auditors or Energy Managers 2. A Professional Engineer(PE)registered in the State of California Energy Audit I. Certified Energy Auditor(CEA) or Certified Energy Professional Manager(CEM), issued by the Association of Energy (any listed) Engineers (AEE) 2. Certified Facilities Manager(CFM), issued by the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) 3. System Maintenance Administrator(S,MA) or System Maintenance Technician(SMT), issuedby Building Owners and Ma Institute (BO�MI)International_ 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 697 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 15 4. High Performance Building Design Professional (HBPD) or Building Energy Assessment Professional (BEAP), issued by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 5. For Audits of multifamily residential properties,only, a Multifamily Building Analyst(MFBA), issued by the Building Performance Institute(BPI) Retro- I. Certified Commissioning Professional(CCP), issued Commissioning by the Building Commissioning Association(BCA) Professional 2. Certified Commissioning Authority(CxA) or (any listed) Certified Commissioning Technician(CxT), issued by the AABC Commissioning Group (ACG) 3. Certified Building Commissioning Professional (CBCP) or Existing Building Commissioning Professional (EBCP)�, issued by the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) 4. Certified Professional certified by the National Environmental Balancing Bureau(NEBB) 5. Commissioning Process Management Professional (CPMP), issued by American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 6. Accredited Commissioning Process Authority Professional (ACPAP) approved by the University of Wisconsin vi. Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Report. A report (or reports) of the Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning (where applicable), completed and signed by a qualified Audit Professional and qualified Retro-Commissioning Professional, shall be submitted electronically to the Conservation Section via the Conservation Section's, des,ignated Audit Report Template, or via other means as specified by the Conservation Section. Completed Reports shall include all items designated as required, including but not limited to the followin"o 6. 1. The date(s) that the Energy Audit and Retro- Commissioning (if applicable) were performed; and 2. Identifying information on the auditor provider (and Retro- Commissioning provider if applicable); and 3. information on.the base building systems and equipment; and 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 698 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 16 �4. A list of retrofit measures available to the Owner that can reduce energy use, and/or cost of operating the Property including: a. costs of each measure; and b. an estimate of the energy and operating cost savings associated with each measure; and c. simple payback of each measure; and d. identification of at least 2 contractors able to perform measure. 5. Identification or recommendation of measures applicable to tenant-contro I led spaces, including estimates for energy and operating savings for all affected tenants', and 6. Identification or recommendation of measures needed to meet applicab�le Performance Targets; and 7. Identification or recommendation of measures needed to meet Minimum Improvement, if applicable. 8. Identification of all rebate, incentive and financing programs available to property and/or in association with specific measures; and 9. If applicable, a list of all the Retro-Commissioning process activities undertaken and retro commissioning measures completed; and 10. A list of all retrofit measures taken (if applicable); and 11. Functional performance testing reports (if applicable); and 12. Operational training conducted (if applicable); and 13. Attestation that an ASHRAE level 2 Energy Audit and(if applicable) ASHRAE 0.2 Retro-Commissioning process were conducted. (5) Minimum Improvement. Every ten (10) years properties must demonstrate that: 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 699 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 17 a. Property has decreased its Site EIU-WN by at least the Mandatory Minimum Improvement in Table 15.26.050(F)(5)(a) below from the Previous Baseline Year-, 'Table 15.26�.050(F)(5)�(a) Baseline Year ENERGY Mandatory Minimum STAR Score Improvement 0-45 15% 46-65 10% 66-79 None 80+ None b. Or, if Property was not eligible for an ENERY STAR Score in the Previous Baseline Yearl Property has decreased its Site EIU-WN by at least the Mandatory Minimum Improvement in Table l5.26.050(F)(5)(b) below fro�m the Previous Baseline Year. Table 15.26.050(F)(5)�(b) Baseline Year Site EUI-WN Mandatory Minimum (kBTU/sf/year) Improvement 80+ 15% 51-79 10% 19-50 None 0-18 None c. Tables 15.26.050(F)(5)(a) and 15.26.050(F)(5)(b) shall be updated periodically by the Conservation Section subject to City Council, approval. d. Exemption: Owners are not required to complete retrofit measures identified or recommended in the most recent audit report for meeting the Minimum Improvement(per Section 15.26.050(F)(4)(a)(vi)(7)) if those measures have a simple payback greater than 13 years, or have a payback period that exceeds the expected useful life of the retrofit measure. If all measures identified per Section 15.26.050(F)(4)(a)(vi)(7)having a simple payback of 13 years or less, and having an expected useful life that is longer than the payback period, are completed, the Mandatory Minimum Improvement percentage in Table 15.26.050(F)(5)(a) or Table 15.26.050(F)(5)(b), as applicable, is waived. (6) Multifamily Prescriptive Measures. Multifamily Residential. Properties constructed prior to 2006 must perform the minimum number of measures 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 700 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 18 required in Table 15.25.050(F)(6)(a) within all tenant spaces where utility costs are borne by tenants. Owners may choose any applicable measures from Table 15.25.050(F)(6)(b). Measures already in place shall count toward satisfying the minimum number of measures. Where a measure is not applicable it shall count toward satisfying the minimum number of measures. 'Table 15.26.050(F)(6)�(a) Year Built Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 10 Pre-19,7 8 Choose four(4) Measures Choose five (5) Measures 1978-1991 Choose three (3) Measures, 1992-2005 Choose two (2) Measures Table 15.26.050(F)(6)�(b) Measure Name Description R-38 Attic Add attic insulation in buildings with vented attic spaces to meet Insulation R-38. Air Sealing Apply air sealing practices throughout all accessible areas of the unit. All joints, penetrations and other openings in the building envelope that are potential sources of air leakage shall be caulked, gasketed, weather stripipled, or otherwise sealed to limit infiltration and exfiltration. Buildings constructed before 1992 should be sealed to 7 Air Changes per Hour(ACH), and buildings constructed from 1992-2005 should be sealed to 5 ACH, at 50 Pascals pressure difference. CoolRoof For steep slope roofs, install a roofing product rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council, (CRRC) with an aged solar reflectance of O�.25 or higher and thermal emittance of 0.75 or higher. Duct Sealing Air seal any accessible ductwork to meet the requirements of the 20 16 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)I E. Units with one or more vented combustion appliances are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to have a BPI Combustion Appliance Safety Inspection performed after duct sealing. LED Lighting Replace low performing screw based lighting with high performing lighting per the requirements of Title 24 Section l50.0(k)l.AAG,H and 1. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 701. of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 19 Water Heating Water Heater Blanket Add R-,6 insulation to the exterior of Package existing resictential tank storage water heaters manufactured (if water heater before April 2015. Requirement is waived for water heaters with serves internal tank insulation of at least R-16. individual unit) Hot Water Pipe Insulation Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with R-3 pipe insulation. Low Flow Fittings Upgrade sink and shower fittings to meet 2016 CALGreen requirements , which require!maximum flow rates of 1.8 gallons per minute (gpm) for showerheads and kitchen faucets, and 1.2 gpm for bathroom faucets. Windows Replace existing single pane windows with a dual pane product, which has a U-factor equal to 0.32 or lower and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) equal to 0.25 or lower. This measure was o�nly evaluated for the pre-1978 vintage, which is assumed to have single-p�ane, metal-frame windows. Water Heater High Eiiiciency Heat Pump Water Heater: Replace natural gas Replacement storage water heater, or, tankless water heater having an Energy (if water heater Factor of.81 or less, with Heat Pump Water Heater with serves Uniform Energy Factor(UEF) of at least 3.1 (Northwest Energy individual unit) Efficiency Alliance Tier 3)�. -or- High Eniciency Tankless Water Heater: Replace natural gas storage water heater, or, tankless water heater having a Energy Factor of.81 or less, with tankless water heater with a minimum Energy Factor of 0.96. Air Conditioner High Efficiency Air Conditioner Replace an existing air Replacement conditioner having a SEER rating of 13 or less with an air conditioner of at least 18 SEER. -or- High Eniciency Heat Pu Replace an existing air conditioner having a SEER rating of 13 or less with a Heat Pump of at least 18 SEER. (7) Amortization of Pass-through Costs. Where lease terms allow owners to pass on the costs of complying with this section to lessees, should Owner choose to do so, those costs may not be passed through in bulk. instead they shall be amortized as follows: 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 702 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 20 a. Audit Requirement costs shall be amortized over five (5) years. b. Costs of measure implementation shall be amortized over the! expected useful life of the measure. (8) Exemptions. The following exemptions apply to the Conservation Requirement: a. The Property has been occupied less than five! (5) years; b. The Property is in Financial Distress; c. A demolition permit for the entire Property has been issued and demolition work has commenced; d. The Property has not previously been subject to the Benchmarking Requirement. G. Compliance Schedule. Compliance deadlines for the requirements of this section detailed in Table 15.26.050(G) below. The Conservation Section may grant an extension of time of up to sixty(60) days to file any submittal required by this Section upon request in writing. The Conservation Section may grant an additional extension up to one hundred eighty(180) days upon an application demonstrating evidence of substantial hardship. Table 15.26.050(G) Comp iance Deadlines Compliance Deadline Section 50,000+ square feet GFA 20,000-49,999 square feet GFA Benchmarking Requirements May 20th of each year August 20, 202 1, then March Section 15.26.050 (D) b�eginning 2021 20th of each year beginning 2022 Direct Disclosure and Public Disclosure Requirements Beginning September 1, 2021 Beginning September 1, 2021 Section 15.26.050 (E) (I- - 2) Conservation Every five (5) years beginning Every five (5) years beginning Requirements 20�22 or later according to a 2025 or later according to a Section 15.26.050 (F) (I- schedule to be determined by schedule to be determined by the 4� 7� 8) the Conservation Section Conservation Section Minimum Improvement Every ten (10) years beginning Every ten (10) years beginning in Requirements in the year 2027 or later the year 2030 or later according Section 15.26.050 (F) (5) according to a schedule to be 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 703 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 21 determined by the to a schedule to be determined by the Conservation Section. Conservation Section Multifamily Prescriptive 2022 or later according to a 2025 of later according to a Upgrades schedule to be determined by schedule to be determined by the Section 15.26.050 (F)(6) the Conservation Section Conservation Section H. Record Maintenance. The Owner shall maintain records related to Benchmarking, Audits and Retro-Commissioning, and Efficiency Improvement Measures including, but not limited to, the Energy and water bills and reports or forms received from tenants and/or utilities. Such records shall be preserved for a period of five years. When the Property is sold, copies of the records shall be given to the new Owner. Ownership of the property in Portfolio Manager must also be transferred to the new owner. 1. Failure to Comply. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this section shall be subject to the following remedies and enforcement measures: (1) A Notice of Failure to Comply shall be issued to the Owner specifying the provisions violated and including an order to correct outlining steps necessary to bring Property back under compliance; and (2) On the 60th day following issuance of a Notice of Failure to Comply, the following may be issued. a. Monetary Fines. Monetary fines may be levied up to the amounts shown in Table 15.26.050(l)(2)(a) on a per incident basis depending on Property GFA. Table 15.26.050(1)(2)(a) Maximum Fine Amounts Property Size (square feet) Amount Per Incident 201000-491999 GFA Up to $750 501000-991999 GFA Up to $1,500 1001000+GFA Up to $2,250 b. City may take actions against the Property that could potentially impede financing, leasing or sale transactions for the Covered Property. c. Public disclosure of non-compliance. (3) Monetary penalties for non-compliance shall be waived until January 1, 2023. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 704 of 767 Draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 22 1 J V. implementation Authority. The City Manager may adopt rules and regulations for the implementation of this section including, without limitation, supplementing the list of qualified measures set forth in table 15.26.050(17)(6)(b) as new energy efficient technologies or materials are developed. Section 11. Severability If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid,, unenforceable or unconstitutional. Section 111. Construction The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. Section IV. Effective D�ate This ordinance shall take effect on the latter to occur of the following: the 90th day after its final passage, and approval by the Califomia Energy Commission. Section V. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as, to form by Eric Crockett Glen R. Googins Director of Economic Development City Attorney 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 705 of 767 C 0 ity of Chula V*Ista Draft P�ol'icy Su ary Existing Multifamily and Commercial Building Benchrnarking� and Conservation Ordinance, (ve rs i ol n 3.5) Summary of Changes in IS Removed initial benchmarking fee value of$186.50, rep�lacing it with option to assess cost recovery fee in 2022 Policy Overview Requ�ir�e an�nual energy benchmarking for buildings 20,,000 square feet or larger Enhance market transparency for building efficiency by making energy performance data available online and requiring buildings to disclose performance to existing and prospective owners and lessors Requ�ir�e bu�ild�ings to measurably improve their energy performance over each 5-year period or undertake an audit, and in certain cases, Retro-Com mission i ng If the least efficient buildings do not make efficiency progress on their own by the second 5-year deadline,they will be required to make minimum improvements (10-15%) identified as cost-effective in their audit �For Multifamily Buildings: • Require one-time prescriptive upgrades inside older multifamily rental units where tenants pay energy b�ills • �Limit audits to buildings with significant owner-paid e,nergy use Gradually phase-in requirement's to give the affected buildings, energy performance industry and city staff time to build capacity Allow flexibility for buildings to take different paths to efficiency and exemptions for buildings that are already relatively efficient Avoid requiring upgrades if that are not cost-effective 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 706 of 767 DRAFT Policy Summary—Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 2 of 5 Proposed Requirement's 1. APPLICABILITY: Applies to properties consisting of individual parcels orjoined parcels containing a combined gross floor area of at least 20�,,000 square feet. Residential condominium units as well as state, federal and certain local government buildings are exempt. 2. BENCHMARKING REQUIREMENT: Properties mu�st annua�lly submit benckmar�king reports via Energy Star Portfolio Manager by the deadline starting in 20�21. Starting in 2022, a�n annual be�nchmarking fee may be assessed to recover program costs based on a fee study. Estimated at approximately$110. 2.1. Annual Deadlines. a. Properties 50,000 sqft-- May 20th of each year. b. Properties 20,000—50,,000 sqft--August 20,20,21 and March 201h of each year thereafter. 2.2. Properties meeting the following will be exempt: a. Unoccupied b. Scheduled for clemoliton C. Under financial distress d. No energy or water service 3. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT:The City will make ben�chmarking data avail�able to the pu�blic for all properties except when the majority of floor area is dedicated to, industrial or manufacturing u�ses. For all properties, owners must provide a web link to their most recent benchmarking report, or a hard copy, i,n the following situations. 3.1. To existing owners and l�easees within 30 d�ays of filing. 3.2. To prospective buyers prior to close, and prospective le,asees prior to lease signing, including lease extensions. CONSERVATION REQUIREMENT: Every five years, properties must meet the criteria for a high-performing building (4.1) or perform one of two conservation requirements (4.,2 or 4.3). Multifamily properties must, meet the multifamily conservation requirements of(4.4). Starts in 2022 for 50,000 sqft+ buildings and 2025 for 20,000—50,000 sqft buildings. 