HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024.04.10 Post Agenda
Date:Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Time:6:00 p.m.
Location:Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Watch live in English and Spanish: chulavistaca.gov/boardmeetings
Free Spanish interpretation is available on-site.
______________________________________________________________________________
In-Person Public Comments: Join us for the Planning Commission meeting at the time and location
specified on this agenda to make your comments.
Electronic Public Comments: At www.chulavistaca.gov/boardmeetings, locate this meeting and
click on the comment bubble icon. Select the item and click on "Leave comment." Electronic Public
Comments: At www.chulavistaca.gov/boardmeetings, locate this meeting and click the comment
bubble icon. Select the item and click on "Leave comment." The deadline to submit e-comments or
any comments emailed to PC@chulavistaca.gov will be noon on the day of the meeting.
Watch Live or Recorded Meetings: Visit www.chulavistaca.gov/boardmeetings. Effective 12/2023,
you may click "ES" at the bottom of the video screen to switch to Spanish. Closed captioning is
available in both languages.
ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance
to participate in this meeting, please contact the Development Services Department at
PC@chulavistaca.gov. Providing at least 48 hours' notice will help ensure that reasonable
arrangements can be made.
SPEAKER TIME LIMITS: The time allotted for speakers may be adjusted by the Chair.
- Three minutes* for specific items listed on the agenda
- Three minutes* for items NOT on the agenda (called to speak during Public Comments)
- A group of individuals may select a spokesperson to speak on their behalf on an agenda item,
waiving their option to speak individually on the same item. Generally, three minutes are allotted
per person, up to a limit of 15 minutes, although the limits may be adjusted. Members of the group
must be present.
*Individuals who use a translator will be allotted twice the amount of time.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
Commissioners Burroughs, Combs, Felber, Leal, Torres, Zaker, and Chair De
La Rosa.
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
4.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons may address the Commission on any subject matter within the
Commission’s jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law
generally prohibits the Commission from discussing or taking action on any
issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Commission may
schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. If you wish to
speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit it to the
Secretary prior to the meeting or submit an electronic comment per the
instructions on page one of this agenda.
5.PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by
law. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to
Speak" form and submit it to the Secretary prior to the meeting or submit an
electronic comment per the instructions on page one of this agenda.
5.1 Amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Sectional Planning
Area Plan, Including Associated Documents and Tentative Map (TM22-
0005) Located South of Main St., East of Otay Ranch V8W, West of SR
125, & North of the Otay River Valley APN: 644-070-21
5
Environmental Notice: The Project is adequately covered in the
previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Otay Ranch University Villages
(FEIR 13-01; SCH #2013071077; adopted by City Council Resolution No.
2014-232 on December 2, 2014, with a First Addendum adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 2016-254 on December 6, 2016, a Second
Addendum adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2021-120 on June
15, 2021, all hyperlinked below), that only minor technical changes or
additions to FEIR 13-01 are necessary, and that none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the
preparation of a subsequent document exist; therefore, the Director of
Development Services has called for the preparation of a Third
Addendum to FEIR 13-01 for consideration.
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda Page 2 of 1777
Recommended Action:
That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt the
proposed resolution recommending that the City Council:
A. Adopt a resolution approving:
Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 (IS22-0003) and amendments to
the Chula Vista General Plan (GPA22-0002), the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP22-0002), and the Otay Ranch
Village Eight East Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA22-0006)
(including the related new Planned Community District
Regulations) to reflect the proposed changes to zoning within
Otay Ranch Village Eight East (ZC22-0003) and to other
regulatory documents in accordance with the required findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein; and
-
A Tentative Subdivision Map incorporating the proposed
changes to the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Sectional
Planning Area (TM22-0005) in accordance with the required
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and
-
A Community Purpose Facilities Agreement; and-
B. Place an ordinance on first reading to approve modifications to the
Otay Ranch Village Eight East Planned Community District Regulations
in accordance with the required findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein; and
C. Place an ordinance on first reading to approve a change in zoning
from single family residential to multi-family residential.
6.ACTION ITEMS
The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by
the Commission and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you
wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit
it to the Secretary prior to the meeting or submit an electronic comment per the
instructions on page one of this agenda.
6.1 Written Communication 1777
Communication from Commissioner Burroughs requesting an excused
absence from the March 27, 2024 Planning Commission meeting.
Recommended Action:
Commission approve absence.
7.DIRECTOR'S REPORT
8.CHAIR'S COMMENTS
9.COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda Page 3 of 1777
10.ADJOURNMENT
to the regular meeting on April 24, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.
Materials provided to the Planning Commission related to any open-session
item on this agenda are available for public review by contacting the
Development Services Department at pc@chulavistaca.gov.
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda Page 4 of 1777
SPA22-0006
Page 5 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Addendum to EIR
University Villages – Otay Ranch Village
Eight East
University Villages EIR 13-01;
SCH No. 2013071077 –
Village Eight East Sectional
Planning Area
APRIL 2024
PROJECT APPLICANT: HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Alexandra Martini
Page 6 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 2
JANUARY 2024
1 Introduction
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley, east of Village 8
West and west of State Route (SR) 125. This urban village, which was a component of the Otay Ranch University
Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA) Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report
was originally approved in 2014 and the SPA was subsequently amended in 2020. Current entitlements
accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440
multi-family units in a mixed-use setting. Village 8 East also includes 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses,
an elementary school, a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South. Access
to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and Otay Valley Road with emergency and pedestrian
access to the community park provided along a utility corridor in the southeast portion of Village 8 East. Primary
access to the community park is via existing Avenida Caprise within Village 8 West.
The project applicant proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to reflect current market conditions and
housing needs and to ensure the community relates more closely to the adjacent Village 8 West community and
future Village 9 planned east of SR-125.
The Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (EIR 13-01; SCH No. 2013071077; approved December 2014 with
addendums adopted by the City of Chula Vista in September 2016 and in June 2021) contains a comprehensive
disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of Village Three
North and a Portion of Village Four, Village Eight East, and Village Ten in the City of Chula Vista (City) (City of Chula
Vista 2014 and 2016). Three SPA plans were approved as part of the approved project: (a) Otay Ranch Village Three
North and a Portion of Village Four SPA Plan, (b) Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan, and (c) Otay Ranch Village
Ten SPA Plan. Three Tentative Maps were also approved: (a) Village Three North and a Portion of Village Four, (b)
Village Eight East, and (c) Village Ten. The 2016 Addendum contained revisions to the Village Three North land use
plan and TM in order to create a viable mixed-use village core. The 2021 Addendum contained revisions to the
Village Three land use plan and TM in order to increase medium-high and high density residential by changing land
use designations for office and industrial uses. The 2014 FEIR and the 2016 and 2021 Addendums are collectively
referred herein as the “University Villages FEIR”. This Addendum to the University Villages FEIR (Addendum)
addresses proposed modifications to the applicable land use plan for Village Eight East, including the SPA Plan and
TMs. The Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment FEIR tiers
from the 1993 Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) EIR. The Otay Ranch GDP establishes the development
plan for the villages and town centers within the community of Otay Ranch.
2 Project Location and Regional Setting
Otay Ranch lies within the East Planning Area of the City (Figure 1). The East Planning Area is bordered by Interstate
805 (I-805) to the west, San Miguel Mountain and State Route 54 (SR-54) to the north, the Otay Reservoir and the
Jamul foothills to the east, and the Otay River Valley to the south. The Village Eight East site encompasses 575.3
acres in the southern edge of the Otay Valley Parcel in Otay Ranch. Village Eight East is located between Village
Eight West to the west, and Village Nine to the east (Figure 2)
The Village Eight East site includes gently sloping terrain and is situated above the bottom of the river valley. Village
Eight East is surrounded by Otay Ranch Village Seven and Olympian High School to the north; SR-125 and Villages
Page 7 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 3
JANUARY 2024
9, 10 and the University Innovation District to the east; and Village 8 west, which is currently under construction, to
the west.
3 Project Description
Approved Project (2014)
The approved land use plan for Village Eight East would allow for the construction of a total of 3,276 residential
units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440 multi-family units, 20,000 square feet of
mixed-use commercial; 10.3 acres for an elementary school; a 7.3 acre neighborhood park, 51.5-acre Otay Ranch
Community Park South, 4.2 acres of Community-Purpose Facilities (CPF); and 33.8 acres of open space (Figure 3).
Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and Otay Valley Road with emergency and
pedestrian access to the community park provided along a utility corridor in the southeast portion of Village 8 East.
Proposed Project
The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include a Village Core area that would accommodate a mix of
uses including multi-family residential and retail/commercial uses along with an elementary school site and a
centrally located neighborhood park. A future multi-modal bridge, planned to accommodate NEV, bicycles and
pedestrians is also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and future Village 9.
The proposed project would include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and 1,348 multi-family homes
distributed across eight Village Core parcels. Other residential land uses include 1,664 multi-family residential units
in 10 parcels designated Medium-High Residential. The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential
land use designation that could accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. The
project also includes an alternative elementary school site/neighborhood park site configuration which would
increase the size of the elementary school site and correspondingly reduce the neighborhood park site. This
alternative configuration would be implemented based on the needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
The project also includes 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 16.4 acres of manufactured slopes/basins and the
22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located east of SR-125. Approximately 15.3 acres comprising perimeter
slope areas are included in the gross acres of development parcels. The Village 8 East Final Map(s) will include
open space easements over perimeter slope areas based on final engineering designs. The 43.3-acre (gross) Otay
Ranch Community Park South is located south of Village 8 East. An existing water quality basin that serves Village
8 West is located in the western portion of the community park and the proposed project includes an additional
water quality basin in the eastern portion of the community park to serve Village 8 East.
The proposed project boundary includes areas that were not included in the FEIR for the University Villages Project.
In total, the changes to the TM for Village 8 East would result in 0.99 acres of offsite grading not previously analyzed
in the University Villages EIR.
Page 8 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 4
JANUARY 2024
Table 1. Village 8 East SPA Proposed Site Utilization Table
Parcel Permitted Density
Range
Estimated
Units1 Gross Acres2 Estimated Density3
Multi-Family Residential
(MH)
R-1 11-18 du/ac 154 9.9 15.6
R-2 11-18 du/ac 163 10.7 15.2
R-3 11-18 du/ac 162 11.4 14.2
R-4 11-18 du/ac 147 10.9 13.5
R-5 11-18 du/ac 155 11.0 14.1
R-6 11-18 du/ac 143 10.3 13.9
R-7 11-18 du/ac 226 15.8 14.3
R-8 11-18 du/ac 176 14.0 12.6
R-9 11-18 du/ac 196 15.4 12.7
R-10 11-18 du/ac 140 11.5 12.3
Total MH 1,664 120.9 13.8
Village Core4
VC-1 18-45 du/ac. 275 7.6 36.2
VC-2 18-45 du/ac. 430 11.3 38.1
VC-3A 18-45 du/ac. 161 5.5 29.3
VC-3B5 18-45 du/ac. 0 5.6 0
VC-4 18-45 du/ac. 192 4.5 42.7
VC-55 18-45 du/ac. 0 5.7 0.0.
VC-6 18-45 du/ac. 142 5.3 26.8
VC-7 18-45 du/ac. 148 6.0 24.7
Total VC 1,348 51.5 26.2
Subtotal Residential 3,012 172.4 17.5xxx
Other Community Purpose
Facility6
CPF-1 1.2
Subtotal CPF 1.2
Parks
P-17 7.3
P-211 43.3
AR-11 22.6
Total Parks 73.2
School
S-17, 8 18-27 du/ac 264 11.3 23.4
Page 9 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 5
JANUARY 2024
Table 1. Village 8 East SPA Proposed Site Utilization Table
Parcel Permitted Density
Range
Estimated
Units1 Gross Acres2 Estimated Density3
Open Space Multiple Species
Conservation Plan Preserve
OS (Lots 1-4) 253.6 Manufactured/Basin OS
(Lots 5-7)9
16.4
Total Open Space
270
Circulation
Internal 22.5
External 9.2
Total Circulation 31.7
Caltrans Lots (to be
dedicated)
CT-1 1.4
CT-2 0.1
CT-3 1.9
Total Caltrans Lots 3.7
Future Development
Lot A 1.0
Lot B 8.4
Total Future Development 9.4
Subtotal Other
400.5
OVERALL SPA10 3,276
572.9
Notes:
1 Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not represent the final unit allocation for each parcel
and shall not be used to limit or restrict the final units allocated to any parcel.; The final unit allocation must remain
consistent with the permitted density range applicable to the parcel. The final unit allocation shall be determined
during Design Review and shall be documented in the Unit Tracking Table (Village 8 East SPA Plan, Attachment 1).
Revisions to the Site Utilization Table shall not be required based on changes to the Estimated Units presented herein.
2 Final acreage information to be determined during final engineering. Acreage may vary due to rounding. Residential
and Village Core gross acreage includes approximately 15.3 of perimeter open space areas. Open space easements
shall be recorded over perimeter open space slopes that are to be maintained by the Master HOA or a Sub-Association,
as determined during final design.
3 Estimated Density calculated based on gross parcel acreage. Final density to be determined during Design Review.
Page 10 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 6
JANUARY 2024
Table 1. Village 8 East SPA Proposed Site Utilization Table
Parcel Permitted Density
Range
Estimated
Units1 Gross Acres2 Estimated Density3
4 20,000 square feet of commercial uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial SF may be developed
within a single parcel designated VC or distributed among any parcel designated VC (VC-1 through VC-7). The final
distribution of commercial SF to be determined during Design Review. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable
to VC parcels with no residential units.
5 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent with the Village Core
zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no residential units.
6 Per the Land Offer Agreement (7/8/2014), the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall designate 4.0 acres of CPF land. The
Applicant is proposing to meet a portion of the Village 8 East CPF obligation by designating the 1.2-acre CPF-1 site as
a private recreation facility. The remaining 2.8 acre CPF obligation shall be addressed in a separate agreement
between the Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
7 Both the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map include the "Proposed” and “Alternative” configuration and
acreage for the S-1 School Site and P-1 Neighborhood Park. Either the Proposed or Alternative may be implemented
without the need for an amendment to the SPA Plan or TM. If the proposed configuration is implemented, the S-1 site
would be 10.0 acre (net) and the P-1 park site would be 6.5 acre (net); however, if the alternative configuration is
implemented, the S-1 site would be 12.0 acres (net) and the P-1 park site would be 4.6 acres (net). The final
neighborhood park acreage shall be addressed in a separate agreement between the Applicant and the City of Chula
Vista.
8 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If the site is not developed
as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if the site is developed as an elementary school,
then the 264 units may be reallocated to another Village 8 East parcel or transferred to another village, as permitted
in the Village 8 East PC District Regulations, Chapter 10, Implementation and Administration.
9 A portion of the Edge Trail and associated overlook features (approximately 1.76 acres) are included within the 8.2-
acre OS-7 parcel. The Edge Trail area shall be secured with a public access easement and the 1.76 acres shall satisfy
a portion of the Village 8 East park obligation. The 1.76-acre Edge Trail area is not counted toward meeting the Village
8 East open space requirement.
10 Village 8 East acreage adjusted from approved 2014 development area to reflect changes in SR-125 ROW and to
facilitate the future SR-125 ROW Decertification process.
11 The P-2 Community Park / OS-6 Alternative would be implemented only upon City approval of the Alternative
Compliance Program (“ACP”) Permit and Rough Grading Storm Water Quality Management Plan (“SWQMP”) (See TM
Sheet 6 for additional details). This would increase the P-2 Community Park parcel to 47.4 acres (gross) and 39.0
acres (net) and correspondingly decrease the OS-6 parcel to 4.8 acres (gross) and 0.7 acres (gross).
Circulation: Main Street between the Village 8 West couplet and the future SR-125 Interchange would be
implemented as a 6-lane prime arterial roadway and includes a grade-separated Class IV Cycle Track on both sides
and the Chula Vista Regional Trail on the south side. Transit access would be provided in shared flow travel lanes.
Otay Valley Road (recently renamed La Media Parkway) from its eastern terminus in Village 8 West, would continue
through Village 8 East as a four-lane major road with bike facilities, a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) route on
east of La Palmita Drive and the Chula Vista Regional Trail on the south side (full segment) and also on the north
side (west of La Palmita Drive). Transit access would be provided in shared flow travel lanes.
SR-125: Concurrent with the replanning effort in Village 8 East, CALTRANS has initiated a Project Study Report-
Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) to evaluate alternatives that provide new local street connections,
increase capacity, improve mobility, and relieve congestion on SR-125 between the Otay River and Birch Road. The
Page 11 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 7
JANUARY 2024
PSR-PDS includes four preliminary designs for the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and Otay Valley Road. The
Village 8 East land use plan reflects Alternative B. The TM will be revised to reflect the ultimate SR-125 right-of-way
(ROW) and design.
Alternative B: Couplet/Parallel Street System Interchange Alternative B consists of a couplet/parallel street system
interchange with ramps at Main Street and La Media Parkway acting as a single freeway access point via connected
one-way frontage roads (Type L-5 per Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Section 502.2(C)). For this
alternative, vehicles traveling northbound on SR-125 would exit at Otay Valley Road and enter SR-125 at Main
Street. Similarly, southbound vehicles would exit SR-125 at Main Street and enter SR-125 at Otay Valley Road. The
on/off ramps at La Media Parkway and Main Street will be connected by two-lane, one-way frontage roads. This
alternative will include three new overcrossings of SR-125 at Main Street (approximately 106’-4” wide), La Media
Parkway (approximately 94’-4” wide), and a new pedestrian bridge (22’ wide).
The proposed modifications to the approved project are as follows (see Figure 4):
Chula Vista General Plan/Otay Ranch General D evelopment P lan Amendments
As described above, the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan
Amendment FEIR tiers from the 1993 Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) EIR. The Proposed Project
includes amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP to update the land use maps and tables
to address the proposed Village 8 East land uses.
Village Eight SPA Plan Amendment and Rezone
The proposed project includes amendments to the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Appendices to reflect changes to
the land use configuration, density and unit allocation within Village 8 East. The proposed project is consistent with
the total number of units authorized in the approved SPA Plan and Tentative Map. The proposed project also
addresses proposed changes associated with the SR-125 Interchange design at Main Street and La Media Road.
As part of the proposed project, the SPA Plan text, tables, and exhibits would be updated to reflect the proposed
land use changes. In addition, Village 8 East SPA Appendices including the Village Design Plan, Public Facilities
Financing Plan (PFFP), Water Conservation Plan, and Energy Conservation Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan,
Preserve Edge Plan, Fire Protection Plan would be updated consistent with the SPA Amendment. Refer to Figure 5
and Figure 6 and Table 1 for the proposed Village 8 East.
In addition to the SPA amendment, the proposed project would rezone the Village 8 East site to implement the
proposed land uses. Refer to Figure 5, Existing Zoning District Map, and Figure 6, Proposed Zoning District Map.
Tentative Maps
The 2014 Tentative Map included 575.3 acres and the Proposed Village 8 East Tentative Map includes 550.3
acres. The 2014 Tentative Map included the 22.6-acre AR-11 site, which is currently owned by the City of Chula
Vista. AR-11 remains within the Village 8 East SPA boundary but is outside the Proposed Tentative Map boundary
due to the ownership change. In addition to the exclusion of the AR-11 site from the Proposed Tentative Map
boundary, the proposed tentative map has 2.4 fewer acres than the approved 2014 Tentative Map, representing a
25.0 acre reduction between the 2014 Tentative Map and the Proposed Tentative Map. The Proposed Tentative
Map reflects the proposed Village 8 East land use changes and is consistent with the 3,276 residential units
currently authorized within Village 8 East. The Proposed Tentative Map would include an alternative P-2 Community
Park / OS-6 Alternative configuration that would reduce the size of the open space (OS-6) parcel and increase the
Page 12 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 8
JANUARY 2024
P-2 Community Park parcel. Implementation of this alternative would decrease the land uses designated Open
Space (“OS”) by 4.1 acres and increase the land uses designated Park (“P”) by 4.1 acres, increasing the overall
size of the P-2 Community Park from 43.3 gross acres to 47.4 gross acres and the OS-6 parcel would be reduced
from 4.8 acres to 0.7 acres. This Alternative would only be implemented if the City of Chula Vista issues an
Alternative Compliance Permit for Village 8 East consistent with the City’s MS4 Permit which results in stormwater
pollutant control and hydromodification management through creation and approval of stormwater credits within
the existing Otay River Mitigation Program.
The proposed residential land use modifications would result in a decrease in trip generation and traffic impacts
and would not substantially change trip distribution patterns (refer to Section 6 for additional discussion). No
additional significant impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the University Villages FEIR or substantial
increases in any identified significant impacts are anticipated. The City has prepared this addendum pursuant to
Section 15162 of Title 14 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to disclose minor changes
in the approved project and some of the environmental effects as a result of proposed modifications, and to
document that no new or substantially increased impacts will occur with implementation of the proposed
modifications.
4 CEQA Requirements
Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines discuss a lead agency’s responsibilities once an FEIR has
been certified.
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following:
a. When an EIR has been certified … for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless
the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or
more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR … due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the
following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the [Final] EIR;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the [Final]
EIR;
Page 13 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 9
JANUARY 2024
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible
and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
[Final] EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, but “only minor additions
or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation,” a
lead agency may instead issue a supplement to the FEIR (14 CCR 15163(a)).
In the alternative, where the changes or new information will result in no new impacts, or no more severe impacts
than any that were disclosed in the FEIR, a lead agency “shall prepare an addendum” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164. That section states that an addendum should include a “brief explanation of the decision not to
prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to § 15162” supported by substantial evidence (14 CCR 15164(e)). The
addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the FEIR (14 CCR 15164(c),
15164(e)).
As the lead agency for the approved project, the City must determine whether the proposed project creates
previously undisclosed significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
disclosed impacts (14 CCR 15162, 15163, 15164(a), 15088.5(a), and 15088.5(b)). As the following discussion
demonstrates, it is appropriate for the City to prepare this Addendum to the FEIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164.
5 Identification of Environmental Effects
The environmental analysis provided in Section 6 of this Addendum supports a determination that approval and
implementation of the proposed project would not result in any additional, or more substantial, significant
environmental effects beyond those previously analyzed under the FEIR for the approved project.
6 Analysis
The following environmental issue areas are discussed in the order in which they appear in the University Villages
FEIR.
Land Use and Planning
Village Eight East Land Use impacts were addressed in Section 5.1 in the University Villages FEIR. The University
Villages FEIR determined that Village Eight East would not physically divide an established community. or be
incompatible with any adjacent or surrounding land uses However, the University Villages FEIR did identify potential
land use incompatibility impacts if City of San Diego water lines are not relocated before development of Village
Eight East and short-term indirect impacts to surrounding land uses due to construction. The project would be
Page 14 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 10
JANUARY 2024
required to implement mitigation measures MM LU-1 and MM LU-2 to relocate the City of San Diego water lines if
they have not already been relocated. Potentially significant land use compatibility impacts related to erosion, dust,
and noise from the approved project construction would be reduced to less than significant levels through the
implementation of mitigation measures (MM) AQ-2 (dust control), MM-BIO-6 (watering of graded areas), MM NOI-7
(acoustical analysis for elementary schools), and MM NOI-8 (limited hours of construction). Therefore, impacts of
the approved project related to the physical division of an established community and land use compatibility were
determined to be less than significant with the implementation of MM-LU-1, MM-LU-2, MM-AQ2, MM-BIO-6, MM-
NOI-1, and MM-NOI-2.
The development standards and guidelines proposed in the SPA Plan would ensure that a consistent community
character is maintained within each village, as well as character consistent with surrounding development in Otay
Ranch. In addition, the University Villages FEIR determined that the approved project would be consistent with
applicable planning and regulatory documents and impacts would be less than significant
The proposed project, including the P-2 Community Park / OS-6 Alternative, would not increase the severity of any
land use impacts previously identified in the University Villages FEIR., The project applicant would still be required
to adhere to MM LU-1, MM LU-2, MM AQ-2, MM BIO-6 MM NOI-7, and MM NOI-8 prior to and during project
construction. The open space and MSCP Preserve areas would remain unchanged under the proposed
modifications. Similar to that of the approved project, impacts related to the physical division of an established
community and land use compatibility would remain less than significant with the implementation of MM-LU-1, MM-
LU-2, MM-AQ2, MM-BIO-6, MM-NOI-1, and MM-NOI-2. Additionally, similar to the approved project, the proposed
project would be consistent with applicable planning and regulatory documents and impacts would remain less
than significant. No new significant land use impacts would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages
FEIR and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation, no additional mitigation is required.
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
Impacts to aesthetics were addressed in Section 5.2 of the University Villages FEIR. As analyzed in the University
Villages FEIR, implementation of the approved project would not obstruct or screen views of local scenic resources
identified by the City, including the Otay Valley Regional Park. Development of the approved project and the
transformation of undeveloped and natural rolling hills to an urban residential environment would substantially
alter the existing visual landscape by increasing density, intensity of use, and human activity in the project
area. The approved project would retain open space and preserve areas and locate lower-density residential uses
and open space buffers adjacent to the preserve and the Otay River Valley to maintain the scenic value of these
areas. Approved project impacts to scenic vistas were determined to be less than significant. In addition, there are
no historic buildings or designated or eligible state scenic highways located within the viewshed of the approved
project. Furthermore, the approved project would not result in substantial adverse effects to views from a locally
designated scenic roadway. As such, implementation of the approved project would not substantially damage
scenic resources and impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Lighting, glare, shade, and shadow impacts from the development of Village Eight East were analyzed in the
University Villages FEIR. The University Villages FEIR found that while Village Eight East is undeveloped, development
within Village Seven, just north of Village Eight, contributes to ambient nighttime lighting levels. Impacts from glare
were avoided through compliance with the SPA design guidelines. It was determined that once developed, Village
Eight East would have similar lighting sources as planned and existing development in the area, however light
intensive uses such as parks, mixed-use residential, commercial, and CPF uses would have potentially significant
Page 15 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 11
JANUARY 2024
impact. Additionally, because specific development plans were not known, impacts related to shade and shadow
impacts would be potentially significant. The University Villages FEIR included MM AES-2 through MM AES-4 to
address lighting, shade, and shadow impacts. Mitigation measures MM AES-2 through MM AES-4 require the
preparation of a site-specific lighting plan and photometric analysis for parks (MM AES-2), the preparation of a site
specific lighting plan and photometric analysis for mixed-use residential, commercial, CPF, and multi-family residential
(MM AES-3), and the preparation of a shadow analysis for any structures of three stories and above (MM AES-4). With
the incorporation of MM-AES-2 through MM-AES 4, impacts related to light, shading, and shadows from the approved
project were determined to be less than significant.
Development of the approved project would create a substantial permanent change in the topography of the Otay
Ranch area. The University Villages FEIR found that placing three new residential communities on currently
undeveloped land would impact the aesthetic character of the area. Approximately 18.6 acres of natural steep slopes
would be impacted within Village 8 East and would be subject to Otay Ranch GDP/Resource Management Plan (RMP)
Otay Ranch-wide steep slope preservation requirement. Although all appropriate measures would be taken to reduce
potential impacts associated with alterations to existing landforms and visibility from future development and roadways,
impacts from the approved project were considered to be potentially significant. The University Villages FEIR included
MM AES-1 to address visual impacts. Mitigation measure MM AES-1 requires the preparation of a Landscape Master
Plan to demonstrate compliance with Otay Ranch GDP policies pertaining to blending development harmoniously with
natural features of the land, including the Otay Valley Regional Park and its major canyons. Implementation of MM
AES-1 would reduce impacts to visual character or quality to the extent feasible. However, because the approved project
would result in urban development on the primarily natural, open space site, development would permanently alter the
character of the project site. Additional mitigation that would maintain the existing character of the site and its
surroundings is not available; therefore, impacts related to the visual character or quality of the site were found to
remain significant and unavoidable. However, approved project impacts related to landform alteration were determined
to be less than significant with the incorporation of MM-AES-1.
The proposed modification would not result in changes to any public vantage points or distant scenic vistas. In the
context of Village Eight East, and the larger Otay Ranch region, the proposed change in land uses at these locations
would result in substantially similar changes to the visual environmental as the approved project. Similar to the
approved project, the proposed project would still result in a substantial change to the visual character and quality at
the project site despite the implementation of the MM-AES-1, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, all nighttime lighting and sound walls would be similar to that analyzed for the approved project and
impacts would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of MM-AES-2 through MM-AES-4. The
proposed project would still alter the existing landform of the project site, however, with the implementation of MM-
AES-1, impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the approved project. Overall, views of the project site
would remain substantially the same as those analyzed in the FEIR. The proposed project would be required to
implement MM-AES-1 through MM-AES-4. No new significant landform alteration/aesthetic impacts would occur
beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Approved Project
Impacts to traffic were addressed in Section 5.3 of the University Villages FEIR. In summary, the results of the
traffic analysis, as outlined in the University Villages FEIR, are:
Page 16 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 12
JANUARY 2024
• Year 2015 Conditions:
o No significant impacts to study area intersections, roadway segments, freeways/state highways,
or freeway ramps would occur.
• Year 2020 Conditions:
o Intersections:
After implementation of the identified mitigation measures (MM-TCA-4 through MM-TCA-
10), eight of the nine impacted intersections would operate at acceptable Level of
Service (LOS) D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Impacts at the
intersection of I-805 southbound (SB) Ramps / Olympic Parkway would remain
significant and unavoidable.
o Roadway Segments:
After implementation of the identified mitigation measures (MM-TCA-4 through MM-TCA-
10), all four directly impacted roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS C or
better in Year 2020 and impacts would be less than significant.
The identified cumulative impact to the roadway segment of Orange Avenue between
Melrose Avenue and the I-805 SB ramps would remain significant and unavoidable.
o Freeways/State Highways:
Identified cumulative impacts to I-805 from Market Street to Imperial Avenue and from
Imperial Avenue to E Division Street would remain significant and unavoidable.
o Ramp Metering:
The identified direct impact at the I-805 northbound (NB) on-ramp at Main Street would
be mitigated by the Heritage Road connection and impacts would be less than
significant.
• Year 2025 Conditions:
o Intersections:
After implementation of the identified mitigation measure (MM-TCA-12), the two directly
impacted intersections would operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM
and PM peak hours and impacts would be less than significant.
Page 17 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 13
JANUARY 2024
The identified cumulative impact to the intersection of I-805 SB ramps/Olympic Parkway
would remain significant and unavoidable.
o Roadway Segments:
After implementation of the identified mitigation measure (MM-TCA-12), the two directly
impacted roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Impacts
would be less than significant.
The identified cumulative impact to the roadway segment of Orange Avenue between
Melrose Avenue and the I-805 SB ramps would remain significant and unavoidable.
o Freeway/State highways:
The identified significant cumulative impacts to the five segments of I-805 from State
Route (SR-) 94 to Bonita Road would remain significant and unavoidable.
o Ramp Metering:
Impacts to ramp meters under the Year 2025 conditions would be less than significant.
• Year 2030 Conditions:
o Intersections:
After implementation of the identified mitigation measure (MM-TCA-13), the directly
impacted intersection of Discovery Falls Drive/Hunte Parkway would operate at
acceptable LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours.
The identified cumulative impact to the intersection of I-805 SB ramps/Olympic Parkway
would remain significant and unavoidable.
o Roadway Segments:
The identified cumulative impact to the roadway segment of Orange Avenue between
Melrose Avenue and the I-805 SB ramps would remain significant and unavoidable.
o Freeway/State Highways:
The identified significant cumulative impacts to seven segments of I-805 and four
segments of SR-905 would remain significant and unavoidable.
o Ramp Metering:
Page 18 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 14
JANUARY 2024
After implementation of identified mitigation measure (MM-TCA-14), the significant
impact at the I-805 NB on-ramp at Main Street would be less than significant.
Additionally, a significant impact related to deviations from identified construction phasing was identified. This
significant impact would be reduced to a level below significant with incorporation of MM-TCA-17. As identified
in the University Village FEIR, incorporation of mitigation measures MM TCA-1 through MM-TCA-17 would reduce
potentially significant impacts to a level below significance with exception to the specific locations identified to
remain significant and unavoidable (see above).
Proposed Modifications
A trip generation review was conducted to compare the trip generation of the proposed modification to the approved
project (Chen Ryan 2023). The proposed modifications would generate approximately 31,776 ADT, 2,307, (530-
in/1,777-out) trips during the AM peak hour, and 3,096 (2,078-in/1,018-out) trips during the PM peak hour. This
change represents 4,000 less ADT, 592 less (305-in/287-out) AM trips, and 406 less (272-in/134-out) PM trips,
when compared to the 2014 University Villages EIR.