4.1. �High Performing Buildings Criteria (one of the following): a. Achieve Verified Energy Star score of 80 or higher,during preceding year b. Achieve Energy Star certification during preceding year C. Achieve LEED Existing Building Certification 3 of 5 preceding years 4.2. Audit and Retro-commisioning Requirement. a. Conduct ASHRAE Level 1, or greater, audit. Owners must obtain quote and discuss value of more extensive audit specification (i.e. Level 2). b. Conduct AHRAE 0.2 Retro-commissioning for buildings with: 1. Atleast 50,000+sqft conditioned space 2. Existing mechanical equipment 3. Digital controls that are repariable or in good working order in the opinion of the auditor Prepared for Chula Vista November 2020 Eric Engelman I Energy Policy Consulting 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 707 of 767 DRAFT Policy Summary—Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 3 of 5 4. Exempt if major changes in operation have occurred in prior six months or planned during next year C. Submit Audit and Retro-commisioning Report to City electonically using the "Audit Te�mplate" online tool produced by the DOE. Report must include: 1. Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) needed to meet the applicable Energy Performance Requirements (4.3 column A and column B) 2. All applicable rebate, incentive and fi'nanc,ing programs, 3. Identification of atleast 2 contractors able to perform each ECM 4. ECMs applicable to tenant-controlled spaces, where tenant pays energy bills, must specify annual tenant savings d. Owners must meet and confer with tenants that pay energy costs to discuss energy efficiency investment plan and complete City des,ignated co-investment work sheet 4.3. Energy Performance Requirement. As,an alternative to the requirements of 4.2. properties may demon�st'rate a reduction in EUI during 5 years prior via Energy Star of atleast the amount shown below in column A. By the second 5-year conservation deadline all properties must achieve the minimum improvement shown in column B provided the ECMs required have a simple bayback of 13 years or less. (Meeting column B criteria does not eliminate the need to meet the Audit and Retrocomissioning requirements of 4.2.) a. For Properties that are eligible for an Energy Star Score. Most Recent Energy Star (A) Minimum Improvement to (B) Mandatory Minimum Score be Exempt from Audit Improvement by 2 nd Requirement Conservation Deadline 0-45 30% 15% 46-65 20% 10% 66-7'9 101% None 80+ None, None b. For properties NOT eligible,for an Energy Star score. Baseline Site Energy Use (A) Minimum Improvement to (B) Mandatory Minimum Intensity(weather be Exempt from Audit Improvement by 2 ind normalized) Requirement Conservation Deadline 80+ 30% 15% 51-79 20% 10% 19-50 10% None 0-18 None None 4.4. Multifamily Conservation Requirement'. Multifamily res,idential properties with separately metered units paid by tenants must perform the minimum number of prescr,iptive measures specified in 4.4 (a), choosing from the list in 4.4(b). Any measures from 4.4(b) already completed may be counted toward the minimum number in 4.4(a). Multifamily residential properties with master-metered units or a significant common load must meet the requirements of 4.2 or 4.3 as well. a. Minimum Number of Measures Year Built Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 10 Pre-1978 Choose 4 Measures Choose 5 Measures 1978-1991 Choose 3 Measures Prepared for Chula Vista November 2020 Eric Engelman I Energy Policy Consulting 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 708 of 767 DRAFT Policy Summary—Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 4 of 5 1992-2005 Choose 2 Measures b. Measure Option List below: Measure Name Description R-38 Attic Add attic insulation in buildings with vented attic spaces to meet R-38. Insulation Air Sealing Apply air sealing practices throughout all accessi'b�le areas of the building.All joints, penetrations and other openings in the building envelope that are potential sources of air leakage shall be caulked, gasketed,weather stripped, or otherwise sealed to limit infiltration and exfiltration. Buildings constructed before 19912 should be sealed to 7 Air Changes per Hour (ACH), and buildings constructed from 1992-2005 should be sealed to 5 ACH, at 50 Pascals pressure difference. CoolRoof For steep slope roofs, install a roofing product rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council (C,RRC)with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25 or higher and thermal emittance of 0.75 or higher. Duct Sealing Air seal all ductwork to meet the requirements of the 2016 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)lE. Homes with one or more vented combustion app�liances a�re STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to have a BPI Combustion Appliance Safety Inspection performed after duct sealing. LED Lighting Replace low performing screw based lighting with high performing lighting per the r�equirements of Title 24 Section 150.0(k)l.A,D.,G,.H and 1. Water Heating Water Heater Blanket Add R-6 insulation to the exterior of existing residential tank Package storage water heaters manufactured before April 2015. Requirement is waived for water heaters with internal tank insulatlion of at least R-16. Hot Water Pi e Insulation. Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with R-3 pipe insulation. Low Flow Fitt Upgrade sink and shower fittings to meet current CALGreen r�equirements,which requ�ire maximum flow rates of 1.8 gal�lons per minute (gpm) for showerheads and kitchen fau�cets, and 1.2 gpm for bathroom faucets. Windows Repla�ce existing single pane windows with a clual pane product, which has a U- factor equal to 0.32 or lower and a Solar Heat Gla�in Coefficient (SHGC) equal to,O�.,25 or lower.This measure was,only evaluated for the pre-1978 vintage, which is assumed to have single-pane, metal-frame windows. Water Heater High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater: Replace natural gas storage water heater, Replacement or,tankless water heater having an Energy Factor of.81 or less,with Heat Pump (if water heater Water Heater with Uniform Energy Factor(UEF) of at least 3.1 (Northwest Energy serves individual Efficiency Alliance Tier 3). un�it) -or- Prepared for Chula Vista November 2020 Eric Engelman I Energy Policy Consulting 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 709 of 767 DRAFT Policy Summary—Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance Page 5 of 5 High Efficiencv Tankless Water Heater: Replace natural gas storage water heater,, or',tankless water heater having an Energy Factor of.81 or less,with tankless water heater with a minimum Energy Factor of 0.96., 4.5 Exemptions. Properties meeti'ng one of the following will be exempt from 4.1-4.4: b. Less than 5 years old C. Scheduled for clemoliton d. Under financial distress e. Not required to benchmark 5. NONCOMPLIANCE: Failure to comply will result in the following., 5.1. Notice. Notice of noncom�pliance will be sent giving the property 60 days to correct. After,the following penalties will apply. 5.2. Public Disclosure of Non-compliance 5.3. Fines. After January 1, 2023, fai'lure to correct a notice of'nonc,ompliance may result in a fine ranging from $750-$2,500 depending on bui'lding size. Prepared for Chula Vista November 2020 Eric Engelman I Energy Policy Consulting 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 710 of 767 Proposed Chula Vista BUIId *I g Perfoir ce Oirdin nce Policy Background Adopted by City Council in 20117, Chula Vista's Climate Action Plan calls for "building performance reporting and public disclosure" policies and directed city staff to "develop a Residential and Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance for City Cou�ncil consideration." The plan set a target of' Goals retrofitting 20% of multifamily and commercial 70 Help buildings save energy space to achieve 5�0% savings by 2035. and reduce utility bills 70 Encourage market Why existing buildingS? The City of transparency for building Chula Vista is committed to meeting its GHG energy efficiency targets. And energy consumption from 70 Reduce carbon emissions buildings is a significant sources of commu�nity- wide GHG emissions. New buildings tend to have a very low (or even net-zero) carbon footprint due to strict new construction standards. However older b,u�ildings that have not yet implemented money-saving energy efficiency upgrades consume relatively large amounts of energy. Why a building performance ordinanCO.*e?, Building performance ordinances (BPOs) start by getting easy-to-digest energy performance information in the hands of' building owners and users. This improves market transparency and facilitates management of building energy costs. Buildings that are relatively energy eff'icient tend to be rewarded when the market can more easily value their lower energy costs. Similarly, for buildings that make steady energy efficiency progress, BPOs strengthen the incentive to improve. On average, buildings that benchmark each year see a steady decline in utility costs and energy consumption of about 2-3% per year. For less energy efficient buildings that do, not experience progress after a few years of benchmarking.. Chula Vista's B,PO creates a pathway for implementing energy eff'iciency improvements that make financial sense. Lower performing buildings that do not meet performance targets by their fifth benchmarking year will be required to conduct energy au�dits to identify savings opportunities. Following an audit, those building owners are given another 5 years to make minimum improvements identified by the audit that pay for themselves in a reasonable amount of time. DRAFT 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 711. of 767 �DRAFT - Proposed Chula Vista Building Performance Ordinance About Building Performance Ordinances • Buildings are one of the largest sources of a City's emissions • Buildings that track and rate their energy performance (a.k.a. benchmarking) typically attain an average annual energy savings of 2-3% • Similar ordinances have �been adopted in more than 30 U.S. U.S. City, County, and State Policies for Existing Buildings: Benchmarking, Transparency, and Beyond Seattle Portland Portland South Minneapolis P o r t I a In d St.Pauil ,St.Louis Park '4 ..............�Cambridge (411,9111 ("j*—Boston Edina Evanston Des Molnes Pittsburgh New York City 11111 Al"Ij �Philadelphia Berkeley Reno,NIV Fort Collins Chicago 1 411111 o nitgomery Co,MD San Salt Lake City 111410 Columbus Washington,DC Francisco Boulde,r '41101 Denver San,Jose Kansas St.Louis City,,II Los Angeles San Diego----------- Atlanta Austin 110 411 Orlando 0 Requirements of achieving performance targets or completing additional actions 4110 Benchmarking policy for public,commercial,and ......... multifamily buildings adopted Buildirig Rating INSTITUTE FOR MARKET Benchmarking policy for publIic and commercial pml,I QAO�,PA P�N I'Y 1�A I A OPF r f(r N(i U)M TRANSFORMATION buildings adopted Copyright 2020 institute for Market Transf ormation.Updated 5/2020 0 r% Building rerformance Ordinance Comparison 111?11 1 1111111 � I I �1 FIN 20 15 50,,000+ 20,15 20,,000+ 6666 2011 10,,000+ 20,18 20,,000+ 20 12 10,,000+ 20,17 50,,000+ 20�09 25,000+ 20..000+ *As proposed 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 712 of 767 �DRAFT - Proposed Chula Vista Building Performance Ordinance 0 Ordinance Applicability Commercial �buildings I " wool over 20..000 sqft Multifamily buildings over 20,000 sqf't Require ents Overview Benchmark Report building energy use annually Misclose Share ENERGY STAR Score with owners and tenants Aud*it If buildings do not meet performance targets after 5 years they must conduct an energy audit to identify savings opportunities Improve After an audit, low performing buildings must show minimum improvement within 5 additional Rollmout Schedule Since 20,18 Since 2019 Starting 2022- Starting 2027- 2025 2030 Starting 20,21 Starting 2022 Starting 2025- Starting 2030- 2026 2031 Under California's Building �Energy Benchmarking Program (AB802), buildings larger than 50,000 sqft are already required to benchmark and disclose annually. Commercial buildings began in 2018, and Multifamily in 2019. Starting 2021, buildings will submit their benchmarking report to the City of Chula Vista instead of the state. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 713 of 767 �DRAFT - Proposed Chula Vista Building Performance Ordinance Co ercial Bu*ild*ing� Require ents 10110 All Submit energy Annually from data 2021 11 Provide Starting 2021 benchmarking or 2022 report to current and prospective owners and tenants Buildings with ENERGY Conduct an �Every 5 years, STAR score below 80 ASHRAE Level I beginning that do not meet Audit 2022 through Performance Targets (including Retro- 2026 after 5 years of commissioning benchmarking (10-30%2 where energy use reduction) appropriate3) Buildings with EN�ERGY Implement cost- Every 10 STAR score below 65 effective years, that 'do not meet measures beginn,ing Minimum Improvement identified in the 2027-20�31 requirements after 10 audit in order to years of benchmarking reduce energy (10-15%4energ�y use consumption at red�uction) least 10-15%4 2 Applicable percentage depends on a building's starting score as follows: Score of 0-45, 30%; Score Of 46-65 20%; Score of 66-79, 10%. 3 Retro-commissioning is required with an audit for buildings larger than 50,000 square feet that have mechanical building equipment and serviceable digital controls 4Applicable percentage depends on a building's starting score as follows: Score of 0-45, 15%; Score Of 46-65 10%. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 714 of 767 �DRAFT - Proposed Chula Vista Building Performance Ordinance -111'6 Bu'eld* Renuire ents, Multif a i Y i ing IRE1 NOW All Submit energy Annually from data 22'0 2 1 I�I Provide Starting 2021 benchmarking or 2022 report to curreat and �prospective owners and tenants Buildings constructed Implement 2022-20126 before 20,06 basic one-time upgrades, 1n rental un1ts, twildings with significant Conductan Every 5 years,. common load5and a ASHRAE Level I b e i n n i n g score below 80** that do Audit 'for 2022 through not, meet Performance common areas 2 UrN 2 6 Targets after 5 years of (including Retro- �benchmarking (10-30% commissioning energy use reduction) where appropriate') nuildings with significant Implement Cost- Every 10 years,. common load5an,d a effective beginning score below 65 that do measures 2027-20131 not, meet Minimum identified in the Improvement audit in order to requirements after 10 reduce energy years ofbenchmarking consumption at %4 "4 f or (110-15 energy use least 110-15170 reduction) common areas Multifamily buildings with at least 10,000 sqft of common floor area or master-metered apartments 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 715 of 767 DRAFT - Proposed Chula Vista Building Performance Ordinance 0 Frequently Asked Questions Why �Benchmark? Annual �benchmarking helps owners and users know where they stand and track progress toward reducing energy usage and GHG emissions. What is the Audit Requirement? If a building does not achieve specific improvement thresholds (a 10-30% reduction in EIU depending on starting score) after 5 years of benchmarking, they must conduct an ASHRAE Level I Energy Audit. Buildings over 50.,000 sqft with central equipment and digital controls are also required to conduct retro-commissioning. Buildings with a score below 60 then have another 5 years to make a minimum 10-15%, improvement. 0 What if a building is already efficient? Buildings with an ENERGY STAR Score of' at least 80 are exempt from the Audit requirement. We estimate that about 40% of Chula Vista buildings already have a score of at least 80. What is the Minimum Improvement Requirement? By the tenth year of benchmarking, buildings that still have a score below 65 need to demonstrate a minimum improvement (a 10-15% reduction in EIU depending on starting score). Owners may implement cost-effective recommendations from their energy audit or choose other measures that reduce their energy consumption by 10-15%. We estimate 75% of' Chula Vista buildings already have a score above 65. Why are improvement percentages given in �ranges? It is easier for less efficient '%W buildings to, improve by a given percentage than for buildings that are already more eff'icient. In recognition of this, and to incentivize more efficient buildings, the ordinance uses score tiers. See Footnotes 2 through 5 for score tier details. What about Multifamily Buildings?. Multifamily rental apartments that have not already been updated with basic energy efficiency updates like LED lighting and low-flow water f'ixtures will be required to make a few one-time updates, choosing from a menu of options. Multifamily buildings with common spaces larger than 10,000 sqft are also subject to the audit and improvement requirement. What about the split-incentive issue with commercial leases? Building owners are required to share audit findings with their leasees and discu�ss whether co-investment in energy-efficiency �makes sense for both parties. What if a building is not, eligible for an ENERGY STAR Score? Certain building�s are not eligible for an ENERGY STAR Score for a variety of reasons. In such cases, the ordinance specifies corresponding weather-normalized EIU levels, which are u�sed in lieu of scores. Questions/Feed back? To learn more or provide comments, please contact Barbara Locci at blocciC&chulavistaca 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 716 of 767 �DRAFT - Proposed Chula Vista Building Performance Ordinance How do buildings Benchmark.? Starting in 20211, buildings will need to report their whole-building energy usage each year to the City of Chula Vista. This is done through an online process using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Ma�n , a free online tool administered by the EPA. Portfolio Manager rates building energy efficiency, providing an ENERGY STAR Score on a scale of I-100. The score is computed by comparing a building's Energy Use Intensity (EIU) to similar blu�ildings nationally while adjusting for size and weather. Nearly 25% of U.S. commercial buildings already benchmark in ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. You can directly connect ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager to SDG&E to import a building's energy data. The tool also lets you auto-fill Chu�la Vista's Benchmarking report template, performs a qu�ality check, and allows you to submit directly to the City electronically. E E 11',GY Z'])1", 1`111, dA ,,I,anaclei Portf�ol'I'o "V 141.) 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 717 of 767 MEMORANDUM March 26, 20�20 TO: Cory Downs, Conservation Specialist, City of Chula Vista FROM: Eric Engelman, Principal, Energy Policy Consulting SUBJECT: Cost-Effective n ess of Proposed Building Performance Ordinance Th�is memo assesses the cost effectiveness of the City's draft Multifamily and Commercial Benchmarking and Conservation Ordinance (0.5). It particular, it examines three requirements in �particular: 1. The ASHRAE 0.5 Retro-commissioning requirement 2. The ASHRAE Level 11 Audit requirement 3. The minimum improvement requirement The ordinance's prescriptive multifamily requirements are not discussed in this memo as they are supported by the statewide 2019 Existing Residential Cost-effectiveness Study. Cost-effective n ess for the ordinance's audit and retro-commission�ing requirements is supported by commonly cited cost and savings figures from the literature. Both were found to be cost-effective. Calculations and Methodology are described below. 11.0 Cost and Savings from Retro,-commiss The largest study found to date of retro-com mission i ng costs and savings found that average costs come to 30 cents per square foot, and simpl�e payback time for existing buildings averages 1.1 year.' This implies that average annual savings are 27.3 cents per square foot per year. Some reports suggest that the savings from retrocom�m�issionin�g tends to decline over time as buildings revert from optimal to suboptimal tuning. The most comprehensive study on the durability of savings, using a sample of 36 bu,ildings found that savings increased from year one to year two by about 20% and then reverted to roughly half of year 1 savings in year 3.2 To project the savings for years 2-4, a savings profile matching Mills�; E. Energy Efficiency (2011) 4: 145. https://doi.org/l�0.1 0107/s,l 2053-011-9116-8 2 MiIIS�7 E. Energy Efficiency (2011) 4: 145. ht�tps://doi.org/l 0.1 0107/s,l 2053-011-9116-8 Eric Engeliman I Energy Policy Co�nsulting 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 718 of 767 Memo: Cost-Effective n ess of Audits and 2 Retro-Commissioning for Existing Buildings this pattern was used (see Figure 1). Evidence indicates some savings persistes long after year 4,' however no savings was assumed beyond year 4 for this analysis. Cost of an Ashrae Level 11 Audit Average audit costs were found to, range from 12 cents to 50 cents per square foot.4 In discussions with local audit provider Measurina Cost Effectiveness Acieneral measure of cost-effectiveness is the lifecycle savings divided by the initial cost. A value over one is considered cost effective. For this analysis, savings were discounted at an annual rate of 7'%. FIGURE, 1: Cost-effectiveness Calculations Average Retro-commissioning Cost(p�er square foot) $0.30 Median ASHRAE 11 Audit Cost(per square foot) $0.31 Average Annual Savings(per square foot) $0.27 Year Total 1 2 3 4 5 Saving Persistence 100% 120% 50% 70% 0 Savings (r)er square foot) $0.9,27 $0.273 $01-327 $0.136 $0.191 $0.000 Discounted Lifecycle Savings (per square foot) $0.798 $0.255, $0_286 $0.111 $0.146 $0.000 Retro-commisioning Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 2.66 Audit and Retro-commisioning Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 1.31 Findin,gs Freid�man, H., Claridge, Di., Toole, C., Frank, M�., Heinemeier, K., Cros,sman, K., Crowe, E., Choin�iere, D. (2010�)�. "An�nex 47: Report 3: Commissioning cost-benefit and persistence of savings." International Energy Agency, Energy Conservation in Buildings an�d Com�mun�ity Systems Programme, 28,9pp. h��ttp�://www.iea-ann�ex,4'7.org/fichier/820150/Annex47-�report3-Final.pid�f. 4 Baechl�er, M., Sitrecker, C., Sh�afer, J. (20111). "A Guide to Energy Audits." DOE, Building Techn�ol�ogies Program. 3ppi. https://www.pnnl.gov/mai�n�/pu�blications/exter�n�al�/tech�ni�cal_repo�rts/PN�NL-20956.pdf % 11 E r�cl E IgEflrnan I Energy Policy Co�n�sulting 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 719 of 767 Memo: Cost-Effective n ess of Audits and 3 Retro-Commissioning for Existing Buildings Retro-commissioning was found to be cost effective with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.66. Adding in the cost of an audit, and assuming no further savings as a result, the combination was also found to be cost-effective with a �benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.31. % 11 E r�cl E IgEflrnan I Energy Policy Co�n�sulting 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 720 of 767 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5,2 02 1 File ID: 20-0523 'TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING PROPOSALS AND AWARDING AN AGREEMENT TO WITTMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC TO PROVIDE EMS BILLING AND COLLECTION SERVICES RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY On January 28, 2020 Fire Department staff along with AP Triton consultants presented to Council an overview of the plan for fire department-based ambulance transport. At that time, City Council approved Chula Vista Council resolution 2 02 0-0 14 directing the City Manager,to engage in all necessary administrative actions to implement fire department-based emergency medical transport services, to begin negotiations for contractual service with the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District,and to bring back for City Council consideration and approval any required Council level imp�lementation actions. The City has the authority to provide emergency medical transport services itself'under applicable state and local law including California Health&Safety Code Sections 1797.201 and 1797.224,the City Charter[Section 200],and Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 5.10.310. On May 12, 2020 City Council approved Chula Vista Council resolution 2020-102 approving a program for, the Chula Vista Fire Department to provide exclusive emergency ambulance transport services within the City of Chula Vista,the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District commencing on or about April 2 1, 2 012 1,approving terms for a three party agreement imp�lementing same, and authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute such agreement in a final form approved by the city attorney.This item asks the Council to accept proposals and award an agreement to Wittman Enterprises, LLC to provide third-party EMS billing and collection services,so the City may recover its cost of transport operations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project it as defined under 1111. 0 0 1 PIi3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 72 1. of 767 Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal consists of a governmental p,lan of action related to the,City's preparedness in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and which will not result in direct or indirect significant physical impacts on the environment. 'Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMIT rEE RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable. DISCUSSION The City of Chula Vista solicited proposals from qualified companies to provide medical billing services for the City.This award allows the City to get the best price for these contract services. On September 18, 2020,the City of Chula Vista released a Request for Bid (RFB) for EMS Billing Collection Services (PO4 20�21) and conducted a competitive RFB process,pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code 2.56.080,to identify the most qualified and cost-effective company. Through the solicitation the City has selected Wittman Enterprises, LLC for the award. Wittman is well-known and well-respected for the medical billing services they provide to other agencies locally,and in particular for municipal providers of emergency ambulance transport. A total of one thousand two hundred and forty-two (1,242) companies were notified through PlanetBids,. Twenty-one (21) companies downloaded solicitation. Of the 21 companies that downloaded,seven (7) companies responded and three (3)were responsive.Up�on review of the responses and subsequent staff presentation by the two finalists,it was decided to award the contract to Wittman Enterprises, LLC. The agreement is for an initial 15�-month term,,April 1, 2021 through June 3,0, 2022. At the City's discretion, there are three (3) one-,year options to renew on a fiscal year basis,for a maximum contract term of 51 months ending on June 3 0, 2 0 2 S. The compensation to Wittman Enterprises, LLC is 3,.25% of net receipts billed and collected with an anticipated amount not to exceed of$500,000 annually,upon completion of all Required Services to City's satisfaction,and a not-to-,excee�d amount of$2,5,0�0,000 through June 30, 2025. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500�-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. CURREN"Ir-YE,AR FISCAL IMPACT There are no General fund costs associated with this contract for medical billing services.The agreement will be funded by 3.25% net receipts billed and collected within the Transport Enterprise Fund (410728). The cost for the projected service fees is $625,000 for the initial term,and$500,00�O annually for each additional term, not to exceed$2,500,000 over the contract term. P �3ge 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 722 of 767 ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT No anticipated General Fund Impacts. The agreement is funded based on 3.25% net receipts billed and collected within the Transport Enterprise Fund with a not to exceed amount of$2,500,000 over the contract term. AT rACHMEN rs 1. Agreement with Wittman Enterprises, LLC. P �3ge 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 723 of 767 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING PROPOSALS AND AWARDING AN AGREEMENT TO WITTMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC TO PROVIDE EMS BILLING AND COLLECTION SERVICES WHEREAS, the City requires billing and collection services for its emergency medical transport program, administered by its Chula Vista Fire Department; and WHEREAS, billing and collection services are needed to collect fees from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) patients and their insurance carriers for EMS patients treated and/or transported by City Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulances; and WHEREAS. ,, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.56.080, for professional services contracts exceeding $100,000, the City in September 2020 issued Request for Proposal PO4-20/21 for EMS Billing and Collection Services; and WHEREASI of the seven (7) proposals received and carefully evaluated, staff identified Wittman Enterprises, LLC as the most qualified among those submitting; and WHEREAS, the Agreement is for an initial 15-month term, from April 2021 through June 2022, with three, one-year options to renew based on the fiscal year, for up to 51 months or to June 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, the compensation is 3.25% of net receipts billed and collected with an anticipated amount not to exceed $50�O�,000 annually, upon completion of all Required Services to City's satisfaction, and a not-to-exceed amount of$2,500,000 through June 30�, 20�25. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula that it accepts proposals- and Vista, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it awards an agreement to Wittman Enterprises, LLC to provide EMS billing and collection services in the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk and authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute same. Presented by Approved as to form by Harry Muns Glen R. Googins Fire Chief City Attorney C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Tei-np\BCL Technologies\easyPD F 8\@,BCL@,680ED9AC\@�),BCL@ ,680ED9AC,doc 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 724 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH WITTMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC 'TO PROVIDE EMS BILLING AND COLLECTION SERVICES This Agreement is entered into effective!as of April 1, 2021 ("Effective Date")by and between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("City") and Wittman Enterprises, LLC, a California Corporation, ("Contractor"), (collectively, the "Parties" and, individually, a"Party"),with reference to the following facts: RECITALS WHEREAS, City,through its Fire Department, is building its own emergency medical transport program,, which is scheduled to be implemented in April 202 1,and needs emergency medical billing and collection services for this program; and WHEREAS, in September 2020 City initiated Request for Proposal (RFP) PO4-20/21, EMS Billing and Collection Services, pursuant to Chula Vista Muncipal Code section 2.56.080; and WHEREAS, staff has identified Contractor as the most qualified among those submitting; and WHEREAS, Contractor warrants, and represents that it is experienced and staffed in a manner such that it can deliver the services required of Contractor to City in accordance with the time frames and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. [End of Recitals. Next Page Starts Obligatory Provisions.] I City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 725 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF OBLIGATORY PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the Parties hereby acknowledge, City and Contractor hereby agree as follows: 1. SERVICES 1.1 Required Services. Contractor agrees to perform the services, and deliver to City the "Deliverables" (if any) described in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated into the Agreement by this reference, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence for this Agreement. The services and/or Deliverables described in Exhibit A shall be referred to herein as the "Required Services." 1.2 Reductions in Scope of Work. City may independently, or upon request from Contractor, from time to timel reduce the Required Services to be performed by the Contractor under this Agreement. Upon doing Sol City and Contractor agree to meet and confer in good faith for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with the reduction. 1.3 Additional Services. Subject to compliance with the City's Charter, codes, policies, procedures and ordinances governing procurement and purchasing authority, City may request Contractor provide additional services related to the Required Services ("Additional Services"). If so, City and Contractor agree to meet and confer in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an amendment to Exhibit A, to add the Additional Services. Unless otherwise agreed, compensation for the Additional Services shall be charged and paid consistent with the rates and terms already provided therein. Once added to Exhibit A, "Additional Services" shall also become "Required Services," for purposes of this Agreement. 1.4 Standard of Care. Contractor expressly warrants and agrees that any and all, Required Services hereunder shall be performed in accordance with the highest standard of care exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. 1.5 No Waiver of Standard of Care. Where approval by City is required, it is understood to be conceptual approval only and does not relieve the Contractor of responsib�ility for complying with all laws,codes,industry standards, and hability for damages, caused by negligent acts, errors, omissions,noncompliance with industry standards, or the willful misconduct of the Contractor or its subcontractors. 1.6 Performance. In the event that Exhibit A Section �4 indicates the need for Contractor to provide additional security for performance of its duties under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide such additional security prior to commencement of its Required Services in the form and on the terms prescribed on Exhibit A, or as otherwise prescribed by the City Attorney. 1.7 Compliance with Laws. in its performance of the Required Services, Contractor shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state and local laws, including the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 1.8 Business License. Prior to commencement of work, Contractor shall obtain a business license from city. 1.9 Subcontractors. Prior to commencement of any work, Contractor shall, submit for City's information and approval a list of any and all subcontractors to be used by Contractor in the performance of the Required Services. Contractor agrees to take appropriate measures necessary to ensure that all subcontractors and 2 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 726 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF personnel utilized by the Contractor to complete its obligations under this Agreement comply with all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, and policies, whether federal, state, or local,. In addition, if any subcontractor is expected to fulfill any responsibilities of the Contractor under this Agreement, Contractor shall ensure that each and every subcontractor carries out the Contractor's responsibilities as set forth in this Agreement. 1.10 'Term. This Agreement shall commence on the earlier to occur of the Effective Date or Contractor's commencement of the!Required Services hereunder, and shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all their obligations hereunder; p�rovided, however, provisions which expressly survive termination shall remain in effect. 2. COMPENSATION 2.1 General. For satisfactory performance of the Required Services, City agrees to compensate Contractor in the amount(s) and on the terms set forth in Exhibit A, Section 4. Standard terms, for billing and payment are set forth in this Section 2. 2.2 Detailed Inv . Contractor agrees to provide City with a detailed invoice for services performed each month, within thirty (30�) days of the end of the month in which the services were performed, unless otherwise specified in Exhibit A. Invoicing shall begin on the first of the month following the Effective Date of the Agreement. All charges must be presented in a line item format with each task separately explained in reasonable detail. Each invoice shall include the current monthly amount being b�illed, the amount invoiced to date, and the remaining amount available under any approved budget. Contractor must obtain prior written authorization from City for any fees or expenses that exceed the estimated budget. 