Since the nature of the proposed project’s land uses would remain similar to the approved project’s land uses, the
external trip distribution patterns to the surrounding roadway network, including roadway segments, intersections,
and freeway segments, would remain the same as those studied in the FEIR. Fewer project trips to a roadway, an
intersection, a freeway, or a ramp meter indicate less or equal potential traffic impacts. As a result, the approved
project represents a worst-case scenario. In addition, identified mitigation measures (MM TCA-1 through MM TCA-
17 in the University Villages FEIR) remain applicable. Therefore, no additional traffic analysis would be required. No
new significant traffic, circulation, and access impacts would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages
FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Vehicle Miles Travelled
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) has been in general use for analyzing air quality/greenhouse gas emissions for more
than a decade, and as such recent revisions to CEQA requiring VMT analysis for documents circulated for public
review beginning July 1, 2020 do not represent new information that would require the preparation of a subsequent
or supplemental EIR per Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
Nevertheless, the City required a review of the proposed changes to the project relative to VMT. This involves the
preparation of a Project Information Form as described in the City’s Transportation Study Guidelines to document
whether or not the proposed changes would result in an incremental increase in traffic generation, compared to
the project as previously approved, that exceeds applicable City screening criteria for small projects. Based on the
information provided in the Project Information Form, the proposed land use modifications would result in a
reduction in traffic generation. The proposed project results in a 4,000 trip decrease in number of trips and
therefore generates less than 200 daily trips and meets the City-adopted small projects screening criterion. Given
that the project meets the criteria for a small project under the City’s thresholds, the proposed changes would have
a less than significant VMT impact. No new significant traffic, circulation, and access impacts would occur beyond
those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Page 19 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 15
JANUARY 2024
Air Quality
Impacts to air quality were addressed in Section 5.4 of the University Villages FEIR. The University Villages FEIR
concluded that the daily construction emissions for carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur oxides (SOx) would not exceed
the City’s significance thresholds. However, the volatile organic compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), coarse
particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions associated with project construction would
exceed the City of Chula Vista’s emission thresholds and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Criteria
pollutant emissions for VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 were anticipated to be above the thresholds. Therefore, this
impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative construction operations emissions of VOC,
NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 were also determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Operation of the approved project was determined to have significant and unavoidable impact due to the increase
in land use intensity and vehicle trips compared to what was anticipated in local air quality plans. Additionally,
criteria pollutant emissions from project operations for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are anticipated to be above
the thresholds and impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, the University Villages FEIR
concluded that as to the development of on-site land uses, impacts arising from the emission of toxic air
contaminants (TACs) would be potentially significant if the site is developed to accommodate any light industrial
uses, gas stations, or dry-cleaning facilities in proximity to sensitive receptors. The University Villages FEIR required
the implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-3, which would require NOx minimization
measures, best management practices (BMPs) to minimize PM10 and PM2.5, and compliance with San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) rules and California Air Resources Board (CARB) siting requirements.
An update to the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis was prepared to compare the proposed
modifications to the approved project (Dudek 2024a). The proposed project would result in 4.64% fewer daily trips
when compared to the approved project (Chen Ryan 2023). As a result, operational emissions of the proposed
project (specifically those resulting from mobile sources) associated with Village Eight East would be reduced
compared to the approved project. Construction emissions would remain unchanged, as no change in the
construction schedule or required construction equipment is anticipated. The proposed project boundary includes
areas that were not included in the FEIR for the University Villages Project. In total, the changes to the TM for Village
8 East would result in 0.99 acres of offsite grading not previously analyzed in the University Villages EIR. Due to the
overall reduction in acreage of the project boundary and impact area, impacts related to air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions would be similar or reduced compared to the 2014 FEIR (Dudek 2024a). Similar to the approved
project, the proposed project would be required to implement MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2 to reduce emissions from
construction from construction, however, impacts of the proposed project would remain significant and
unavoidable.
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Screening Letter was prepared to determine the cancer risk and non-cancer health
impacts to future sensitive residential receptors in Village Eight East from Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
originating from vehicles traveling along SR-125 (Ldn Consulting 2023). Air dispersion modeling and health risk
calculations were conducted using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model (AERMOD) Version 19191 and the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2).
The San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s 2019 Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots”
Program and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments were used to prepare the
HRA Report.
Page 20 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 16
JANUARY 2024
Cancer risk at nine sensitive receptor locations was analyzed as part of the HRA Screening Letter. Cancer risk
generated from DPM generated from SR-125 was determined to be below the 10 per one million exposure
thresholds (Ldn Consulting 2023). Therefore, potential health risk at future residential receptors from SR-125 would
result in potential cancer health risk less than the applicable SDAPCD threshold (Ldn Consulting 2023). The
proposed project would have similar potentially significant impacts resulting from the emission of TACs from the
development of onsite land uses if the site is developed to accommodate any light industrial uses, gas stations, or
dry cleaning facilities in close proximity to sensitive receptors as the approved project. Similar to the approved
project, the proposed project would implement MM-AQ-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts from TAC
emissions and would be less than significant.
The associated mitigation measures identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the proposed modifications. No new
significant air quality impacts would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional
mitigation is required.
Noise
Impacts to noise were addressed in Section 5.5 of the University Villages FEIR. The future noise level associated
with future Main Street, SR-125 and La Media Parkway traffic volumes in Village Eight East would exceed the
exterior noise criterion of 65 decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and is considered a potentially
significant impact. Additionally, residences adjacent to Main Street, SR-125 and La Media Parkway could exceed
the Title 24 Interior Noise Standard of 46 dBA CNEL during the construction and operation of the approved project
and is considered a potentially significant impact. Olympian High School is approximately 125 feet from the Village
Eight East boundary to the north and project generated construction noise would pose a potentially significant
impact on noise-sensitive receptors if construction hour limitations are not imposed. Mitigation measures MM NOI-
1 through MM NOI-9 would reduce all potentially significant noise impacts to a level below significance. A portion
of the proposed project site was identified as being located within the 60–65 dB CNEL contour line of the Brown
Field Airport. As described in the FEIR, impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive noise
from airports would be less than significant.
A noise technical memorandum was prepared to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed
modifications compared to the approved project. (Dudek 2023a). The proposed modifications would result in the
conversion of planned land uses from single-family neighborhoods to multi-family and would expand the mixed-use
neighborhoods in the northeast portion of Village Eight East. These proposed changes to the project planning areas
and their intended land uses do not change the acceptable noise level criterion of 65 A-weighted decibels
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) that is applied uniformly across the project as reported in the noise
sections of the FEIR. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project site would have the same noise exposure
level to the Brown Field Airport, and impacts would remain less than significant.
The mitigation measures identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the proposed modifications and would be
applied as follows to reflect changes in the proposed land use:
University Villages FEIR:
- MM NOI-1 – This measure requires site-specific exterior acoustical analyses for any new single-family
or multi-family residential development. This measure would continue to apply to all residential
development in Village Eight East.
Page 21 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 17
JANUARY 2024
- MM NOI-2 – This measure requires site-specific interior acoustical analyses for any new single-family
residential development. This measure would no longer apply in Village Eight East, since all of the
single-family residential development has been replaced by multi-family residential development.
- MM NOI-3 – This measure requires site-specific interior acoustical analyses for any new multi-family
residential development. This measure would apply to all residential development in Village Eight East.
- MM-NOI-4 – This measure requires site-specific exterior acoustical analyses for any new non-residential
or mixed-use residential development. This measure would apply to P-2, AR-11, S-1, P-1a, VC-1, VC-2,
VC-3, VC-4 and VC-5.
- MM NOI-5 – This measure requires site-specific acoustical analyses for any new industrial
development. This measure would not apply in Village Eight East, since there is no proposed industrial
development.
- MM NOI-6- This measure limits the active programing operation for the neighborhood park. This
mitigation measure continues to apply to any development in Village Eight East.
- MM-NOI-7- This measure requires the preparation of an acoustical analysis for elementary schools. This
mitigation measure continues to apply to any development in Village Eight East.
- MM NOI-8 – This measure limits the hours of construction activities. This mitigation measure
continues to apply to any development in Village Eight East.
- MM NOI-9 -This measure is site specific for Village Four and would not apply to Village Eight East.
Project-generated traffic trips would be reduced when compared the approved project, which would further reduce
noise impacts associated with future traffic. The proposed changes also include changes to expected future traffic
volumes and the proposed modifications would result in a decrease in trip generation and traffic impacts and would
not substantially change trip distribution patterns (Chen Ryan 2023). The University Villages FEIR assessed traffic
noise impacts to future residential land uses adjacent to these higher traffic roadways. Similar to the approved
project, the proposed project noise impacts would remain less than significant with the inclusion of MM-NOI-1
through MM-NOI-9.
No new significant noise impacts would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional
mitigation is required.
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources were analyzed in Section 5.6 in the University Villages FEIR. A total of 26 sites were located
within the boundaries of Village Eight East, however only 15 sites would be directly impacted by the proposed
development. One of these sites (Site SDI-12,809 was determined to be locally and regionally important and the
remaining 14 sites were determined to be not of cultural significance. A portion of Site SDI-12,809 would be directly
affected by development onsite. Due to the impact on Site SDI-12,809 and the potential indirect impacts associated
with intrusion into sites during or after construction of the project, impacts from the approved project may occur.
Therefore, since development of Village Eight East could cause a substantial change in the significance of this
identified archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, impacts to this site were
determined to be potentially significant in the University Villages FEIR and mitigation is required (MM CUL-1 through
Page 22 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 18
JANUARY 2024
MM CUL-5). Mitigation measures included archaeological and Native American monitoring during grading and
procedures to follow if significant artifacts are uncovered.
In addition, no human remains were identified within the project area during the cultural testing program. However,
the possibility exists that human remains may be discovered during project grading and construction. Any
disturbance of human remains that may occur during project grading or construction would be significant.
Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, and mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts
(MM CUL-6). MM CUL-6 detailed procedures to follow if human remains are uncovered on site. All impacts would
be reduced to below a level of significance after implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-6.
An archaeological and paleontological technical memorandum was prepared to determine whether or not additional
archaeological impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications (Dudek 2024b). The proposed Project
includes a Proposed Tentative Map with a slightly modified boundary, which includes 25.0 acres less than the 2014
Village 8 East Tentative Map, due to the exclusion of AR-11 (22.6 acres) from the Proposed Tentative Map boundary
and minor project boundary adjustments (2.4 acres). The proposed Project also includes 0.99 acres of offsite
grading not previously evaluated as part of the 2014 EIR study area for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project.
These additional offsite grading impacts are primarily related to grading within the Caltrans right-of-way (ROW)
associated with the frontage road, Main Street and ramps serving the proposed SR-125 Interchange. BFSA
conducted the cultural resources study and evaluation for Village 8 East in 2012 (revised in 2014). Based on the
review of the previous cultural resources studies and the University Villages EIR, only a portion of CA-SDI-12809
was identified within offsite grading areas. CA-SDI-12809 is a prehistoric site that was originally recorded by
McGowan in 1971 (McGowan 1997). CA-SDI-12809 was also previously determined eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 4 (Smith and Stropes 2014) and on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D (McDonald et al. 1993). The site was divided into 10 areas of
artifact concentrations (Loci A through J) based on STP data. Only a portion of one cultural resource, designated as
Locus E of CA-SDI-12809, was identified within an offsite grading area. CA-SDI-12809 was reevaluated as part of
the archaeological and paleontological technical memorandum prepared by Dudek and it was determined that
construction of SR-125 from 2003-2008 destroyed Locus E. According to Smith and Stropes (2014), impacts to
Locus E were previously mitigated by Caltrans as part of the environmental clearance for the SR-125 ROW. Portions
of the site are intact and are located outside the eight grading areas discussed herein, as well as outside the grading
impacts analyzed in the FEIR. These portions of the site are located in the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation
Plan (MSCP) open space preserve; these extant portions of the site will be avoided by the project design, and
impacts within these loci would not occur with future development. The remaining loci of CA-SDI-12809 that are
intact and considered as contributing elements to eligibility of the site (Loci F-J) have already been addressed by
the FEIR. The approved Village 8 East Project has been conditioned with a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting
Program (MMRP) by the City of Chula Vista (City of Chula Vista 2014).
No additional mitigation measures are necessary at this site as a result of the revised grading impacts identified
herein. Construction monitoring will be implemented in all eight off-site grading areas (Dudek 2024b). Therefore,
project implementation would not result in direct impacts to known cultural resources. Furthermore, as project
development would have the potential to uncover unknown cultural resources or human remains, the proposed
project would still be required to implement the mitigation measures (MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-6) identified in
the FEIR. No new significant cultural resources impacts would occur beyond those identified in the University
Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Page 23 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 19
JANUARY 2024
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources were analyzed in Section 5.7 of the University Villages FEIR. One fossil site was found
within the bounds of the approved project site. Development of the area within the approved project site would
encounter a formation with a “high paleontological resource sensitivity” that are assigned to the upper sandstone–
mudstone member of the Otay Formation and a “moderate paleontological resource sensitivity” are assigned to the
Otay Formation and Quaternary terrace deposits. Therefore, the University Villages FEIR determined that grading
and construction activities could impact fossils potentially buried in the underlying formations. Based on the
recognized potential to encounter fossils in these formations, impacts were considered potentially significant, and
mitigation, as identified in the FEIR, was required (MM PAL-1 through MM PAL-4). Mitigation measures include
retaining a qualified paleontologist, paleontological monitoring, and fossil recovery procedures. Impacts would be
reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR.
An archaeological and paleontological technical memorandum was prepared to determine whether or not additional
paleontological impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications s (Dudek 2024b). The proposed Project
includes a proposed Tentative Map with a slightly modified boundary which includes 25.0 acres less than the 2014
Tentative Map, with the exclusion of AR-11 (22.6 acres) and minor boundary adjustments (2.4 acres). The Proposed
Tentative Map also includes 0.99 acres of offsite grading impacts that were not previously evaluated as part of the
overall development footprint studied by the 2014 FEIR for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project However, based
on review of the previous paleontological resources studies and FEIR for Village 8 East, the additional areas were
adequately analyzed by the previous studies and EIR since the geological units (the Otay Formation, Quaternary
terrace deposits, and Quaternary alluvium) present in the additional areas were analyzed in the previous studies,
and the San Diego Natural History Museum paleontological records search conducted for the previous studies
covered the additional areas. The lower fanglomerate member of the Otay Formation was mapped by Kennedy
(1977) as unnamed fanglomerate deposits (map unit Tfg) in this area (Dudek 2024b). Furthermore, the proposed
project would still be required to implement the mitigation measures (MM PAL-1 through MM PAL-4) identified in
the FEIR to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. No new significant paleontological resources impacts
would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Biological Resources
Impacts to biological resources were addressed in Section 5.8 of the University Villages FEIR. As indicated in the
University Villages FEIR, implementation of the approved project would result in significant direct and indirect
impacts to covered sensitive plant species, special status wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities,
jurisdictional waters and wetlands, native upland vegetation communities, and wildlife corridors. Implementation
of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-18 would reduce all potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance.
A biological resource technical memorandum was prepared to analyze the impacts of the proposed Project
compared to the approved project (Dudek 2024c). Dudek biologists identified eight additions to the development
area analyzed in original biological studies conducted for the Village 8 East project. There are six locations along
the eastern edge of Village 8 East where grading is proposed to extend beyond what was analyzed in the 2014
University Villages FEIR, primarily related to grading associated with the ramps, Main Street and the frontage road
serving the proposed SR-125 Interchange. In addition, there is one area that extends into AR-11 located on the
east side of SR-125, in which a portion of these grading impacts were included for analysis in the FEIR. Finally,
there is an additional portion of a Future Development Lot (Lot B) that was not previously analyzed in the University
Villages EIR. However, the areas immediately to the north and south, designated Future Development Lots A and B
Page 24 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 20
JANUARY 2024
on the 2014 Tentative Map, were a part of the University Villages FEIR. The Village 8 East jurisdictional aquatic
resource delineation was recently updated for Future Development Lots A and B and included the 0.22-acre
addition to Lot B.
In total, the changes to the TM for Village 8 East would result in 0.99 acres of off-site grading impacts not previously
analyzed in the University Villages EIR. Most of these impacts are to non-native grassland (0.62 acres) followed by
0.29 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.08 acres of agricultural and developed areas (Dudek 2024c). Both non-
native grassland and coastal sage scrub are considered sensitive vegetation communities. Impacts to 0.08 acre of
agricultural and developed lands, neither of which is a sensitive land cover, would not be significant. While the
impacts at these particular locations were not analyzed in the University Villages FEIR, impacts to coastal sage
scrub and non-native grassland as a whole were analyzed and previously identified in the FEIR. Impacts to coastal
sage scrub and non-native grassland were deemed less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures,
specifically MM BIO-1. As discussed in the 2014 FEIR, MM BIO-1 requires the conveyance of acreage to the preserve
at a ratio of 1.188 of preserve for every acre (1 acre) of impact. The proposed project would implement MM-BIO-1.
The potential impacts from the new offsite grading areas have been analyzed (Dudek 2024c), and the addition of
0.91 acre of impacts to non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub does not represent a new significant impact
to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the addition of 0.91 acre of impact to the overall impact total does not
represent a new or significant impact.
A Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (“QCB”) was sighted within the Village Eight East SPA Plan area at a location that will
be on the edge of grading within the Otay Ranch Preserve for a facility that will serve as a utility corridor, trail, and
emergency access during biological surveys conducted for a nearby but unrelated project. The University Villages
FEIR addressed potential QCB impacts related to presence of host plant and suitable coastal sage scrub habitat.
As described in the University Villages EIR, impacts to QCB habitat in the Preserve east of SR-125 are required to
comply with avoidance and minimization measure 4.b of the MSCP Subarea Plan. The approved project was
determined to not impact any significant QCB habitat patches of plantain east of SR-125. The proposed project
would be required to implement MM-BIO-16 and MM-BIO-17 to reduce indirect impacts to QCB and impacts would
remain less than significant. As concluded in the memorandum prepared by Allan Matkins, the sighting of a QCB
within the Village Eight East SPA area does not constitute new information of substantial importance that warrants
further environmental review for the current project (Allen Matkins 2023).
While these impacts related to the additional 0.29 acres of coastal sage scrub were not analyzed in the University
Villages FEIR, they do not represent a new or significant impact. Impacts to the north and south of the 0.22-acre
area east of SR-125, both of which are mapped as coastal sage scrub, were included in the University Villages FEIR.
In addition, Caltrans conducted focused surveys for rare plants and special-status wildlife. Based on those surveys,
there are no locations of either special-status plant or wildlife species within the additional 0.22 acres included in
Lot B (Dudek 2024c). Based on a review of the biological resources determined to be present during previous
surveys, and the requirement of preconstruction surveys for rare plants and jurisdictional aquatic resources, there
are no additional impacts to biological resources beyond those identified in the FEIR. As concluded in the biological
resource technical memorandum, the proposed project would be required to implement MM-BIO-1 through MM-
BIO-18, and impacts would remain less than significant. No new significant biological resources impacts would
occur beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Page 25 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 21
JANUARY 2024
Agricultural Resources
Impacts to agriculture were addressed in Section 5.9 of the University Villages EIR. The approved project would
convert approximately 476 acres designated as Farmland of Local Importance to residential and village land uses.
Although the project area is no longer used for crops because of the lack of reliable and affordable water, the loss
would contribute to an incremental loss of Farmland of Local Importance. Once fully developed, the approved
project would eliminate all agricultural activity on site; however, there is potential for interim agricultural activity to
occur within the project area, which could potentially result in land use conflicts with adjacent ownership areas.
The Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR identified the potential for land use incompatibility as a short-term impact due to
noise, odor, rodents, and chemical applications associated with agricultural activities adjacent to developed areas
in the vicinity of the project area. The preparation of an Agricultural Plan was identified as mitigation to reduce the
potential short-term impacts to below a level of significance. An Agricultural Plan was prepared as part of the SPA
plan for Village Eight East. The plan allows for interim agricultural activity within the project area and adjacent
ownership area and prevents potential land use impacts between developed land and ongoing agricultural activities
by providing separation between urban uses and adjacent agricultural uses. However, the University Villages FEIR
determined that the incremental loss of Farmland of Local Importance as a result of the approved project would be
a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. No feasible mitigation measures exist.
The University Villages EIR determined that there were no impacts related to conflict with zoning, Williamson Act
contract, or General Plan agricultural resource policies or loss of forestry resources.
The proposed modifications would reduce the proposed Tentative Map area by 25.0 acres (elimination of the 22.6
acre AR-11 site and 2.4 acres in minor boundary adjustments) and include 0.99 acres of off-site grading not
previously analyzed in the University Villages FEIR. This 0.99 acres of offsite grading would impact 0.22 acres of
Grazing Land and 0.77 acres of Farmland of Local Importance; however, this does not represent a new significant
impact to agricultural resources, as similar impacts were identified in the University Villages FEIR. Due to the overall
reduction in the acreage of the TM boundary for the proposed project, the overall proposed project would result in
fewer impacts to Farmland of Local Importance and grazing land compared to the approved project Therefore, the
project would impact fewer acres of Farmland of Local Importance than what was studied in the University Villages
FEIR. As described above, there is no feasible mitigation for the impact to Farmland of Local Importance and
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed modifications would not result new impacts to
agricultural resources beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new significant agricultural resources impacts
would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts to hydrology and water quality were addressed in Section 5.10 of the University Villages FEIR. A Drainage
Study and a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) were completed for the approved project as analyzed
in the University Villages FEIR. The University Villages FEIR concluded that the project would be in compliance with
all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations regarding water quality and hydrology. Through
compliance with these rules and regulations and because the project would not use groundwater for water supply
for construction or operation, impacts associated with groundwater were determined to be less than significant.
However, the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. The alteration of the drainage pattern was determined
to not impact flooding on or offsite. Development of the approved project would avoid placing housing and
Page 26 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 22
JANUARY 2024
structures within the 100-year flood hazard areas and the Savage Dam inundation zone impacts would be avoided
or less than significant. Additionally, the approved project has the potential to substantially degrade water quality.
Prior to mitigation, impacts would be significant. However, all impacts would be reduced to below a level of
significance with the incorporation of MM HYD-1, and MM-HYD-5 through MM-HYD-7.
The University Villages FEIR stated that the combination of the proposed construction and permanent low impact
development best management practices (LID BMPs), which have been incorporated in the design of the approved
project, are in place to ensure water quality treatment is maximized throughout the development. However, even
with implementation of the BMPs, the approved project would still have the potential to violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. Mitigation measures identified in the University Villages FEIR (MM HYD-
1 through MM HYD-7) are required to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Mitigation measures include
erosion control, a stormwater pollution prevention plan, supplemental water quality reporting, post-
construction/permanent BMPs, limitation of grading, hydromodification criteria, and a scour analysis.
Village 8 East, as a Priority Development Project (“PDP”), is applying to utilize alternative compliance under the City
of Chula Vista Alternative Compliance Program (ACP) for Natural System Management Practices (“NSMP”)
consistent with San Diego Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”) Permit. The purpose of the
City of Chula Vista ACP is to provide offsite pollution control treatment opportunities using NSMPs, specifically
stream rehabilitation techniques, as allowed by provision E.3.c.(3) of MS4 Permit, as an alternative to the onsite
structural Best Management Practice (“BMP”) performance standards set in Provisions E.3.c.(1) and E.3.c.(2)(a) of
the MS4 Permit (Order R9-2013-0001, as amended) and the City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual, dated August
2023. Participation in the ACP is allowed so long as the offsite alternative will have a greater overall water quality
benefit than fully complying with the performance requirements of MS4 Provisions E.3.c.(1) and E.3.c.(2)(a) onsite
and flow-thru treatment control BMPs sized and designed in accordance with MS4 Permit Provisions
E.3.c.(1)(a)(ii)[a]-[c] are implemented on the development site. The Tentative Map Alternative will only be
implemented if the City of Chula Vista issues an ACP permit for creating stormwater credits within the Otay River
Mitigation Program and approves the Village 8 East Rough Grading Storm Water Quality Management Plan. The
primary purpose of the ACP Credits is to achieve stormwater pollutant control, noting that the project is exempt
from hydromodification management requirements.
The proposed modifications would include minor boundary changes, however, the development footprint from that
studied in the University Villages FEIR would remain largely the same. As concluded in the Drainage Study prepared
for the proposed project, the proposed modifications would not result in the alteration of drainage or hydrology in
areas beyond what was previously analyzed (Hunsaker & Associates 2023). While specific portions within Village
Eight East would result in a change in land use, the overall potential for changes to hydrology and water quality
would remain the same as analyzed in the FEIR.
The proposed modifications would continue to comply with all applicable rules and regulations including compliance
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements for urban runoff and stormwater
discharge. BMPs for design, treatment, and monitoring for stormwater quality would be implemented as delineated
in the FEIR with respect to municipal and construction permits. The proposed modifications would comply with the
most recent City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual that contains added stipulations that were not in effect when
the original project was approved, which would result in improved water quality discharge. Compliance with all
applicable rules and regulations governing water quality as well as implementation of all mitigation measures
identified in the University Villages FEIR (mitigation measures MM HYD-1 through MM HYD-7) would ensure that no
additional impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond those previously analyzed would occur as a result of the
proposed modifications. No new significant hydrology and water quality impacts would occur with implementation
Page 27 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 23
JANUARY 2024
of the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project with the ACP Permit, beyond those identified in the University
Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Geology and Soils
Impacts to geology and soils were addressed in Section 5.11 of the University Villages FEIR. The University Villages
FEIR concluded that the approved project would have potentially significant impacts associated with expansive
soils. All impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation measures
MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 which include implementation of the recommendations contained within the project’s
geotechnical investigations and ensuring all graded slopes have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5, which ensures
a certain level of stability of slopes.
The proposed modifications would result in minor alterations to the project boundary. As concluded in the updated
Geotechnical Report, for the proposed project, which included evaluation of areas that were not previously studied
in the University Villages FEIR, no new soils or geologic hazards outside the previously evaluated development area
would be encountered (Geocon Incorporated 2023). The proposed modifications would result in similar
development within Village Eight East that was assumed within the FEIR Mitigation measures (MM-GEO-1 and MM-
GEO-2) requiring implementation of recommendations from project geotechnical investigations would still apply to
the proposed modifications. Similarly, future development occurring under the proposed land use modifications
would comply with the requirements of applicable building codes and other standards with respect to minimization
of geologic hazards. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts with the incorporation of mitigation. No new significant geology and soils impacts would occur beyond those
identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Public Services
Public services were addressed in Section 5.12 in the University Villages FEIR. The approved project would introduce
an estimated increase of 8,527 people to the area that would create additional demand on public services. Prior
to mitigation, the approved project would have potentially significant impacts on fire and emergency medical
services and on police services, due to the increase in demand for service and the subsequent increase in average
response times. Mitigation measure MM PUB-1 would mitigate impacts to fire and emergency medical services and
mitigation measures MM PUB-3 through MM PUB-5 would mitigate impacts on police services. Such impacts would
be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, Village Eight East would increase the potential number of future
school-aged students in the City by an estimated 1,679 students. The increase of 1,679 new students to the project
area would have potentially significant impacts on school facilities, as indicated in the University Villages FEIR. The
implementation of mitigation measures MM PUB-6 (payment of School Facility Mitigation Fees) and MM PUB-7
(Chula Vista Elementary School District approval) to mitigate these impacts to less than significant.
For overall planning purposes, the Otay Ranch GDP estimates the park land obligation based on 3 acres of
park/1,000 population. The GDP estimates the population of Village 8 East at 8,419, representing a 740 person
decrease from the approved project. Based on the 3 acres/1,000 formula, Village Eight East would require a total
of 25.3 acres of parkland. However, the City of Chula Vista Park Land Dedication Ordinance requires 460 square
feet of parkland for each detached home and 341 square feet of parkland for each attached home. Based on this
requirement, the Village 8 East parkland obligation would be 26.5 acres. The proposed project would include 50.6
acres of parkland within the Applicant’s ownership, which would exceed the requirement; however, project
implementation would increase demand for park and recreational facilities and impacts would be potentially
Page 28 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 24
JANUARY 2024
significant. Mitigation measures MM PUB-8 through MM PUB-13, which include the payment of Public Facilities
Development Impact Fees (PFDIFs) and dedication of parkland, would mitigate impacts to be less than significant.
Similar to the requirement for parkland, the City requires 500 gross square feet of library space per 1,000
population. The project would create demand for 11,000 square feet of library facilities. However, the project would
still increase demand on library facilities and would require mitigation. Implementation of MM PUB-14 and MM
PUB-15 would mitigate impacts to be less than significant.
As identified in the University Villages FEIR, MM PUB-1 through MM PUB-15 would reduce impacts to public services
below a level of significance. Mitigation measures include payment of the PFDIFs, incorporation of Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design Features, school mitigation agreements or school facility mitigation fees, and park
land dedication and/or the payment of park development fees or a combination or both per the City’s Parkland
Dedication Ordinance.
The proposed modifications would result in a direct decrease in the residential population from 9,159 to 8,419
persons (approximately 740 persons), as compared to the approved project (and, therefore, decreased
demand for public services) within Village Eight East. the elimination of single-family units. The proposed
project would include approximately 50.6 1 acres of public parks compared to the 58.8 acres provided in the
approved project. The demand for Village Eight East for parkland is 26.5 acres of neighborhood and community
parks for the approved project’s population. The proposed project would include 50.6 acres of community and
neighborhood parks and therefore would still meet (and exceed) the City’s requirements for parks. While the
proposed project would decrease the parkland that would be provided as compared to the approved project,
the reduction in population related to the reduction in DUs and unit type would also result in a decreased
demand for parks. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase demand for public services beyond that
analyzed in the FEIR. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would implement MM-PUB- 1 through
MM-PUB-13 and impacts would remain less than significant. No new significant public services impacts would
occur beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Utilities
Impacts to utilities were addressed in Section 5.13 of the University Villages FEIR. The University Villages FEIR
concluded that impacts to water, sewer, solid waste, and energy would be reduced to below a level of significance
with mitigation measures, with the exception of wastewater treatment facilities. The University Villages FEIR
determined that the approved project, in conjunction with other cumulative development within the City, could
require sewer treatment capacity beyond the City’s existing wastewater treatment capacity rights and allocated
additional treatment capacity, resulting in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with
construction of a new or expanded facility.
A comparison of water and sewer demand was completed for the proposed modifications against the approved
project (Dexter Wilson 2023a, 2023b, and 2023c). The proposed modifications would result in a decrease in water
demand by approximately 38.1 percent when compared to the approved project (Dexter Wilson 2023a). This
decrease in demand would not impact the proposed water line sizing for Village Eight East (Dexter Wilson 2023a).
The proposed project was estimated to have a total water demand of 728 acre feet per year. The proposed
modifications would result in a reduction of 451 acre -feet per year. when compared to the approved project, which
1 For purposes of this analysis, the 22.6-acre Active Recreation (AR-11) site within the Village 8 East Approved and Proposed project
boundary and analyzed in the University Villages FEIR has been excluded because it is owned by the City of Chula Vista and the Village
8 East park requirements would not be met within AR-11.
Page 29 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 25
JANUARY 2024
was estimated to have a water demand of 1,179 acre feet per year (Dexter Wilson 2023a). Additionally, the
proposed modifications would increase total water conservation savings by 5.9 percent as compared to the
approved project (Dexter Wilson 2023b). The estimated recycled water use would also be slightly decreased from
the 2014 report due to a shift in the proposed land uses. Residential water conservation savings are also decreased
slightly due to the shift from single family residential units to multi-family residential units. Therefore, the proposed
modifications would not result in any new or more severe impacts to water infrastructure or supply with the
implementation of MM-UTIL-1 through MM-UTIL-4, impacts would remain less than significant.
The proposed modifications would result in a 17.7 percent decrease in sewer flow projected when compared to the
approved project due to the reduction in units and the shift from single family units to multi- family units (Dexter
Wilson 2023c). While the proposed project would reduce the sewer flow compared to the approved project, the
development of treatment capacity beyond the City’s existing and allocated capacity would still result in a
potentially significant and unavoidable impact associated with construction of a new or expanded facility.
Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in any new or more severe impacts to sewer infrastructure;
however, and impacts would remain potentially significant even with the implementation of MM-UTIL-5 through MM-
UTIL-7, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable t.
Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to the
generation of solid waste. Further, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable statutes and
regulations. The proposed project would have similar impacts related to energy demand as the approved project.
Similar to the approved project, the availability of adequate long term energy resources in unknown, and therefore
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Further, the proposed project would be consistent with all
applicable statutes, regulations and policies, with respect to demand to energy resources. Therefore, the proposed
modifications would do not result in any new or more severe impacts related to energy resource infrastructure and
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
No new significant utilities impacts would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional
mitigation is required.
Global Climate Change
GHG emissions and global climate change were addressed in Section 5.14 in the University Villages FEIR. As
described in the University Villages FEIR, the approved project would not result in a significant impact related to
compliance with Assembly Bill 32. However, the approved project would have significant and unavoidable impacts
related to substantially increased exposure to the potential adverse effects of global warming. The University
Villages FEIR determined the approved project would result in further degradation to regional and local air quality
from the formation of ozone precursors. For purposes of mitigating the formation of ozone precursors and
minimizing the project’s exposure to the effects of global warming, Section 1.3 of the University Villages FEIR
identified project design features that would assist with the reduction of operational emissions contributing to ozone
formation. However, no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to levels below significant.
An update to the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis was prepared to compare the proposed
modifications to the approved project (Dudek 2024a). The proposed project would result in fewer daily trips when
compared to the approved project (Chen Ryan 2023). As a result, operational emissions (specifically those resulting
from mobile sources) associated with Village Eight East would be reduced (Dudek 2024a). Construction emissions
would remain unchanged, as no change in the construction schedule or required construction equipment is
Page 30 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 26
JANUARY 2024
anticipated (Dudek 2024a). Similar to that for the approved project, the proposed project would implement GHG
reduction measures as identified in the University Villages FEIR to reduce operational emissions to the extent
feasible (and would be subject to current regulations which would further reduce GHG emissions beyond that
originally evaluated, etc.). However, as no feasible mitigation measures have been identified, operational emissions
with the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable.
Overall, GHG emissions would be reduced under the proposed modifications when compared to the approved
project. No new significant climate change impacts would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages
FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Hazards and Risk of Upset
Hazards were addressed in Section 5.15 in the University Villages FEIR. The University Villages FEIR determined
that impacts associated with historic agricultural use of the property and the proximity to Brown Field Municipal
Airport would result in potentially significant impacts. The University Villages FEIR also determined that Munitions
of Explosive Concern exist on the Village Ten site. However, since the proposed modifications do not involve
modifications to the Village Ten site, this impact and associated mitigation are not included in the analysis below.
Otay Ranch land was historically cultivated for agricultural use (primarily dry-farmed grain crops). In some areas,
contaminated soils associated with former agricultural use have been identified. Soils in the project area may
contain organochlorine pesticides, organophosphorus pesticides, organochlorine herbicides, and metals including
arsenic. In the event that the proposed project encounters contaminated soils during grading and excavation,
increased health risks to construction workers and future residents could occur, as well as potential impacts on
water quality. The University Villages FEIR determined that prior to mitigation the project would have potentially
significant impacts associated with exposure of construction workers and future residents to pesticide residues.
MM HAZ-1 requires a soils assessment to be prepared to determine whether residual pesticides, herbicides, and/or
arsenic are present on site.
The nearest airport to Village Eight East is the Brown Field Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 3 miles
south. The University Villages FEIR determined that the Village Eight East does not lie within the Flight Activity Areas
on either the runway approach or departure paths. However, the Village Eight East SPA is located within the Brown
Field Airport Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height notification boundary (Federal Aviation Regulations at 14
CFR, Part 77 (FAR Part 77)). FAR Part 77 is issued by the FAA and establishes the standards which govern the
height of objects on and around an airport. The University Villages FEIR determined that impacts would be
potentially significant prior to mitigation. Since the proposed project is in the same location as the approved project,
compliance with MM HAZ-3 through MM HAZ-5 would be required in order to reduce impacts to below a level of
significance. Mitigation measures include filing a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA,
providing proof of FAA clearance to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director, and recording the Airport
Overflight Agreement with the County Recorder’s office.
The University Villages FEIR further determined that implementation of a Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared for the
approved project would reduce wildland fire risk to a less than significant level. The FPP outlined defensible space
requirements based on the potential risk and predicted fire behavior. The structures of the approved project would
include ignition resistant materials per the latest Chula Vista Fire and Building Codes. Structure protection would
be complemented by a system of improved water availability, capacity and delivery; fire department access;
monitored defensible space/fuel modification; interior fire sprinkler systems in all structures, monitored interior
Page 31 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 27
JANUARY 2024
sprinklers in applicable structures; and other components that would provide properly equipped and maintained
structures with a high level of fire ignition resistance.
The proposed project would not substantially alter the land uses which could cause an increase in the severity of
previously identified impacts. Impacts could still result due to earthmoving activities and the historical agricultural
use of the land. Mitigation measures identified in the FEIR would still be required to reduce potentially significant
impacts from hazardous materials to a level below significance with the implementation of MM-HAZ-3 through MM-
HAZ-5. Similarly, coordination and notification with FAA would still be required of the proposed project and with
implementation of MM-HAZ-3 through MM-HAZ-5, impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would alter development along the eastern development edge where some development area
has been removed, and some has been added to accommodate the SR-125 design. An update to the FPP was
prepared for the proposed modifications (Dudek 2023b). The Village Eight East FPP for the approved project was
approved by the City Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) in 2014.
The approved FPP, as revised, was compared with the proposed modifications (Dudek 2023b). Based on the
evaluation of both documents, it was determined that the findings of the approved FPP, as revised, remain
applicable and valid with some minor changes. Five amendments to the approved 2014 FPP were identified. The
first amendment includes the application of current 2022 Chula Vista Fire Codes and Chapter 7A of the 2022
California Fire Code. The second amendment includes an amendment to update the project description in the FPP
to match the proposed project. The third amendment would include alteration to the fuel modification zone and
fences. The fuel modification zones (FMZ) would remain the same as the approved project with the exception of 1)
a reduction of the 100-foot FMZ around the P-2 Community Park to 30 feet around the perimeter and maintain a
100-foot FMZ around all structures within the P-2 Community Park, 2) the fire wall adjacent to the multi-family is
unnecessary and will instead be tubular steel or post & rail and 3) Zone “0”, which will be located on all sides of
and directly adjacent to all structures. The fourth and fifth amendments would include an updated proposed plant
palette and prohibited plant list. (Dudek 2023b). These amendments are consistent with the approved FPP and the
analysis contained in the University Village FEIR. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not increase potential
impacts related to wildland fire. No new significant hazards or risk of upset impacts would occur beyond those
identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
Housing and Population
Population and housing impacts associated with the approved project were discussed in Section 5.16 in the
University Villages FEIR. As stated therein, the Village Eight East portion of the approved project would result in an
approximate population increase of 8,527 people. The University Villages FEIR determined that although the
approved project would result in substantial population growth, compliance with the Chula Vista General Plan and
Otay Ranch GDP amendments, preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan, payment of Development Impact
Fees and Transportation Development Impact Fees, and adherence to the updated San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) 2050 Regional Growth Forecast would ensure that the approved project would have less
than significant impacts associated with population growth. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required.
The estimated population associated with the proposed project is 8,419, representing a 740 person decrease
from what was analyzed in the FEIR. Additionally, there would be no new potential to displace existing people or
housing, as the areas that would be added to the site are undeveloped and do not contain housing. No new
Page 32 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 28
JANUARY 2024
significant population and housing impacts would occur beyond those identified in the University Villages FEIR; no
mitigation is required.
Mineral Resources
Mineral resources were addressed in Section 5.17 in the University Villages FEIR. Village Eight East contains land
that is classified as MRZ-2 or MRZ-3. The MRZ-2 classification for mineral resources represents areas where
adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judges that a high
likelihood exists for their presence. The MRZ-3 classification for mineral resources represents an area that has
the potential for mineral deposits but where no resources have been identified. As determined in the University
Villages FEIR, although Village Eight East is located on MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 land. The development within MRZ-2
would be limited to access and emergency access roads within the Community Park in Village Eight East, and the
remainder of development would be located on MRZ-3 land. Further, the General Plan designates the area within
the MRZ-2 land within Village Eight East as Open Space and Residential Low Medium, and not extractive uses. The
SPA Plan does not propose extraction, however, on site resources could be made available. Therefore,
implementation of the approved 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, impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would reduce the proposed Tentative Map area by 25.0 acres (elimination of the 22.6 acre
AR-11 site and 2.4 acres of minor boundary adjustments) and include 0.99 acres of off-site grading not previously
analyzed in the University Villages FEIR. The proposed offsite grading would include 0.79 acres of MRZ-3, and 0.20
acres of MRZ-2. Similar to the approved project, the 0.2 acres of MRZ-2 would not be proposed for extractive uses
that would result in a permanent loss of known mineral resources. Further, due to the decreased area of the TM
boundary, the total disturbed area would be decreased compared to the development footprint studied in the
University Villages FEIR. Therefore, the total area that may contain known significant mineral resources would be
less than what was previously evaluated development area. Impacts to mineral resources would remain less than
significant, similar to the approved project. No new significant mineral resource impacts would occur beyond those
identified in the University Villages FEIR; no additional mitigation is required.
7 Conclusion
This document identifies all changed circumstances and provides the proposed modifications that were not
previously analyzed and disclosed in the University Villages FEIR. The City has determined that none of the changes
associated with the proposed project require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.
Attachments: Figure 1, Project Location
Figure 2, Project Area
Figure 3, Approved Village 8 East Site Utilization
Figure 4, Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization
Figure 5, Existing Zoning District Map
Figure 6, Proposed Zoning District Map
Page 33 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
13570 29
JANUARY 2024
Page 34 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
4 References
Allen Matkins. Leek Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. 2023. University Villages - Village Eight East - Quino
Checkerspot Butterfly Sighting Does Not Necessitate Further Environmental Review. May 2023
Chen Ryan. 2023. Village 8 East Trip Generation Review. September 2023.
City of Chula Vista. 2014. University Villages Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Report. December 2, 2014.
City of Chula Vista. 2016. Addendum to EIR – University Villages – Village Three North and a Portion of Village
Four. December 16, 2016.
City of Chula Vista. 2021. Addendum to EIR – University Villages – Village Three and a Portion of Village Four.
June 15, 2021.
Dexter Wilson. 2023a. Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment Water Evaluation. September 14, 2023.
Dexter Wilson. 2023b. Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment Water Conservation Plan Evaluation.
September 14, 2023.
Dexter Wilson. 2023c. Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment Sewer Evaluation. September 14, 2023.
Dudek. 2023a. Otay Ranch Village Eight East– Noise Update Analysis. September 2023.
Dudek. 2023b. Village Eight East Fire Protection Plan Addendum and Figures Updates. September 2023.
Dudek. 2024a. Otay Ranch Village Eight East Project – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update. January 2024
Dudek. 2024b. Archaeological and Paleontological Memorandum for the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Project. Chula
Vista, CA. January 2024.
Dudek. 2024c. Village 8 East Tentative Map Revisions – Biological Review. January 2024.
Geocon Incorporated. 2023. Update Geotechnical Report- Otay Ranch Village 8 East Chula Vista, California.
September 30, 2023.
Hunsaker & Associates. 2023. TM Drainage Study for Otay Ranch- Village 8 East. September 2023.
Ldn Consulting. 2023. Otay Village 8 East Development Health Risk Screening Letter. City of Chula Vista, CA.
September 25, 2023.
Page 35 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 36 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 37 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 38 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 39 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 40 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 41 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 42 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 43 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A
Project Information Form for Transportation Studies
Page 1 of 4
A
The first page of the Project Information Form (PIF) is to be completed by the applicant. If the project meets the exemption
criteria shown below (subject to verification by City staff), then no further analysis is required and the PIF may be submitted with
only the first page completed. If none of the boxes are checked, the remaining sections of the PIF (pages 2-4) must be completed
by a consultant meeting professional qualifications described in Section 1.5 of the TSG (see “Consultant” section below). The PIF
is subject to change as new project information arises.
General Project Information and Description
Owner/Applicant Information
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email:
Project Information
Project Name:
Project Address:
APN:
Land Use Designation: Zoning Designation:
Project Description
Land Uses and Intensities
(units, square feet, etc.):
Gross and Developable Acreage:
Vehicle Parking Required (per relevant City
planning document (e.g., CVMC, SPA Plan, etc.):
Vehicle Parking Spaces
Proposed:
Accessible Spaces: Bicycle Storage Capacity
(racks and secure storage):
Motorcycle Spaces: EV Parking Spaces:
Exemptions
Check the box that applies to your project:
☐
Intensification of residential development on a
residential parcel with a net increase of no more
than 20 multi-family units (does not apply if non-
residential uses are proposed).
☐
Review or approval of a project that is strictly
consistent with the land uses evaluated in the
recently certified CEQA document within 5 years
(attach documentation).
☐
Conditional use permit for alcohol and temporary
sales offices. ☐
Zoning variance for deviations from zoning
standards only.
☐
Facilities for the exclusive use of an existing
residential development that are located within or
immediately adjacent to that project, such as a
clubhouse, a pool, or multi-purpose room.
☐
Historic designation or Certificate of
Appropriateness, provided there is no change in
land use.
☐ Cell phone sites or towers. ☐
Minor restaurant expansion, provided there is no
increase in seating or drive-through lanes.
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
Village 8 East
Village 8 East - Otay Ranch
644-070-11 & 646-010-04
Residential/Commercial VC, H, MH, OS, CPF, P
SPA Plan SPA Plan
SPA Plan
SPA PlanSPA Plan
SPA Plan
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220, Carlsbad, CA 92008
760.602.3767
joconnor@hfc-ca.com
Multiple - please see Attachment A
Page 44 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A
Project Information Form for Transportation Studies
Page 2 of 4
A
Consultant (CA Licensed Traffic Engineer or CA Licensed Civil Engineer with Traffic Engineering Expertise)
Name of Firm:
Project Manager: License(s):
Email Address:
Telephone:
Trip Generation (Attach Traffic Generation Table with Rates and Daily and Peak Hour Volumes)
[Use the SANDAG (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Trip Generation]
Total Daily Trips: Pass-by Trips:
(Driveway count or published
SANDAG/ITE rate at City’s
discretion):
Alternative Mode
Reduction: Net Daily Trips:
Site Plan
Attach 11x17 copies of the project location/vicinity map and site plan containing the following:
• Driveway locations and access type
• Pedestrian access, bicycle access, and on-site pedestrian circulation
• Location and distance to closest existing transit stop (measure as walking distance to project
entrance or middle of parcel)
• Location of any planned sidewalks or bikeways identified in the City of Chula Vista Active
Transportation Plan within ½ mile of the project
CEQA Transportation Analysis Screening
To determine if your project is screened from VMT analysis, review the Project Type Screening and the Project Location
Screening tables below. If “No” is checked for any project type or land use applicable to your project, the project is not screened
out and must complete VMT analysis in accordance with the analysis requirements outline in the City of Chula Vista
Transportation Study Guidelines (TSG) Chapter 3.
Project Type Screening
1. Select the Land Uses that apply to your project
2. Answer the questions for each Land Use that applies to your project
(if “Yes” is indicated in any land use category below, then that land use (or a
portion of the land use) is screened from CEQA Transportation Analysis)
Note: All responses must be documented and supported by substantial
evidence.
Yes No
1. Locally Serving Retail Project
a. Is the project less than 125,000 square feet and serving the local
community? The City may request a market capture study that
identifies local market capture to the City’s satisfaction.
2. Locally Serving Public Facility or Community Purpose Facility
a. Is the project a public facility or Community Purpose Facility that
serves the local community? (see TSG Section 3.3)
Previous Use Credits:
Internal Capture:
Screened Out?
(Mark Yes or No)
CR Associates
Phuong Nguyen TE
pnguyen@cramobility.com
619.756.3868
31,776 N/A
N/A 35,776
N/A -4,000
Page 45 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A
Project Information Form for Transportation Studies
Page 3 of 4
A
3. Small Residential and/or Employment Project
a. Does the project generate less than 200 net daily trips?
4. Infill Affordable Housing
a. Is the project composed of deed-restricted affordable housing
units, and has the following characteristics:
i. Is an infill project;
ii. Is close to a transit stop or station; and
iii. Project-provided parking does not exceed parking
required by the Chula Vista Municipal Code?
5. Redevelopment Project
a. Does the project result in a net decrease in total Project VMT than
the existing use?
Project Location Screening
1. Select the Land Uses that apply to your project
2. Answer the questions for each Land Use that applies to your project
(if “Yes” is indicated in any land use category below, then that land use (or a portion
of the land use) is screened from CEQA Transportation Analysis) Yes No
1. Residential
a. Is the project located in a VMT-efficient area (15% or more below
the regional average) using the Chula Vista screening maps for
VMT/Capita?
View VMT/Capita map here:
https://cvgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f
0d05a4a014841d588bb66891500b34d
2. Employment (not including Industrial Employment)
a. Is the project located in a VMT-efficient area (15% or more below
the regional average) using the City of Chula Vista screening maps
for VMT/Employee?
View VMT/Employee map here:
https://cvgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d
80a3cddc1964f8c88dafef234147e98
3. Industrial Employment
a. Is the project located in a VMT-efficient area (at or below the
regional average) using the City of Chula Vista screening maps for
VMT/Employee?
4. Within a transit buffer
a. Is the project in a transit priority area or within ½ mile of a stop
along a high quality transit corridor, and has the following project
characteristics?
i. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of more than 0.75
ii. Includes no more than the minimum parking for use by
residents, customers, or employees of the project than
required by the jurisdiction
iii. Is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan
iv. Does not include a smaller number of units that
previously on the project site
v. Does not replace affordable residential units with
moderate- or high-income residential units.
Screened Out?
(Mark Yes or No)
4 l
Page 46 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A
Project Information Form for Transportation Studies
Page 4 of 4
A
Local Mobility Analysis Screening
Does this project generate less than 200
daily trips (after adjustments)?
Yes No
If yes, the project does not need to complete an LMA. If no, continue to next question to determine
study extents.
Is this project consistent with Relevant City
Planning Documents (e.g., General Plan, SPA
Plan, Specific Plan)?
Yes No
Refer to the City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines (TSG), Chapter 4, to determine study
extents based on the project’s trip generation and consistency with the General Plan.
Provide attach a list or map of proposed study intersections in accordance with the requirements
outlined in the TSG, Chapter 4.
4
4
Page 47 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3900 5th Avenue, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92103 619-795-6086
www.CRAmobility.com
CEQA Transportation Analysis and Local Mobility Analysis
In 2014, the City of Chula Vista approved the Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and
Tentative Map, along with the Environmental Impact Report (2014 EIR) and associated Traffic Impact
Study (2014 TIS). HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (the Applicant) subsequently filed an application for
amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and the
Village 8 East SPA, a rezone and new Tentative Map.
The purpose of this comprehensive PIF is to track the amendments proposed by the Project Applicant
and provide a tracking mechanism for the City to ensure that future projects remain consistent with
the 2014 EIR. Table 1 displays a trip generation studied in the 2014 EIR. Excerpt of the 2014 EIR is
included as Attachment A.
Table 1 - Village 8 East Trip Generation – Adopted Land Uses (2014 TIS)
Land Use Trip Generation
Rates from 2014 TIS Amount ADT AM
(In/Out)
PM
(In/Out)
Single Family 10/DU 963 DU 9,630 770
(231-in / 539-out)
963
(674-in / 289-out)
Multi-Family 8/DU 2,597 DU 20,776 1,662
(332/1,330)
2,078
(1,454/623)
Mixed-Use
Commercial 110/KSF 20 KSF 2,200 66
(40/26)
198
(99/99)
CPF 30/Acre 4.2 Acre 126 6
(4/3)
10
(5/5)
Elementary
School 90/Acre 10.8 Acre 972 311
(187/124)
87
(35/52)
Neighborhood
Park 5/Acre 7.3 Acre 37 1
(1/1)
3
(1/1)
Community
Park 50/Acre 40.7 Acre 2,035 81
(41/41)
163
(81/81)
Total 35,776 2,889
(835/2,064)
3,502
(2,350/1,152)
Source: University Villages TIA (2014)
As shown in Table 1, the total trips analyzed in the 2014 EIR are 35,776 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with
2,899 trips (835-in/2,064-out) during the AM peak hour and 3,502 trips (2,350-in/1,152-out) during
the PM peak hour. Excerpts from the 2014 TIS are provided as an attachment to this document.
Table 2 displays the trip generation for the proposed Village 8 East land uses. This table reflects the
trip generation for proposed land uses across the entire Village. For comparison purposes, some
planning areas were grouped together based on their geographical locations and presence of physical
barriers (i.e., natural terrain, freeway, existing or future roadways). The proposed site plan is included
as an attachment to this document.
As shown in Table 2, the proposed Village 8 East land uses are anticipated to generate 31,776 ADT,
with 2,307 (530-in/1,777-out) trips during the AM peak hour, and 3,096 (2,078-in/1,018-out) trips
during the PM peak hour. Which is 4,000 less ADT, 592 less (305-in/287-out) AM trips, and 406 less
(272-in/134-out) PM trips, when compared to the 2014 EIR. Street cross sections and estimated
average daily traffic are provided as attachments to this document.
Page 48 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Table 2 - Village 8 East Proposed Trip Generation
Parcel Land Use Units Unit
Type
Trip
Rate ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% Trips Split In Out % Trips Split In Out
R1 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 154 DU 8/DU 1,232 8% 99 2:8 20 79 10% 124 7:3 87 37
R2 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 163 DU 8/DU 1,304 8% 105 2:8 21 84 10% 131 7:3 92 39
R3 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 162 DU 8/DU 1,296 8% 104 2:8 21 83 10% 130 7:3 91 39
R4 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 147 DU 8/DU 1,176 8% 95 2:8 19 76 10% 118 7:3 83 35
R5 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 155 DU 8/DU 1,240 8% 100 2:8 20 80 10% 124 7:3 87 37
R6 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 143 DU 8/DU 1,144 8% 92 2:8 18 74 10% 115 7:3 81 34
R7 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 226 DU 8/DU 1,808 8% 145 2:8 29 116 10% 181 7:3 127 54
R8 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 176 DU 8/DU 1,408 8% 113 2:8 23 90 10% 141 7:3 99 42
R9 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 196 DU 8/DU 1,568 8% 126 2:8 25 101 10% 157 7:3 110 47
R10 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 142 DU 8/DU 1,136 8% 91 2:8 18 73 10% 114 7:3 80 34
S-1 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre)1 264 DU 8/DU 2,112 8% 169 2:8 34 135 10% 212 7:3 148 64
VC-1 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 275 DU 8/DU 2,200 8% 176 2:8 35 141 10% 220 7:3 154 66
VC-2 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 430 DU 8/DU 3,440 8% 276 2:8 55 221 10% 344 7:3 241 103
VC-3A Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 161 DU 8/DU 1,288 8% 104 2:8 21 83 10% 129 7:3 90 39
VC-3B Mixed Use: Commercial
(W/Supermarket)/Residential 2 10 KSF 110/KSF 1,100 3% 33 6:4 20 13 9% 99 5:5 50 49
VC-4 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 192 DU 8/DU 1,536 8% 123 2:8 25 98 10% 154 7:3 108 46
VC-5 Mixed Use: Commercial
(W/Supermarket)/Residential2 10 KSF 110/KSF 1,100 3% 33 6:4 20 13 9% 99 5:5 50 49
VC-6 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 142 DU 8/DU 1,136 8% 91 2:8 18 73 10% 114 7:3 80 34
VC-7 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 148 DU 8/DU 1,184 8% 95 2:8 19 76 10% 119 7:3 83 36
CPF-1 CPF 1.2 Acre 30/Acre 36 4% 2 5:5 1 1 8% 3 5:5 2 1
AR Community Park 22.6 Acre 50/Acre 1,130 4% 46 5:5 23 23 8% 91 5:5 46 45
P-1 (NP) Neighborhood Park 7.3 Acre 5/Acre 37 4% 2 5:5 1 1 8% 3 5:5 2 1
P-2 (CP) Community Park 43.3 Acre 50/Acre 2,165 4% 87 5:5 44 43 8% 174 5:5 87 87
Total 3,276 DU 31,776 2,307 530 1,777 3,096 2,078 1,018
University Villages EIR/TIS (V8E) 35,776 2,899 - 835 2,064 - 3,502 - 2,350 1,152
∆ -4,000 -592 -305 -287 -406 -272 -134
Source: CR Associates (2023)
1 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If the site is not developed as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if the
site is developed as an elementary school, then the 264 units may be reallocated to another Village 8 East parcel or transferred to another village, as permitted in the Village 8 East PC District
Regulations, Chapter 10, Implementation.
2 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent with the Village Core zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels
with no residential units. 20,000 SF of commercial uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial SF may be developed within a single parcel designated VC or distributed among any
parcel designated VC (VC-1 through VC-7). The final distribution of commercial SF to be determined during Design Review.
Page 49 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Consistent with the City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines (TSG), a project that generates less
than 200 net daily trips is not required to conduct a CEQA Transportation Analysis or Local Mobility Analysis
(LMA). Since the Project would generate 4,000 less daily trips, a CEQA Transportation Analysis and LMA is
not required.
Table 3 compares the proposed and approved land uses by summarizing the net change in residential or
commercial quantities. The comparison of the adopted site plan and the proposed site plan is provided
for reference only.
Table 4 is a tracking sheet intended for future Village 8 East projects. When completing a project specific
PIF, future projects should update Table 4 to reflect proposed residential or commercial square footage
allocation changes, as well as the resulting changes to trip generation.
The Site Plan overlay, which offers a comparison between the current SPA and the proposed project, can
be found in Attachment B. Details on the internal roadway cross-section, expected daily traffic,
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Network, and related data can be found in Attachment C.
Page 50 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Table 3 - Proposed and Approved Land Uses
Proposed Land Use Approved Land Use
Planning Area Unit Type Acres Units Target Density Planning Area Unit Type Acres Units Target Density ∆
VC-1 Multi-Family 7.6 275 DU 36.2 R-16 Multi-Family 6.2 287 DU 46.3 -12 DU
R-1 Multi-Family 9.9 154 DU 15.6 R-14 Multi-Family 7.1 329 DU 46.3 -175 DU
R-2 Multi-Family 10.7 163 DU 15.2 R-15 Multi-Family 9.6 452 DU 47.1 -289 DU
VC-2 Multi-Family 11.3 430 DU 38.1 R-17 Multi-Family 12 562 DU 46.8 -518 DU VC-3A Multi-Family 5.5 161 DU 29.3
R-18 Multi-Family 11.3 547 DU 48.4 VC-3B Commercial 5.6 10 KSF - +10 KSF
S-1 Multi-Family 11.3 264 DU 23.4 R-1 Single Family 8.4 76 DU 9 +154 DU R-2 Single Family 3.9 34 DU 8.7
P-1 Neighborhood Park 7.4 - - S-1 Elementary School 10.8 - - -
VC-4 Multi-Family 4.5 192 DU 42.7
MU-1
Multi-Family
9.5
440 DU 46.3 -248 DU
VC-5 Commercial 5.7 10 KSF - Commercial 20 KSF - -10 KSF
CPF-1 CPF 2.6 - -
VC-6 Multi-Family 5.3 142 DU 26.8 P-1 Neighborhood Park 7.3 - - +290 DU VC-7 Multi-Family 6 148 DU 24.7
R-3 Multi-Family 11.4 162 DU 14.2 R-3 Single Family 9.8 80 DU 8.2 +30 DU R-4 Single Family 7.6 52 DU 6.8
R-4 Multi-Family 10.9 147 DU 13.5
R-5 Single Family 2.7 23 DU 8.5
+99 DU R-6 Single Family 2.6 25 DU 9.6
CPF-2 CPF 0.5 - -
R-5 Multi-Family 11.0 155 DU 14.1
R-7a Single Family 1.2 14 DU 11.7
-62 DU R-7b Single Family 0.9 11 DU 12.2
R-8 Single Family 3.8 33 DU 8.7
R-9 Single Family 17.1 159 DU 9.2
R-6 Multi-Family 10.3 143 DU 13.9 R-10 Single Family 13.5 111 DU 8.5 +32 DU CPF-3 CPF 0.5 - -
Page 51 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Proposed Land Use Approved Land Use
Planning Area Unit Type Acres Units Target Density Planning Area Unit Type Acres Units Target Density ∆
R-7 Multi-Family 15.8 226 DU 14.3 R-11a Single Family 9.3 74 DU 8
+415 DU
R-11b Single Family 1.3 10 DU 7.7
R-8 Multi-Family 14.0 176 DU 12.6 R-12a Single Family 3.9 29 DU 7.4
0.0 DU 0.0 R-12b Single Family 10.6 72 DU 6.8
R-9 Multi-Family 15.4 196 DU 12.7 R-13 Single Family 20.5 140 DU 6.8
CPF-1 CPF 1.2 DU 0.0 -- - - -
R-10 Multi-Family 11.5 142 DU 12.3 CPF-4 CPF 0.6 - - -
P-2 Community Park 43.3 - - P-2 Community Park 51.5 - - -
AR-11 Active Recreation 22.6 AR-11 Active Recreation 22.6 -
Total 3276 DU 3580 DU -284 DU*
Source: Otay Ranch Village 8 SPA Plan (2014); CR Associates (2023)
Notes:
Green indicates net decrease in proposed residential dwelling units (DU) or commercial square footage (KSF) compared to proposed planning area's previously approved land use quantities.
Red indicates net increase in proposed residential dwelling units (DU) or commercial square footage (KSF) compared to proposed planning area's previously approved land use quantities.