2.3 Pavment to Contractor. Upon receipt of a properly prepared invoice and confirmation that the Required Services detailed in the invoice have been satisfactorily performed, City shall pay Contractor for the invoice amount within thirty (30) days. Payment shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A and section 2.4, below. At City's discretion, invoices not timely submitted may be subject to a penalty of up to five percent (5%) of the amount invoiced. 2.4 Retention P * City shall retain ten percent(10%)of the amount due for Required Services detailed on each invoice (the "holdback amount"). Upon City review and determination of Pro ect Completion, the holdback amount will be issued to Contractor. 2.5 Reimbursement of Costs. City may reimburse Contractor's out-of-pocket costs incurred by Contractor in the performance of the Required Services if negotiated in advance and included in Exhibit A. Unless specifically provided in Exhibit A, Contractor shall be responsible for any and all out-of-pocket costs incurred by Contractor in the performance of the Required Services. 1 2.6 Exc"iusions. City shall not be responsible for payment to Contractor for any fees or costs in excess of any agreed upon budget, rate or other maximum amount(s) provided for in Exhibit A. City shall also not be responsible for any cost: (a) incurred prior to the Effective Date- or (b) arisinI4 out of or related to the errors, I %_� omissions, negligence or acts of willful misconduct of Contractor, its agents, employees, or subcontractors. 2.7 Pqyment Not Final,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ap,p,roval. Contractor understands and agrees that payment to the Contractor or reimbursement for any Contractor costs related to the performance of Required Services does not constitute a City final decision regarding whether such payment or cost reimbursement is allowable and eligible for payment under this Agreement, nor does it constitute a waiver of any violation by Contractor of the terms of 31 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 727 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF this Agreement. If City determines that Contractor is not entitled to receive any amount of compensation already paid, City will notify Contractor in writing and Contractor shall promptly return such. amount. 3. INSURANCE 3.1 Required Insurance. Contractor must procure and maintain, during the period of performance of Required Services under this Agreement, and for twelve months after completion of Required Services, the policies of insurance described on the attached Exhibit B, incorporated into the Agreement by this reference (the "Required Insurance"). The Required Insurance shall also comply with all other terms of this Section. 3.2 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions relating to the Required Insurance!must be disclosed to and approved by City in advance of the commencement of work. 3.3 Standards for Insurers. Required Insurance must be placed with licensed insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best's rating of A V or better, or, if insurance is placed with a surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on the State of California List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers (LESLI) with a current A.M. Best's, rating of no less than A X. For Workers' Compensation Insurance, insurance issued by the State Compensation Fund is also acceptable. 3.4 Subcontractors. Contractor must include all sub-C ontractors/s ub-contractors as insureds under its policies and/or furnish separate certificates and endorsements demonstrating separate coverage for those not under its policies. Any separate coverage for sub-Co�ntractors must also comply with the terms of this Agreement. 3.5 Additional Insureds. City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers must be named as additional insureds with respect to any policy of general liability, automobile, or pollution insurance specified as required in Exhibit B or as may otherwise be specified by City's Risk Manager.. The general liability additional insured coverage must be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor's insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85) or its equivalent; such endorsement must not exclude Products,/Completed Operations coverage. 3.6 General Liab,,i,,I,,i,ty, Cover,age to be "Primary." Contractor's general liability coverage must be primary insurance as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers is wholly separate from the insurance provided by Contractor and in no way relieves Contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance. 3.7 No Cancellation. No Required Insurance policy may be canceled by either Party during the required insured period under this Agreement, except after thirty days' prior written notice to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. Prior to the effective date of any such cancellation Contractor must procure and put into effect equivalent coverage(s)�. 3.8 Waiver of Subrogation. Contractor"s insurer(s) will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for each Required Insurance policy under this Agreement. In addition, Contractor waives any right it may have or may obtain to subrogation for a claim against City. 3.9 Verification of Coverage. Prior to commencement of any work, Contractor shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and any amendatory endorsements necessary to demonstrate to City that Contractor has obtained the Required Insurance in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The words 41 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 728 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF 44will endeavor" and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents, or representatives"or any similar language must be deleted from all certificates. The required certificates and endorsements should otherwise be on industry standard forms. The City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these sp�ecifications. 3.10 'Claims Made Policy Requirements. If General Liability,Pollution and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions coverage are required and are provided on a claims-made form, the following requirements also apply: a. The "Retro Date"must be shown, and must be before the date of this Agreement or the beginning of the work required by this Agreement. b. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided, for at least five (5) years after completion of the work required by this Agreement. c. If coverage is, canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a "Retro Date" prior to the effective date of this Agreement,, the Contractor must purchase "extended reporting"coverage for a minimum of five(5)years after completion of the work required by this Agreement. d. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review. 3.11 Not a Limitation of Other Obligations. Insurance provisions under this section shall not be construed to limit the Contractor's obligations under this Agreement, including Indemnity. 3.12 Additional Cover . To the extent that insurance coverage provided by Contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums appearing in Exhibit B, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for higher limits maintained. 5 City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 729 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF 41. INDEMNIFICATION 4.1. General. To the maximum extent allowed by law, Contractor shall protect,defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officers, agents, employees and volunteers (collectively, "Indemnified Parties"), from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs), liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged acts, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of Contractor, its officials,, officers, employees, agents, and contractors, arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Required Services, the results of such performance, or this Agreement. This indemnity provision does not include any claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Indemnified Parties in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. 4.2. Modified Indemni�y Where Agreement Involves, Design Professional Services. Notwithstanding the forgoing, if the services provided under this Agreement are design professional services, as defined by California Civil Code section 2782.81 as may be amended from time to time, the defense and indemnity obligation under Section 1, above, shall be limited to the extent required by California Civil Code section 2782.8. 4.3 'Costs of Defense and Award. Included in Contractor's obligations under this Section 4 is Contractor's obligation to defend, at Contractor's own cost, expense and risk, any and all suits, actions or other legal proceedings that may be brought or instituted against one or more of the Indemnified Parties. Subject to the limitations in this Section 4, Contractor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against one or more of the Indemnified Parties for any and all related legal expenses and costs incurred by any of them. In the event of any dispute between CONTRACTOR and CITY, as to whether hability arises, from the sole negligence of the CITY or its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or vendors,CONTRACTOR will be obligated to pay for the CITY's defense until such time as a final judgement has been entered ad udicating the CITY as sole ne ligent. CONTRACTOR will be entitled in the event of i 9 such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney's fees,,expert fees and cost of litigation. 4.4. Contractor's Obligations Not Limited or Modified. Contractor's obligations under this Section 4 shall not be limited to insurance proceeds, if any,received by the Indemnified Parties, or by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Contractor. Furthermore, Contractor's obligations under this Section 4 shall in no way limit, modify or excuse any of Contractor's other obligations or duties under this Agreement. 4.5. 'Enforcement Costs. Contractor agrees to pay any and all costs City incurs in enforcing Contractor's obligations under this Section 4. 4.6 Survival. Contractor's obligations under this Section 4 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 5. FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF CONTRACTOR. 5.1 Form 700 Fil The California Political Refon-n Act and the Chula Vista Conflict of Interest Code require certain government officials and Contractors performing work for government agencies to publicly disclose certain of their personal assets and income using a Statement of Economic Interests form,(Form 700). 61 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 730 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF In order to assure compliance with these requirements, Contractor shall comply with the disclosure requirements identified in the attached Exhibit C, incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. 5.2 'Disclosures; Prohibited Interests. Independent of whether Contractor is required to file a Form 700, Contractor warrants and represents that it has disclosed to City any economic interests held by Contractor, or its employees or subcontractors who will be!performing the Required Services, in any real property or project which is the subject of this Agreement. Contractor warrants and represents that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee or approved subcontractor working solely for Contractor,to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Contractor warrants and represents that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee or approved subcontractor working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Contractor further warrants and represents that no officer or employee of City, has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise,, in this transaction, the proceeds hereof, or in the business of Contractor or Contractor's subcontractors. Contractor further agrees to notify City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. For breach or violation of any of these warranties, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 6. REMEDIES 6.1 'Termination for Cause. If for any reason whatsoever Contractor shall fail to perform the Required Services under this Agreement, in a proper or timely manner, or if Contractor shall violate any of the other covenants, 'agreements, or conditions of this Agreement (each a "Default"), in addition to any and all other rights and remedies City may have under this Agreement, at law or in equity, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving five (5) days, written notice to Contractor. Such notice shall identify the Default and the Agreement termination date. If Contractor notifies City of its intent to cure such Default prior to City's specified termination date, and City agrees that the specified Default is, capable of being cured, City may grant Contractor up to ten (10) additional days after the designated termination date to effectuate such cure. In the event of a termination under this Section 6.1, Contractor shall immediately provide City any and all "Work Product" (defined in Section 7 'below) prepared by Contractor as part of the Required Services. Such Work Product shall be City's sole and exclusive property as provided in Section 7 hereof. Contractor may be entitled to compensation for work satisfactorily performed prior to Contractor's receipt of the Default notice; provided, however, in no event shall such compensation exceed the amount that would have been payable under this Agreement for such work, and any such compensation shall be reduced by any costs incurred or projected to be incurred by City as a result of the Default. 6.2 Termination or Suspension for Convenience of City. City may suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion of the Required Services, at any time and for any reason, with or without cause, by giving specific written notice to Contractor of such termination or suspension at least fifteen (15) days prior to the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall immediately cease all work under the Agreement and promptly deliver all "Work Product"(defined in Section 7 below)to City. Such Work Product shall be City's sole and exclusive property as provided in Section 7 hereof. Contractor shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for this Work Product in an amount equal to the amount due and payable under this Agreement for work satisfactorily performed as of the date of the termination/suspension notice plus any additional remaining Required Services requested or approved by City in advance that would maximize City's value under the Agreement. 7 City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 73 1. of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF 6.3 Waiver of Claims. In the event City terminates the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Section, Contractor hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation. as a result of such termination except as expressIv-provided in this Section 6. .1 -& 6.4 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this Agreement against City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with City and acted upon by City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may be amended,the provisions of which, including such policies and procedures used by City in the implementation of same, are incorporated herein by this reference. Upon request by City, Contractor shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 6.5 Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in San Diego County, State of California. 6.6 'Service of Process. Contractor agrees that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in California. If Contractor is a foreign corporation, limited liability company, or partnership, that is not registered with the California Secretary of State, Contractor irrevocably consents to service of process on Contractor by first class mail directed to the individual and address listed under "For Legal Notice," in section I.B. of Exhibit A to this Agreement, and that such service shall be effective five days after mailing. 7. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF WORK PRODUCT All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement in connection with the performance of the Required Services (collectively "Work Product"') shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such Work Product shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Contractor in the United States or in any other country without the express, prior written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such Work Product, without requiring any permission of Contractor, except as,may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act or expressly prohibited by other applicable laws. With respect to computer files containing data generated as Work Product, Contractor shall make available to City,upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary functional computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS 8.1 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended, but only in writing signed by both Parties. 8.2 Assignment. City would not have entered into this Agreement but for Contractor's unique qualifications and traits. Contractor shall not assign any of its rights or responsibilities under this Agreement, nor any part hereof, without City's prior written consent, which City may grant, condition. or deny in its sole discretion. 8.3 Autho The person(s) executing this Agreement for Contractor warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute same on behalf of Contractor and to bind Contractor to its obligations hereunder without any further action or direction from Contractor or any board, principle or officer thereof. 81 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 732 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF 8.4 Counte,1p,art,s. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one Agreement after each Party has signed such a counterpart. 8.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein. All exhibits referenced herein shall be attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or writteril are superseded. 