*284 units were transferred to Village 8 West
CPF = Community Purpose Facility
Page 52 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Table 4 - Land Use and Trip Generation Tracking Sheet
Planning Area
Proposed Land Use Future Development Land Use ∆
Land Use Amount Unit
Type
Trip
Rate ADT Land Use Units Trip Rate ADT
R1 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 154 DU 8/DU 1,232
R2 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 163 DU 8/DU 1,304
R3 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 162 DU 8/DU 1,296
R4 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 147 DU 8/DU 1,176
R5 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 155 DU 8/DU 1,240
R6 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 143 DU 8/DU 1,144
R7 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 226 DU 8/DU 1,808
R8 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 176 DU 8/DU 1,408
R9 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 196 DU 8/DU 1,568
R10 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 142 DU 8/DU 1,136
S-1 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 264 DU 8/DU 2,112
VC-1 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 275 DU 8/DU 2,200
VC-2 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 430 DU 8/DU 3,440
VC-3A
VC-3B
Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 161 DU 8/DU 1,288
Mixed Use: Commercial
(W/Supermarket)/Residential 10 KSF 110/KS
F 1,100
VC-4 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 192 DU 8/DU 1,536
VC-5 Mixed Use: Commercial
(W/Supermarket)/Residential 10 KSF 110/KS
F 1,100
VC-6 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 142 DU 8/DU 1,136
VC-7 Multi-Family (6-20 DU/Acre) 148 DU 8/DU 1,184
CPF-1 CPF 1.2 Acre 30/Acre 36
AR Community Park 22.6 Acre 50/Acre 1,130
P-1 (NP) Neighborhood Park 7.3 Acre 5/Acre 37
P-2 (CP) Community Park 43.3 Acre 50/Acre 2,165
Page 53 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
ATTACHMENT A - Excerpts of 2014 TIS
Page 54 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE 4.6
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
YEAR 2030
Land Use Units Trip Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% Trips % Trips
Village 3 North
Single Family 1,002 DU 10 / DU 10,020 8 802
(240-in / 561-out) 10 1,002
(701-in / 301-out)
Multi-Family 595 DU 8 / DU 4,760 8 381
(76-in / 305-out) 10 476
(333-in / 143-out)
Mixed-Use
Commercial 20 KSF 110 / KSF 2,200 3 66
(40-in / 26-out) 9 198
(99-in / 99-out)
Office 16.1 AC 300 / AC 4,830 14 676
(609-in / 68-out) 13 628
(126-in / 502-out)
Light Industrial 23.1 AC 90 / AC 2,079 11 229
(206-in / 23-out) 12 249
(50-in / 200-out)
CPF 1.5 AC 30 / AC 45 5 2
(1-in / 1-out) 8 4
(2-in / 2-out)
Elementary
School 8.3 AC 90 / AC 747 32 239
(143-in / 96-out) 9 67
(27-in / 40-out)
Neighborhood
Park 7.8 AC 5 / AC 39 4 2
(1-in / 1-out) 8 3
(2-in / 2-out)
Village 3N by 2030 24,720 2,396
(1,316-in / 1,080-out) 2,627
(1,339-in / 1,288-out)
Village 4
Community
Park 17.8 AC 50 / AC 890 4 36
(18-in / 18-out) 8 71
(36-in / 36-out)
Village 4 by 2030 890 36
(18-in / 18-out) 71
(36-in / 36-out)
Village 8 East
Single Family 963 DU 10 / DU 9,630 8 770
(231-in / 539-out) 10 963
(674-in / 289-out)
Multi-Family 2,597 DU 8 / DU 20,776 8 1,662
(332-in / 1,330-out) 10 2,078
(1,454-in / 623-out)
Mixed-Use
Commercial 20 KSF 110 / KSF 2,200 3 66
(40-in / 26-out) 9 198
(99-in / 99-out)
CPF 4.2 AC 30 / AC 126 5 6
(4-in / 3-out) 8 10
(5-in / 5-out)
Elementary
School 10.8 AC 90 / AC 972 32 311
(187-in / 124-out) 9 87
(35-in / 52-out)
Neighborhood
Park 7.3 AC 5 / AC 37 4 1
(1-in / 1-out) 8 3
(1-in / 1-out)
Page 52
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 55 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE 4.6
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
YEAR 2030
Land Use Units Trip Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% Trips % Trips
Community
Park 40.7 AC 50 / AC 2,035 4 81
(41-in / 41-out) 8 163
(81-in / 81-out)
Village 8E by 2030 35,776 2,899
(835-in / 2,064-out) 3,502
(2,350-in / 1,152-out)
Village 10
Single Family 691 DU 10 / DU 6,910 8 553
(166-in / 387-out) 10 691
(484-in / 207-out)
Multi-Family 1,049 DU 8 / DU 8,392 8 671
(134-in / 537-out) 10 839
(587-in / 252-out)
CPF 4.6 AC 30 / AC 138 5 7
(4-in / 3-out) 8 11
(6-in / 6-out)
Elementary
School 8.9 AC 90 / AC 801 32 256
(154-in / 103-out) 9 72
(29-in / 43-out)
Neighborhood
Park 7.1 AC 5 / AC 36 4 1
(1-in / 1-out) 8 3
(1-in / 1-out)
Village 10 by 2030 16,277 1,488
(458-in / 1,030-out) 1,616
(1,107-in / 509-out)
Total by 2030 77,663 6,819
(2,627-in / 4,192-out) 7,816
(4,831-in / 2,985-out)
Source: SANDAG Trip Generation Manual, Chen Ryan Associates; August 2014May 2013
As shown in Table 4.6, the proposed project would generate a total of 77,663 daily trips by the
Year 2030, including 6,819 AM peak hour trips and 7,816 PM peak hour trips. All of the proposed
land uses would be fully developed by Year 2030.
Project trips were disaggregated into those that would remain within the project site (internally
captured), and those that would leave the project site (external trips). Only external trips were
distributed and assigned to the study area roadways and intersections.
Each trip generation rate includes a number of trip purposes, generally categorized as home
based work (HBW), home based other (HBO, consists of shopping, school, recreation, etc.) and
non-home based (NHB) trips. For developments with mixed land uses, many of the trips
generated would have been served on-site. For example, shopping trips (a part of HBO) would
be satisfied by the commercial uses within the project site, as would school trips and recreational
trips. The same logic would apply to the trip production/attraction interactions between office
and commercial uses. It is a common practice, both nationwide and in the San Diego region, to
utilize trip reductions reflecting the internal capture of trips associated with mixed-use
Page 53
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 56 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
ATTACHMENT B - Site Plan Overlay
The purpose of this overlay map is to graphically depict how the adopted and proposed planning
areas/land uses correlate. The overlay boundaries do not precisely represent the proposed site plan
boundaries. Please see the Proposed Site Plan below for the proposed Village 8 East planning
areas/land uses boundaries.
Page 57 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Proposed Site Plan
Page 58 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
ATTACHMENT C – Internal Roadway Cross Section,
NEV Network, Average Daily Traffic, and Internal
Street Sizing Memo
Page 59 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
ADT & Street Cross Sections
Internal
Roadway
Segment Estimated
ADT
Recommended or Planned
Classification
LOS D
Threshold
LOS
Main Street West of La Palmita Drive 37,200 Prime Arterial (6-lane) 56,300 A
Main Street East of La Palmita Drive 35,680 Prime Arterial (6-lane) 56,300 A
La Media
Parkway West of La Palmita Drive 25,200 Major Street (4-lane) 33,800 B
La Media
Parkway East of La Palmita Drive 25,750 Major Street (4-lane) 33,800 B
Del Sueno
Drive
Between Savoria Parkway and Calle
Escuela 1,310 Residential Promenade (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 A
La Palmita
Drive
Between Main Street and Savoria
Parkway 8,730 Secondary Village Entry (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 A
La Palmita
Drive
Between Savoria Parkway and Calle
Escuella 6,610 Secondary Village Entry (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 A
La Palmita
Drive
Between Calle Escuela and La Media
Parkway 7,030 Secondary Village Entry (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 A
Delgado
Drive
south of La Media Parkway 6,350 Residential Promenade (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 A
Savoria
Parkway
Between Del Sueno Drive and La
Palmita Drive 6,840 Secondary Village Entry (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 A
Savoria
Parkway
Between La Palmita Drive and Via
Palermo 11,660 Secondary Village Entry (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 C
Calle
Escuela
Between V8W/V8E Boundary and La
Palmita Drive 7,100 Residential Promenade (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 A
Calle
Escuela
Between La Palmita Drive and Via
Palermo 6,970 Residential Promenade (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 13,500 A
Page 60 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Page 61 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
ADT & Street Cross Sections Comparison
Page 62 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Proposed Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Network
Page 63 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Bike & Ped Network
Page 64 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Site
^
Page 65 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
. .
Figure 4-1: Priority Missing Sidewalks
'It o'to u:1•1••◄�it·
0 0.5 , 1Miles�
0 ,r
·----···y7 r-·1 r··----,r•-■-----■----
, -No SidewalkL ·---· t._.. t...J ! �1 i______ -Circulation Element, 4-Lane or 6-Lane Roadways
-\�� _
_
•_••_F_u_�_e _G_._�
__
a_u_�_n_El_e_=�n_t _R_m_d_-_y _s ____ �
78
Project Site
^
Page 66 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Figure 4-2: Pedestrian Route Types
\ 1 •
San Diego Bay
\ \
:'!": Si 1 MIies � ._I _ ____._ _ __,I "\
;===
QJ C
�--·--·---.l
-----------·
r••: r··-··-·1 r··-··-··-··-··-.I I � : 1,' ··-·· -.. , ! , __ _
. . 'It o'tou:1•1••◄�it·Pedestrian Route Types Additional Facilities-District
-Corridor
-Connector
-Multi-Use Path = Multi-Use Bridge
_ Propased = Multi-Use Bridge Mufti-Use Path (Future)
_ Other Pathway = Multi -Use Bridge(Under Construction)
85
Project Site
^
Page 67 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Project Information Form
Internal Street Sizing Memorandum
Page 68 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3900 5th Avenue, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92103 619-795-6086
www.CRAmobility.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff O’Connor, HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
FROM: Phuong Nguyen, PE
DATE: November 12, 2023
RE: Village 8 East – Internal Street Sizing
This technical memorandum presents estimated daily traffic and level of service (LOS) along the Village
8 East (V8E) internal streets, traffic signal warrants within the village, as well as focused traffic
operational analysis at project access points. Recommendations are provided regarding the proper
classification designations for the internal streets, and traffic control and geometrics at key internal
intersections and project driveways.
Internal ADT Estimation
The City of Chula Vista Roadway Level of Service (CVLOS) standards were utilized to analyze the internal
roadway segment performance. The analysis of roadway segment Level of Service is based on the
daily capacity of the roadway (by LOS), compared to its existing or forecasted average daily traffic (ADT)
volume. It should be noted that non-mobility element roadway within Village 8 East follow the standards
in the Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area Plan (V8ESPA), while the V8ESPA does not have ADT or
LOS standards, for roadway sizing purposes, the CVLOS standards were used. For example, a
Secondary Village Entry with 1 lane in each direction and a median with turn lanes would have the
same roadway capacity and threshold as a Class II collector (2-lane roadway with turn lane). This
approach is consistent with those utilized in the University Villages Environmental Impact Report and
Traffic Impact Analysis 1. Moreover, while circulation element arterial and major roadways are required
to meet an operational goal of LOS C (or LOS D within Otay Ranch Villages per page 104 of the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan), there is no LOS requirement for internal village streets. The LOS
information provided for the internal village roadways in this document is purely for informational
purposes. Table 1 presents the City of Chula Vista and Otay Ranch segment capacity and Level of
Service standards for arterial roadways.
Table 1 - City of Chula Vista / Otay Ranch Segment Capacity And Level Of Service Standards On
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
City of Chula Vista
Functional Classification Otay Ranch Classification
Level of Service
A B C D E
Non-Mobility Element Roadway
Class II Collector
(2-lane w/ Raised Median
and Turn Pockets)
Secondary Village Entry or
Residential Promenade (2-lane
w/ Median and Turn Lane) 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000
Mobility Element Roadway
Prime Arterial (6-lane) 37,500 43,800 50,000 56,300 62,500
Major Street (4-lane) 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500
Source: City of Chula Vista
1 Chapter 12 of the University Villages TIA (UVTIA). An excerpt has been provided in Attachment A.
Page 69 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 2
Based upon buildout of the proposed project land uses and trip generation (as documented in the
Otay Ranch Village 8 East PIF by Chen Ryan Associates, September 20, 2023), ADT volumes were
estimated for the internal roadway segments within the V8E project site. Project trips were distributed
and assigned to the internal roadway system based on the location and characteristics of the proposed
land uses.
Internal roadway volumes for the proposed V8E were derived based on the following 3 steps:
1. Project Trip Generation by Subarea - The project site plan was divided into various subareas by
using major internal roadways as dividing lines. Trip generation estimates were then developed
for each subarea by applying the trip generation rates contained in SANDAG’s Guide to Vehicular
Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (SANDAG, April 2002) to the land uses in the
respective subarea.
2. Project Trip Distribution – project trips were distributed to the internal roadway network based
on the following:
a. External Distribution – The external project trip distribution was derived based on a
SANDAG Series 11 Select Zone assignment, as documented on Figure 4-1E of the
University Villages Traffic Impact Analysis (prepared by Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.,
dated November 2014), and is included in Attachment A. Note that the distribution of
external trips in Village 8 East in the UVTIA was based on a partial clover-leaf
interchange configuration (Highway Design Manual (HDM) Type L-9) at Main Street &
SR-125. However, the current design is a parallel street system interchange (HDM type
L-5) with freeway connections at Main Street & SR-125 and La Media Parkway & SR-
125. Therefore, manual adjustments were made to mirror the new interchange layout.
b. Internal Trip Capture - Since the project site contains a mix of land uses including
residential, commercial, schools, parks, etc. it can be assumed that some trips
generated by land uses within the project site will be attracted to other land uses within
the project site, i.e. internal trips. Table 4.8 of the University Villages Traffic Impact
Analysis documents the assumed percentages and number of internal project trips by
each land use type.
3. Project Trip Assignment – Project trips were assigned to the internal roadway system based on
the following:
a. External Trips – Trips from each subarea were assigned to the internal roadway
network based on the shortest path from the subarea access point to their ultimate
external destination point, as defined in step 2a.
b. Internal Trips – Based on the internal trip assumptions outlined in Step 2b, a certain
percentage of the trips generated within each subarea was assumed to have an
internal project destination within a corresponding subarea, based on land use mix.
These trips were assigned to the internal network based on the shortest path between
the access points of the two subareas.
Figure 1 displays the resulting internal roadway ADT for the proposed V8E development. Table 2
displays the recommended roadway classifications and resulting Level of Service for all key V8E
internal roadway segments. Copy of the internal/external trips distribution percentages is included as
Attachment B.
Page 70 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 3
Table 2 - V8E Internal Roadway Classification and Performance
Internal
Roadway Segment
Estimated
ADT
Recommended or Planned
Classification
LOS D
Threshold LOS
Main
Street West of La Palmita Drive 37,200 Prime Arterial (6-lane) 56,300 A
Main
Street East of La Palmita Drive 35,680 Prime Arterial (6-lane) 56,300 A
La
Media
Parkway
West of La Palmita Drive 25,200 Major Street (4-lane) 33,800 B
La
Media
Parkway
East of La Palmita Drive 25,750 Major Street (4-lane) 33,800 B
Del
Sueno
Drive
Between Savoria Parkway and Calle
Escuela 1,310
Residential Promenade (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 A
La
Palmita
Drive
Between Main Street and Savoria
Parkway 8,730
Secondary Village Entry (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 A
La
Palmita
Drive
Between Savoria Parkway and Calle
Escuella 6,610
Secondary Village Entry (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 A
La
Palmita
Drive
Between Calle Escuela and La Media
Parkway 7,030
Secondary Village Entry (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 A
Delgado
Drive south of La Media Parkway 6,350
Residential Promenade (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 A
Savoria
Parkway
Savoria
Parkway
Between Del Sueno Drive and La
Palmita Drive 6,840
Secondary Village Entry (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 A
Between La Palmita Drive and Via
Palermo 11,660
Secondary Village Entry (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 C
Calle
Escuela
Calle
Escuela
Between V8W/V8E Boundary and La
Palmita Drive 7,100
Residential Promenade (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 A
Between La Palmita Drive and Via
Palermo 6,970
Residential Promenade (2-
lane w/ Median and Turn
Lane)
13,500 A
As shown in the table, all of the analyzed internal roadway segments within V8E are projected to
operate at LOS C or better under full project buildout conditions with the recommended classification
designations.
Page 71 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 4
Figure 1 – Internal Roadway ADT & Cross Section
Page 72 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Attachment A - Excerpt from University Villages EIR
Page 73 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE 2.5
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Roadway Functional Classification Level of Service
A B C D E
Expressway (6-lane) < 30,000 < 42,000 < 60,000 < 70,000 < 80,000
Prime Arterial (6-lane) < 25,000 < 35,000 < 50,000 < 55,000 < 60,000
Major Arterial (6-lane, divided) < 20,000 < 28,000 < 40,000 < 45,000 < 50,000
Major Arterial (4-lane, divided) < 15,000 < 21,000 < 30,000 < 35,000 < 40,000
Secondary Arterial / Collector (4-lane w/
center lane) < 10,000 < 14,000 < 20,000 < 25,000 < 30,000
Collector (4-lane w/o center lane)
< 5,000 < 7,000 < 10,000 < 13,000 < 15,000 Collector (2-lane w/ continuous left-turn
lane)
Collector (2-lane no fronting property) < 4,000 < 5,500 < 7,500 < 9,000 < 10,000
Collector (2-lane w/ commercial fronting) < 2,500 < 3,500 < 5,000 < 6,500 < 8,000 Collector (2-lane multi-family)
Sub-Collector (2-lane single-family) - - < 2,200 - -
Source: SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region
Note:
Bold numbers indicate the ADT thresholds for acceptable LOS.
2.4 Growth Management Program (GMP) Analysis
The City of Chula Vista’s Growth Management Program (GMP) requires an additional analysis of
roadway segment performance under near-term conditions (Years 0-4) utilizing the methodology
described in Chapter 17 (Urban Street Segment) of the HCM 2010. This methodology determines
roadway segment level of service based upon functional classification, roadway segment length
and travel speeds. Current information relating to roadway functional classifications, segment
lengths, and travel speeds are maintained by the City’s Growth Management Traffic Monitoring
Program.
The GMP level of service standard requires the maintenance of LOS C or better, or LOS D for no
more than any two (2) hours of the day. If LOS D occurs for any period greater than two (2) hours,
additional analyses may be required along the respective high volume segments based upon
direction provided by the City Engineer.
For planned arterial facilities that are not included in the current Traffic Monitoring Program, the
definition of segment length and facility classification will be based on direction provided by the
City Engineer.
Page 12
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 74 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE 4.10
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS
YEAR 2030
Land Use Quantity
Total Trips Internal Trips External Trips
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % Internal Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % External Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Village 3 North
Single Family 1,002
DU 10,020 802
(240-in / 561-out)
1,002
(701-in / 301-out) 10% 1,002 80
(24-in / 56-out)
100
(70-in / 30-out) 90% 9,018 721
(216-in / 505-out)
902
(631-in / 271-out)
Multi-Family 595 DU 4,760 381
(76-in / 305-out)
476
(333-in / 143-out) 10% 476 38
(8-in / 30-out)
48
(33-in / 14-out) 90% 4,284 343
(69-in / 274-out)
428
(300-in / 129-out)
Mixed-Use
Commercial 20 KSF 2,200 66
(40-in / 26-out)
198
(99-in / 99-out) 50% 1,100 33
(20-in / 13-out)
99
(50-in / 50-out) 50% 1,100 33
(20-in / 13-out)
99
(50-in / 50-out)
Office 16.1 AC 4,830 676
(609-in / 68-out)
628
(126-in / 502-out) 10% 483 68
(61-in / 7-out)
63
(13-in / 50-out) 90% 4,347 609
(548-in / 61-out)
565
(113-in / 452-out)
Light
Industrial 23.1 AC 2,079 229
(206-in / 23-out)
249
(50-in / 200-out) 10% 208 23
(21-in / 2-out)
25
(5-in / 20-out) 90% 1,871 206
(185-in / 21-out)
225
(45-in / 180-out)
CPF 1.5 AC 45 2
(1-in / 1-out)
4
(2-in / 2-out) 80% 36 2
(1-in / 1-out)
3
(1-in / 1-out) 20% 9 0
(0-in / 0-out)
1
(0-in / 0-out)
Elementary
School 8.3 AC 747 239
(143-in / 96-out)
67
(27-in / 40-out) 80% 598 191
(115-in / 76-out)
54
(22-in / 32-out) 20% 149 48
(29-in / 19-out)
13
(5-in / 8-out)
Neighborhood
Park 7.8 AC 39 2
(1-in / 1-out)
3
(2-in / 2-out) 80% 31 1
(1-in / 1-out)
2
(1-in / 1-out) 20% 8 0
(0-in / 0-out)
1
(0-in / 0-out)
V3N Total 24,720 2,396
(1,316-in/1,080-out)
2,627
(1,339-in/1,288-out) 3,934 436
(249-in / 187-out)
394
(195-in / 199-out) 20,786 1,960
(1,067-in/893-out)
2,234
(1,145-in/1,089-out)
Village 4
Community
Park 17.8 AC 890 36
(18-in / 18-out)
71
(36-in / 36-out) 0% 0 0
(0-in / 0-out)
0
(0-in / 0-out) 100% 890 36
(18-in / 18-out)
71
(36-in / 36-out)
V4 Total 890 36
(18-in / 18-out)
71
(36-in / 36-out) 0 0
(0-in / 0-out)
0
(0-in / 0-out) 890 36
(18-in / 18-out)
71
(36-in / 36-out)
Page 61
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 75 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE 4.10
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS
YEAR 2030
Land Use Quantity
Total Trips Internal Trips External Trips
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % Internal Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % External Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Village 8 East
Single Family 963 DU 9,630 770
(231-in / 539-out)
963
(674-in / 289-out) 10% 963 77
(23-in / 54-out)
96
(67-in / 29-out) 90% 8,667 693
(208-in / 485-out)
867
(607-in / 260-out)
Multi-Family 2,597
DU 20,776 1,662
(332-in / 1,330-out)
2,078
(1,454-in / 623-out) 10% 2,078 166
(33-in / 133-out)
208
(145-in / 62-out) 90% 18,698 1,496
(299-in /1,197-out)
1,870
(1,309-in / 561-out)
Mixed-Use
Commercial 20 KSF 2,200 66
(40-in / 26-out)
198
(99-in / 99-out) 50% 1,100 33
(20-in / 13-out)
99
(50-in / 50-out) 50% 1,100 33
(20-in / 13-out)
99
(50-in / 50-out)
CPF 4.2 AC 126 6
(4-in / 3-out)
10
(5-in / 5-out) 80% 101 5
(3-in / 2-out)
8
(4-in / 4-out) 20% 25 1
(1-in / 1-out)
2
(1-in / 1-out)
Elementary
School 10.8 AC 972 311
(187-in / 124-out)
87
(35-in / 52-out) 80% 778 249
(149-in / 100-out)
70
(28-in / 42-out) 20% 194 62
(37-in / 25-out)
17
(7-in / 10-out)
Neighborhood
Park 7.3 AC 37 1
(1-in / 1-out)
3
(1-in / 1-out) 80% 29 1
(1-in / 1-out)
2
(1-in / 1-out) 20% 7 0
(0-in / 0-out)
1
(0-in / 0-out)
Community
Park 40.7 AC 2,035 81
(41-in / 41-out)
163
(81-in / 81-out) 0% 0 0
(0-in / 0-out)
0
(0-in / 0-out) 100% 2,035 81
(41-in / 41-out)
163
(81-in / 81-out)
V8E Total 35,776 2,899
(835-in / 2,064-out)
3,502
(2,350-in/1,152-out) 5,048 531
(229-in / 302-out)
483
(296-in / 188-out) 30,727 2,367
(606-in/1,761-out)
3,018
(2,055-in / 964-out)
Village 10
Single Family 691 DU 6,910 553
(166-in / 387-out)
691
(484-in / 207-out) 10% 691 55
(17-in / 39-out)
69
(48-in / 21-out) 90% 6,219 498
(149-in / 349-out)
622
(435-in / 187-out)
Multi-Family 1,049
DU 8,392 671
(134-in / 537-out)
839
(587-in / 252-out) 10% 839 67
(13-in / 54-out)
84
(59-in / 25-out) 90% 7,553 604
(121-in / 483-out)
755
(529-in / 226-out)
CPF 4.6 AC 138 7
(4-in / 3-out)
11
(6-in / 6-out) 80% 110 6
(3-in / 2-out)
9
(4-in / 4-out) 20% 28 1
(1-in / 1-out)
2
(1-in / 1-out)
Page 62
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 76 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE 4.10
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS
YEAR 2030
Land Use Quantity
Total Trips Internal Trips External Trips
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % Internal Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % External Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Elementary
School 8.9 AC 801 256
(154-in / 103-out)
72
(29-in / 43-out) 80% 641 205
(123-in / 82-out)
58
(23-in / 35-out) 20% 160 51
(31-in / 21-out)
14
(6-in / 9-out)
Neighborhood
Park 7.1 AC 36 1
(1-in / 1-out)
3
(1-in / 1-out) 80% 28 1
(1-in / 1-out)
2
(1-in / 1-out) 20% 7 0
(0-in / 0-out)
1
(0-in / 0-out)
V10 Total 16,277 1,488
(458-in / 1,030-out)
1,616
(1,107-in / 509-out) 2,309 334
(157-in / 178-out)
222
(135-in / 86-out) 13,968 1,154
(301-in / 852-out)
1,394
(971-in / 423-out)
Total 77,663
6,819
(2,627-in / 4,192-out)
7,816
(4,831-in / 2,985-out)
11,291 1,301
(635-in / 667-out)
1,099
(626-in / 473-out) 66,372
5,517
(1,992-in / 3,525-out)
6,717
(4,205-in / 2,512-out)
Source: SANDAG Trip Generation Manual, Chen Ryan Associates; August 2014May 2013
Page 63
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 77 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
12.0 Site Access and On-Site Circulation
This chapter presents an assessment of transportation facilities providing access to the proposed
project. It also recommends functional classifications for all roadways internal to the project.
12.1 Site Access
The University Villages project is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Chula Vista.
The proposed project is comprised of Otay Ranch Village 3 North, a portion of Village 4, Village 8
East, and Village 10.
Village 3 North
Site access to Village 3 North is proposed via three (3) driveways, each accessing Heritage Road.
Each of the three project driveways would be signalized, based on signal warrants, and would
operate at LOS D or better during the peak hour with full development of the project.
Additionally, these 3 driveways would meet the minimum number of access requirement for
Village 3 North.
Village 4
Site access to the JPB portion of Village 4 is proposed via La Media Road to form a four- legged
intersection with Santa Luna Street. Based on signal warrants, the project driveway would be
signalized and would operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours with full development of
the project.
Village 8 East
Site access to Village 8 East and the community park is proposed via seven (7) driveways: four
accessing Main Street; three accessing Otay Valley Road, including the proposed community park
driveway. The intersection of Santa Marisol/Main Street and Santa Marisol/Otay Valley Road
would be signalized, based on signal warrants, while the other driveways would be stop
controlled right-turn in/out only. All of the driveways to Village 8 East would operate at LOS D or
better during the peak hour with full development of the project. Additionally, these six (6)
driveways would meet the minimum point of access
Village 10
Site access to Village 10 is proposed via four (4) driveways including three accessing Discovery
Falls Drive and one accessing Otay Valley Road. Each of the four driveways would be signalized,
based on signal warrants, and would operate at LOS D or better during the peak hour with full
development of the project.
Page 264
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 78 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
12.2 On-Site Circulation
Based upon buildout of the proposed project land uses and trip generation as shown in Chapter
4.0, ADT volumes were estimated for the internal roadway segments within Villages 3 North, 8
East and 10; the project’s portion of Village 4 is limited to a community park and, as such, ADT
volumes were not estimated. Project trips were distributed and assigned to the internal roadway
system based on the location and characteristics of the proposed land uses. Figures 12-1 through
12-3 display the resulting internal roadway ADTs for Villages 3N, 8E and 10, respectively.
Village 3 North
Table 12.1 displays recommended roadway classifications and resulting Level of Service for the
Village 3 North internal roadway segments. LOS D is considered acceptable for internal roadways
within Otay Ranch.
TABLE 12.1
VILLAGE 3 NORTH INTERNAL ROADWAY SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Internal
Roadway Segment Estimated
ADT
Recommended
Classification
LOS D
Threshold LOS
Tributary
Street
from Santa Macheto to Santa
Picacho 4,100 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Tributary
Street
from Santa Picacho to Avenida
Sierra 3,900 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Tributary
Street
from Avenida Sierra to Santa
Maya 3,500 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Tributary
Street from West of Santa Maya 1,300 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Santa Maya from Heritage Road to Tributary
Street 5,900 Secondary Village Entry
with Median (3-lane) 13,500 A
Santa Maya from Tributary Street to Sunland
Street 2,400 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Avenida
Sierra
from Tributary Street to Calle
Swansea 2,000 Parkway Residential (2-
lane) 8,400 A
Calle
Swansea
from Santa Picacho to Avenida
Sierra 300 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Santa
Picacho
from Heritage Road to Tributary
Street 6,600 Secondary Village Entry
with Median (3-lane) 13,500 A
Santa
Picacho
from Tributary Street to Calle
Swansea 2,200 Secondary Village Entry
with Median (3-lane) 13,500 A
Promontory
Street
from Santa Macheto to Santa
Picacho 800 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Santa
Macheto
from Heritage Road to Tributary
Street 8,200 Secondary Village Entry
with Median (3-lane) 13,500 A
Page 265
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 79 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE 12.1
VILLAGE 3 NORTH INTERNAL ROADWAY SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Internal
Roadway Segment Estimated
ADT
Recommended
Classification
LOS D
Threshold LOS
Santa
Macheto
from Tributary Street to
Promontory Street 2,600 Secondary Village Entry
with Median (3-lane) 13,500 A
Source: Chen Ryan Associates; August 2014May 2014
As shown in the table, all of the analyzed internal roadway segments within Village 3 North would
operate at acceptable LOS A under buildout conditions with the recommended roadway
classifications.
Village 8 East
Table 12.2 displays recommended roadway classifications and resulting Level of Service for the
Village 8 East internal roadway segments. LOS D is considered acceptable for internal roadways
within Otay Ranch.
TABLE 12.2
VILLAGE 8 EAST INTERNAL ROADWAY SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Internal Roadway Segment Estimated ADT Recommended Classification LOS D Threshold LOS
Santa
Marisol
from Main Street to Caraway
Street 19,300 Secondary Village Entry w/
Median (4-Lane) 24,800 B
Santa
Marisol
from Caraway Street to Safflower
Street 8,700 Secondary Village Entry w/
Median (4-Lane) 24,800 A
Santa
Marisol
from Safflower Street to Otay
Valley Road 7,800 Secondary Village Entry w/
Median (4-Lane) 24,800 A
Santa
Marisol from South of Otay Valley Road 3,000 Secondary Village Entry
with Median (3-lane) 13,500 A
Santa Tipu from Main Street to Caraway
Street 1,900 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Santa Tipu from Caraway Street to Safflower
Street 3.800 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Caraway
Street Santa Marisol 6,400 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 B
Caraway
Street from Santa Marisol to Santa Tipu 5,100 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Cascabel
Street East of Santa Marisol 2,400 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Safflower
Street West of Santa Tipu 700 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Safflower
Street from Santa Tipu to Santa Marisol 2,600 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Page 266
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 80 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE 12.2
VILLAGE 8 EAST INTERNAL ROADWAY SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Internal
Roadway Segment Estimated
ADT
Recommended
Classification
LOS D
Threshold LOS
Community
Park
Driveway
South of Otay Valley Road 2,200 Community Park Entry
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Source: Chen Ryan Associates; August 2014May 2014
As shown in the table, all of the analyzed internal roadway segments within Village 8 East would
operate at acceptable LOS B or better under buildout conditions with the recommended roadway
classifications.
Village 10
Table 12.3 displays recommended roadway classifications and resulting Level of Service for the
Village 10 internal roadway segments. LOS D is considered acceptable for internal roadways
within Otay Ranch.
TABLE 12.3
VILLAGE 10 INTERNAL ROADWAY SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Internal Roadway Segment Estimated ADT Recommended Classification LOS D Threshold LOS
Otay Valley
Road
from Santa Davis to University
Drive 1,100 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Otay Valley
Road
from University Drive to Santa
Julliard 3,400 Secondary Village Entry
with Median (3-lane) 13,500 A
Otay Valley
Road West of Santa Julliard 3,000 Secondary Village Entry
with Median (3-lane) 13,500 A
Santa
Julliard South of Discovery Falls Drive 1,200 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Santa
Julliard South of Otay Valley Road 1,300 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
University
Drive South of Discovery Falls Drive 5,500 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
University
Drive South of Otay Valley Road 1,500 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 A
Santa Davis South of Discovery Falls Drive 6,400 Residential Promenade
Street (2-lane) 8,400 B
Source: Chen Ryan Associates; August 2014May 2014
As shown, all of the analyzed internal roadway segments within Village 10 would operate at
acceptable LOS B or better under buildout conditions with the recommended roadway
classifications.