8.6 Record Retention. During the course of the Agreement and for three (3) years following completion of the Required Services, Contractor agrees to maintain, intact and readily accessible, all data, documents, reports, records, contracts, and supporting materials relating to the performance of the Agreement, including accounting for costs and expenses charged to City, including such records in the possession of sub- contractors/sub-Contractors. 8.7 Further Assurances. The Parties agree to perform such further acts and to execute and deliver such additional documents and instruments, as may be reasonably required in order to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and the intentions of the Parties. 8.8 Independent Contractor. Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to City a wholly independent contractor. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents ("Contractor Related Individuals"), except as set forth in this Agreement. No Contractor Related Individuals shall be deemed employees of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled, including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Furthermore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll, tax with respect to any Contractor Related Individuals; instead, Contractor shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with respect to same. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its Contractor Related Individuals are employees or agents of City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatsoever against City, or bind City in any manner. 8.9 Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any Party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States, mail, addressed to such Party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified in this Agreement at the places of business for each of the designated Parties as indicated in Exhibit A, or otherwise provided in writing. 8.10 Electronic Si,,gnatures. Each Party agrees that the electronic signatures, whether digital or encrypted, of the Parties included in this Agreement are intended to authenticate this writing and to have the same force and effect as manual signatures. Electronic Signature means any electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed and adopted by a Party with the intent to sign.such record, including facsimile or email electronic signatures,pursuant to the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1633.1 to 1633.17) as amended from time to time. (End of page. Next page is signature page.) 91 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 733 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF SIGNATURE PAGE CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, by executing this Agreement where indicated below, City and Contractor agree that they have read and understood all terms and conditions of the Agreement, that they fully agree and consent to bound by same, and that they are free!ly entering into this Agreement as of the Effective Date. WITTMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC CITY OF CHULA VISTA 13Y: EDocuSigned by: (Mvitt, Affmoj&46" FFAFD11C38A844F... BY: CORINNE WITTMAN-WONG MARY CASILLAS SALAS CEO MAYOR ATTEST BY: Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Glen R. Googins City Attorney i o City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 734 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK AND PAYMENT TERMS 1. Contacts for Contract Administration and Legal Notice A. City Contract Administration: Emily Folker 276 Fourth Avenue, Building C, Chula Vista, CA 919 10 619�-409-5497 efolker@chulavistaca.gov For Legal Notice Copy to: City of Chula Vista City Attorney 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 619-691-5037 CityAttomey@chulavistaca.gov B. Contractor Contract Administration: WITTMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC 11093 Sun Center Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95 670 916-669-4628 rharms@webillems.com For Legal Notice Copy to: Corinne Wittman-Wong 11093 Sun Center Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 916-669-4608 cwittmanwong@webil,lems.com 2. Required Services A. General Description: The City of Chula Vista, through its Chula Vista Fire Department, is in need of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)billing and collection services for its program providing Advanced Life Support ambulance services, to Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire District, in accordance with the terms, conditions and specifications contained in Request for Proposals (RFP) No.PO4-�20/2 1. Billing and collection services are needed as of April 1, 2021. This contract will commence on April 1, 2021 for a period of 15 months, and at City's option, may be extended year-to-�year(July through June) for up to three (3) option years, for a total of 51 months or to June 30, 2025. I I City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 735 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF B. Detailed Description: 1. The CONTRACTOR shall provide detailed information on incomplete patient data. The City will provide electronic patient care records (e!PCR) by providing access to our ePCR software. The City currently utilizes WATER's StreetEMS to capture patient data electronically, with a CAD download from TriTech. The City also uses a Fire Department data collection program WaterRMS into which EMS data is entered that references patient records. In the event a record is incomplete upon receipt, contractor shall obtain information. 2. In the event of any interruption in electronic provision, the CONTRACTOR must accept patient data via hard copy. CONTRACTOR must utilize a secure data transfer system such as SFTP for billing transfer or an alternative detailed description of the recommended process. The CONTRACTOR will also receive supplement patient information (such as FACE sheets, if available)�, via fax, email, or mail. 3. The software/hardware billing system will ensure complete and uninterrupted backup systems and a data recovery plan/system should a disaster occur. The CONTRACTOR is to provide their data recovery p�lan/system and provide information on data backups. 4. The CONTRACTOR will provide all software and hardware associated with the b�illing and collections process. The software will interface with WATER StreetEMS. Please provide description of the electronic file needed to transmit data from the City to CONTRACTOR and how that electronic file is to be created. 5. The CONTRACTOR will work to interface with San D�iego Health Connect (HIE) aka"hub" on getting demographic/billing/ and outcome data as it is available. 6. The CONTRACTOR will describe their audit process. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for reconciling ePCRs compared with CAD and WATER F'ireRMS data to ensure the following: a) there are no missing ePCRs, including ePCRs for each patient in a multiple patient incident, b) ePCRs meet minimum content criteria necessary to generate the appropriate fee schedule, c) fee schedules are accurate, d)billing codes are appropriate, e) reports are reviewed to capture itemized charges. 7. CONTRACTOR will, screen each document for completeness of data and level of service; ALS 1-2, BLS, AMA/Releases/DOA, medications and skills administered. Apply the appropriate ICD 10 diagnosis codes and procedure codes for billing purposes and demonstrate their ability to interpret ambulance transport data and provide accurate billing thereof This will be inclusive of obtaining receiving hospital face sheets and patient/parent/guardian signature for authorization to bill. 8. The CONTRACTOR shall interface directly with ePCR vendor WATER. CONTRACTOR shall work with the City's Fire Department EMS staff to identify data input gaps, errors, or other data needs, and describe a means of obtaining solutions to these problems. 9. The CONTRACTOR shall bill electronically on the firm's secure server for the various claim types- Medicare, Medi-Cal, commercial insurances and private p�ayers following all guidelines of CMS. CONTRACTOR should al.so process denials for all insurances including Medicare and Medi- Cal according to defined timelines. 12 City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 736 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF 10. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for obtaining demographic and insurance information from receiving hospitals. 11. The CONTRACTOR shall be!responsible for obtaining "Assignment Authorization", also known as "lifetime signature", which allows CMS to pay the provider directly. 12. The CONTRACTOR shall provide postage for the mailing of all correspondence of the billing operation. The City will provide the CONTRACTOR the customer service instruments (Exhibit#2), and the HIPAA Notice of Patient Privacy brochure (Exhibit#3). Exhibits #s 2&3 are attached and may be modified at any time during the contract. 13. The CONTRACTOR will provide a liaison to the City. This individual shall be a full- time employee of the CONTRACTOR, have an extensive knowledge of EMS billing practices, as well as a grasp of EMS industry standard practices, and decision-making authority for problem resolution. This liaison shall be available during regular business hours, have an alternate contact available in his/her absence. The liaison shall provide overall management and coordination of the contract on the CONTRACTOR'S behalf and have access to technical assistance at all times. 14. The CONTRACTOR shall provide a minimum of six (6) hours of operational training and six (6) hours, of management/finance training prior to the start of contractual services by the transfer of responsibilities to CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR is to keep the City abreast on changes in the billing process and new requirements for data gathering as they occur. The CONTRACTOR shall also provide updates to the City on changes in federal and state laws related to services being provided. The CONTRACTOR also agrees to provide ongoing training throughout the contract as deemed necessary due to industry regulation changes, trends noted, product software changes; or to review services and how the CONTRACTOR and City can work together to further reduce debt owed, maintain medical protocols and ensure all services are accurately billed. 15. The CONTRACTOR will monitor all billing and regulatory changes impacting reimbursement and adjust its system to ensure regulatory compliance; and update the City of such changes with an explanation of how it will affect the City and its customers. 16. The CONTRACTOR will provide the City with policies regarding the following: code of conduct, staff and CONTRACTOR acknowledgment form, conflict of interest policy,background check policy, reporting compliance concerns policy. 17. Additionally, the CONTRACTOR will provide the City with the following procedures: General billing, coding and charge entry, credit balances/overpayments, hardship waivers, collections and write offs,patient signatures, denials, patient communications, patient confidentiality, records management and retention and quality assurance or continuous quality improvement. Quality assurance would ideally include a random 10% chart review by the supervisor for billing discrepancies. 18. CONTRACTOR shall provide acknowledgement of account placement within 10 days of submission via the same method that the account was submitted. 19. The CONTRACTOR to provide the City access to the CONTRACTOR'S database via web link or other method(s) in order to determine the progress of the collection efforts. This method must be 131 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 737 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF maintained throughout the life of the contract and the City will retain data ownerships at the end of the contract"s term. 20. For all accounts that are assigned to the CONTRACTOR, all customer contact, including notices, mailing, iternizations small claims bankru tcy filings, and miscellaneous requests and inquiries, is the I I p . sole responsibility of the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR will be fully responsible for maintaining accurate records of all correspondence, documents, accounting records, transactions and other relative evidence. CONTRACTOR will also be solely responsible for any and all costs incurred in and associated with the collection of debts referred to it by the City. 21. The CONTRACTOR will apply and participate in Section 10111 of the Medicare Modernization Act, which involves reimbursement for care of undocumented aliens. CONTRACTOR agrees to submit any claims to Trailblazer, within 180 days of end of federal fiscal quarter in which the service was provided and provide a report with a list of all 10 11 claims and reimbursements submitted to Trailblazer to the City of Chula Vista. 22. Please provide two plans for remitting payment to the City and CONTRACTOR being paid for services. The first should be based upon the cumulative daily deposits to the City's bank account with a detailed electronic notification sent. The second scenario would be a monthly remittance/reconciliation of the prior month's activities. Please provide benefit/cost/accounting analysis of both options as well as time frames for activities. For example, deposit and notification within three (3) days of receipt, monthly reports by tenth (loth) day of following month, etc. 23. CONTRACTOR shall provide customer service representatives that are available at a minimum from 8:00 AM—4:30 PM, Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, excluding major holidays. A toll-free number shall be provided, as well as fax and email. The CONTRACTOR will provide sufficient Customer Service Representative(s), to assist patients and/or third-party payees, in all billing inquiries in a timely manner, not to exceed two (2) business days. The CONTRACTOR will agree to employ courteous business procedures throughout the term of the contract with our customers and with City personnel. Spanish-speaking representatives shall be available, as shall a language translation service for other language needs of patients or their representatives. 24. CONTRACTOR shall provide to the City a monthly report on the status of each account including; account number, patient number, call number, customer name, date of service, the amount received, the charges waived, the balance due and date of last payment, and the actions taken on the account. If an account is deemed uncollectible, information regarding this determination must be provided to the city. 25. CONTRACTOR shall provide to the City monthly financial detailed and summary reports includin" totals for receipts, accounts receivable, and total accounts receivable collection percentage, write-offs (mandatory and other), and refund reports (including refunds pending). Additional reports that the City may need, or request will. automatically be formatted to their specifications and sent. Repeat caller reports will be provided quarterly. 26. The CONTRACTOR will also provide monthly revenue reports that separate monthly income based on Chula Vista Fire call origination/location. These revenue reports should be with and without write 14 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 738 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF offs and include a description of credits, percentage of total quantity and total amounts. Reports should have the capability to be run by any requested date parameters. 27. CONTRACTOR will provide monthly insurance p�ayer mix report. This should include the description of insurance, percentage of total for Medicare, Medi-Cal, Private Insurance, and Self pays with total amounts. 28. The CONTRACTOR will provide monthly billing reports with the total base charges ALS 1-2, BLS, AMA/Releases/DOX First Responder Fee, for resident/non-resident, District/City and the add on of a first responder fee billed for the month. Along with the quantity of medications, skills and bundling type per billing category. In addition to the charged amounts the amount collected per base charged in the specific category should be provided in the monthly report. 29. The City's accounting methodology is a modified accrual system. CONTRACTOR shall provide to the City an annual financial summary report as of June 30 (City's fiscal year end) including totals for receipts, net accounts receivable, total accounts receivable, write-offs and collection percentage. This report should be submitted to the City no later than July 30th of each year, for the previous fiscal year. 30. CONTRACTOR is to provide reports not specifically identified in this RFP that would be useful to the City EMS/Service and or accounts receivable process. For example, revenue trend analysis, future outlook, etc. 3 1. CONTRACTOR shall guarantee the confidentiality, security and safety of all files, documents, and information provided by the City, except as to disclosure required by federal and state laws and regulations. The CONTRACTOR will comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations regarding protected health information, includim4 the Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)�. 32. CONTRACTOR will exercise its best ethical, prudent, lawful and professional efforts to secure collections on all accounts referred by the City. Collections activities shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, including but not limited to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 33. CONTRACTOR will process all customer payments in accordance with applicable Payment Card Industry (PCI) security requirements. 34. In accordance with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction (FACT) Act of 2003 (Red Flag Rules)�, the vendor must have an identity theft prevention program in place. The City may request a copy of your company's policy. CONTRACTOR will be responsible for all '. Breach"notifications concerning the loss of unprotected PHI in their possession in accordance with the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act(HITECH). 35. The CONTRACTOR will comply with all Centers for Medicare & Medicaid(CMS) regulations and ap�p�licable State Medi-Cal regulations regarding claim submittal and processin in its entirety. CONTRACTOR will.remain current in CMS regulatio�ns and inform the City if its current practices need tobe modified to adhere to all regulatory compliance matters. Any reductions in Medicare or Medi-Cal reimbursement that are the result of failures on the part of CONTRACTOR to submit claims 1,51 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 739 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF in accordance with established timelines (where the delay is solely the fault of the CONTRACTOR) will not be transferred to the City. CONTRACTOR will be responsible, in these situations, to reimburse the City as if the reimbursement was not reduced for the late submission. The City may request an authorization to bill. 36. CONTRACTOR shall be HIPAA compliant, enter into a HIPAA business associate agreement with the City (if selected), and maintain HIPAA compliance throughout the term of the contract. Please provide a HIPAA certification or a statement on compliance as well as a draft business associate agreement. Any violations of HIPAA by the Agency will be grounds for contract termination. 37. The CONTRACTOR shall meet with City staff upon execution of contract to discuss all the goals of the relationship, the services to be provided and other topics relevant to performing emergency medical services billing on behalf of the City. 38. At any time, all records of the CONTRACTOR pertaining to the City shall be subject to inspection, review, or audit by City, state or federal officials, during the contract period and for seven(7)years after the termination of the contract. CONTRACTOR shall retain records according to an agreed upon retention plan. Thereafter the CONTRACTOR will release them to the City of Chula Vista for permanent storage, or at the City request, be properly destroyed. The shredding must be done on CONTRACTOR'S site 39. CONTRACTOR shall not assign or subcontract any portion of this agreement or transfer or assign any claim, pursuant to this contract, without the written consent of the City. (This includes the outsourcing or offshoring of data) 40. CONTRACTOR shall make contacts with delinquent accounts under the name of the CONTRACTOR and not the City of Chula Vista. 4 1. Any settlement of principal, or charges shall,be agreed upon in writing between the CONTRACTOR and the City, prior to acceptance. 42. The City reserves the right to terminate the contract at any time by providing thirty-day written notice for convenience or cause. In the event of contract termination or the bankruptcy/dissolution of the CONTRACTOR, all accounts, payments and documentation made on behalf of the City accounts shall be returned to the City, regardless of status or payment arrangements made with consumers. 43. CONTRACTOR will not enter into any Third-Party Agreements (TPA)with clearinghouses, insurance companies or any other arrangement that results in a reduction of reimbursement without the written approval of the City. Absent of such written approval, CONTRACTOR will consider any reduced reimbursement from such arrangements to be solely at their expense and will reimburse City as if the reimbursement was provided in full.. 44. CONTRACTOR will assist the City in applying for MediCal healthcare provider status once transport operations have commenced. 45. CONTRACTOR will be required to file Medi-Cal Ground Emergency Medical Transport (GEMT) claims reports with the identified administrative agency, as well as provide any required documentation. 16 City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 740 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF 46. The CONTRACTOR will assist in providing the necessary data needed to apply for additional governmental. cost recovery programs such as, GEMT, GEMT Quality Assurance Fee (QAF), and Public Provider Intergovernmental Transfer (PPIGT). The CONTRACTOR shall provide examples of how they provide these services to other governmental agencies, and describe their experience in processing claims for federal supplemental reimbursement programs. The CONTRACTOR shall provide the necessary reporting on the reimbursement of these! funds and transfer these funds to the City during the month they were received. 47. To the extent possible, the CONTRACTOR will provide electronic claims processing and paper filings to all insurance companies. The first invoice will be! dated no later than two (2) business days after the ePCR is available to the CONTRACTOR on the secured website. The second notice will be sent to the patient or responsible party thirty (30) days after the! original invoice. The third notice (final notice) w ill be sent to the patient or responsible party thirty (30) days after the second notice has been mailed. Exceptions can be made for extenuating circumstances (ie pending litigation). 48. All payments received by the CONTRACTOR on behalf of City of Chula Vista will be deposited to the City of Chula Vista-designated bank account within three (3) business days. On a daily basis, records of deposits will be correlated with database reports. 49. The CONTRACTOR agrees to negotiate and arrange a modified payment schedule for those individuals who are unable to pay the full amount when invoiced. The CONTRACTOR is authorized to establish a monthly payment of no less than $25.00 per month and is to ensure those individuals continue to pay at least that amount for the duration of the invoice. 50. The CONTRACTOR will collect from the patient any remaining amount after patient's insurance or other third-party payments are made, when permitted by law and provider agreement. 5 1. The CONTRACTOR also agrees to provide: 52. All invoices and related insurance forms with remittance advice. 53. Return envelope with the address to be designated and approved by the City of Chula Vista. Window envelopes are acceptable for satisfying this,requirement. Invoice envelopes, will indicate "Address Service Correction."' 54. Postage for the mailing of all, said invoices and forms for the billing operation. 55. Patient statement with a message stating, "all checks must be made payable to the City of Chula Vista." Sample of invoice to be provided to the City of Chula Vista and approved prior to implementation. 56. Reasonable effort to locate and correct any incorrect billing address for billable patients. 57. A working arrangement with all City of Chula Vista-serviced hospitals. 58. The CONTRACTOR will work with the City of Chula Vista staff to maximize collections as allowed and serve as a consultant in the area of fee schedules (e.g. bundling vs. unbundling) or other matters as applicable. The universal. base rate for all transports will remain at the level, approved by the city council, but the CONTRACTOR will evaluate all other service fees such as mileage, oxygen, procedures, medications, etc. initially and periodically thereafter to optimize the net revenue collected by the city for services. The CONTRACTOR will utilize their existing data for regional provider agencies and payors to provide city with service fee recommendations. 1,71 Cliltyl olfICIhIM Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 741. of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF 3. Term: In accordance with Section 1.10 of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin April 1, 2021 and end on June 30, 2022 (15 months) for completion of all Required Services. 4. Compensation: A. Form of Compensation 0 Single Fixed Fee. For performance of all of the Required Services by Contractor as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee of 3.25% of net receipts billed and collected with an anticipated amount not to exceed $500,,000 annually, upon completion of all Required Services to City's satisfactio�n. B. Reimbursement of Costs Z None, the compensation includes all costs Notwithstanding the foregoing,the maximum amount to be paid to the Contractor for services,performed through June 301 2025 shall not exceed $2,500,000. 5. Special Provisions: Z Public Agency Participation:Other public agencies (e.g. city, county,public corporation,political subdivision, school district, or water authority)may want to participate in this award of this contract based on RFP PO4-20/2 1. The City of Chula Vista shall incur no financial responsibility in connection with any contract by another public agency. The public agency shall accept sole responsibility for contracting and making payments to the successful respondent. Z Permitted Su'b-Contractors: InfoSend (Anaheim, CA), Apexon (Southfield, MI)�, and Ability Network (Minneapolis, MN) F� Security for Performance.- None Z Notwithstanding the completion date set forth in Section 3 above, City has option to extend this Agreement for three (3) additional terrns, defined as a one-year increment (July to June) ending on June 30, 2025, for a total contract term of 51 months. The City Manager or Director of Finance/Treasurer shall be authorized to exercise the extensions on behalf of the City. If the City exercises an option to extend, each extension shall be on the same terms and conditions contained herein, provided that the amounts specified in Section 4 above maybe increased by up to zero (0)percent for each extension. The City shall give written notice to Contractor of the City's election to exercise the extension via the Notice of Exercise of Option to Extend document. Such notice shall be provided at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the term. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillI iiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillI 18 City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 742 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contractor shall adhere to all terms and conditions of Section 3 of the Agreement and agrees to provide the 0 following types and minimum amounts of insurance, as indicated by checking the applicable boxes (x). Type of Insurance Minimum Amount Form General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for Insurance Services Office Form Including products and bodily injury, personal injury CG 00 01 completed operations, (including death), and property personal and damage. If Commercial General advertising injury Liability insurance with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit must apply separately to this Agreement or the general aggregate limit must be twice the required occurrence limit Additional Insured Endorsement *Must be primary and must not or Blanket Al Endorsement for exclude ProductslCompleted City* Operations X-1 I Waiver of Recovery hnaorsement Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily Insurance Services Office Form injury, including death, and CA 00 01 property damage Code I-Any Auto Code 8-Hired Code 9-Non Owned z Workers' $1 000,000 each accident Compensation $1 000,000 disease policy limit Employer's Liability $1 000,000 disease each employee T-1 I Waiver of Recovea"tworsement Other Negotiated Insurance Terms: Professional Liability $2,000,000 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillilillilI iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillI ig City of Chula Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 743 of 767 DocuSip Envelope ID:659AlCD6�-0560-4457-A8BO-BOC3,9lB44OBF EXHIBIT C CONTRACTOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION The Political Reform Act' and the Chula Vista Conflict of Interest Code 2 ("Code") require designated state and local government officials, including some Contractors, to make certain public disclosures using a Statement of Economic Interests form (Form 700). Once filed, a Form 700 is a public document, accessible to any member of the public. In addition, Contractors designated to file the Form 700 are also required to comply with certain ethics training requirements,3 FX-1 A. Contractor IS a corporation or limited liability company and is therefore EXCLUDED 4 from disclosure. El B. Contractor is NOT a corporation or limited liability company and disclosure designation is as follows: APPLICABLE DESIGNATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL(S) ASSIGNED TO PROVIDE SERVICES (Category descriptions available at www.chulav,istaca,..,go.yldepartmentslc,i.ty-clerklconllic interest-co,de.) N "s Name Email Address 4MIicante Desination Enter Name of Each Individual Enter email address(es) El A. Full Disclosure Who Will Be Providing Service 1:1 B. Limited Disclosure (select one or more qf Under the Contract—If the categories under which the Contractor shall individuals have different fi I e). disclosure requirements, 1:1 1. 1:12. El 3. El 4. El 5. El 6. El 7. duplicate this row and Justification: complete separatelyfor each individual M C. Excluded from Disclosure I.Required Filers Each individual who will be performing services for the City pursuant to the Agreement and who meets the definitio�n of"Contractor,"'pursuant to FPPC Regulation 18700.3,must file a Form 700. 2.Required Filing Deadlines Each initial Fon-n 700 required under this Agreement shall be filed with the Office of the City Clerk via the City's online A filing system, Neffile, within 30 days of the approval of the Agreement. Additional Form 700 filings will be requireu annually on April I during the term of the Agreement, and within 30 days of the termination of the Agreement. 3.Filing Designation The City Department Director will designate each individual who will be providing services to the City pursuant to the Agreement as ffill disclosure, limited disclosure, or excludedftom disclosure, based on an analysis of the services the Contractor will provide. Notwithstanding this designation or anything in the Agreement, the Contractor is ultimately responsible for complying with FPPC regulations, and filing requirements. If you have any questions regarding filing requirements, please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk at (619)691-5041, or the FPPC at 1-866-ASK-,FPPC, or (866)275-3772 *2. Pursuant to the duly adopted City of Chula Vista Conflict of Interest Code,this document shall serve as the written determination of the Contractor's requirement to comply with the disclosure requirements set forth in the Code. Completed by: Emily Folker I Cal. Gov. Code §§8 1000 et seq.- FPPC Regs. 18700.3 and 18704. 2 Chula Vista Municipal Code §§2.02.010-2.02.040. 3 Cal. Gov. Code §§53234,et seq. 4 CA FPPC Adv.A-15-14,7(Chadwick)(2015);Davis v. Fresno Un4ied School District(20 15)23 7 Cal.App.4 th 261;FP,PC Reg. 18700.3 (Consultant defined as an"individual"who participates in making a governmental decision;"individual"does not include co oration or limited liabilitx com an Vista Agreement No.:2020-147 zo City of Ch Contractor Name:Wittman Enterprises,LLC Rev. 09/15/201 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 744 of 767 C1TY' C,0UNC'1L A,GEN' DA S,TIA, "nEMENT CITY, OF ..................................... CHUIAVISTA January 5,2 02 1 File,ID: 20-015,24 'TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO PROCESS PURCHASE ORDERS WITH LIFE-ASSIST AND BOUND TREE MEDICAL FOR MEDICAL TRANSPORT SUPPLIES RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY On January 28, 2020 Fire Department staff along with AP Triton consultants presented to Council an overview of the plan for fire department-based ambulance transport. At that time, City Council approved Chula Vista Council resolution 20-014 directing the City Manager to engage in all necessary administrative actions to implement fire department-based emergency medical transport services, to begin negotiations for contractual service with the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District,and to bring back for City Council consideration and approval any required Council level imp�lementation actions. The City has the authority to provide emergency medical transport services itself'under applicable state and local law including California Health&Safety Code Sections 1797.2011 and 1797.224,the Cit �"l y Charter Section 200,and Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 5.10.310. On May 12, 2020 City Council approved Chula Vista Council resolution 20-102 approving a program for the Chula Vista Fire Department to provide exclusive emergency ambulance transport services within the city of Chula Vista,the City of Imperial Beach and the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District commencing on or about April 21, 2021. To advance this program,this item seeks Council approval for procurement of needed medical supplies from two suppliers, Life-Assist and Bound T'ree Medical. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project if as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal consists of a governmental p�lan of action related to the City I Is preparedness in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and which will not result in direct or indirect significant physical impacts on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section IS06,0 (c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. 1111. 