Page 267
University Villages TIA,
Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, 8 East and 10 Page 81 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
O T A Y L AKESRD
CLUBHOUSEDR
W
U
EST
E
RD
O L Y M P I C P K W Y
H U N T E P K W Y
LAKECREST
D
R
W
U
E
S
T
E
R
D
O T A Y L A K E S R D
R
UTGERS
A
V
E
PASEO
RAN
C
H
E
R
O
N.RANCHODELREYPKWY
S .R A N C H O D E L R E Y P K W Y
PASE O D E L R E Y
M
E
DICAL
C
E
N
T
ERDR
O
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
A
V
E
TERRANOVA D R
B O N IT A R D
E ST
H S T
J S T
T E L EGRAPHCYN R D
L S T
N A P L E S S T
O X F O R D S T
P A L O M A R S T
N
A
C
I
O
N
AV
E
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
E
F
I
R
S
T
A
V
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
V
E
F
I
R
S
T
A
V
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
V
E
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
D
R
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
FOURTH
AVE
ORANGEAVE
MAIN ST
BEYERWY
P
I
C
A
D
O
R
B
L
PALM AVE OCEANVIEW
HIL
L
S
P
K
W
Y
D E N N E R Y R D
DEL SOL BL
H
E
R
I
T
A
G
E
R
D
OTAY MESA RD
BEYERBL
SMYTH
AVE
CACTUS
RD
LA
MEDIA
RD
BRITANNIA
BL
AIRWAY DR
S A N T A V I C T O R I A R D W O LFCYN
R
D
O T A Y V A L L E Y R D
!8
!32!31
!9
!33 !34 !35 !36 !37 !38
!10!11 !12 !13
!14
!1
!18
!2
!4
!7
!3
!6
!17
!16
!19
!20
!21
!22 !23
!5
!24
!26
!25
!15 !27
!28 !29 !30
!47
!46!45
!74
!73!72
!67 !69
!40!41
!42!43
!44
!50 !51 !52
!57!56!55!54!53
!49
!58 !59 !60
!39
!62 !61
O L Y M P I C V I S TA RD
HER
I
T
A
G
E
R
D
BRANDYWINE
A
V
E
AVEDE LAS
VISTAS
OLYM P I C P K W Y
E .P A L O M A R S T
T E LE G R A P H C A N Y O N R D
OTAYLAKESR
D
LON E STAR RD
MAGDALENA AVE
ELLISR
D
L
A
M
E
D
I
A
R
D
STA LUNA ST
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
D
R
E
A
S
T
L
A
K
E
P
K
W
Y
!63
!71
!68 !70
DISCOVERY FALLS DR
U N I V E R S IT Y /
R T P D W Y
U N IV E R S I T Y
D W Y #1
U N IV E R S I T Y
D W Y #2
2%
3%
3
%
2
%
1%
1
%
0 %
2%
0%
2%
8
%
2%
0 %
1 %
3%
4
%
1
%
0%
3%
3%
1%
1%
0%
3%
1 %
1 %
0 %
1%0 %
1%
2 %
9%
6
%
1
%
1
%
0%
1
%
0%8%
1%
2
4
%
3
%
5%
8%
3%
1%
10%
7%
8%
17%
2%
1%
1%
2%
5%
1 %
11%
0 %
9%
2
4
%
2%
0
%
3%
60%
1
%
6%
3%
6
%
4%
4 %
1 %
2%
5%
18%
4%
5%
1%
1%
2 3 %
9%
6
%
35%
3
%
3
%
1 %
4
0
%
1%
2%
4%
1%
0 %
4
%
1 %
2%
1
%
LOWER OTAY
LAKE
VILLAGE 3
NORTH
VILLAGE 8
EAST
COMMUNITY
PARK
§¨¦805
§¨¦5
5
·|}þ125
·|}þ905
Univer sity Villa ges TIA, Otay Ranch Villa ges 3 Nor th, 8 East and 10
N
VILLAG E
10
!76!77!78
PRESERVE
BIRC H R D
VILLAGE 4
COMMUNITY PAR K
MAINST
!64
!65 !66
!75
!48
Figure 4-1E.3
Villa ge 8 East Pr oject Trip D istribution - Year 2030 Network
Study Intersec tion
Plan ned Future Roadway
Percent of Project TrafficX%
!X
Leg end
3
%
ENERGY WY
V I L L A G E 9
S T R E E T "I"
V I L L A G E 4 D W Y
VILLA
G
E 9
STREET "B"
15%
1%
3%
1%
Page 82 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
It is estimated that 50% of the trips from the Project will go west,
while 23% will go east from the project location using either
Main Street or La Media Parkway. Additionally, 3% will go north
and 24% south via SR-125. Vehicles will opt for the nearest and
most convenient route to reach their starting or end point.
Manual Adjustment to account for new freeway configuration.
2
4
%
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
3%
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
50% Westbound 23%
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Page 83 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Attachment B – Internal/External Trips Distribution and Assignment
Page 84 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Trips Distribution and Assignment Summary
Page 85 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Del Sueno Drive Frontage Road TBD CPDRW
Parcel Select (for QC) ADT MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
RESIDENTIAL
R-1 & R2 ADT 254 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 100% 50% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VC-1 R-3 & R4 ADT 247 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% 100% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
R5 & R6 ADT 238 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 0% 25% 25% 25% 25% 0% 25% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
R7 ADT 181 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 75% 100% 10% 30% 25% 0% 25% 10% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Main Street R8 ADT 141 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 75% 100% 10% 30% 25% 0% 25% 10% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
R9 ADT 157 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 75% 100% 10% 30% 25% 0% 25% 10% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
R10 ADT 114 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 75% 100% 10% 30% 25% 0% 25% 10% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VC-1 ADT 220 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 10% 0% 0% 35% 45% 25% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VC-2 ADT 344 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 50% 100% 25% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VC-3 ADT 129 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 50% 100% 25% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VC-4 ADT 154 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 0% 0% 25% 50% 25% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
P-1 VC-6 & VC-7 ADT 232 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 0% 25% 25% 25% 0% 25% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
COMMERCIAL
VC-1C ADT - 0% 0% 100% 0% 75% 0% 0% 0% 50% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VC-2C ADT - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VC-3BC ADT 550 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VC-5C ADT 550 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 75% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
OTHER
CPF-1 ADT 18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 75% 100% 10% 10% 0% 0% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Otay Valley Road PARKS
P-1 (NP) ADT 29 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 100% 40% 40% 10% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
P-2 (CP) ADT - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
SCHOOL
S-1 ADT 211 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 50% 40% 40% 70% 10% 30% 0% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 3,769 - - 80 - 530 1,910 830 1,050 1,340 2,260 610 - 900 1,070 - - 150 - 60 240 150 - - - - -
Del Sueno Drive Frontage Road TBD CPDRW
Parcel ADT MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
RESIDENTIAL
R-1 & R2 ADT 2,282 50% 50% 26% 25% 76% 12% 12% 0% 100% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 12% 0% 12% 12% 0% 0% 3% 24% 0%
R-3 & R4 ADT 2,225 0% 0% 12% 12% 12% 12% 74% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 100% 9% 45% 45% 29% 25% 2% 2% 8% 2% 2% 3% 24% 0%
R5 & R6 ADT 2,146 20% 20% 8% 14% 28% 28% 49% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 100% 25% 25% 24% 25% 6% 6% 13% 2% 2% 3% 24% 0%
R7 ADT 1,627 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 37% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 24% 0%
R8 ADT 1,267 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 37% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 24% 0%
R9 ADT 1,411 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 37% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 24% 0%
R10 ADT 1,022 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 37% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 24% 0%
VC-1 ADT
1,980 50% 50% 100% 37% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 3% 24% 0%
VC-2 ADT 3,096 50% 50% 22% 31% 72% 12% 12% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 11% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 24% 0%
VC-3 ADT 1,159 50% 50% 22% 31% 72% 12% 12% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 11% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 24% 0%
VC-4 ADT 1,382 25% 25% 14% 20% 38% 31% 31% 0% 0% 57% 0% 5% 5% 24% 20% 20% 11% 11% 8% 8% 18% 6% 6% 3% 24% 0%
VC-6 & VC-7 ADT 2,088 20% 20% 8% 14% 28% 50% 49% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 61% 25% 25% 18% 23% 8% 8% 11% 0% 0% 3% 24% 0%
VC-1 COMMERCIAL
VC-1C ADT - 50% 50% 100% 37% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 3% 24% 0%
VC-2C ADT - 50% 50% 22% 31% 72% 12% 12% 0% 0% 57% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 11% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 24% 0%
VC-3BC ADT 550 50% 50% 22% 31% 72% 12% 12% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 10% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 24% 0%
VC-5C ADT 550 50% 50% 22% 31% 72% 12% 12% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 10% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 24% 0%
OTHER
CPF-1 ADT 18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 37% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 24% 0%
PARKS
P-1 (NP) ADT 7 20% 20% 15% 14% 35% 85% 49% 0% 10% 0% 5% 5% 0% 0% 25% 25% 35% 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 24% 0%
P-2 (CP) ADT 2,165 25% 25% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 24% 100%
P-1 SCHOOL
S-1 ADT 1,901 20% 20% 15% 14% 35% 22% 60% 0% 65% 0% 37% 5% 38% 0% 25% 25% 35% 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 24% 0%
26,900 6,900 6,900 5,300 4,800 8,200 3,700 6,200 5,300 3,500 6,400 700 500 3,200 3,900 6,600 6,600 7,000 5,400 1,300 1,400 1,900 800 800 800 6,500 2,200
Del Sueno Drive Frontage Road TBD CPDRW
ADT MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Total 30,669 37,200 37,200 35,680 35,100 8,730 6,610 7,030 6,350 6,840 11,660 1,310 3,500 7,100 6,970 25,200 25,200 25,750 24,000 18,460 18,740 19,150 800 800 800 6,500 2,200
30300 30300 30300 30300 1000 2000 3000 3000 3000 2000 18600 18600 18600 18600 17100 17100 17100
6,900 6,900 5,380 4,800 8,730 5,610 7,030 6,350 4,840 8,660 1,310 500 4,100 4,970 6,600 6,600 7,150 5,400 1,360 1,640 2,050 800 800 800 6,500 2,200
6,900 5,380 6,600 7,150 800 800 800 6,500 2,200
From V8E Series 11 Model ADT 46600 39200 19000 27700
Subtract from Select Zone 16316 8958 446 9135
Total without Project 30300 30300 18600 18600
LP
D
4
SR-125
SR
2
Via Palermo
Ambient Traffic - from other villages
Internal and External
Main St La Palmita Drive Savoria Parkway Otay Valley RoadCalle Escuela
Project Only
Project External Assignment Check
MS4
SR
1
6
5
0
0
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
LP
D
2
LP
D
3
FR
5
VP
3
R-5 & R-6
OVR4
FR
4
VP
1
VP
2
SP1 SP2
CPF1
6,
3
5
0
6,840
7,100
11,660
OVR1 OVR2 OVR3
VC-2 VC-3
LP
D
1
R-3 & R-4
DS
D
VC-4 & VC-5
R-1 & R-2
S-1
VC-6 & VC-7
CE1 CE2CE0
MS1 MS2 MS3
to/from V8W
35,680
1,
3
1
0
VC-4 & VC-5
S-1
VC-6 & VC-7
25,200 25,200 25,750
3500
SR-125
Internal
Main St La Palmita Drive Savoria Parkway Otay Valley Road SR-125
Main St La Palmita Drive Savoria Parkway Otay Valley Road
Via Palermo
External
Via Palermo
Calle Escuela
Calle Escuela
22
0
0
CPF1
CP
D
R
W
80
0
80
0
80
0
24,000
35,100
8,
7
3
0
18
,
4
6
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-3VC-2
19
,
1
5
0
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
18
,
7
4
0
6,970
6,
6
1
0
7,
0
3
0
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
37,200 37,200
Page 86 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Parcels Trips Distribution and Assignment
Page 87 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Column ID 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Site Selection VC-1 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 45.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 36.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 3.0% 24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 220 4 0 0 0 0 170 20 0 0 80 100 60 0 0 40 0000602000000 0
External ADT 1980 5 990 990 1980 720 0000000000000024024024024024060480 0
TOTAL 2200 990 990 1980 720 170 20 0 0 80 100 60 0 0 40 000030026024024024060480 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 88 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
12
.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
12
.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
0.0% 0.0%
VC-4 &
VC-5
12
.
0
%
S-1
0.
0
%
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
3.
0
%
50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 36.5%
0.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
24
.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
20.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
35.0% 45.0%
VC-4 &
VC-5
10
.
0
%
S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
75
.
0
%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.0% 0.0%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
25
.
0
%
10
.
0
%
SITE: VC-1 SITE: VC-1
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
0.
0
%
Page 89 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL ADT EXTERNAL ADT
00 0
0
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0
60
990 990 1,980 720
0 24
0
24
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
24
0
0
00 0 0
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
80 100
VC-4 &
VC-5
20S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
17
0
00 0
0 24
0
48
0
00
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0 0
VC-4 &
VC-5
24
0S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0
CPF1 CPF1
60
0
00 40
0 0R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
60 20
00 0
SITE: VC-1 SITE: VC-1
0
Page 90 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection R-1 & R2 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 50.0% 50.0% 26.0% 24.5% 76.0% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 254 4 0 0 0 0 60 60 0 0 250 130 0 0 0 60 00000000000 0
External ADT 2282 5 1140 1140 590 560 1730 270 270 0 2280 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 270 0 270 270 0 0 70 550 0
TOTAL 2536 1140 1140 590 560 1790 330 270 0 2530 400 0 0 0 60 0 0 270 270 0 270 270 0 0 70 550 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 91 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
VC-6 &
VC-7
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50.0% 50.0% 26.0% 24.5%
0.
0
%
S-1
0.0% 0.0%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: R-1 & R2 SITE: R-1 & R2
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
76
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
S-1
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
25.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
100.0% 50.0%100.0% 12.0%
25
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
12
.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 12.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
12
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 92 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
27
0R-3 & R-4
0
00 60 00 0
R-5 & R-6
VC-6 &
VC-7
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
70
SITE: R-1 & R2 SITE: R-1 & R2
000 1,140 1,140 590 560
60 0
0
1,
7
3
0
0
0 27
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
27
0S-1 S-1
0
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
250 130 2,280 270
0 60
VC-4 &
VC-5
0
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 0 0 270
0 0 27
0
0 0 0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 55
0
Page 93 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection VC-2 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
External Percentage 3 50.0% 50.0% 21.5% 30.5% 71.5% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 10.5% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0%24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 344 4 0 0 0 0 90 90 0 0 170 340 90 0 0 90 00000000000 0
External ADT 3096 5 1550 1550 670 940 2210 370 370 0 0 3100 0 0 0 0 0 0 370 0 330 190 190 190 190 90 740 0
TOTAL 3440 1550 1550 670 940 2300 460 370 0 170 3440 90 0 0 90 0 0 370 0 330 190 190 190 190 90 740 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 94 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
6.
0
%
VC-3
25.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: VC-2 SITE: VC-2
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50.0% 50.0% 21.5% 30.5%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
71
.
5
%
10
.
5
%
6.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2
50.0% 100.0%0.0% 100.0%
25
.
0
%
25
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
6.
0
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
6.
0
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 12.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 95 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
19
0
19
0
0
0
19
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
00 90 00
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
90
SITE: VC-2 SITE: VC-2
00 0 0 1,550 1,550 670 940
90 0
0
2,
2
1
0
33
0
170 340 0 3,100
90 90
VC-4 &
VC-5
0 0 37
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0 37
0
19
0R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 0 0 370
0 0 0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 74
0
Page 96 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection VC-3 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
External Percentage 3 50.0% 50.0% 21.5% 30.5% 71.5% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 10.5% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0%24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 129 4 0 0 0 0 30 30 0 0 60 130 30 0 0 30 00000000000 0
External ADT 1159 5 580 580 250 350 830 140 140 0 0 1160 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 120 70 70 70 70 30 280 0
TOTAL 1288 580 580 250 350 860 170 140 0 60 1290 30 0 0 30 0 0 140 0 120 70 70 70 70 30 280 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 97 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
R-5 & R-6R-3 & R-4 R-3 & R-4R-5 & R-6
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: VC-3 SITE: VC-3
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50.0% 50.0% 21.5% 30.5%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
71
.
5
%
10
.
5
%
6.
0
%
25
.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
50.0% 100.0%0.0% 100.0%
25
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
6.
0
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
6.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 25.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
6.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 12.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 98 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
R-5 & R-6R-5 & R-6R-3 & R-4 R-3 & R-4
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
30
SITE: VC-3 SITE: VC-3
00 0 0 580 580 250 350
30 0
0
83
0
12
0
0 14
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
70
70
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
60 130 0 1,160
30 30
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
70
00 30 00 0
0 0 14
0
70
00 0 0 0 140
0 0 0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 28
0
Page 99 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection VC-3BC MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 50.0% 50.0% 21.5% 30.5% 71.5% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 10.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0%24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 550 4 0 0 0 0 0 410 140 140 140 550 0 0 140 140 00000000000 0
External ADT 550 5 280 280 120 170 390 70 70 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 60 30 30 30 30 20 130 0
TOTAL 1100 280 280 120 170 390 480 210 140 140 1100 0 0 140 140 0 0 70 0 60 30 30 30 30 20 130 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 100 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road0.0% 0.0%0.0% 12.0%
75
.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
6.
0
%
25.0% 25.0%
25.0% 100.0%0.0% 100.0%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.0% 0.0%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: VC-3BC SITE: VC-3BC
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50.0% 50.0% 21.5% 30.5%
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
6.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
71
.
5
%
10
.
0
%
6.
0
%
12
.
0
%
6.
0
%
0.0%0.0%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0%0.0%
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
S-1 S-1
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 101 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
70 30
3
0
0 550
41
0
140 550
0
0
0 070
140 140 00
0 70
14
0
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
20
SITE: VC-3BC SITE:
60
30
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
VC-3BC
00 0 0 280 280 120 170
S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
0 0
0
39
0
14
0 0
30
0 0
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0 0
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
S-1
0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 13
0
Page 102 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection S-1 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 50.0% 40.0% 40.0% 70.0% 10.0% 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 13.5% 35.0% 22.0% 60.0% 0.0% 65.0% 0.0% 37.0% 5.0% 38.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 35.0% 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 211 4 0 0 20 0 20 110 80 80 150 20 60 0 60 40 00000000000 0
External ADT 1901 5 380 380 290 260 670 420 1140 0 1240 0 700 100 720 0 480 480 670 440 0 0 0 0 0 60 460 0
TOTAL 2112 380 380 310 260 690 530 1220 80 1390 20 760 100 780 40 480 480 670 440 0 0 0 0 0 60 460 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 103 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
R-5 & R-6R-5 & R-6R-3 & R-4 R-3 & R-4
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: S-1 SITE: S-1
0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0%20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 13.5%
10
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
35
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
30
.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
70.0% 10.0%65.0% 0.0%
50
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
37
.
0
%
22
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
0.0% 30.0% 20.0%5.0% 38.0% 0.0%
40
.
0
%
0.
0
%
60
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%25.0% 25.0% 35.0%
0.
0
%
40
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 104 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
R-5 & R-6R-3 & R-4 R-3 & R-4
CPF1 CPF1
R-5 & R-6
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
60
SITE: S-1 SITE: S-1
0 0 20 0 380 380 290 260
20 0
0
67
0 0
70
0
42
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
0
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
150 20 1,240 0
60
11
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
060 40 100 720 0
80 0
1,
1
4
0
0
00 0 480 480 670
0 80 0 0
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 46
0
Page 105 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection P-1 (NP)MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0% 40.0% 40.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 13.5% 35.0% 85.0% 49.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 35.0% 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 30 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 00000000000 0
External ADT 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0
TOTAL 36 00000401010000001000000000000 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 106 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: P-1 (NP)SITE: P-1 (NP)
0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0%20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 13.5%
10
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
35
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
10.0% 10.0%10.0% 0.0%
10
0
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
5.
0
%
85
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.0% 10.0% 20.0%5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%25.0% 25.0% 35.0%
40
.
0
%
0.
0
%
49
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
40
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 107 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
0
0 0
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
0SITE: P-1 (NP)SITE: P-1 (NP)
00 0 0 00 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 10
VC-4 &
VC-5
0
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
00 00
0 30
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
VC-6 &
VC-7
00 10 00 0
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 00 0
10 0 0
0 10 0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 0
Page 108 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection VC-4 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
External Percentage 3 25.0% 25.0% 13.5% 19.5% 37.5% 31.0% 31.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 24.0% 20.0% 20.0% 11.0% 11.0% 7.5% 7.5% 18.0% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0% 24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 154 4 0 0 0 0 40 80 0 0 40 80 40 0 40 40 00000000000 0
External ADT 1382 5 350 350 190 270 520 430 430 0 0 790 0 70 70 330 280 280 150 150 100 100 250 80 80 40 330 0
TOTAL 1536 350 350 190 270 560 510 430 0 40 870 40 70 110 370 280 280 150 150 100 100 250 80 80 40 330 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 109 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: VC-4 SITE: VC-4
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%25.0% 25.0% 13.5% 19.5%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
37
.
5
%
7.
5
%
6.
0
%
25
.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
25.0% 50.0%0.0% 57.0%
50
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
31
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
7.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
6.
0
%
0.0% 25.0% 25.0%5.0% 5.0% 24.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
31
.
0
%
18
.
0
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%20.0% 20.0% 11.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 110 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
40
SITE: VC-4 SITE: VC-4
00 0 0 350 350 190 270
40 0
0
52
0
10
0
0 43
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
10
0
80
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
40 80 0 790
40 80
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
80
040 40 70 70 330
0 0 43
0
25
0R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 280 280 150
0 0 0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 33
0
Page 111 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection VC-5C MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 50.0% 50.0% 21.5% 30.5% 71.5% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 10.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0%24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 550 4 0 0 60 0 0 410 140 140 140 550 0 0 140 140 00000000000 0
External ADT 550 5 280 280 120 170 390 70 70 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 60 30 30 30 30 20 130 0
TOTAL 1100 280 280 180 170 390 480 210 140 140 1100 0 0 140 140 0 0 70 0 60 30 30 30 30 20 130 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 112 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: VC-5C SITE: VC-5C
0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0%50.0% 50.0% 21.5% 30.5%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
71
.
5
%
10
.
0
%
6.
0
%
0.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
25.0% 100.0%0.0% 100.0%
75
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
6.
0
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
6.
0
%
0.0% 25.0% 25.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
12
.
0
%
6.
0
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 12.0%
0.
0
%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 113 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
20
SITE: VC-5C SITE: VC-5C
0 0 60 0 280 280 120 170
0 0
0
39
0
60
0 70
VC-4 &
VC-5
30
30
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
140 550 0 550
0 41
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
30
0 140 140 00 0
14
0 0 70 30R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 00 70
0 14
0 0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 13
0
Page 114 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection VC-6 & VC-7 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
External Percentage 3 20.0% 20.0% 7.5% 13.5% 27.5% 49.5% 49.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 60.5% 25.0% 25.0% 18.0% 23.0% 7.5% 7.5% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 232 4 0 0 0 0 60 170 0 0 60 60 60 0 60 120 00000000000 0
External ADT 2088 5 420 420 160 280 570 1030 1020 0 0 0 0 100 100 1260 520 520 380 480 160 160 230 0 0 60 500 0
TOTAL 2320 420 420 160 280 630 1200 1020 0 60 60 60 100 160 1380 520 520 380 480 160 160 230 0 0 60 500 0
Note the 75% shown at LPD2 includes the 25% from CE2 that turn right
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 115 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
##
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
R-3 & R-4 R-3 & R-4
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
49
.
0
%
11
.
0
%
0.0% 0.0%
25.0% 50.0%5.0% 60.5%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
25.0% 18.0%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: VC-6 & VC-7 SITE: VC-6 & VC-7
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%20.0% 20.0% 7.5% 13.5%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
27
.
5
%
7.
5
%
0.
0
%
25
.
0
%
25.0% 25.0%0.0% 0.0%
75
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
49
.
5
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
7.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
0.0%5.0%
R-5 & R-6 R-5 & R-6
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
0.0%25.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 116 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
R-3 & R-4 R-3 & R-40
1,
0
2
0
0
23
0
100 1,260
0
60 120
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
60
SITE: VC-6 & VC-7 SITE: VC-6 & VC-7
00 0 0 420 420 160 280
60 0
0
57
0
16
0
0
1,
0
3
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
16
0
VC-3
60 60 00
60
17
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
0 100
R-5 & R-6 R-5 & R-6
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2
0 520
0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0
00 520 380
0 50
0
Page 117 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection R-3 & R4 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 74.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 100.0% 9.0% 45.0% 45.0% 29.0% 24.5% 1.5% 1.5% 7.5% 2.0% 2.0% 3.0%24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 247 4 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 120 60 60 0 250 60 000006000000 0
External ADT 2225 5 0 0 260 260 260 260 1650 0 0 0 0 110 2230 200 1000 1000 650 550 30 30 170 40 40 70 530 0
TOTAL 2472 0 0 260 260 260 380 1650 0 120 60 60 110 2480 260 1000 1000 650 550 30 90 170 40 40 70 530 0
Page 118 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
SITE: R-3 & R4 SITE: R-3 & R4
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 11.8%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
11
.
8
%
1.
5
%
2.
0
%
25
.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
50.0% 25.0%0.0% 0.0%
50
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
11
.
8
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
1.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
2.
0
%
0.0% 100.0% 25.0%5.0% 100.0% 9.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
74
.
0
%
7.
5
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%45.0% 45.0% 29.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 119 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
SITE: R-3 & R4 SITE: R-3 & R4
00 0 0 0 0 260 260
0 0
0
26
0
30
0 26
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
30
40
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
120 60 00
60
12
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
60S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
40
0 250 60 110 2,230 200
0 0
1,
6
5
0
17
0R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 1,000 1,000 650
0 0 0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 53
0
Page 120 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection R5 & R6 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 20.0% 20.0% 7.5% 13.5% 27.5% 27.5% 49.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 100.0% 25.0% 25.0% 24.0% 24.5% 6.0% 6.0% 12.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3.0% 24.0% 0.0%
Internal ADT 238 4 0 0 0 0 60 120 0 60 60 60 60 0 60 240 00000000000 0
External ADT 2146 5 430 430 160 290 590 590 1050 0 0 0 0 110 110 2150 540 540 520 530 130 130 270 30 30 60 520 0
TOTAL 2384 430 430 160 290 650 710 1050 60 60 60 60 110 170 2390 540 540 520 530 130 130 270 30 30 60 520 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 121 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: R5 & R6 SITE: R5 & R6
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%20.0% 20.0% 7.5% 13.5%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
27
.
5
%
6.
0
%
1.
5
%
25
.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
25.0% 25.0%0.0% 0.0%
50
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
27
.
5
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
6.
0
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
1.
5
%
0.0% 25.0% 100.0%5.0% 5.0% 100.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
49
.
0
%
12
.
5
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%25.0% 25.0% 24.0%
0.
0
%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 122 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
60
SITE: R5 & R6 SITE: R5 & R6
00 0 0 430 430 160 290
60 0
0
59
0
13
0
0 59
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
13
0
30
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
60 60 00
60
12
0
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
30
0 60 240 110 110 2,150
0 0
1,
0
5
0
27
0R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 540 540 520
0 60 0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 52
0
Page 123 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection R7 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 75.0% 100.0% 10.0% 30.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 36.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3.0% 24.0%0.0%
Internal ADT 181 4 0 0 0 0 0 70 140 180 20 50 50 0 50 20 0 0 50 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0
External ADT 1627 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1630 0 0 0 0 0 0 810 810 810 590 20 20 20 20 20 50 390 0
TOTAL 1808 0 0 0 0 0 70 140 1810 20 50 50 0 50 20 810 810 860 590 20 70 70 20 20 50 390 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 124 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: R7 SITE: R7
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
1.
5
%
25
.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
10.0% 30.0%0.0% 0.0%
40
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
1.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
1.
5
%
0.0% 25.0% 10.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
75
.
0
%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 25.0%50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
Page 125 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
50
SITE: R7 SITE: R7
00 0 0 00 0 0
0 0
0
0 20
0 0
VC-4 &
VC-5
20
20
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
20 50 00
50 70
VC-4 &
VC-5
50S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
20
050 20 00 0
14
0
50 0 20R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 50 810 810 810
0 18
0 0
1,
6
3
0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
39
00
Page 126 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection R8 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 75.0% 100.0% 10.0% 30.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 36.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3.0% 24.0%0.0%
Internal ADT 141 4 0 0 0 0 0 60 110 140 10 40 40 0 40 10 0 0 40 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 0
External ADT 1267 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1270 0 0 0 0 0 0 630 630 630 460 20 20 20 20 20 40 300 0
TOTAL 1408 0 0 0 0 0 60 110 1410 10 40 40 0 40 10 630 630 670 460 20 60 60 20 20 40 300 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 127 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
10
0
.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 25.0%50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
0.
0
%
3.
0
%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
SITE: R8 SITE: R8
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
1.
5
%
25
.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
10.0% 30.0%0.0% 0.0%
40
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
1.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
1.
5
%
0.0% 25.0% 10.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
75
.
0
%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 128 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
1,
2
7
0
630 630
14
0
00 40 630
INTERNAL ADT EXTERNAL ADT
SITE: R8 SITE: R8
400
00 0 0 00 0 0
0 0
0
0 20
0 0
VC-4 &
VC-5
20
20
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
10 40 00
40 60
VC-4 &
VC-5
40S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
20
040 10 00 0
11
0
40 0 20R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0 0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 30
0
Page 129 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection R9 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 75.0% 100.0% 10.0% 30.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 36.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3.0% 24.0%0.0%
Internal ADT 157 4 0 0 0 0 0 60 120 160 20 50 40 0 40 20 0 0 40 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 0
External ADT 1411 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1410 0 0 0 0 0 0 710 710 710 520 20 20 20 20 20 40 340 0
TOTAL 1568 0 0 0 0 0 60 120 1570 20 50 40 0 40 20 710 710 750 520 20 60 60 20 20 40 340 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 130 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: R9 SITE: R9
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
1.
5
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
10.0% 30.0%0.0% 0.0%
25
.
0
%
40
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
1.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
1.
5
%
0.0% 25.0% 10.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
75
.
0
%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 25.0%50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 131 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
000 00 00
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
40
SITE: R9 SITE: R9
0
0 0
0
0 20
20
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
20 50 00
40 60
VC-4 &
VC-5
40 0 0
VC-4 &
VC-5
20S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
20
040 20 00 0
12
0
40 0 20R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 40 710 710 710
0 16
0 0
1,
4
1
0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 34
0
Page 132 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection R10 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 75.0% 100.0% 10.0% 30.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 36.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3.0% 24.0%0.0%
Internal ADT 114 4 0 0 0 0 0 50 90 110 10 30 30 0 30 10 0 0 30 0 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0
External ADT 1022 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1020 0 0 0 0 0 0 510 510 510 370 20 20 20 20 20 30 250 0
TOTAL 1136 0 0 0 0 0 50 90 1130 10 30 30 0 30 10 510 510 540 370 20 50 50 20 20 30 250 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 133 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: R10 SITE: R10
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
1.
5
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
10.0% 30.0%0.0% 0.0%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
1.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
1.
5
%
0.0% 25.0% 10.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
75
.
0
%
25
.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
25
.
0
%
40
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.0% 0.0% 25.0%50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
Page 134 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
30
SITE: R10 SITE: R10
00 0 0 00 0 0
0 0
0
0 20
20
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
10 30 00
30 50
VC-4 &
VC-5
30 0 0
VC-4 &
VC-5
20S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
20
030 10 00 0
90 30 0 20R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 30 510 510 510
0 11
0 0
1,
0
2
0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0 25
0
Page 135 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection CPF-1 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
External Percentage 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 36.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3.0% 24.0%0.0%
Internal ADT 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0
External ADT 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 36 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 136 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: CPF-1 SITE: CPF-1
0.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
1.
5
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
10.0% 10.0%0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
1.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
1.
5
%
0.0% 10.0% 10.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
75
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.
0
%
50
.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
Page 137 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
CPF-1
0
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
0SITE: CPF-1 SITE:
00 0 0 00 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
00 00
0 10
VC-4 &
VC-5
0 0 0
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
00 0 00 0
10 0 0 0R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 10 10 10
0 20 0 20
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
0
Page 138 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Selection P-2 (CP)MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 LPD1 LPD2 LPD3 LPD4 SP1 SP2 DSD CE0 CE1 CE2 OVR1 OVR2 OVR3 OVR4 VP1 VP2 VP3 FR4 FR5 SR1 SR2 CPDRW
Internal Percentage 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
External Percentage 3 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3.0% 24.0% 100.0%
Internal ADT 0 4 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000 0
External ADT 2165 5 540 540 540 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1080 1080 1080 1080 30 30 30 30 30 60 520 2170
TOTAL 2165 540 540 540 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1080 1080 1080 1080 30 30 30 30 30 60 520 2170
Individual Site Trips Distribution and Assignment, Sites that are in close proximity to one another are grouped together for the purpose of trip distribution.
Page 139 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
0.
0
%
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
3.
0
%
SITE: P-2 (CP)SITE: P-2 (CP)
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
1.
5
%
0.
0
%
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
VC-4 &
VC-5
1.
5
%
S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0.
0
%
VC-6 &
VC-7
1.
5
%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
1.
5
%
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
0.
0
%
24
.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
%
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10 R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
Page 140 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VC-1 VC-1
Main Street Main Street
P-1 P-1
Otay Valley Road Otay Valley Road
INTERNAL ADT
0
EXTERNAL ADT
60
SITE: P-2 (CP)SITE: P-2 (CP)
00 0 0 540 540 540 540
0 0
0
0 30
0 0
VC-4 &
VC-5
30
30
R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3 R-1 & R-2 VC-2 VC-3
00 00
0 0
VC-4 &
VC-5
0S-1 S-1
VC-6 &
VC-7
0
VC-6 &
VC-7
30
00 0 00 0
0 0 0 30
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6 R-3 & R-4 R-5 & R-6
00 0 1,080 1,080 1,080
0 52
0
0 0
21
7
0
0
CPF1 CPF1
R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10
Page 141 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
To: Jeff O’Connor, HomeFed
From: Erin Lucett, Dudek
Subject: Otay Ranch Village Eight East Project – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update
Date: January 2024
cc: Alexandra Martini, Dudek
HomeFed Village II, LLC (Applicant) requested that Dudek determine whether additional air quality or greenhouse
gas impacts would occur as a result of proposed land use changes within Otay Ranch Village Eight East, beyond
those impacts identified in the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (EIR-13-01; SCH No. 2013071077; City of Chula Vista
2014).