0 0 1 PIi3ge 1 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 745 of 767 BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMIT rEE RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable. DISCUSSION On October 29,2020,the City of Chula Vista released a Request for Bid (RFB) for Transport Medical Supplies and conducted a competitive process to identify the most qualified and cost-effective medical supply provider., Staff'solicited proposals from qualified companies, notifying one, hundred and sixty-two (162) companies through PlanetBids. Seventeen(17)companies downloaded solicitations,and two (2)companies submitted bids. Both b�ids were considered responsive. Bound Tree was low bidder on 147 of the 19�3 products,identified,and Life-Assist was low bidder on 46 of the 193 products. Staff decided to award to both supp�liers.An award to both ensures the City is getting the best price for each product.Both suppliers are amenable to splitting provision of the products.Additionally,Bound Tree Medical and Life-,Assist are well-,known and well-respected for the products they provide to other agencies., Both companies have supplied products to the City for more than 10 years and have been reliable providers at competitive pricing. With Council approval, staff will process this procurement via purchase orders, with standard terms and conditions. The initial term is January through June 2021with (five) 5 one-year options to renew tracking the July to June fiscal year,ending in 2026,for up to 5-year, 6-month agreements with each provider. DIECISIOM-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There are no General fund costs associated with this contract for medical supplies. The agreement will be funded by the ALS Fund (234360) and Transport Enterprise Fund (410728). The cost for the projected supply purchases is $500,000 annually,not to exceed$2,500,000 over the agreement period. ONGOING FISCAL IMPAC"I-FINANCIAL SUMMARY As stated previously,there is no general fund impact from these supply purchasing activities.As part of operational costs for the transport enterprise fund (410728) all purchases will be made from this budget beginning in FY22-These purchases are paid for from the cost recovery process for emergency ambulance transport.The annual cost will not exceed$500,000,and the roughly five-year term will not exceed $2)500)00�0. P �3ge 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 746 of 767 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO PROCESS PURCHASE ORDERS WITH LIFE- ASSIST AND BOUND TREE MEDICAL FOR MEDICAL TRANSPORT SUPPLIES WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Fire Department is in the process of implementing its own emergency medical transport program, as authorized by the Chula Vista Council in January and May 2020 in Resolutions 20-0 1�4 and 20-102, respectively; and WHEREAS,, in October 2020, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code 2.56.080, contracts for supplies, equipment and services exceeding $100,000, staff issued a Request for Bid for Transport Medical Supplies and solicited proposals from qualified companies; and WHEREAS,, of the 162 companies that downloaded the solicitation from PlanetBids, two companies, Life-Assist and Bound Tree Medical, both with long, satisfactory histories of providing medical supplies at competitive prices to the City, submitted bids; and WHEREASI both bids were responsive, with Bound Tree providing the lowest bid on 147 of the 193 products and Life-Ass,ist providing the lowest bid on 46 of the 193 p�roducts; and WHEREAS, staff selected both companies, which ensures the City is getting the best price for each item; and WHEREAS, staff will process this procurement with purchase orders, with the City's standard terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the initial term will be January through June 2021, with five (5) one-year options to renew, tracking the July to June fiscal year and ending in 2026, for up to five-year, six-months (5-year, 6-months) agreements with each provider. WHEREAS, the agreements will be funded by the ALS Fund (234360) and Transport Enterprise Fund (410728), with cost-recovery from emergency medical transport and no general fund impact; and WHEREAS, and the cost for the projected supply purchases from these two vendors is $500,000 annually, not to exceed $2,500,000 over the maximum term for the agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it directs the City Manager or designee to process purchase orders with Life-Assist and Bound Tree Medical for medical transport supplies. C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Tei-np\BCL Technologies\easyPD F 8\@,BCL@�,940EB0C8\@�),BCL@ ,9�40EBOC8,.doc 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 747 of 767 Presented by Approved as to form by Harry Muns Glen R. Googins Fire Chief City Attorney C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Tei-np\BCL Technologies\easyPD F 8\@,BCL@,940EBOC8\@�),BCL@ ,9�40EBOC8,.doc 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 748 of 767 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mary Casifflas Salas MEMO December 14, 2020 TO-� Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk CC: Sheree Kansas, Deputy City Clerk 11 VIA.- Adrianna Hernandez, Sr. Council Aide FROM: Mayor Mary Casillas Sa 4a RE: Boards and Commissions Appointments The Mayor would like to recommend Barbara 0rozcoValdivia for appointment to the Healthy Chula Vista Advisory Commission, Dr. Harriet Baber for appointment to the Human Relations Commission and Francisco Fimbres, for appointment to the International Friendship Commission. Ms. Orozco-Valdivia will replace Roman Partid'a-Lopez, Dr. Baber will replace Ahma,d Zadah and Mr. Fimbres will replace Alexandra Mares. Please place this item on the January 5, 2021 Council agenda for ratification and schedule the oaths of office for the following council meeting. Thank you. 276 Fourth Avenue 9 Chula Vistao California 91910,*(619),691-15044 9 Fax(619)476-5379 msalas@chulavistaca.gov 4,PoNI-Contsunier Recycled Puptr Angela Larson From: Webmaster Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 6:07 AM To: CityClerk; Adrianna Hernandez; Courtney Chase; Erin Dempster; Summer Haskins Subject: City of Chula Vista: Human Relations Commission Application - Web form A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Human Relations Commission Application Date&Time: 01/08/2020 6:06 AM Response#: 51 Submitter ID: 71306 IP address: Time to complete: 47 min.,44 sec. Survey Details .................. Page I Application for membership on the Human Relations Commission. 1. Prefix (o) D r. 2. First and Last Name Harriet Baber 3. E-mail 4. Home Address S. city Chula Vista 6. ZIP code 9191M 7. Primary Phone 8. Secondary Phone ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 750 of 767 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9. Are you registered to vote in Chula Vista? (o)Yes 10. Do you live within the City limits of Chula Vista? (o)Yes 11. How Long? 28 years 12. Present employer University of San Diego 13. Occupation professor 14. Are you currently serving on a Chula Vista Board/Commission? (o) No 15. Which one(s)? Not answered 16. Have you previously served on a Chula Vista Board/Commission? (o) No 17. Which ones? Not answered 18. Per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.25.030,,, 1 understand: -if I am currently serving on a board or commission,I must resign from my current board or commission if I am appointed. -1 must have served at least 12 months on my current board or commission in order to be appointed to another board or commission. (o) I have read and acknowledged the above statement. 19. Are you or have you been involved in any local,civic or community groups? (o)Yes 20. Which ones? Democratic Club 21. In what ways are you associated with the business and or civic activities of the City?How has your participation reflected the interests and concerns with the protection of the civil liberties of all people which make up the City's residents? I haven't been involved locally but in my work, both in teaching and research, I've been concerned with issues of diversity and social justice.With a colleague in economics, I've team-taught courses on women in the labor force and on the ethics and economics of development and,with a colleague in political science,a course on international development. I've published a number of articles on discrimination and its remedies,a book,jhe Multicultural Mystique_,and an edited ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 75 1. of 767 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... book,—Globalization and International Development:The Ethical Issues—. I've thought globally and now would like to act locally! 22. Please describe how you represent the diversity of Chula Vista? I don't. I'm a plain-vanilla Anglo. I may, however, be in a minority even amongst Anglos in Chula Vista in that, I am embarrassed to say,, I can't understand a word of Spanish. I very much wanted to learn--and still do—but I escaped high school Spanish with a V and am not optimistic. I just can't do languages:-( 23. Please describe your interest in fostering better human relations in the City of Chula Vista. I've seen patterns of housing segregation in Chula Vista which I think need to be investigated and dealt with. I have a historical home and was involved in the Historical Homeowners Association,which I quit when I saw members were actively involved in blocking the construction of affordable housing and projects that would have promoted economic development and job opportunities for Chula Vista residents. Now,apart from this I am not sure what additional discriminatory practices persist--in housing,,employment,,the award of contracts, political representation,,and the like. However,,these practices persist globally and,, if Chula Vista is like other cities in the US,likely figure locally as well and need to be investigated and addressed. 24. What would you hope to accomplish in the role of a Human Relations Commissioner?(250 words or less) I'd like to bring my professional expertise to bear in investigating and addressing local issues. I'm attaching my vita,,which probably isn't the kind of resume you're looking for but which is,, right now,,all I have. I can try to compose something more along the lines that would be appropriate on request. 25. Please upload a resume in addition to your application (not required,but strongly encouraged). Vita 2013-2018.d ocx 26. (o) I am familiar with the responsibilities of the Human Relations Commission. I attest that the information I have provided is accurate and true. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Thank you,, City of Chula Vista This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System"'.Please do not reply directly to this email. 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 752 of 767 Abbreviated CV: H. E. Baber Department of Philosophy * University of San Diego Area of Speciallizatiom Metaphysics Areas of Competence-, Philosophy of Religion, Feminism, Applied Ethics Employment Professor of Philosophy, University of San, Diego Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Western Washington University Instructor, Northern Illinois University Education The Johns Hopkins University, PhD in Philosophy, June 1981 �Lake Forest College, BA in Philosophy,June 1971 Professional Publications(2013—2018) "The Real Presence,' Relljious 5tudies49.1 (2013):191-33. 'Eucharist: Metaphysical Miracle or Institutional Fact,' IntemationalJournal of Philosophy of Religion, 74.3 (2013): 333-3S2. Globalism and In tema tional De velopmen t- The Ethical Issues, (w i t h D e n i s e D i m o n) B ro a d v i ew P re s s, August, 2013. 'Arius vs. Athanasius' The Basilica, 3.3 (July 2013). 'Transworld Egoism, Empathy and the Golden Rule' Advance5 in Psychology Research 96 (2013) 'Cohabitation and the Future: Guaranteed Survival?' Sociology and Anthropology 2 (2014): 3S—40. 'Occasional Identity or Occasional Reference' in Prolegomena 14.2 (December 201 S): 157-166. "The Trinity' in Faith and Philo5cphy32.2 (201 S): 161-171. "Trinity, Generality and Dominance' in Religious Studie5, (December 2016) S2.4. 'Religion in the Public Square' in San Diego Law Review, S3.1 (March 201 S). 'The Road to Nicaea: Arius and his Nicene Opponents' in The Basilica 16 (February 2017). 'Parties, Performances, and Perfect Fake,s' in The Sewanee Theological Review S8A (March 2017). 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 753 of 767 'Transworld Egoism�, Empathy, and the Golden Rule' De Ethica, 3.3 (2,016). 'Is Utilitarianism Bad for Women' in The Feminist Philosophical Quarterly, (Dece�mber 2017) 'Why Feminist Epistemology Sells' in Kelly James Clark, Ed. Readings J�7 the Philosophy of Religion, Third Edition. Broadview Press, 2017. The Trinity-A Philosophical Investigation(book project) accepted for publication by S,CM Press. 'Ending Gender, The PhilosophersMagazine 82:15-17. 'A Stag e-Theoretica I Account of Diachronic ldentity. (2018) Metaphysica 19 (2):259-272. Papers Presented (2013—2018) 'Parties, Performances and Perfect Fakes' Society of Christian Philosophers conference, January 13, 2012. 'The Byzantine World of Byzantium . Classical Studies Lecture Series at USD, March 20, 2014�. 'Trinity, Generality, and Dominance' SoCal Philosophy Conference, October 18, 2014. 'Population and Demogoguery, panelist at University of San Diego Humanities Center Program. 'The Trin:ity: Relative Identity and Sorta!l Dominance' Society of Christian Philosophers Conference, April 4, 2014 'Textbook Free!'THATCamp: Diving into Digita�l Humanities, October 24, 2014 'The Trinity: Relative Identity Reclux' Society of Christian Philosophers Conference, November 8, 2014. My presentation is podcast at the Trinities website and is available here: http:.Ari n ities.org.blog.podcast-episod e-68-d r�-harriet-baber-on-relative-identity-and-t�he-trin ity. 'Worms, Stages, Names' at the American Philosophical Association, Savannah, January 3,2018. 'Social and Anti-Social Trinitarianism' at the Joseph Butler Society meeting, Oxford University, January 22, 2018. 'The Modal Collapse Argument', commented, at the Society of Christian Philo�so,phers conference, Calvin College, September 14, 2018. 'Worms, Stages, Names' at the American Philosophical Association, Savannah, January 3,2018. 'A Stag e-Theoretica I Account of Diachronic Identity' at the National Conference of the Italian Society for the Philosophy of Language conference 'Identity and Its Forms Milan University, January 26, 2018. 'Is the Stage Theory an Error Theory?' at TWiP (Technical Work in Philosophy) meeting, Oxford University, May 9, 2018, 'Left-Libertarianism: Response to Peter Vallentyne' at USD Law and Philosophy conference, 'The, Rights and Wrongs of Discrimination, April 28-29, 2006 Comments on 'The Elimination Argument' at the session on Personal Identity and Composition at the, APA, February 17, 2012. 'Problems for Petitionary Prayer, Commentator, APA Eastern Division Meeting,January 4, 2017 'Explaining the Paradox of Hedonism, Commentator, APA Pacific Division Meeting, April 14, 2017 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 754 of 767 'Can Government Stop ExploitationT, Commentator, Conference on Exploitation: Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, Friday, April 22, 2016. Membership in Professional Societies and Other Organizations: American Philosophical Association, Society of Christian Philosophers, San Diego Bicycle Coalition. 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 755 of 767 Julia Sanchez From: Webmaster Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 7:41 PM To: CityClerk; Adrianna Hernandez; Erwin Magbanua; Alicia Balcazar Subject: City of Chula Vista: International Friendship Commission Application - Web form Warning: External Email A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: International Friendship Commission Application Date&Time: 11/09/2020 7:41 PM Response#: 42 Submitter ID: 87728 IP address: Time to complete: 51 min.,23 sec. Survey Details .................. Page I Application for membership on the International Friendship Commission 1. Prefix (o) Mr. 2. First and Last Name Francisco Fimbres 3. E-mail 4. Home Address S. city Chula Vista 6. ZIP code 91914 7. Primary Phone ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 756 of 767 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8. Secondary Phone Not answered 9. Are you registered to vote in Chula Vista? (o)Yes 10. Do you live within the City limits of Chula Vista? (o)Yes 11. How Long? 3 years+ 12. Present employer Comercio Internacional Californias Corp. 13. Occupation Merchant 14. Are you currently serving on a Chula Vista Board/Commission? (o) No 15. Which one(s)? Not answered 16. Have you previously served on a Chula Vista Board/Commission? (o) No 17. Which ones? Not answered 18. Per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2-25-030,, 1 understand: -if I am currently serving on a board or commission,I must resign from my current board or commission if I am appointed. -1 must have served at least 12 months on my current board or commission in order to be appointed to another board or commission. (o) I have read and acknowledged the above statement. 19. Are you or have you been involved in any local,civic or community groups? (o)Yes 20. Which ones? Green Hills,Salt Creek School Parent 21. What are your principal areas of interest in our City government,,and what experience or special knowledge can you bring to those areas? Dear Mayor Salas, Congratulations on your victory.We are lucky and blessed to have you as our leader. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 757 of 767 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... It would be a great honor to serve our beloved Chula Vista as Commissioner for International Friendship. I am a native San Diegan and true blue Democrat. My previous government service and experience in Washington, DC working for two Mayors would serve the Commission well. During my tenure in the DC Government, I served as senior advisor on community relations, agency services and neighborhood engagement matters. In addition to serving as a DC Latino Community Development Commissioner for Mayor Vincent C.Gray.As for private sector experience, my work on diversity, business women and affinity group related matters adds great value to my overall and well rounded professional profile. Public service is my passion and welcome a return to government.Over the past 4 years, I worked with Sodexo North America as their community relations officer in the US House of Representatives.And more recently, I have been working on binational affairs and trade matters, public and government relations issues for a a regional supermarket chain based in Tijuana, Mexico called Calimax. My network on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico Border is solid. I know the region, players,challenges and opportunities well. Please consider my interest and outreach. May you succeed in all endeavors and count on my support. Sincerely, Francisco Javier Fimbres 22. What would you hope to accomplish in the role of a International Friendship Commissioner?(250 words or less) I want to support past and present efforts, but with a clear and strategic focus on increasing relationships with other international cities; especially in our Cali-Baia Region. The City of Chula Vista should continue to have an active,, strategic and proactive presence with its sisters cities,while also fomenting cooperation and cultural exchanges with other prospective candidates. 23. You may upload a resume in addition to your application(optional). FRANCISCO F1 M BRIES CV20-2.pdf 24. The City understands meeting schedules and individual's availability may change.We ask that you consider the meeting schedule when submitting an application. (o) I have reviewed the International Friendship Commission regular meeting date,,time and frequency. 25. (o) I am familiar with the responsibilities of the International Friendship Commission. I attest that the information I have provided is accurate and true. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Thank you,, City of Chula Vista This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System"'.Please do not reply directly to this email. 