1 Project Description
As part of the 2014 FEIR, the Otay Ranch Village Eight East project was approved by the City of Chula Vista City
Council in December 2014 and incorporated into the Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. Current entitlements accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached
homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting. Village Eight East also included
20,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses, an elementary school, a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre
(gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and
Otay Valley Road with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a utility corridor i n
the southeast portion of Village 8 East.
The project applicant proposes to amend the Village Eight East land use plan to reflect current market conditions
and housing needs, and to ensure the community relates more closely to the adjacent Village Eight West community
and future Village Nine and University Innovation District planned east of SR -125 and accommodates the SR-125
couplet interchange design between Main Street and La Media Parkway. The proposed project would accommodate
the approved 3,276 residential units, 20,000 square feet of commercial uses and other village-related land uses
such as an elementary school, neighborhood park and Community Purpose Facility uses. The proposed project
would now include all multi-family residential units instead of the previously proposed single- and multi-family
residential units. Additionally, the project would reduce the overall acreage of the 2014 Tentative Map from 575.3
acres to 550.3 acres. The 2014 Tentative Map included the 22.6-acre AR-11 site, which is currently owned by the
City of Chula Vista. AR-11 remains within the Village 8 East SPA boundary but is outside the Proposed Tentative
Map boundary due to the ownership change. In addition to the exclusion of the AR-11 site from the Proposed
Tentative Map boundary, the proposed tentative map has 2.4 fewer acres than the approved 2014 Tentative Map,
Page 142 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST PROJECT – AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS UPDATE
13570 2 JANUARY 2024
0
representing a 25.0 acre reduction between the 2014 Tentative Map and the Proposed Tentative Map. The
Proposed Tentative Map reflects the proposed Village 8 East land use changes and is consistent with the 3,276
residential units and 20,000 square feet of commercial uses currently authorized within Village 8 East.
2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Review
A summary of the mitigation measures from the University Village Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment FEIR
(2014), along with their applicability to the proposed land use changes, is included below:
▪ MM-AQ -1. This measure requires the use of specific equipment during project construction and the
minimization of idling engines. This measure would continue to apply to all development in Village Eight
East.
▪ MM-AQ-2 - This measure includes the implementation of BMPS to minimize the PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
This measure would continue to apply to all development in Village Eight East.
▪ MM-AQ-3 - This measure includes the demonstration that the project would comply with established criteria
and that no gas stations would be located within 50 feet of sensitive receptors. This measure would
continue to apply to all development in Village Eight East.
The proposed modifications would result in a decrease in trip generation and traffic impacts and would not
substantially change trip distribution patterns (Chen Ryan 2023). The total trips analyzed in the 2014 University
Villages FEIR are 35,776 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with 2,899 trips (835-in/2,064-out) during the AM peak hour
and 3,502 trips (2,350-in/1,152-out) during the PM peak hour. The proposed Village 8 East land uses are
anticipated to generate 31,776 ADT, with 2,307, (530-in/1,777-out) trips during the AM peak hour, and 3,096
(2,078in/1,018-out) trips during the PM peak hour. This change represents 4,000 less ADT, 592 less (305-in/287-
out) AM trips, and 406 less (272 in/134-out) PM trips, when compared to the 2014 University Villages EIR.
The travel behavior of the remaining land uses previously analyzed as part of the approved project would be
unchanged. As a result, operational emissions (specifically those resulting from mobile sources) associated with
the approved project would be reduced as compared to the prior analysis. Additionally. GHG emissions would be
reduced as compared to the previous project due to improvements in efficiencies that would result in less GHG
emissions overall. Construction emissions would remain unchanged, as no change in the construction schedule or
required construction equipment is anticipated. The proposed project boundary includes areas that were not
included in the FEIR for the University Villages Project. In total, the changes to the TM for Village 8 East would result
in 0.99 acres of offsite grading not previously analyzed in the University Villages EIR. Due to the overall reduction
in acreage of the project boundary and impact area, impacts resulting from grading would result in similar or
reduced impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions compared to the 2014 FEIR. In addition, based on
our review of the proposed changes, the identified impacts and associated mitigation measures in the previous EIR
remain applicable to this project, and no additional mitigation measures would be required. In conclusion, there
would be no new significant impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from
implementation of the proposed project that were not previously analyzed as part of the University Villages 2014
FEIR.
Page 143 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST PROJECT – AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS UPDATE
13570 3 JANUARY 2024
0
REFERENCES
Chen Ryan. 2023. CEQA Transportation Analysis and Local Mobility Analysis – Village 8 East. September 2023.
City of Chula Vista. 2014. University Villages Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Report. December.
Page 144 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
To: Jeff O’Connor, HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
From: Brian Grover
Subject: Otay Ranch Village Eight East Project – Noise Update
Date: November 2023
cc: Erin Lucett, Dudek
HomeFed Village II, LLC (Applicant) requested that Dudek determine whether additional noise impacts would occur
as a result of proposed land use changes within Otay Ranch Village Eight East, beyond those impacts identified in
the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (EIR-13-01; SCH No. 2013071077; City of Chula Vista 2014).
1 Project Description
As part of the 2014 FEIR, the Otay Ranch Village Eight East project was approved by the City of Chula Vista City
Council in December 2014 and incorporated into the Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. Current entitlements accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached
homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting. Village Eight East also included
20,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses, an elementary school, a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre
(gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and
Otay Valley Road with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a utility corridor i n
the southeast portion of Village 8 East.
The project applicant proposes to amend the Village Eight East land use plan to reflect current market conditions
and housing needs, to ensure the community relates more closely to the adjacent Village Eight West community
and future Village Nine and University Innovation District planned east of SR -125 and accommodates the SR-125
couplet interchange design between Main Street and Otay Valley Road. The proposed project would accommodate
the approved 3,276 residential units, 20,000 square feet of commercial uses and other village-related land uses
such as an elementary school, neighborhood park and Community Purpose Facility uses . The proposed project
would now include all multi-family residential units instead of the previously proposed single- and multi-family
residential units.
The proposed modifications to the land use designations are generally summarized as follows:
• Change parcels designated as R-16, R-17, and R-18 from Residential Multifamily 2 to Village Core.
▪ Change the parcel designated as P-1 from Parks and Recreation to Village Core.
Page 145 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST PROJECT – NOISE UPDATE
13570 2 NOVEMBER 2023
▪ Change the parcels designated as R-1 & R-2 from Single Family 4 to Elementary School/ Residential
Multifamily 2.
▪ Change the parcel designated as S-1 from Elementary School to Park.
▪ Change the parcel designated as R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-9 & R-10 from Single Family 4 to Medium High
Residential.
▪ Change the parcel designated as CPF-2 from Community Purpose Facility to Medium High Residential.
▪ Change the parcel designated as CPF-3 from Community Purpose Facility to Medium High Residential.
▪ Change the parcels designated as R-11, R-12, & R-13 from Single Family 4 to Medium High Residential.
▪ Change the parcel designated as R-13 from Single Family 4 to Community Purpose Facility and Medium
High Residential.
▪ Change the parcel designated as CPF-4 from Community Purpose Facility to Medium High Residential.
▪ Expand the SPA boundary to include 0.22 acres adjacent to Future Development Lot B; and 0.7 acres along
the eastern boundary of the SPA plan that was previously identified as part of the SR-125 lots.
▪ Remove 6.69 acres from the SPA Boundary along the eastern boundary of the SPA plan.
2 Noise Review
As described above, the Proposed Project would include minor modifications to the development area analyzed in
the University Villages FEIR. The proposed land use changes would convert single-family neighborhoods to multi-
family and would expand the mixed-use neighborhoods in the northeast portion of Village Eight East. Dudek has
been tasked to document whether additional noise impacts would occur because of the proposed modifications,
beyond those impacts identified in the University Villages Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment FEIR (EIR-13-01;
SCH No. 2013071077; City of Chula Vista 2014).
These proposed changes to the project planning areas and their intended land uses do not change the acceptable
noise level criterion of 65 A-weighted decibels community noise equivalent level (CNEL) that is applied uniformly
across the project for both residential and commercial uses as reported in the noise sections of the FEIRs. The
proposed land use changes would not result in a change in construction noise impacts that were previously
addressed in the FEIR and determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
3 Discussion
A summary of the mitigation measures from the University Village Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment FEIR
(2014), along with their applicability to the proposed land use changes, is included below:
▪ MM NOI-1 – This measure requires site-specific exterior acoustical analyses for any new single-family or
multi-family residential development. This measure would continue to apply to all residential development
in Village Eight East.
▪ MM NOI-2 – This measure requires site-specific interior acoustical analyses for any new single-family
residential development. This measure would no longer apply in Village Eight East since all the single-family
residential development has been replaced by multi-family residential development.
Page 146 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST PROJECT – NOISE UPDATE
13570 3 NOVEMBER 2023
▪ MM NOI-3 – This measure requires site-specific interior acoustical analyses for any new multi-family
residential development. This measure would apply to all residential development in Village Eight East.
▪ MM-NOI-4 – This measure requires site-specific exterior acoustical analyses for any new non-residential or
mixed-use residential development. This measure would apply to P-2, AR-11, S-1, P-1a, VC-1, VC-2, VC-3,
VC-4 and VC-5.
▪ MM NOI-5 – This measure requires site-specific acoustical analyses for any new industrial development.
This measure would not apply in Village Eight East since there is no proposed industrial development.
▪ MM NOI-6 - This measure identifies limitations on active operational hours for neighborhood park sites to
reduce potential noise levels. This mitigation measure would continue to apply to development in Village
Eight East.
▪ MM NOI-7 - This measure requires preparation of a noise analysis and identification of appropriate
measures, as applicable, to reduce noise levels at exterior use areas at elementary schools to below
established thresholds. This mitigation measure would continue to apply to development in Village Eight
East.
▪ MM NOI-8 – This measure requires that preparation and construction activities and maintenance of
construction equipment occur during the hours identified. This mitigation measure would continue to apply
to any development in Village Eight East.
▪ MM NOI-9 -This measure is site specific for Village Four and would not apply to Village Eight East.
The proposed changes also include changes to expected future traffic volumes. As summarized in a technical
memorandum to the project applicant, the proposed modifications would result in a decrease in trip generation and
traffic impacts and would not substantially change trip distribution patterns (Chen Ryan 2023). The total trips
analyzed in the 2014 University Villages EIR are 35,776 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with 2,899 trips (835-in/2,064-
out) during the AM peak hour and 3,502 trips (2,350-in/1,152-out) during the PM peak hour. The proposed project
is anticipated to generate 34,062 ADT, with 2,465 (617-in/1,848-out) trips during the AM peak hour, and 3,312
(2,184in/1,128-out) trips during the PM peak hour. This change represents 1,714 less ADT, 434 less (218-in/216-
out) AM trips, and 190 less (166 in/24-out) PM trips, when compared to the 2014 University Villages EIR. This trip
reduction also reduces projected future ADT volumes for the proposed project, which corresponds to a reduction in
roadway traffic noise generation.
As described previously, mitigation measures MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-4 and MM-NOI-6 through MM-NOI-8
incorporated as part of the University Villages Comprehensive SPA Amendment FEIR (2014) to reduce exterior and
interior noise levels would apply to the proposed modifications.
In conclusion, the proposed changes to land uses and planning areas are not anticipated to substantially alter the
noise mitigation measures listed in the previous FEIR. Additionally, expected changes in project build-out roadway
traffic volumes as studied herein are not anticipated to increase traffic noise impacts, and would reduce previously
identified traffic noise impacts. No new noise impacts would occur and no new mitigation measures would be
required.
Page 147 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST PROJECT – NOISE UPDATE
13570 4 NOVEMBER 2023
REFERENCES
Chen Ryan. 2022. CEQA Transportation Analysis and Local Mobility Analysis – Village 8 East. September.
City of Chula Vista. 2014. University Villages Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Report. December.
Page 148 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UPDATE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
PROJECT NO. G1006-52-05
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
REVISED MAY 5, 2023
Page 149 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project No. G1006-52-05
September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Homefed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jeff O’Connor
Subject: UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. O’Connor:
In accordance with your authorization and our proposal LG-21228 dated May 4, 2021, we prepared this
update geotechnical report for the subject project. The accompanying report presents our findings,
conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development.
The study also includes an evaluation of the geologic units and geologic hazards. Based on the results
of this study, we opine the site is considered suitable for development provided the recommendations of
this report are followed.
Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence, or if we may be of further service, please
contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Shawn Foy Weedon
GE 2714
Michael C. Ertwine
CEG 2659
SFW:MCE:am
(e-mail) Addressee
(e-mail) Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
Attention: Ms. Alisa Vialpando
Page 150 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................................... 1
2.SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 2
3.PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 5
4.TEMPORARY GRADED SLOPES ..................................................................................................... 6
5.SUBDRAINS ........................................................................................................................................ 7
6.GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................................................................................... 8
7.SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 9
7.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) ....................................................................................................... 9
7.2 Undocumented Fill Soil (Qudf – Environmental Stockpile) .................................................... 10
7.3 Undocumented Fill Soil (Qudf) ................................................................................................ 10
7.4 Compacted Fill (Qcf) ................................................................................................................ 10
7.5 Topsoil (unmapped) .................................................................................................................. 11
7.6 Alluvium (Qal) ......................................................................................................................... 11
7.7 Terrace Deposits (Qt) ............................................................................................................... 11
7.8 Otay Formation (To, Tob and Tog) .......................................................................................... 11
8.GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................ 12
9.GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................. 12
10.GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................... 13
10.1 Faulting and Seismicity ............................................................................................................ 13
10.2 Liquefaction .............................................................................................................................. 14
10.3 Landsliding ............................................................................................................................... 14
10.4 Seiches and Tsunamis ............................................................................................................... 15
10.5 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................... 15
10.6 Erosion ...................................................................................................................................... 16
11.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 17
11.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 17
11.2 Existing Grade Soil Conditions ................................................................................................ 18
11.3 Seismic Design Criteria – 2022 California Building Code ....................................................... 19
11.4 Slope Stability Analyses ........................................................................................................... 22
11.5 Grading ..................................................................................................................................... 23
11.6 Earthwork Grading Factors ....................................................................................................... 30
11.7 Subdrains .................................................................................................................................. 30
11.8 Preliminary Foundation and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Recommendations............................. 33
11.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 39
11.10 Conventional Retaining Walls .................................................................................................. 40
11.11 Lateral Loading ......................................................................................................................... 43
11.12 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations ................................................................................ 44
11.13 Slope Maintenance.................................................................................................................... 47
11.14 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ..................................................................................... 48
11.15 Grading and Foundation Plan Review ...................................................................................... 49
11.16 Testing and Observation Services During Construction ........................................................... 49
Page 151 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures 1 through 6, Geologic Map
Figures 7 and 8, Geologic Cross-Sections
APPENDIX A
PREVIOUS BORINGS AND TRENCH LOGS
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Atterberg Limits Test Results
Table B-VI, Summary of Laboratory Resistance Value (R-Value) Results
Figures B-1, Gradation Curve
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
Page 152 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 1 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of an update geotechnical study for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 8
East development located in eastern portion of Chula Vista, California (see Vicinity Map).
Vicinity Map
The purpose of this update report is to provide excavation and remedial grading considerations,
foundation and concrete slab-on-grade recommendations, retaining wall and lateral load
recommendations, 2019 CBC seismic design criteria, preliminary pavement and flatwork
recommendations, and discussions regarding the local geologic hazards including faulting, liquefaction,
and seismic shaking. The scope of the study also included a review of:
1.Geotechnical Investigation, Otay Ranch Village 8 East, Chula Vista, California, prepared by
Geocon Incorporated, dated March 14, 2014 (Project No. G1006-11-02).
2.Final Report of Testing and Observation Services Performed During Site Grading, Otay Ranch
Village 8 East, Borrow and Disposal Sites, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon
Incorporated, dated September 9, 2022 (Project No. G1006-52-04).
3.Tentative Map CVT-13-03, Otay Ranch Village 8 East, City of Chula Vista, prepared by
Hunsaker & Associates, San Diego, Inc., August 17, 2022 (W.O. No. 2395-0039).
Page 153 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 2 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Our referenced field investigation dated March 14, 2014 for Otay Ranch Village 8 East included
mapping the geology, drilling 19 large-diameter borings, and excavating 57 backhoe trenches. Appendix
A presents the logs of the previous borings and trenches. The approximate locations of the exploratory
excavations are presented on the Geologic Map (Figures 1 through 6). We performed laboratory tests
on soil samples obtained from the exploratory excavations to evaluate pertinent physical and chemical
properties for engineering analysis. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B.
We performed engineering analyses to evaluate the stability of the proposed slopes. The results of our
slope stability analyses are discussed herein and analyses are presented in Appendix C.
Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. provided the topographic information and the tentative map
used during our field investigation and preparation of the Geologic Map. References to elevations
presented in this report are based on the referenced topographic information. Geocon does not practice
in the field of land surveying and is not responsible for the accuracy of such topographic information.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is located south of future Main Street (currently Rock Mountain Road) and
Olympian High School, west of State Route 125, north of the Otay River drainage and Wiley Road
access easement, and east of undeveloped land in the southeastern portion of Chula Vista, California.
The property is approximately 575 gross acres with about 265 gross acres planned for open space
resulting in the development of about 310 acres. The site consists of a series of south trending ridges
and canyons draining to the south into Otay River. Site elevations range from approximately 180 feet
above mean sea level (MSL) at the southwest corner of the Community Park site adjacent to the Otay
River drainage to approximately 610 feet MSL at the northeast corner of the site. Cut and fill slopes
exist on the northern portion of the site created during the previous grading of Main Street. A Chula
Vista sewer line easement and SDG&E overhead transmission lines are located on the southern portion
of the project within the un-improved Wiley Road. Wiley Road provides access to the Vulcan material
plant to the west and further east within the Otay River Valley. The City of San Diego’s, Otay 2nd 40-
inch and Otay 3rd 54-inch-inch waterlines (constructed in the late 1920s by cut and cover techniques)
cross the site from east to west in the middle portion of the project. We understand the invert elevations
of the pipeline are 10 to 15 below the existing grades based on observation of portion of mass grading
on Village 8 West. We understand the existing waterlines will be removed or abandoned from the eastern
and western points of connection, respectively. Portions of the existing 54-inch pipeline are partially
exposed above ground as it crosses several tributary drainages. Previous grading of Main Street and the
high school included the construction of canyon subdrains and a buttress fill. Site vegetation consists of
sparse native coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats disturbed by farming. Some riparian vegetation
occurs on the north side of the Otay River drainage area. The Project Location Map shows the areas
surrounding the Village 8 West development area.
Page 154 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 3 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Project Location Map
We understand the development will generally occur from the north to south property lines leaving local
areas designated as open space and preserve for environmental purposes (MSCP). The site will
accommodate multi-family residential (108.8), village core (47.7 acres), park sites (73.2 acres), school
site (11.3 acres), community purpose facilities (2.0 acres), parks (73.2 acres, respectively), future
development lots (9.3 acres), circulation roadways (31.8 acres), active recreation (22.6 acres), and open
space (253.6. acres of preserve land, and basins (31.6 acres). A large community park is proposed on
the southern portion of the property adjacent to the Otay River drainage channel. In addition, a water
quality basin will be constructed on the southeast and southwest portion of the site to the south of the
developed area and along the north side of the Otay River drainage. Grading of the site will consist of
maximum cuts and fills of approximately 75 feet with cut and fill slopes having a maximum height of
45 and 50 feet, respectively, and a maximum slope inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Several
reinforced earth retaining walls are proposed on the site with maximum heights on the order of 25 feet.
The proposed grading will require approximately 4.86 million cubic yards of excavation and fill. The
Site Utilization plan is presented herein. This report does not include the design for the proposed bridges
extending over Highway SR-125 on La Media Parkway and Rock Mountain Road.
Page 155 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 4 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Site Utilization Map
A portion of Village 8 East has been utilized as a disposal site for rock-fill placement operations which
are ongoing. Prior to site grading in the disposal area, in accordance with the soil remediation plan,
topsoil material was stripped and stockpiled. The stockpiled material will be placed during mass-grading
operations in accordance with project specifications. Within the disposal site, remedial grading consisted
of removing the existing surficial materials in the proposed work area, installing subdrains (where
Page 156 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 5 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
necessary) and placing soil-rock-fill from the Otay Ranch Village 8 West project. The rock is being
placed on the side of an existing slope to an elevation of about 425 to 440 feet MSL. The rock will be
placed at least 2 feet below the planned deepest utilities and at least 10 feet from the proposed finish
grade elevations. Soil: rock-fill is placement is completed and referenced in our report dated August 9,
2022.
The locations and descriptions provided herein are based on a site reconnaissance, review of the tentative
map, and project information provided by the client and Hunsaker & Associates, San Diego.
3. PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT
In general, a portion of Otay Ranch Village 8 East has been partially grading during mass grading
operations for Village 8 West. The disposal and borrow areas within Village 8 West consisted of
remedial grading of surficial soil and placing compacted fill resulting in a total maximum thickness
ranging up to approximately 40 feet. The surficial soil (topsoil) and upper weathered formational
materials were excavated to expose competent Otay Formation. The topsoil and portions of the
weathered Otay Formation were stockpiled for environmental purposes highlighted blue and labeled
environmental stockpile. Prior to fill placement, toe drains were installed and canyon subdrains were
placed within the former canyon drainages. The grading contractor generated additional fill material
from within the Otay Formation and placed within the lower temporary slope zone margins subsequent
to the installation of the toe drains. Excavation depths ranged from 5 feet within the former mesa areas
and up to 10 feet within the flanks of the central canyon drainage. The Geologic Maps, Figures 1 through
8, depict elevations of the base of the fill and environmental stockpiled material.
Imported materials from Otay Ranch Village 8 West generally varied between angular gravels and
boulders (produced by blasting of hard metavolcanic rock) to clayey, fine sand; sandy to silty clay; and
sandy to clayey gravels. Structural fill consists of materials that can be classified into three zones:
1. Zone A – Material placed within 3 feet of pad grade, 6 feet of parkway grade, and within
roadways to at least 1 foot below the deepest utility consisted of “soil” fill with a maximum
particle dimension of 6 inches.
2. Zone B – Material placed within 10 feet of pad grade and below Zone A consisted of “soil-rock”
fill with a maximum particle dimension of 12 inches. In addition, material placed on the outer
6 feet of fill slopes and 2 feet below Zone A for fills in roadways and parkways consisted of
“soil-rock” fill with a maximum particle dimension of 12 inches.
3. Zone C – Material placed below Zone B consisted of “soil-rock” fill and “rock” fill with a
maximum particle dimension of 4 feet. It should also be noted that larger rocks with a maximum
dimension of approximately 8 feet were buried individually during “soil-rock” fill grading
operations.
Page 157 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 6 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Based on our observations, only Zones B and C were placed in the disposal areas. We expect Zone A
will be placed during future mass grading operations during site development. Placement procedures for
“soil-rock” and “rock” fills consisted of spreading and compacting the material with a D9 or larger
Caterpillar bulldozer with a maximum lift size of 3 feet. Materials placed as “soil/rock” and “rock” fills
were watered heavily during spreading to place finer-grained material between the rocks. During the
placement of each lift, compaction effort was applied to the fill by wheel-rolling with loaded rock trucks
such that the entire lift was compacted.
Soil fills were placed in lifts no thicker than would allow for adequate bonding and compaction. The
soil was moisture conditioned as necessary and mixed during placement, then compacted utilizing
conventional heavy-duty compaction equipment.
During the disposal sites grading operations, we observed compaction procedures and performed in-
place density tests to evaluate the dry density and moisture content of the fill materials. We performed
in-place density tests in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D 6938 (nuclear). In general,
the in-place density test results indicate the compacted fill possesses a dry density of at least 90 percent
of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content at the locations
tested. The results of these tests are reported in the referenced Final Report of Grading dated
September 9, 2022. A summary of the observations, compaction test results, and professional opinions
pertaining to the grading is presented in the referenced interim reports of testing and observation services
performed during site grading.
4. TEMPORARY GRADED SLOPES
During the disposal site grading operations, the contractor constructed temporary fill slopes with a
maximum height of approximately 35 feet at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The
existing site conditions and approximate oversize rock fragments are presented on the Existing Site Plan.
Page 158 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 7 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Existing Site Plan
After remedial grading of the surficial soil and installation of toe drains, the western and eastern facing
embankment fill slopes were constructed along the margins of a shallow alluvial drainage. At the
direction of Terra Development Inc. and HomeFed, the contractor extended the soil-rock fill to the
temporary slope face instead of placing finer-grained compacted fill materials for placement on the outer
slope face as outlined in our letters dated October 9, 2020, and July 15, 2021. Although the contractor
properly placed the soil-rock fill, the slope surface areas of the soil-rock fill possess voids between the
rock fragments that will require additional remedial grading during future grading operations. Some
oversize rock will require special handling and benching techniques prior to additional fill placement.
5. SUBDRAINS
The grading contractor installed toe drains and a canyon subdrain at the general locations shown on the
As-Graded Geologic Map, Figures 1 and 2. In addition, the subdrains were “as-built” for location and
elevation by the project civil engineers, Hale Engineering, and Hunsaker & Associates, San Diego,
Incorporated. The canyon subdrains and toe drains consists of 6- to 8-inch-diameter, Schedule 40,
perforated PVC pipe placed in ¾-inch crushed aggregate gravel surrounded by Mirafi 140N (or
equivalent) filter fabric. The perforated pipe is connected to a solid pipe at the end of the drain near the
Page 159 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 8 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
outlet. The canyon subdrains and toe drains have been outlet into open space as-depicted as the As-
Graded Geologic Map. These subdrains should be extended during the proposed mass grading
operations for the future development.
6. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located in the coastal plain of the Peninsular Ranges province of southern California. The
Peninsular Ranges is a geologic and geomorphic province that extends from the Imperial Valley to the
Pacific Ocean and from the Transverse Ranges to the north and into Baja California to the south. The
coastal plain of San Diego County is underlain by a thick sequence of relatively undisturbed and non-
conformable sedimentary rocks that range in age from Upper Cretaceous through the Pleistocene with
intermittent deposition. Geomorphically, the coastal plain is characterized by a stair-stepped series of
marine terraces, which are younger to the west and have been dissected by west flowing rivers that drain
the Peninsular Ranges to the east. The coastal plain is a relatively stable block that is dissected by
relatively few faults consisting of the potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone and the active Rose
Canyon Fault Zone. The Peninsular Ranges are also dissected by the Elsinore Fault Zone that is
associated with and sub-parallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone, which is the plate boundary between
the Pacific and North American Plates.
The site is located on the central portion of the coastal plain. A prominent outcrop composed of
Metavolcanic Rock (Mzu) is located west of the site. Marine sedimentary units unconformably overlie
the Metavolcanic Rock and consist of a Pleistocene age Terrace Deposits (Qt) and the Tertiary age Otay
Formation (To). The Terrace Deposits are shallow marine and non-marine sandstone units with layers
containing cobble up to 18 inches in diameter. This unit is located on the southern portion of the site on
the northern flanks of the Otay River Valley. Otay Fanglomerate is mapped along the southern flanks
of the site; however, we do not expect to encounter it at the site. We expect this unit could be consistent
with the gritstone member discussed herein. The Otay Formation typically consists of three
lithostratigraphic members composed of a basal conglomerate member, a middle gritstone member and
an upper sandstone/siltstone/claystone member with a maximum reported regional thickness of roughly
400 feet. The upper two members of the Otay Formation are present on the site. In addition, bentonitic
claystone layers are common within the upper member typically deposited as highly consolidated
volcanic ash deposits. The site has been dissected by a series of northwest trending canyons that have
exposed the Otay Formation. Pleistocene-age Terrace Deposits are present on the northern flank of the
Otay River. A Regional Geologic Map is presented herein.
Page 160 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 9 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Regional Geologic Map
7. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
During our field investigation, disposal and borrow site grading operations, we encountered four
surficial deposits (consisting of previously placed fill, undocumented fill, topsoil, and alluvium) and two
formational units (consisting of Pleistocene age Terrace Deposits and Tertiary-age Otay Formation). We
subdivided the Otay Formation into the upper sandstone/siltstone/claystone member (To) and an
underlying middle gritstone member (Tog). We did not encounter the lower basal conglomerate member
of the Otay Formation on site. The lateral extent of the materials encountered is shown on the Geologic
Map, Figures 1 through 4. Figure 5 presents Geologic Cross-Sections providing an interpretation of the
subsurface geologic conditions. We prepared the geologic cross-sections using interpolation between
exploratory excavations and observations; therefore, actual geotechnical conditions may vary from those
illustrated and should be considered approximate. The descriptions of the soil and geologic conditions
are shown on the boring logs located in Appendix A, the laboratory testing in Appendix B, and described
herein in order of increasing age.
7.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf)
Previous grading has occurred along the northern portion of the site during the construction of Main
Street and the adjacent high school consisting of the placement of previously placed fill. The previous
grading was completed in 2005 with the testing and observation services provided by Geotechnics
Incorporated (see List of References). The grading consisted of the removal of surficial soil, placement
Page 161 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 10 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
of two canyon subdrain and two soil-rock fill subdrains, and the placement and compaction of fill soil
to achieve finish grades. The two canyon subdrains should be extended up-gradient during mass grading
operations to 10 feet below proposed grades. A buttress fill constructed during grading in 2007 possesses
a subsurface drain constructed on the ascending slope on the south side of Main Street on the western
portion of the roadway (see Geologic Map). During mass-grading for Otay Ranch Village 8 East,
performed by AGS, Inc. the 8-inch subdrain has been outlet to an approved structure along Main Street
East during the site development within Village 8 East. In general, the fill consists of medium dense to
dense, moist, silt and sand. In its present condition, the fill soil is suitable for support of additional fill
or utilities; however, the upper portion of the fill soil will require remedial grading.
7.2 Undocumented Fill Soil (Qudf – Environmental Stockpile)
Undocumented fill soil is present as stockpiles on the site adjacent to the disposal and borrow areas. The
contractor placed stockpiles during the soil remediation program topsoil material which consists of
stripped and stockpiled topsoil and surficial materials. The stockpiled material will be placed during
mass-grading operations in accordance with project specifications. The undocumented fill possesses a
thickness of at least 10 to 35 feet thick and can be characterized as soft to loose, dry to damp, sandy clay
to clayey sand. The undocumented fill is compressible and removal will be necessary within the limits
of grading in areas to support proposed fill or structures, or in areas of additional removals and placement
of additional compacted.
7.3 Undocumented Fill Soil (Qudf)
Undocumented fill soil is also present on the central portion of the site adjacent to and within the existing
City of San Diego Otay 2nd and 3rd pipelines. The fill was likely placed during the excavation of the
aqueduct and to traverse the property. The undocumented fill likely has a thickness of at least 10 to 15
feet thick and can be characterized as soft to loose, dry to damp, sandy clay to clayey sand. The
undocumented fill is compressible and removal will be necessary within the limits of grading in areas
to support proposed fill or structures.
7.4 Compacted Fill (Qcf)
Compacted fill associated with the grading operations exists on the partially graded disposal sites. In
general, the fill consists of soil-rock fills generated from the neighboring Otay Ranch Village 8 West.
The contractor placed fill materials generated from the excavations within metavolcanic rock areas in
Otay Ranch Village 8 East and placed as compacted fill. The outside edge of the temporary fill slopes
consists of a rockfill which will require additional remedial during mass grading operations. The
compacted fill is considered suitable for support and development of proposed improvements; however,
the upper portions, and temporary rock fill areas will require processing and recompaction prior to
placing fill or improvements.
Page 162 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 11 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
7.5 Topsoil (unmapped)
Holocene-age topsoil is present as a relatively thin veneer overlying formational materials across the
site. The topsoil has a thickness of approximately 2 to 4 feet and can be characterized as soft to stiff and
loose to medium dense, dry to damp, dark brown, sandy clay to clayey sand with gravel and cobble. The
topsoil is typically expansive and compressible. Removal of the topsoil will be necessary within the
limits of grading in areas to support proposed fill or structures. Due to the relatively thin thickness and
discontinuity of these deposits, topsoil is not shown on the Geologic Map.
7.6 Alluvium (Qal)
Holocene-age alluvium is sheet-flow or stream deposited material found within the canyon drainages
and the southern river area. The alluvium generally varies in thickness dependent on the size of the
canyon and extent of the drainage area. The alluvium within the canyon drainages is loose to medium
dense, can become saturated and difficult to excavate during the rainy season. We estimate the thickness
of the alluvium to range up to approximately 7 feet within the tributary canyons and 11 feet within the
Otay River Drainage on the south side of the site. Due to the relatively unconsolidated nature of these
deposits, remedial grading will be necessary in areas to receive proposed fill or structures.
7.7 Terrace Deposits (Qt)
Pleistocene-age Terrace Deposits are deposited as shallow marine and non-marine near shore soil
located on the southern portion of the site and the northern flank of the Otay River canyon drainage. We
expect this unit may be in excess of 50 feet thick. The Terrace Deposits are generally dense to very
dense, reddish brown, silty to clayey sandstone with portions of the unit containing intermittent layers
of cobbles and boulders up to about 2 feet in diameter. The Terrace Deposits are suitable for the support
of proposed fill and structural loads; however, select grading operations will be required to properly
place the cobble and boulders where encountered.
7.8 Otay Formation (To, Tob and Tog)
Tertiary-age Otay Formation is exposed across the site or located below the surficial soil and Terrace
Deposits. The upper member of this unit (To) consists of interbeds of dense to very dense, slightly
cemented, silty to clayey sandstone and hard, siltstone and claystone layers. In addition, several layers
of bentonitic claystone (Tob) with a maximum thickness of approximately 1 foot thick are present within
this unit on the northern and middle portions of the site that can create slope instability. Some of the
layers are locally discontinuous and range in elevations as high as 573 feet MSL to as low as 416 feet
MSL. The approximate locations of the more prominent layers of bentonite are presented on the
Geologic Map, Figures 1 through 4. Some minor discontinuous layers of bentonitic claystone are also
present with a thickness of 1 to 3 inches. The bentonite did not appear to be sheared or remolded as
observed in our previous excavation.
Page 163 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 12 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
The middle gritstone Otay Formation member (Tog), generally located below an elevation of 370 feet
MSL, consists of very dense, slightly to moderately cemented, silty to clayey sandstone with interbeds
of gravel and cobble generally with a maximum dimension of about 1 foot. We do not expect to
encounter the lower basal conglomerate member of the Otay Formation. Excavations within both the
upper and middle members will generally be possible with heavy-duty grading equipment with heavy
effort; however, moderately cemented zones will create very difficult ripping and generate oversize
cemented cobbles and boulders. The Otay Formation is suitable for the support of proposed fill and
structural loads. The gritstone member of this unit is generally stable when excavated to construct cut
slopes. However, the siltstone, claystone, and bentonitic claystone layers within the member will require
slope stabilization when exposed in cut slopes, near fill slopes, and behind MSE retaining walls.
The Tertiary-age (upper Oligocene) Otay Formation underlies the site on canyon slopes or underlying
the younger geologic formations and surficial soil at depth. The Otay Formation consists of dense, silty,
fine- to coarse-grained sandstone, clayey and sandy siltstone, and silty claystone with continuous and
discontinuous interbeds of highly expansive bentonitic claystone. The coarse-grained portions of the
Otay Formation typically possess a “very low” to “low” expansion potential (expansion index of 50 or
less) and adequate shear strength. The fine-grained siltstone and claystone portions of the formation can
exhibit a “medium” to “very high” expansion potential (expansion index greater than 50). With the
exception of the bentonitic claystone, the Otay Formation is suitable for the support of compacted fill
and structural loads.
8. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Bedding attitudes observed within formational materials encountered during the investigation are nearly
horizontal to slightly dipping toward the southwest. The regional dip of sedimentary units in the eastern
Chula Vista area is generally 1 to 5 degrees toward the southwest. The granular portions of the
formational units are typically massive with bedding not discernible. Shear zones create a possibility for
slope instability and, where encountered during grading, should be evaluated for the necessity of
remedial grading. High-angle contacts between formational units are not uncommon; however, it is our
opinion that adverse geologic structure does not present a significant geologic hazard to the proposed
development of the site if the recommendations of this report are incorporated into design and
construction.
9. GROUNDWATER
We did not encounter a static groundwater table in the previous exploratory excavations and during the
grading operations. We do not expect groundwater to adversely impact the development of the property.
During storm drain excavations we observed minor seepage within formational materials. It is not
uncommon for groundwater seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed due to the
permeability characteristics of the geologic units encountered on site. During the rainy season, perched
Page 164 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 13 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
water conditions are likely to develop within the drainage areas that may require special consideration
during grading operations. Groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation,
and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result.
10. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
10.1 Faulting and Seismicity
A review of the referenced geologic materials and our knowledge of the general area indicate that the
site is not underlain by active, potentially active, or inactive faults. An active fault is defined by the
California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault showing evidence for activity within the last
11,000 years. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone.
The USGS has developed a program to evaluate the approximate location of faulting in the area of
properties. The following figure shows the location of the existing faulting in the San Diego County and
Southern California region. The fault traces are shown as solid, dashed and dotted that represent well-
constrained, moderately constrained and inferred, respectively. The fault line colors represent faults with
ages less than 150 years (red), 15,000 years (orange), 130,000 years (green), 750,000 years (blue) and
1.6 million years (black).
Faults in Southern California
The San Diego County and Southern California region is seismically active. The following figure
presents the occurrence of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 2.5 from the period of 1900
through 2015 according to the Bay Area Earthquake Alliance website.
Page 165 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 14 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Earthquakes in Southern California
Considerations important in seismic design include the frequency and duration of motion and the soil
conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of structures should be evaluated in accordance with the
California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the City of Chula Vista.
10.2 Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are
cohesionless or low plasticity silt/clay, static groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface,
and soil relative densities are less than about 70 percent. If the four previous criteria are met, a seismic
event could result in a rapid pore-water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground
accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or
not. The potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement occurring within the site soil is
considered to be very low due to the dense nature of proposed fill and the very dense nature of the
formational materials.
10.3 Landsliding
We did not observe evidence of landslide deposits within the proposed development area or adjacent to
the property during the geotechnical investigation or during previous grading operations. Therefore,
landslides are not considered a potential geologic hazard at the site.
Page 166 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 15 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
10.4 Seiches and Tsunamis
A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large
volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or offshore
slope failures. The site is approximately 9 miles from the Pacific Coast and finish grades will range
between approximately 180 feet and 540 feet above MSL after grading. Therefore, we consider the risk
associated with tsunamis to be negligible.
A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault- or landslide-induced ground
displacement. The site is not located near or adjacent to a large body of water. However, the Otay River
drainage channel along the south side of the site is located downstream of Lower Otay Lake located
approximately 2 miles to the east. The lowest elevation at the site after grading is proposed to be
approximately 25 feet above the drainage channel. Therefore, the potential of seiches affecting the site
or flooding due to a breach or overtopping of the dam structure is considered very low.
10.5 Slope Stability
We evaluated the maximum proposed cut and fill slope heights and MSE wall configurations, as
depicted on the Geologic Map, to evaluate both surficial and global stability based on the current
geologic information. The portions of the site planned for grading are generally underlain by
Quaternary-age surficial soil, Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits, and Tertiary-age Otay Formation. The
unit most likely to be subject to slope instability is the bentonitic claystone layers within the upper
member of the Otay Formation encountered on the northern and middle portions of the site. Appendix
C presents the slope stability analyses using the two-dimensional computer program GeoStudio2018
created by Geo-Slope International Ltd. The proposed slopes and MSE retaining walls have calculated
factors of safety greater than 1.5 for global and shallow sloughing conditions provided our
recommendations for grading and drainage are incorporated into the design and construction of the
proposed slopes and MSE retaining walls. We expect extended grid lengths will be required for the
planned MSE walls to have an appropriate factor of safety as shown in Appendix C.
In general, we opine permanent, graded fill slopes constructed of granular soil and cut slopes excavated
within the middle member of the Otay Formation and Terrace Deposits at the site with gradients of 2:1
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter will possess Factors of Safety of 1.5 or greater. However, stability fills
will be required on the cut slopes where the siltstone/claystone members of the Otay Formation are
encountered and where loose or cohesionless material is encountered. In addition, a buttress fill will be
required during grading operations on the eastern portion of the site (See Geologic Cross-Sections E-E’,
F-F’ and H-H’) and next to Otay Valley Road (See Geologic Cross-Section D-D’) where bentonite will
be encountered in the slope zone during grading operations The buttresses will require a minimum
widths ranging from 15 to 30 feet, as calculated. We will evaluate the length and location of the buttress
when the 40-scale grading plans have been prepared. A structural setback would be required behind the
Page 167 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 16 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
buttress shown on Geologic Cross-Section F-F’ to keep the required buttress within the limits of grading.
We should review the grading report for SR-125 to check is a buttress was installed adjacent to the
roadway.
Grading of cut and fill slopes should be designed in accordance with the requirements of the local
building codes of the City of Chula Vista and the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). Mitigation of
unstable cut slopes can be achieved by the use of drained stability or buttress fills.
Slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable root depths and requiring
minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, slopes should be drained and properly maintained to reduce
erosion.
10.6 Erosion
The site is not located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean coast or a free-flowing drainage where active erosion
is occurring. Provided the engineering recommendations herein are followed and the project civil
engineer prepares the grading plans in accordance with generally-accepted regional standards, we do
not expect erosion to be a major impact to site development. In addition, we expect the proposed
development would not increase the potential for erosion if properly designed.
Page 168 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 17 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1 General
11.1.1 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, we opine the site is suitable for development
provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented in design and construction
of the project.
11.1.2 Based on observations and test results, we opine the grading to which this report pertains has
been performed in conformance with the recommendations of the previously referenced
project soils report prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated March 14, 2014, our letters dated
October 9, 2020 and July 15, 2021, and the geotechnical requirements of the grading plans.
11.1.3 We did not observe soil or geologic conditions during grading that would preclude the
continued development of the property as planned. Based on laboratory test results and field
observations, the fill observed and tested as part of the grading for this project was generally
compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near
to slightly above optimum moisture content.
11.1.4 The site is underlain by compacted fill overlying the Otay Formation. We observed the
placement of compacted fill during the mass grading operations and performed in-place
density tests to evaluate the dry density and moisture content of the fill material.
11.1.5 We opine soil within fill areas with residual pesticides was stockpiled during disposal site
grading operations. Topsoil was not placed as compacted fill.
11.1.6 Potential geologic hazards at the site include seismic shaking, and low to highly plastic
claystone layers, expansive and compressible soil. Based on our investigation, observations
during previous grading operations, and available geologic information, active, potentially
active, or inactive faults are not present underlying or trending toward the site.
11.1.7 The existing surficial soil units including undocumented fill associated with previous grading
and the backfill operations of the existing Otay 2nd and 3rd pipeline, topsoil and alluvium are
potentially compressible and unsuitable in their present condition for the support of
compacted fill or settlement-sensitive improvements. Remedial grading of the surficial soil
will be required and recommendations for remedial grading are provided herein. The
compacted fill, previously placed fill, Terrace Deposits and Otay Formation are suitable for
the support of proposed fill and structural loads.
Page 169 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 18 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.1.8 We did not encounter groundwater during our subsurface exploration and we do not expect it
to be a constraint to project development. However, seepage within near surface formational
materials and perched groundwater conditions within the canyon drainages may be
encountered during the grading operations, especially during the rainy seasons. The
installation of canyon subdrains and drained buttress and stability fills will be required to be
constructed during grading operations.
11.1.9 The rippability of the surficial units is expected to range from easy to moderate. We expect
the Terrace Deposits and Otay Formation to be rippable with heavy to very heavy effort to
proposed finish grades. Cobbles/boulders and cemented zones should be expected within
portions of Terrace Deposits. Cemented zones should be expected within portions of the
gritstone member of the Otay Formation and Terrace Deposits that will require extra ripping
effort using D-10 bulldozers to excavate. Oversize material will likely be generated during
ripping operations within the Otay Formation and special grading techniques will be required.
11.1.10 In general, cut slopes composed of the middle member of the Otay Formation (Tog) and
Terrace Deposits (Qt) should possess a Factors of Safety at least 1.5 at inclinations of 2:1
(horizontal to vertical), or flatter. However, construction of a buttress fill will be required
where bentonite is exposed at or near the slope face such as on the eastern portion of the site.
Geologic Cross-Section F-F′ requires a buttress width of at least 30 feet to provide a minimum
factor of safety of 1.5. Construction of stability fills for proposed cut slopes within the upper
sandstone/siltstone/claystone member of the Otay Formation (To) on the northern and middle
portions of the site.
11.1.11 Proper drainage should be maintained in order to preserve the engineering properties of the
fill in the sheet-graded pad and slope areas. Recommendations for site drainage are provided
herein.
11.1.12 The site is considered suitable for the use of conventional continuous and spread footings with
a concrete slab-on-grade system or a post-tensioned foundation system.
11.2 Existing Grade Soil Conditions
11.2.1 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be “expansive” (expansion
index [EI] greater than 20) as defined by 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Section
1803.5.3. Additional expansion index testing should be performed subsequent to the grading
operations to evaluate the expansion potential of the upper 3 to 4 feet of soil within the areas
of proposed structures and improvements. Table 11.2 presents soil classifications based on
the expansion index.
Page 170 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 19 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
TABLE 11.2
EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Classification 2022 CBC
Expansion Classification
0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 – 50 Low
Expansive 51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Greater Than 130 Very High
11.2.2 Based on laboratory tests performed during our field investigation, the EI of the surficial soil,
Terrace Deposits and the Otay Formation is variable. We expect the surficial soils will possess a
“medium” to “high” expansion potential (EI of 51 to 130). The bentonitic claystone and siltstone
layers within the upper sandstone/siltstone/claystone member of the Otay Formation may possess
a “very high” expansion potential (EI greater than 130). The sandstone layers within the upper and
middle members of the Otay Formation will likely possess a “very low” to “low” expansion
potential (EI of 50 or less). The siltstone and claystone layers within the upper member of the Otay
Formation will likely possess a “medium” to “high” expansion potential (EI of 51 to 130). Due to
the range of expansion potential typically exhibited by the Otay Formation, the expansion potential
should be evaluated for the building pads once final grade is achieved. The undercutting of cut
lots within the Otay Formations should also be performed.
11.2.3 Based on review of the referenced geotechnical reports, laboratory tests on samples of the site
materials to evaluate the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content indicate the on-site
materials at the locations tested possess “S0” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined
by 2022 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Chapter 19. Table 9.2 presents a summary of
concrete requirements set forth by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of
water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples
from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping
activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.
11.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further
evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be
susceptible to corrosion are planned.
11.3 Seismic Design Criteria – 2022 California Building Code
11.3.1 Table 11.3.1 summarizes site-specific design obtained from the 2022 California Building
Code (CBC; Based on the 2021 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter
Page 171 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 20 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. We used the computer program U.S.
Seismic Design Maps, provided by the Structural Engineers Association (SEA) to calculate
the seismic design parameters. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. The
structures should be designed using Site Class C where there is less than 20 feet of fill and
Site Class D where the fill thickness is 20 feet or greater. We evaluated the Site Class based
on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2022 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The
values presented herein are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER).
Sites designated as Site Class D, E and F may require additional analyses if requested by the
project structural engineer and client.
TABLE 11.3.1
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2022 CBC Reference
Site Class C D Section 1613.2.2
Fill Thickness, T (feet) T<20 T>20 --
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 0.745g 0.745g Figure 1613.2.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.272g 0.272g Figure 1613.2.1(2)
Site Coefficient, FA 1.202 1.202 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.5 1.5* Table 1613.2.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (short), SMS 0.895g 0.897g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn
16-20)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 0.409g 0.560g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn
16-21)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.597g 0.598g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn
16-22)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.272g 0.373g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn
16-23)
*See following paragraph.
11.3.2 Using the code-based values presented in this Table 7.3.1, in lieu of a performing a ground
motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be
followed by the project structural engineer. Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground
motion hazard analysis should be performed for projects for Site Class “D” sites with S1
greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which indicates that the ground
motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are followed. Supplement 3
of ASCE 7-16 provides an exception stating that that the GMHA may be waived provided
that the parameter SM1 is increased by 50% for all applications of SM1. The values for
parameters SM1 and SD1 presented herein above have not been increased in accordance with
Supplement 3 of ASCE 7-16.
Page 172 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 21 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.3.3 Table 11.3.2 presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic
design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in
accordance with ASCE 7-16.
TABLE 11.3.2
2022 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value ASCE 7-16
Site Class C D --
Fill Thickness, T (Feet) T<20 T>20 --
Mapped MCEGPeak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.323g 0.323g Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2 1.277 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG
Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.388g 0.413g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
11.3.4 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 11.3.1 and 11.3.2 for seismic design does not constitute
any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will
not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect
life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
11.3.5 The project structural engineer and architect should evaluate the appropriate Risk Category
and Seismic Design Category for the planned structures. The values presented herein assume
a Risk Category of II and resulting in a Seismic Design Category D. Table 11.3.3 presents a
summary of the risk categories in accordance with ASCE 7-16.
TABLE 11.3.3
ASCE 7-16 RISK CATEGORIES
Risk Category Building Use Examples
I Low risk to Human Life at Failure Barn, Storage Shelter
II Nominal Risk to Human Life at Failure
(Buildings Not Designated as I, III or IV)
Residential, Commercial and Industrial
Buildings
III Substantial Risk to Human Life at
Failure
Theaters, Lecture Halls, Dining Halls,
Schools, Prisons, Small Healthcare
Facilities, Infrastructure Plants, Storage
for Explosives/Toxins
IV Essential Facilities
Hazardous Material Facilities,
Hospitals, Fire and Rescue, Emergency
Shelters, Police Stations, Power
Stations, Aviation Control Facilities,
National Defense, Water Storage
Page 173 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 22 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.4 Slope Stability Analyses
11.4.1 We performed slope stability analyses using the computer software program GeoStudio 2018
to calculate the factor of safety with respect to deep-seated instability. This program uses
conventional slope stability equations and a two-dimensional, limit-equilibrium method. We
performed the rotational-mode and block-mode analyses using Spencer’s method. Output of
the computer program including the calculated Factor of Safety and the failure surface is
shown in Appendix A.
11.4.2 We used average drained direct shear strength parameters based on laboratory tests and our
experience with similar soil types in nearby areas. Our slope stability calculations indicate the
proposed cut and fill slopes, constructed of onsite materials, should have calculated factors of
safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions for both deep-seated failure and shallow sloughing
conditions if the recommendations of this report are followed. The shear strength parameters
used in the slope stability analyses are presented in Appendix A.
11.4.3 Based on the referenced grading plans, several MSE walls are planned on the property. Some
walls have heights of about 25. feet. Based on our experience, additional grid reinforcement
may be required for the walls to possess a factor of safety of at least 1.5. We should perform
global stability analyses of the walls prior to submittal of the retaining wall plans for the
planned development to evaluate required grid lengths.
11.4.4 We selected Geologic Cross-Sections A-A’ through H-H’ to perform the slope stability
analyses. The results and the computer output of the analyses are presented in Appendix A.
Table A-II provides a description of the cross-sections, their corresponding factor of safety,
and the condition of the slope stability analyses. A factor of safety of 1.5 for static conditions
is currently required by the City of Chula Vista for permanent graded slopes.
11.4.5 The placement of properly compacted fill will be required to stabilize weak bentonitic
claystone and siltstone layers expected to be encountered behind the proposed MSE retaining
wall on the east side of the property. In addition, a buttress fill will be required during grading
operations on the eastern portion of the site (See Geologic Cross-Sections E-E’, F-F’ and H-
H’) and next to Otay Valley Road (See Geologic Cross-Section D-D’) where bentonite will
be encountered in the slope zone during grading operations The buttresses will require
minimum widths ranging from 15 to 30 feet, as calculated. We will evaluate the length and
location of the buttress when the 40-scale grading plans have been prepared. A structural
setback would be required behind the buttress shown on Geologic Cross-Section F-F’, to keep
the required buttress within the limits of grading if the buttress was not installed during the
construction for the adjacent roadway.
Page 174 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 23 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.4.6 Cut slopes within the upper member of the Otay Formation will require the construction of
stability fills to stabilize the slope face as discussed herein.
11.4.7 We performed surficial slope stability calculations for the planned slopes. The calculated
factor of safety is greater than the required minimum factor of safety of 1.5. Plants with
variable root depth should be planted as soon as practical once the fill slopes have been
constructed. Table 11.4 presents the surficial slope stability analysis for the proposed sloping
conditions. We assumed strengths for topsoil exposed at the slope surface.
TABLE 11.4
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
Parameter Value
Slope Height, H ∞
Vertical Depth of Saturation, Z 3 Feet
Slope Inclination, I (Horizontal to Vertical) 2:1 (26.6 Degrees)
Total Soil Unit Weight, γ 125 pcf
Water Unit Weight, γW 62.4 pcf
Friction Angle, 28 Degrees
Cohesion, C 250 psf
Factor of Safety = (C+(γ+γW )Zcos2I tan)/(γZsinI cosI) 2.2
11.4.8 Buttress and stability fill drains should be surveyed for location and elevation during
construction and depicted on the As-Graded Geologic Map in the final report of grading.
11.4.9 Excavations including cut slopes, shear keys and buttress and stability fills should be observed
during grading by an engineering geologist to evaluate whether soil and geologic conditions
do not differ significantly from those expected.
11.5 Grading
11.5.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix B and the City of Chula Vista Ordinance. Where the
recommendations of this section conflict with those of Appendix B, the recommendations of
this section shall take precedence. Earthwork should be observed and fill tested for dry density
and moisture content by Geocon Incorporated.
11.5.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the
city inspector, owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical
Page 175 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 24 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that
time.
11.5.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, debris and vegetation.
The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as
fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site
demolition should be exported from the site.
11.5.4 Undocumented fill, topsoil and alluvium within the limits of grading should be removed to
expose firm Otay Formation or Terrace Deposits. The actual depth of removal should be
evaluated by the engineering geologist during grading operations. We do not expect that
removals will need to extend beyond the limits of grading. The bottom of the excavations
should be scarified to a depth of at least 1 foot, moisture conditioned as necessary, and
properly compacted. The upper 2 to 3 feet of previously placed fill will also require remedial
grading in the form of removal and recompaction. The remedial grading will be limited to the
area of proposed development and should not extend into the MSCP Preserve.
11.5.5 Bentonitic claystone layers that occur within 5 feet of finish grade should be removed and
replaced with properly compacted fill that possesses a “very low” to “medium” expansion
potential (EI of 90 or less). The undercut within the building pads should be sloped at least 2
percent toward the adjacent street or deep fill area.
11.5.6 Where bentonite claystone is encountered during grading operations, a buttress/stability fill
will be required. In addition, bentonite located within 5 feet of the planned finish grade
elevation should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill. Bentonitic claystone
layers encountered during the normal excavation or undercutting of building pads, streets, or
slopes should be mixed with granular materials in a ratio of at least two parts sand to one part
bentonite clay and compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture. The mixed bentonite clay
should be placed at least 5 feet below finish grade, at least 15 feet from the face of a fill slope,
and not within buttress or stability fill slopes.
11.5.7 The upper 3 feet of cut lots should be over excavated and replaced with properly compacted
fill due to the very dense and cemented nature of the two members of the Otay Formation.
The bottom of the excavation should be sloped at least one percent toward the adjacent deeper
fill areas or adjacent roadways to reduce the potential for subsurface water to saturate fill
materials.
Page 176 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 25 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.5.8 The City of Chula Vista has required that the upper 5 feet of fill soil and the upper 3 feet of
formational materials within the public right-of-way or public easement possess an expansion
index of 90 or less. If material with an expansion index greater than 90 exists within the right-
of-ways, the upper 5 feet of compacted fills and the upper 3 feet of formational should be
removed and replaced with fill with an expansion index of 90 or less or an alternative method
should be approved by the City of Chula Vista.
11.5.9 The undocumented fill existing within City of San Diego Otay 2nd and 3rd pipe should be
removed and replaced to competent formational materials within the existing easement to
design grades. The grading contractor should be careful not to damage the existing water lines
if they are left in place and operations during the grading operations. We expect the grading
would be limited to about 5 feet above the pipes and about 5 to 10 feet laterally from the pipes.
The contractor should provide the proper equipment and evaluation on excavations adjacent
to the pipelines. We can provide supplemental recommendations operations during the mass
grading operations as necessary.
11.5.10 If perched groundwater or saturated materials are encountered during remedial grading,
extensive drying and mixing with dryer soil will be required. This condition may potentially
occur within the canyon drainages, especially during the rainy season. The excavated
materials should then be moisture conditioned as necessary to near optimum moisture content
prior to placement as compacted fill.
11.5.11 We should observe the grading operations and the removal bottoms to check the exposure of
the formational materials prior to the placement of compacted fill. Deeper excavations may
be required if highly weathered formational materials are present at the base of the removals.
Fill soil should not be placed until we observe the bottom excavations. Table 11.5 provides a
summary of the grading recommendations.
Page 177 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 26 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
TABLE 11.5.1
SUMMARY OF GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Area Removal Requirements
Undocumented Fill, Topsoil and Weathered
Formational Materials
Remove to Underlying, Dense Formational
Materials
Formation Within 3 Feet of Proposed Building
Pad Elevations Undercut 3 Feet Below Finish Grade
Bentonite Within 5 Feet of Proposed Grade Undercut 3 to 5 Feet Below Finish Grade of
Pad or Garages, whichever is Lower
Formation at Grade in Areas of Surface
Improvements Process Upper 1 to 2 Feet of Existing Materials
Lateral Grading Limits 10 Feet Outside of Buildings/2 Feet Outside of
Improvement Areas, Where Possible
Exposed Bottoms of Remedial Grading Scarify Upper 12 Inches
11.5.12 The site should be brought to finish grade elevations with fill compacted in layers. Layers of
fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including
backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90
percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture
content in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Fill placed in excess of 40 feet from finish grade
should be compacted to a dry density of at least 92 percent of the laboratory maximum dry
density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Fill materials placed below optimum
moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
11.5.13 Topsoil should be handled in accordance with the soil remediation plan. Topsoil can be placed
at a depth of greater than 5 from subdrains and at least 10 feet from finish grades.
11.5.14 If additional rock fills are planned, in general, structural fill placed and compacted at the site
should consist of material that can be classified into four zones discussed in Table 11.5.2.
Page 178 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 27 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
TABLE 11.5.2
ROCK FILL ZONES
Fill Zone Description
A
Material placed within 3 feet from building pad grade, 8 feet from roadway grade,
and to at least 2 feet below the deepest utility within roadways should consist of
“soil” fill with an approximate maximum particle dimension of 6 inches with a
minimum of 40 percent of the soil passing the ¾-inch sieve. In addition, the upper 3
feet of pad grade should have at least 20 percent of the soil passing the No. 4 sieve.
B
Material placed below 8 feet from grade (below Zone A and C) may consist of
“rock” fill or “soil/rock” fill (as defined in Appendix H). Blasted rock should
generally consist of 2-foot-minus rock material with occasional rock up to 4 feet in
maximum dimension. Alternatively, “soil” fill may be placed in Zone B containing
rock with a maximum dimension of 2 feet. Rocks up to 4 feet in maximum
dimension can be individually placed in a properly compacted soil matrix with rocks
separated at least 8 feet apart.
C
Within 3 to 8 feet of pad grade and between 5 and 15 feet from face of slope, fill
material should consist of “soil” fill with an approximate maximum particle
dimension of 1 foot. Rocks up to 2 feet in maximum dimension may be placed,
provided they are distributed in a matrix of compacted “soil” fill.
D Within the outer 5 feet of fill slopes, the fill should consist of rock up to 1 foot in
maximum dimension in a matrix of compacted “soil” fill.
11.5.15 Recommendations for the handling and disposal of oversized rock in fill areas are presented
in the Rock Disposal Detail and in Appendix H.
Oversize Rock Disposal Detail
Page 179 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 28 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.5.16 Oversize rock placement should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications provided in Appendix B. Blasting of rock material for the proposed sewer
should be performed to maximize rock breakage to 2-foot minus material, if necessary. Rock
fill placement should generally be limited to 2-foot-thick horizontal layers and compacted
using rock trucks and bulldozers. Significant volumes of water are typically required during
rock fill placement. The downstream areas can generate large volumes of water that can be
re-used during construction.
11.5.17 The construction of a buttress fill will be required on the east side of the property that will
expose bentonitic claystone or siltstone. Stability fills will be required where the
claystone/siltstone portion of the Otay Formation ins exposed in the slope faces. Cut slopes
located within the upper member of the Otay Formation (To) above an elevation of
approximately 370 feet MSL will require the construction of stability fills. The Typical
Stability Fill Detail should be used for design and construction of slope buttresses, where
required. The backcut for the buttress should commence at least 10 feet from the top of the
proposed finish-graded slope and should extend at least 3 feet below adjacent pad grade or
below the bentonite layer, to a maximum depth of 15 feet below finish-pad grade. The base
of the key should be slopes at least 5 percent to the drain, into slope.
Typical Stability Fill Detail
11.5.18 The slope backcut should be a 1:1 and in accordance with OSHA requirements. Chimney
drains should be installed along the backcut that are 4 feet wide, 20-foot on center and provide
dual-sided drainage. Closer spacing may be required where seepage is encountered. The
collector pipe at the base of the backcut should consists of a minimum 4-inch diameter,
perforated, Schedule 40 PVC pipe drained at a minimum of 1 percent. The pipe should be
surrounded by ¾-inch gravel wrapped in an approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent).
Page 180 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 29 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.5.19 Cut slope excavations including buttresses and shear keys should be observed during grading
operations to check that soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those
expected. During the construction of buttresses, there is a risk that the temporary backcut
slopes will becoming unstable if the timing between placement of drains and compacted fill
is not achieved. This risk can be reduced by grading the buttress fill in short segments,
reducing the timing of leaving a temporary condition, and/or flattening the inclination of the
temporary slope.
11.5.20 The outer 15 feet (or a distance equal to the height of the slope, whichever is less) of fill slopes
should be composed of properly compacted granular “soil” fill to reduce the potential for
surficial sloughing. In general, soil with an expansion index of 90 or less and at least
35 percent sand-size particles should be acceptable as “soil” fill. Soil of questionable strength
to satisfy surficial stability should be tested in the laboratory for acceptable drained shear
strength. The use of cohesionless soil in the outer portion of fill slopes should be avoided. Fill
slopes should be overbuilt at least 2 feet and cut back or be compacted by backrolling with a
loaded sheepsfoot roller at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet to maintain the moisture
content of the fill. The slopes should be track-walked at the completion of each slope such
that the fill is properly compacted to the face of the finished slope.
11.5.21 Finished slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable root
depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, the slopes should be drained
and properly maintained to reduce erosion.
11.5.22 Import fill (if necessary) should consist of the characteristics presented in Table 11.5.3.
Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform
laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill
material.
TABLE 11.5.3
SUMMARY OF IMPORT FILL RECOMMENDATIONS
Soil Characteristic Values
Expansion Potential “Very Low” to “Medium” (Expansion Index of 90 or less)
Particle Size Maximum Dimension Less Than 3 Inches
Generally Free of Debris
Page 181 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 30 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.6 Earthwork Grading Factors
11.6.1 Estimates of bulking and shrinkage factors are based on empirical judgments comparing the
material in its natural state as encountered in the exploratory excavations to a compacted state.
Variations in natural soil density and in compacted fill density render shrinkage value
estimates very approximate. As an example, the contractor can compact the fill to a dry
density of 90 percent or higher of the laboratory maximum dry density. Thus, the contractor
has an approximately 10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Bulking of rock units
is a function of rock density, structure, overburden pressure, and the physical behavior of
blasted material. Based on our experience, the shrinkage and bulking factors presented in
Table 11.6 can be used as a basis for estimating how much the onsite soil may shrink or swell
(bulk) when excavated from their natural state and placed as compacted fill. Please note that
these estimates are for preliminary quantity estimates only. Due to the variations in the actual
shrinkage/bulking factors, a balance area that can also accommodate rock should be provided
to accommodate these variations.