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 758 of 767 FRANCISCO FIMBRES WORK EXPERIENCE GRUPO CALIMAX, Public Affairs Officer &Advisor to CEO - San Diego, CA, 4/2018-Present o Lead executive for all public,nonprofit, binational, government and community relations matters in Cali-Baja Region. o Develop and manage strategic partnerships with other corporations. o Serve as spokesperson. * Responsible for developing and managing corporate social responsibility initiatives. 9 Point of contact for all media and press related matters. * Responsible for supporting marketing and communications strategies. Accomplishments: Organized and managed three successful international visits by San Diego dignitaries to Mexico. Awarded by the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Best Binational Business of the Year 2018. Successfully coordinated media and press events which resulted in positive binational coverage for Calimax. Incorporated American based LLC for Calimax Supermarkets. JOINT STRATEGIES GROUP, Partner- Washington, DC-San Diego, CA, 9/2016-4/2018 * Managed international agenda, media engagement and visits for Mexican Senator responsible for migration and security committee in Mexican Congress. 9 Coordinated international public relations campaign for Mexican Presidential candidate. 9 Advised public officials and business leaders from Mexico on U.S. foreign policy. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 759 of 767 SODEXO, U.S. House of Representatives, Community Relations Officer- Washington, DC, 8/2015-9/2016 • Responsible for all community relations, outreach and engagement efforts. • Served as designated customer service officer for the US House of Representatives on behalf of Sodexo Northamerica. • Supported marketing and corporate communications initiatives. • Helped manage union disputes and relationships with Spanish language employees. Accomplishments: Successfully managed Sodexo relationship with Members of Congress and their staff. Organized and managed two community town halls. Strategically promoted corporate social responsibility efforts that resulted in good will by House Administration Officials. Managed relationship with Congressional media and press. DC GOVERNMENT, Community Relations Director (Cabinet) - Washington, DC, 01/2011-01/2015 * Appointed by the Mayor to serve as the city's community relations and neighborhood engagement director. * Managed and directly supervised team of 16 FTEs and community liaisons, 2 administrative assistants and relationship with over 100 government agency officials. * Advised Mayor and other cabinet officials on district and ward issues, policy and strategic community engagement efforts. Accomplishments: Successfully testified and presented to the City Council Government Operations Committee 4 years in a row, which resulted in approved operations budgets for my office. Successfully coordinated over a 4 year period more than 500 community visits by city agencies, cabinet officials and Mayor. Managed to improve quality of life for constituents by effectively working with appropriate government agencies including during snow storms, security threats and large scale events. Managed Mayor's relationship with City Council Members and their staff regarding neighborhood matters. Appointed by the Mayor to serve as Latino Community Development Commissioner. Spokesperson for the Mayor's Office on Latino Community/Spanish Language related matters. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,0 of 767 DC GOVERNMENT, Executive Office of the Mayor, Community Relations Representative & Services Specialist - Washington, DC, 02/2009-01/2011 • Served as Assistant to Mayor. • Responsible for all Ward 2 city government services, agency responses, community outreach and engagement efforts. • Developed and managed community events, town halls and presentations for Mayor. • Represented Mayor at all public events and served as spokesperson. Accomplishments: My efforts over the two year period in this function resulted in improved quality of life for Ward 2 residents. Successfully initiated and coordinated multi agency abatement of long standing and very challenging neighborhood issues including racial tensions, broken infrastructure, health concerns, slumlord issues, police, transportation and regulatory matters. HISPANIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, Director Client Relations, Customer Service and Account Management - Washington, DC, 03/2007-09/2008 • Served as spokesperson. Managed media and press relations. • Represented company in absence of CEO. Managed government affairs. • Managed client relations and customer service efforts. • Developed new business and client accounts. • Developed and managed integrated communication strategies. Advised clients on Hispanic Outreach and Engagement issues. EDUCATION AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, School of International Service, BA in International Studies- Washington, DC, 08/1996-06/2000 OTHER • Bilingual • Expert in U.S. Hispanic Community • Former Washington, D.C. Latino Community Development Commissioner • Diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria 2006-2007 appointed to serve as Consular Assistant 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,1. of 767 Julia Sanchez From: Leah Larrarte on behalf of CityClerk Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 2:13 PM To: Julia Sanchez Subject: FW: City of Chula Vista: Health Advisory Commission Application Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please process. From:webmaster@chulavistaca.gov<webmaster@chulavistaca.gov> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 7:45 PMI To: CityClerk<CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>; Stacey Kurz<SKurz@chulavistaca.gov>;Adrianna Hernandez <adhernandez@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: City of Chula Vista: Health Advisory Commission Application Warning: External Email i A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Healthy Chula Vista Advisory Commission Application Date&Time: 11/29/2020 7:44 PM Response#: 35 Submitter ID: 88403 IP address: Time to complete: 58 min.,0 sec. Survey Details .................. Page I Application for membership on the Healthy Chula Vista Advisory Commission 1. Prefix (o) M rs. 2. First and Last Name Barbara Orozco-Valdivia 3. Email 4. Residence Address ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,2 of 767 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... S. city Bonita 6. ZIP Code 91902 7. Primary Phone 8. Secondary Phone Not answered 9. Are you registered to vote in Chula Vista? (o)Yes 10. Do you live within the City limits of Chula Vista? (o)Yes 11. How Long? 50 years 12. Employer Blue Shield of California Health Plan 13. Occupation Community Relations Manager 14. Please indicate area(s)in which you have expertise and experience,or select None:(select as many as applicable) [x] Nutrition [x] Health Care [x] Physical Activity IS. If you selected one or more of the areas of expertise and experience above,please describe your expertise and experience that you would bring to the selected area(s).(250 words or less) With my 25 years' experience applying strategic planning and problem-solving abilities toward enhancing health education and health plan operations,this experience would be of benefit to the commission. At San Ysidro Health as their Health Education Coordinator, I led group and individual counseling sessions on weight control and chronic disease management for five years. I created"Divino y Tesoro",where community peer educators educated their community on healthy eating, making healthy recipes and creating neighborhood walking clubs. As a Jackie Robinson Family YMCA Board for 19 years,we encouraged our community members,especially school-aged children and teenagers,to join a sport. Funds we raised provided sponsorships for our low-income families to join the YMCA. I have 25 years in health plan operations and community relations at Community Health Group, Health Net and Blue Shield of California where I enhance and create programs for our members and community to help them access their plan to be healthier. My extensive experience working with local community-based organizations, health centers,government agencies, health care advocates and parents to ensure they had access to public health programs and how to navigate it is important to the work I do. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,3 of 767 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Some achievements include being the founder of the San Diego Certified Application Assistant Coalition, panel member of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board as a DHCS Medi-Cal Advisory for Families and Healthy Families Advisory, Rady's Children's Hospital Auxiliary member and a MANA de San Diego Board of Director, Health Committee member and Latina Success Conference contributor. 16. (o) I understand if I am appointed to a seat that represents my district, I must maintain my residency and elector status throughout my terms to remain eligible. 17. Have you previously served,or do you currently serve,on a Chula Vista Board,Committee or Commission (o) No 18. If yes,which one(s)and for what period of time? Not answered 19. Per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2-25-030,, 1 understand: -if I am currently serving on a board or commission,I must resign from my current board or commission if I am appointed. -1 must have served at least 12 months on my current board or commission in order to be appointed to another board or commission. (o) I have read and acknowledged the above statement. 20. Are you,,or have you been,involved in any local,civic,service or community groups? (o)Yes 21. If yes,please list them Radys Children's Hospital Auxiliary;South Bay Forum;Jackie Robinson Family YMCA; MANA de San Diego 22. What do you hope to accomplish in the role of a Healthy Chula Vista Advisory Commissioner?(250 words or less) The greatest risk the City is facing is the increased numbers of COVI D-19 cases.As they continue to rise, I would like to learn how the commission has pivoted on their Initiative charter and how best I can contribute to the dialogue and community plan development. For over 25 years I participated in health policy reviews, incorporating these policies into programming and prioritizing resources to support the business unit.This experience will be of value to find ways to collaborate with countywide public and private agencies to bring the necessary resources to Chula Vista. Healthy living is a concern but homelessness and the unsheltered may be a larger concern as the pandernic continues.There needs to be a contingency plan for when the rent moratoriums end. My participation in several homeless taskforces throughout the County provides a perspective that may be useful. The Healthy Cities and Healthy Counties Project through UCSD and the City of Chula Vista is a great opportunity to encourage healthy food access especially now that many families are food insecure or unemployed. Many more will be food insecure so how are we communicating this to our residents on where the food distributions are so they can get this basic need met. Being able to prioritize the current need by health equity data,to invite community partners to be part of the solution,and being able to think in the big picture to capture small successes is what I want to accomplish. 23. You may upload a resume in addition to your application(optional). Barbara Orozco-Valdivia Resume 11242020 CV Health.docx ........................................................................................................................ ...... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,4 of 767 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24. The City understands meeting schedules and individual's availability may change.We ask that you consider the meeting schedule when submitting an application. (o) I have reviewed the Healthy Chula Vista Advisory Commission regular meeting date,,time and frequency. 25. (o) I am familiar with the responsibilities of the Healthy Chula Vista Advisory Commission. I attest that the information I have provided is accurate and true. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Thank you,, City of Chula Vista This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System"'.Please do not reply directly to this email. 13 4 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,5 of 767 Barbara Orozco-Valdivia, MPH COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIRECTOR Dynamic, Community Relations leader with 20 years'experience applying exceptional strategic planning and problem-solving abilities toward enhancing business plans and day-to-day activities. Self-motivated leader with a demonstrated ability to manage and coach teams, efficiently multitask, and build and sustain relationships with internal and external stakeholders. Seeking to utilize my community relations skills to increase the Collaborative's brand positioning, provide optimal programs and increase grant and sponsorship revenue. My extensive experience working with local community-based organizations, government agencies, advocates and parents will be essential to help provide resources to serve the district and community. CORE COMPETENCIES 0 Exceptional relationship skills with key County, City and community agency stakeholders. 0 Strong marketing and community outreach capabilities that excel marketing plans and goals. 0 Hands on approach to developing effective community presentations. 0 Highly effective interpersonal skills that excels in collaborating in a team environment. 0 Respected leader that provides influence and high collaboration among community agencies. 0 Strong organizational and strategic planning skills to ensure goals are met and exceeded. SELECTED ACHIEVEMENTS: 0 Founder, chair of the San Diego Certified Application Assistant (CAA) Coalition (1998-2015). 0 Chair/member of the California Partnership of Health Care Advocates Conference (2004-2012). 0 MRMIB appointed panel member of the DHCS Medi-Cal Advisory for Families (2008-2014). 0 MANA de San Diego, Board of Directors, Vice President of Operations (2018 to present) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Community Relations &Outreach Manager, Blue Shield of California San Diego, CA 2019 to present • Cultivate a community partnership plan working with internal and external partners to build brand. • Analyze and monitor regional budget to incorporate strategy plan activities to their effectiveness. • Develop a comprehensive, strategic marketing plan to achieve enrollment goals for county Key liaison to community partners, providers and member community for organization. • Coordinate and present product presentations to community and providers. Regional Community Relations Manager, Health Net, Inc. San Diego, CA 2017 to 2019 • Analyzed, monitored the regional budget to incorporate strategy plan activities to their effectiveness. • Coordinated and presented product-based presentations to providers and community. • Developed operations plan working with internal and external partners to achieve company's goals Responsible for updating and sharing state and federal regulatory requirements. • Key liaison to provider and member community to resolve issues and inquiries in a timely manner. 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,6 of 767 Provider Relations and Contract Specialist, Sharp Health Plan San Diego, CA 2015 to 2016 • Coordinated operations for provider relations and contract development department. • Led and facilitated quarterly Joint Operation Committee meetings with six medical groups. • Key liaison with providers and medical groups to ensure contract compliance/provider satisfaction. • Revised, adopted operations manual, policies, procedures and provider website portal. PACE Marketing Manager, San Ysidro Health Center San Diego, CA 2014 to 2015 • Developed the Marketing and Member policies, procedures and standards for new program. • Participated in the strategic planning and development for the PACE program. • Managed and coached the PACE Outreach and Enrollment Team. • Administered and coordinated marketing, outreach with external and internal partners. • Researched and led the design and development of marketing materials. Community Relations and Sales Manager, Health Net, Inc. San Diego, CA 2006 to 2014 • Coached and mentored community relations team to grow health insurance enrollment. • Responsible for community relation partnerships to grow brand awareness and enrollment. • Developed and implemented contracts for community health partners to enhance member education. • Developed and implemented a member focused quality measure project with 60 provider sites. • Trained provider staff on best practices to enhance performance and improve customer service. • Coordinated special events and community presentations to launch specific initiatives. Regional Health Promotion Specialist, UCSF/California Diabetes Program San Diego, CA 2004 to 2006 0 Facilitated and trained provider groups and health plans on the Diabetes Provider Resource Tool Kit. • Trained local peer educators on Diabetes prevention with American Diabetes Association. • Conducted and led annual health fair (2004 to 2006)seeing over 3,500 attendees. • Spearheaded the anti-smoking grant project working with the Smoker's Helpline, the San Diego Council of Community Clinic, community health center nurses and the Diabetes Educators Chapter. Business Development Product Manager, Community Health Group Chula Vista, CA 1998 to 2002 9 Assisted, reviewed and approved marketing materials to ensure adherence to Marketing Plan. 9 Responsible for growing the membership to 20,000 within 4 years. 9 Managed and coached the marketing team and event coordinator. 0 Master State Trainer for the Healthy Families Program with training and certifying over 400 local community educators from community-based organizations. EDUCATION: Masters of Public Health, Health Promotion, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA Bachelor of Arts, Public Administration, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA BOARDSIVOLUNTEER AREAS: MANA de San Diego Board member, Vice President of Operations, 2018 to 2020 Jackie Robinson Family YMCA Board of Advisors, Capital Campaign Specialist, 2001 to 2019 Rady's Children's Hospital Auxiliary member, 2015 to 2019 2021-0,1-0,5 Agenda Packet Page 76,7 of 767