TABLE 11.6
SHRINKAGE AND BULK FACTORS
Soil Unit Shrink/Bulk Factor
Surficial Soils (Qudf, topsoil, and Qal) 10% to 15% Shrink
Compacted and Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) 2% Shrink to 2% Bulk
Terrace Deposits 3% to 5% Bulk
Otay Formation (To and Tog) 4% to 8% Bulk
11.7 Subdrains
11.7.1 Conditions encountered prior to and during grading do not necessarily reveal the conditions
that will be encountered once construction of the proposed homes is completed. Specifically,
irrigation in up gradient areas cannot be reasonably predicted. Therefore, the design and
implementation of additional drainage mechanisms may be necessitated.The geologic units
encountered on the site have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could
be susceptible under certain conditions to groundwater/seepage. The use of canyon subdrains
will be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage
conditions. The existing subdrain located at the toe of the fill slope along Rock Mountain
Road has been temporarily tied into an approved storm drain structure on Main Street East in
Village 8 West and will be removed during future grading operations. The following figure
presents a typical canyon subdrain detail.
Page 182 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 31 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Typical Canyon Subdrain Detail
11.7.2 Stability fill, buttress fill, and canyon subdrains should possess the dimensions presented in
Table 11.7. The Geologic Map, Figures 1 through 4 present the locations of proposed canyon
subdrains. The actual subdrain locations should be evaluated in the field during the mass
grading operations. The project civil engineer should survey the pipe locations and elevations
after installation. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale
grading plan.
TABLE 11.7
RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN DIMENSIONS
Drain Size Drain Recommendations
4-Inch Schedule 40 PVC or Equivalent
Stability and Buttress Drains
6-Inch
Schedule 40 PVC (or Equivalent)
Less Than 100 Feet Deep
Less Than 500 Feet Long
8-Inch
Schedule 80 PVC (or Equivalent)
Greater Than 100 Feet Deep
Greater Than 500 Feet Long
11.7.3 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during
future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-
perforated/perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope
side of the junction as shown herein.
Page 183 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 32 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Typical Cutoff Wall Detail
11.7.4 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided
with a permanent headwall structure as shown herein.
Typical Headwall Detail
11.7.5 Building pad areas adjacent to large ascending slopes may experience wet to saturated soil
conditions due to water migration or seepage. To reduce the potential for this to occur,
consideration should be given to placing a subdrain along the base of the slopes to collect
potential seepage and convey it to a suitable outlet. The pad subdrain should be sufficiently
deep to intercept the seepage (on the order of 3 feet below finish grade) and constructed in
accordance with the recommendations in the subdrain section of this report. The necessity for
the drains should be discussed prior to grading on a slope specific basis. In addition, the
project civil engineer should be consulted to evaluate the appropriate drain locations and
necessary easements, building restriction zones or disclosure requirements that may be
necessary. The pad subdrains should be surveyed for location and shown on the project as-
built drawings.
Page 184 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 33 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.7.6 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. Upon completion
of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the
drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map depicting the existing conditions. The final
outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading. Subdrains that will be
extended on adjacent projects shortly after grading can be placed on formational material and
a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should
consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and to check
that the pipe has not been crushed. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the
drains.
11.8 Preliminary Foundation and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Recommendations
11.8.1 The foundation recommendations herein are for the proposed residential structures. The
foundation recommendations have been separated into three categories based on the
maximum and differential fill thickness and expansion index. Table 11.8.1 presents the
foundation category criteria. Based on review of the laboratory test results performed during
previous grading, we expect majority of the soil encountered on site is planned to possess a
“very low” to “medium” expansion potential (expansion index of 90 or less). Recommended
foundation categories for the subject building pads will be provided after fine grading is
completed and we re-evaluate the expansion index of the fill material in the upper 3 to 4 feet
during the regrading operations.
TABLE 11.8.1
FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Foundation
Category
Maximum Fill
Thickness, T (Feet)
Differential Fill
Thickness, D (Feet) Expansion Index (EI)
I T<20 -- EI<50
II 20<T<50 10<D<20 50<EI<90
III T>50 D>20 90<EI<130
11.8.2 Table 11.8.2 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for
conventional foundation systems. The grading of building pads should be such that the upper
3 feet of finish grade soils should have an expansion index of 90 or less, where possible.
However, the recommendations presented herein incorporates finish grade soil with an
expansion index of up to 130.
Page 185 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 34 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
TABLE 11.8.2
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation
Category
Minimum Footing
Embedment
Depth, D (inches)
Minimum Continuous
Footing
Reinforcement
Minimum Footing
Width (Inches)
I 12 Two No. 4 bars, one top
and one bottom
12 – Continuous, WC
24 – Isolated, WI
II 18 Four No. 4 bars, two top
and two bottom
III 24 Four No. 5 bars, two top
and two bottom
11.8.3 The embedment depths presented in Table 11.8.2 should be measured from the lowest
adjacent pad grade for both interior and exterior footing. The foundations should be embedded
in accordance with the recommendations herein and the Wall/Column Footing Dimension
Detail. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade for
both interior and exterior footings. Footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside
edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope (unless designed
with a post-tensioned foundation system as discussed herein).
Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail
11.8.4 We will provide final foundation categories for each building or lot after finish pad grades
have been achieved and we perform laboratory testing of the subgrade soil.
11.8.5 Table 11.8.3 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for
conventional foundation systems.
Page 186 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 35 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.8.6 The proposed structures can be supported on a shallow foundation system founded in the
compacted fill/formational materials. Table 11.8.3 provides a summary of the foundation
design recommendations.
TABLE 11.8.3
SUMMARY OF FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf
Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch
Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet
11.8.7 The bearing capacity values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased
by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
11.8.8 The concrete slab-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for Foundation Categories
I and II and 5 inches thick for Foundation Category III.
11.8.9 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should
be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide
for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In
addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s
recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture.
The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the
type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity-
controlled environment.
11.8.10 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer,
architect, and/or developer. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if
the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. It is common to see 3 inches and 4 inches of sand
below the concrete slab-on-grade for 5-inch and 4-inch thick slabs, respectively, in the
southern California area. The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete
mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the
potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that
the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on
the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the
recommendations presented on the foundation plans.
Page 187 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 36 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.8.11 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be
given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the
proposed structures. If a post-tensioned system is being used, the proposed buildings would be
designated with a Foundation Category once grading is completed. The post-tensioned systems
should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design
criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) DC 10.5-12 Standard Requirements for Design
and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils or WRI/CRSI
Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations, as required by the 2019 California Building Code
(CBC Section 1808.6.2). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions,
it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill
settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented
in Table 11.8.4 for the particular Foundation Category designated. The parameters presented in
Table 11.8.4 are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI DC 10.5 design manual.
TABLE 11.8.4
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) DC10.5 Design
Parameters
Foundation Category
I II III
Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (Feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9
Edge Lift, yM (Inches) 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (Feet) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Center Lift, yM (Inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66
11.8.12 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is
planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and
extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
11.8.13 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than PTI,
DC 10.5:
The deflection criteria presented in Table 11.8.4 are still applicable.
Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III.
The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches.
The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches and
24 inches for foundation categories I, II, and III, respectively. The embedment depths
should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
Page 188 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 37 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.8.14 Foundation systems for the lots that possess a foundation Category I and a “very low”
expansion potential (expansion index of 20 or less) can be designed using the method
described in Section 1808 of the 2022 CBC. If post-tensioned foundations are planned, an
alternative, commonly accepted design method (other than PTI) can be used. However, the
post-tensioned foundation system should be designed with a total and differential deflection
of 1 inch. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to review the plans and provide additional
information, if necessary.
11.8.15 If an alternate design method is contemplated, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to
evaluate if additional expansion index testing should be performed to identify the lots that
possess a “very low” expansion potential (expansion index of 20 or less).
11.8.16 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs may be susceptible to excessive edge lift from
tensioning, regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom
of the perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. The
structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift
occurring for the proposed structures.
11.8.17 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed
monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the footings/grade
beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system unless
designed by the structural engineer.
11.8.18 Isolated footings outside of the slab area, if present, should have the minimum embedment
depth and width recommended for conventional foundations for a particular Foundation
Category. The use of isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building
and support structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended for Category
III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the
building foundation system with grade beams. In addition, consideration should be given to
connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the
potential for future separation to occur.
11.8.19 Interior stiffening beams should be incorporated into the design of the foundation system in
accordance with the PTI design procedures.
11.8.20 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary,
to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
Page 189 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 38 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.8.21 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope 3:1
(horizontal:vertical) or steeper, special foundation and/or design considerations are
recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
For fill slopes less than 20 feet high or cut slopes regardless of height, footings should
be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet
horizontally from the face of the slope.
When located next to a descending 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope or steeper, the
foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance is
equal to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the fill slope to the
base of the fill soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet. The
horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to the face
of the slope. A post-tensioned slab and foundation system or mat foundation system
can be used to reduce the potential for distress in the structures associated with strain
softening and lateral fill extension. Specific design parameters or recommendations
for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill
slope geometry have been determined.
If swimming pools are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a
review of specific site conditions.
Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not
recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, the portion of the
swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the
adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill
slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For swimming
pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional
recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for
a review of specific site conditions.
Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a
slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
11.8.22 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs
and foundations due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of fill soil with
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented
herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still
exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may
be reduced by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and
Page 190 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 39 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant
slab corners occur.
11.8.23 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate crack-control joints, construction joints
and/or expansion joints to reduce unsightly shrinkage cracking. The design of joints should
consider criteria of the American Concrete Institute when establishing crack-control spacing.
Additional steel reinforcing, concrete admixtures and/or closer crack control joint spacing
should be considered where concrete-exposed finished floors are planned.
11.8.24 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required
by the structural engineer.
11.8.25 We should observe the foundation excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to
check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been
extended to the appropriate bearing strata. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered,
foundation modifications may be required.
11.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork
11.9.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance
with the recommendations presented in Table 11.9. The recommended steel reinforcement
would help reduce the potential for cracking.
TABLE 11.9
MINIMUM CONCRETE FLATWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Expansion
Index, EI Minimum Steel Reinforcement* Options Minimum
Thickness
EI < 90 6x6-W2.9/W2.9 (6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh 4 Inches No. 3 Bars 18 inches on center, Both Directions
EI < 130 4x4-W4.0/W4.0 (4x4-4/4) welded wire mesh 4 Inches No. 4 Bars 12 inches on center, Both Directions
*In excess of 8 feet square.
11.9.2 The subgrade soil should be properly moisturized and compacted prior to the placement of
steel and concrete. The subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90
percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture
content in accordance with ASTM D 1557.
Page 191 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 40 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.9.3 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, the exterior concrete
flatwork has a potential to experience some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade. The
steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical
offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs,
where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.
11.9.4 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should
be dowelled into the structure’s foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to
reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or
minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural
engineer.
11.9.5 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
exterior slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of
the recommendations presented herein, slabs-on-grade will still crack. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of
crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be
spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete
Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for
proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into
project construction.
11.10 Conventional Retaining Walls
11.10.1 Retaining walls should be designed using the values presented in Table 11.10.1. Soil with an
expansion index (EI) of greater than 90 should not be used as backfill material behind
retaining walls.
TABLE 11.10.1
RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, Level Backfill) 40 pcf
Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, 2:1 Sloping Backfill) 55 pcf
Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (0 to 8 Feet High) 7H psf
Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (8+ Feet High) 13H psf
Seismic Pressure 15H psf
Expected Expansion Index for the Subject Property EI<90
H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall
Page 192 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 41 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.10.2 The project retaining walls should be designed as shown in the Retaining Wall Loading
Diagram.
Retaining Wall Loading Diagram
11.10.3 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the
height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained
from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure should be added
to the active soil pressure for walls. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a
horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill
soil should be added.
11.10.4 The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in
accordance with Section 1613 of the 2022 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-10. For structures
assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6
feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section
1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is
the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf)
exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall.
11.10.5 Retaining walls should be designed to ensure stability against overturning sliding, and
excessive foundation pressure. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with the
intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it is not necessary to consider
active pressure on the keyway.
Page 193 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 42 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.10.6 Drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) should not be used where the
seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of
the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (EI of 90 or
less) free draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. The
retaining wall should be properly drained as shown in the Typical Retaining Wall Drainage
Detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details
are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
11.10.7 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading
condition or the active and seismic loading condition as suggested by the structural engineer.
Typically, it appears the design of the restrained condition for retaining wall loading may be
adequate for the seismic design of the retaining walls. However, the active earth pressure
combined with the seismic design load should be reviewed and also considered in the design
of the retaining walls.
11.10.8 In general, wall foundations having should be designed in accordance with Table 11.10.2. The
proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable
soil bearing pressure. Therefore, retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the
bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
TABLE 11.10.2
SUMMARY OF RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Width 12 inches
Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Depth 12 Inches
Minimum Steel Reinforcement Per Structural Engineer
Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf
Estimated Total Settlement From Footing Loads 1 Inch
Estimated Differential Settlement From Footing Loads ½ Inch in 40 Feet
Page 194 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 43 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.10.9 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete
or masonry retaining walls. In the event that other types of walls (such as mechanically
stabilized earth [MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or soldier pile walls) are planned, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
11.10.10 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of
lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads
acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be
designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the
structural engineer.
11.10.11 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be
identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain
samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may
be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength.
City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth
pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or
may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted
to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will
be used.
11.11 Lateral Loading
11.11.1 Table 11.11 should be used to help design the proposed structures and improvements to resist
lateral loads for the design of footings or shear keys. The allowable passive pressure assumes
a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive
pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor
slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.
TABLE 11.11
SUMMARY OF LATERAL LOAD DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Passive Pressure Fluid Density 350 pcf
Coefficient of Friction (Concrete and Soil) 0.35
Coefficient of Friction (Along Vapor Barrier) 0.2 to 0.25*
*Per manufacturer’s recommendations.
Page 195 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 44 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.11.2 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral
passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind
or seismic forces.
11.12 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
11.12.1 We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Caltrans
Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) using an
estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0, 6.0, 7.5, 8.0 and 8.5 for the planned roadways in
accordance with the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Section 3-400 (2012). The final
pavement sections for roadways should be based on the R-Value of the subgrade soils
encountered at final subgrade elevation. Streets should be designed in accordance with the
City of Chula specifications when final Traffic Indices and R-Value test results of subgrade
soil are completed. Based on the results of our laboratory R-Value testing, we used an R-
Value of 15 for the subgrade soil for the purposes of this preliminary analysis. Table 11.12.1
presents the preliminary flexible pavement sections. The City of Chula Vista will likely
provide the required pavement section thicknesses subsequent to reviewing laboratory R-
Values once the utilities have been installed.
TABLE 11.12.1
PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION
Location Assumed
Traffic Index
Assumed
Subgrade
R-Value
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate
Base (inches)
Residential Cul-De-Sac 5.0 15 3 8
Residential 6.0 15 3.5 11
Class III Collector 7.0 15 4 13
Class II Collector (Secondary
Village Entry) 8.0 15 5 15
Class I Collector (Village
Entry) 8.5 15 5 17
11.12.2 Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified,
moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of
the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as
determined by ASTM D 1557. Similarly, the base material should be compacted to a dry
density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of at least 95
percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726.
Page 196 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 45 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.12.3 The crushed aggregate base materials and asphalt concrete should conform to the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) and the City of Chula Vista
Standard Special Provisions.
11.12.4 The base thickness can be reduced if a reinforcement geogrid is used during the installation
of the pavement. Geocon should be contact for additional recommendations, if required.
11.12.5 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway
entrance aprons, trash bin loading/storage areas and loading dock areas. The concrete pad for
trash truck areas should be large enough such that the truck wheels will be positioned on the
concrete during loading. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance
with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330-21
Commercial Concrete Parking Lots and Site Paving Design and Construction – Guide.
Table 11.12.2 provides the traffic categories and design parameters used for the calculations
for 20-year design life.
TABLE 11.12.2
TRAFFIC CATEGORIES
Traffic
Category Description Reliability
(%)
Slabs Cracked at End
of Design Life (%)
A Car Parking Areas and Access Lanes 60 15
B Entrance and Truck Service Lanes 60 15
E Garbage or Fire Truck Lane 75 15
11.12.6 We used the parameters presented in Table 11.12.3 to calculate the pavement design sections.
We should be contacted to provide updated design sections, if necessary.
TABLE 11.12.3
RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Design Value
Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 100 pci
Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR 500 psi
Concrete Compressive Strength 3,000 psi
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, E 3,150,000
11.12.7 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum
thickness as presented in Table 11.12.4.
Page 197 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 46 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
TABLE 11.12.4
RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Location Portland Cement
Concrete (inches)
Parking Stalls (TC=A) 6
Driveways, Alleyways, and Heavy Truck and Fire Lane Areas (TC=C) 7
11.12.8 The PCC vehicular pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry
density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
optimum moisture content.
11.12.9 Adequate joint spacing should be incorporated into the design and construction of the rigid
pavement in accordance with Table 11.12.5.
TABLE 11.12.5
MAXIMUM JOINT SPACING
Pavement Thickness, T (Inches) Maximum Joint Spacing (Feet)
4<T<5 10
5<T<6 12.5
6<T 15
11.12.10 The rigid pavement should also be designed and constructed incorporating the parameters
presented in Table 11.12.6.
TABLE 11.12.6
ADDITIONAL RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Subject Value
Thickened Edge
1.2 Times Slab Thickness Adjacent to Structures
1.5 Times Slab Thickness Adjacent to Soil
Minimum Increase of 2 Inches
4 Feet Wide
Crack Control Joint
Depth
Early Entry Sawn = T/6 to T/5, 1.25 Inch Minimum
Conventional (Tooled or Conventional Sawing) = T/4 to T/3
Crack Control Joint
Width
¼-Inch for Sealed Joints and Per Sealer Manufacturer’s
Recommendations
1/16- to 1/4-Inch is Common for Unsealed Joints
Page 198 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 47 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.12.11 Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the
possible exception of dowels at construction joints as discussed herein.
11.12.12 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints
(weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab.
Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the slab thickness with a maximum spacing
of 15 feet for the 7-inch-thick slabs and should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent
the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the
crack-control joints should be determined by the referenced ACI report.
11.12.13 To provide load transfer between adjacent pavement slab sections, a butt-type construction
joint should be constructed. The butt-type joint should be thickened by at least 20 percent at the
edge and taper back at least 4 feet from the face of the slab. As an alternative to the butt-type
construction joint, dowelling can be used between construction joints for pavements of 7 inches
or thicker. As discussed in the referenced ACI guide, dowels should consist of smooth, 1-inch-
diameter reinforcing steel 14 inches long embedded a minimum of 6 inches into the slab on either
side of the construction joint. Dowels should be located at the midpoint of the slab, spaced at 12
inches on center and lubricated to allow joint movement while still transferring loads. In addition,
tie bars should be installed at the as recommended in Section 3.8.3 of the referenced ACI guide.
The structural engineer should provide other alternative recommendations for load transfer.
11.13 Slope Maintenance
11.13.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) may, under conditions which are both
difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The
instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually does
not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The
occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded by
a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The
disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil
expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant
contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the maximum
extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly
recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate
leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically
maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. It should be noted that although the incorporation
of the recommendations herein should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it
will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a
portion of the project's slopes in the future.
Page 199 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 48 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
11.13.2 To help mitigate slope creep from occurring, plants with variable root depth should be
installed soon after the construction of the slopes. In addition, rodent abatement is also
important as part of the slope maintenance.
11.13.3 The planned buildings and structures should be setback in accordance with CBC Section 18
and as recommended herein. Some mitigation measures could include not placing large
exterior concrete slabs at the top of the slopes but installing bands of concrete that would
allow some lateral movements. Also, pilasters from walls could be separated from the walls
to allow some lateral movement without damaging the walls.
11.13.4 The soil creep zone is usually isolated to the outer 5 to 10 feet of the slope face. The planned
residential structures and improvements are not planned within this zone. Foundation
recommendations for walls located adjacent to slopes are provided in the foundation section
of this report. However, if planned retaining walls or similar improvements that are prone to
creeping are proposed at the top of slopes, we would recommend that deepened footings be
incorporated to help reduce the effect of lateral fill extension.
11.14 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
11.14.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is
directed away from structures in accordance with 2022 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable
standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into
swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed
into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
11.14.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water-proofing
system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or similar)
should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer should
provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage.
11.14.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil
movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.
11.14.4 If detention basins, bioswales, retention basins, water infiltration, low impact development
(LID), or storm water management devices are being considered, Geocon Incorporated should
Page 200 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 49 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
be retained to provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of possible
impacts and design.
11.14.5 If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties
located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount
of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on
seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water
management features are not properly designed and constructed. Based on our experience
with similar clayey soil conditions, infiltration areas are considered infeasible due to the poor
percolation and lateral migration characteristics. We have not performed a hydrogeology
study at the site. Down-gradient and adjacent structures may be subjected to seeps, movement
of foundations and slabs, or other impacts as a result of water infiltration.
11.15 Grading and Foundation Plan Review
11.15.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the final grading and foundation plans prior to
finalization to check their compliance with the recommendations of this report and evaluate
the need for additional comments, recommendations, and/or analyses.
11.16 Testing and Observation Services During Construction
11.16.1 Geocon Incorporated should provide geotechnical testing and observation services during the
grading operations, foundation construction, utility installation, retaining wall backfill and
pavement installation. Table 11.16 presents the typical geotechnical observations we would
expect for the proposed improvements.
TABLE 11.16
EXPECTED GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
Construction Phase Observations Expected Time Frame
Grading
Base of Removal Part Time During
Removals
Geologic Logging Part Time to Full Time
Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Full Time
Foundations Foundation Excavation Observations Part Time
Utility Backfill Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Part Time to Full Time
Retaining Wall Backfill Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Part Time to Full Time
Subgrade for Sidewalks,
Curb/Gutter and Pavement Soil Compaction Part Time
Pavement Construction
Base Placement and Compaction Part Time
Asphalt Concrete Placement and
Compaction Full Time
Page 201 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to
provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of
geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical
aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements,
and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing
and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter
indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record.
A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition,
that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the
proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the
recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed
necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the
assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If
any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed
construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so
that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the
potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services
provided by Geocon Incorporated.
3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his
representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought
to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and
the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field.
4. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or
the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate
standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes
outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon
after a period of three years.
Page 202 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
R-1 R-2
VC-4
MA,1 STR((T
S
R
-
1
2
LA
P
A
L
M
,
T
A
'
R
,
V
(
SAVOR,A PAR.:A<
V,
A
P
A
L
M
(
R
O
VC-3
F
R
O
1
T
A
*
(
R
O
A
'
1
O
R
T
H
%
O
8
1
'
MHMH
OS-7
OS-8
LO
T
A
VC-1
VC-2
CPF-1
SAVOR,A PAR.:A<
A
B
G
G'
H H'
Qpf To
To
To
To
To
To
Qal/
Qal/
529
529
482
538
524
B-3
B-5
B-16
B-17
B-13
573
573
529
538
529
Environmental
Stockpile
Qudf Environmental
Stockpile
Qudf
?
?
?
T-10
T-8
T-7
T-6
T-38
T-12
T-13
T-37
T-11
(2')
(3')
(1.5')
(2')
(2')
(4')
(3')
(4.5')
(5.5')
(2.5')
(1')
(2')
(4')
(3.5')
538
Qal
NAP
W
=
2
5
'
W=20'
Qpf
B-1
538
(2')
529
573
538
B-4
573
(3')
?
?
PROJECT
LIMITS
529
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
W=
2
0
'
W=20'
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:05/05/2023 6:32AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:W:\1_GEOTECH\G1000\G1006-52-05\2023-05-05\G1006-52-05 Geo Map.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC 1AP
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
100'05 - 05 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
1 6 1
INDEX MAP
NO SCALE
1
FIGURE
2
FIGURE
3
FIGURE
5
FIGURE
4
FIGURE
6
FIGURE
(3')
H H'
........COMPACTED FILL
........UNDOCUMENTED FILL
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
........ALLUVIUM
....TERRACE DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone) (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Dotted Where Buried, Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
........APPROX. DEPTH TO FORMATIONAL (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
........REQUIRED WIDTH OF BUTTRESS (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 6-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 8-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 6-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SUBDRAIN
(Geotechnics, 2005)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN (In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL (In Feet, MSL)
GEOCON LEGEND
Qal
To
?
?
Qudf
Qcf
350
B-19
T-57
423
344
W=30'
Tog
Qpf
Qt
Page 203 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
S-1
P-1
VC-4
R-5 R-6
LA MEDIA PARKWAY
R-3
R-4
R-7 R-8
SR
-
1
2
5
LA MEDIA PARKWAY
DE
L
*
A
D
O
D
R
I
V
E
CALLE ESC8ELA
VI
A
P
A
L
M
E
R
O
DE
L
S
8
E
1
O
D
R
I
V
E
MHMHMH
MH
MH
LA
P
A
L
M
I
7
A
D
R
I
V
E
VI
A
P
A
L
M
E
R
O
OS-9 OS-10
OS-11
OS-12
VC-5
VC-6
VC-7
····
A'
B
'
C
C'
D
E
E'
F
F'
Qudf
Qal
Qudf/
363
379
380
397
406
SECONDARY
DISPOSAL
SITEEnvironmental
Stockpile
342
Qudf
Qudf
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
Environmental
Stockpile
Qudf
Environmental
Stockpile
Qudf To
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
To
To
(Stockpile)
Qudf
Qal/
Qcf/
Qcf/
Qcf/
Qal/
Qcf/
Qcf/
Qal/
358
354
FALSE
SOIL
ROCK
SLOPE
FALSE
SOIL
ROCK
SLOPE
443
426
438
428421
420
414
408
403
411
416
400
391
397
380
381
378
380
376
373
368
368
400
400
402
408
412
419
424
428
431
420
405
404
408
417
365
370
375
379
382
383
393
404
416
390
398
407
413
482
529
482
439
439
439
QalQal
W=15'
B-2
B-6
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-14
B-19
B-18
B-15
439
423
To
To
387
382
379
374
372
367
357
349
345
343
354
410
419
396
382
373
343
344
348
377
385
386
392
387
413
404
395
404
420
386
366 367
364
367
370
373 372 371
407
375
376
373
376
379
413
424
379
384
392
429 411
386
408
432
421 395
398
408427
436
412
366
367
428
384
374
?
?
?
TEMPORARY STUB FOR
FUTURE CONNECTION
OF SUBDRAINS
TEMPORARY STUB FOR
FUTURE CONNECTION
T-5
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-15
T-9
T-14
T-16
T-17
T-34
T-40
T-35
T-36
T-1
T-18
T-19
T-20
T-21
(2')
(2')
(2')
(2')
(2')
(6')
(7')
(4')
(5')
(4.5')
(3.5')
(5')
(5')
(4')
(6')
(5')
(2.5')
(1')
(3')
(3')
(2')
(5')
(4')
(2')
(3')
(2.5')
(3')
Tog
Tog
To
To
Qal
To
423
W=
2
0
'
NAP
W=30'
T-41
(2')
PROJECT
LIMITS
Tog
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
423
423
439
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:05/05/2023 6:34AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:W:\1_GEOTECH\G1000\G1006-52-05\2023-05-05\G1006-52-05 Geo Map.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC 1AP
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
100'05 - 05 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
2 6 2
INDEX MAP
NO SCALE
1
FIGURE
2
FIGURE
3
FIGURE
5
FIGURE
4
FIGURE
6
FIGURE
(3')
H H'
........COMPACTED FILL
........UNDOCUMENTED FILL
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
........ALLUVIUM
....TERRACE DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone) (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Dotted Where Buried, Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
........APPROX. DEPTH TO FORMATIONAL (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
........REQUIRED WIDTH OF BUTTRESS (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 6-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 8-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 6-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SUBDRAIN
(Geotechnics, 2005)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN (In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL (In Feet, MSL)
GEOCON LEGEND
Qal
To
?
?
Qudf
Qcf
350
B-19
T-57
423
344
W=30'
Tog
Qpf
Qt
Page 204 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OS-1
R-7 R-8
OS-4
LOT B
R-10R-9
DE
L
G
A
D
O
D
R
I
9
E
MHMH
MH MH
N.A.P.
CPF-2
OS-11
OS-13
OS-6
(UNDERLYING
DESIGNATION)
·········
·
·
·
·
·
·····
·
·
·
·
D'
····
·
·
Qa
l
Qal
Qal
Qudf/
Qt
Tog
To
Qt
Qt
Qal/
Qt Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qal/
Qal/To
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
B-11
B-12
B-10
Qal/
To
To
344
OF SUBDRAINS
EXTEND DRAINS OFF-SITE
TO ALLOW DRAINAGE WITH
HEADWALL OUTLET
T-25
T-20
T-21
T-22
T-27
T-28
T-26
T-39
T-24
T-32
T-23
T-48
T-47
T-46
T-45
T-43
T-44T-42
T-49
T-57
T-56
T-55
(2')
(2')
(3.5')
(1')
(3')
(2')
(5.5')
(3')
(3')
(3')
(3')
(6.5')
(5.5')
(3')
(1.5')
(1.5')
(1')
(2')
(1')
(2')
(1.5')
(1.5)
(2')
(3')
(3')
Tog
Tog
Tog
Tog
To
To
Tog
Tog
NAP
NAP
Qpf
············
·
·
····
····
·
·
·
Qt
Qpf
Qpf
T-41
(2')
·····
·
·
g
TogQal
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
423
EXTEND DRAINS OFF-SITE
TO ALLOW DRAINAGE WITH
HEADWALL OUTLET
EXTEND DRAINS OFF-SITE
TO ALLOW DRAINAGE WITH
HEADWALL OUTLET
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:05/05/2023 6:36AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:W:\1_GEOTECH\G1000\G1006-52-05\2023-05-05\G1006-52-05 Geo Map.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC 1AP
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
100'05 - 05 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
3 6 3
INDEX MAP
NO SCALE
1
FIGURE
2
FIGURE
3
FIGURE
5
FIGURE
4
FIGURE
6
FIGURE
(3')
H H'
........COMPACTED FILL
........UNDOCUMENTED FILL
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
........ALLUVIUM
....TERRACE DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone) (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Dotted Where Buried, Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
........APPROX. DEPTH TO FORMATIONAL (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
........REQUIRED WIDTH OF BUTTRESS (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 6-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 8-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 6-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SUBDRAIN
(Geotechnics, 2005)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN (In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL (In Feet, MSL)
GEOCON LEGEND
Qal
To
?
?
Qudf
Qcf
350
B-19
T-57
423
344
W=30'
Tog
Qpf
Qt
Page 205 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OS-1
P-2A
COMMUNITY PARK
OS-2
OS-5
OS-13
P-2A
COMMUNITY PARK
P-2B
COMMUNITY PARK
Qal/
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qal/
Qal/
Qt
T-29
T-33
T-42
T-50
(10')
(3')
(1.5')
(4')
Qpf
Qpf
Qt
Qpf
Qpf
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:05/05/2023 6:42AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:W:\1_GEOTECH\G1000\G1006-52-05\2023-05-05\G1006-52-05 Geo Map.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC 1AP
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
100'05 - 05 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
4 6 4
INDEX MAP
NO SCALE
1
FIGURE
2
FIGURE
3
FIGURE
5
FIGURE
4
FIGURE
6
FIGURE
(3')
H H'
........COMPACTED FILL
........UNDOCUMENTED FILL
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
........ALLUVIUM
....TERRACE DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone) (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Dotted Where Buried, Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
........APPROX. DEPTH TO FORMATIONAL (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
........REQUIRED WIDTH OF BUTTRESS (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 6-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 8-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 6-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SUBDRAIN
(Geotechnics, 2005)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN (In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL (In Feet, MSL)
GEOCON LEGEND
Qal
To
?
?
Qudf
Qcf
350
B-19
T-57
423
344
W=30'
Tog
Qpf
Qt
Page 206 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OS-3
OS-6
(UNDERLYING
DESIGNATION)
Qal/
Qal/
Qt Qt
QalQal/
WILEY ROAD
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
T-32
T-31
T-54
T-55(3')
(3')
(3.5')
(3')
NAP
PROJECT
LIMITS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:05/05/2023 6:44AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:W:\1_GEOTECH\G1000\G1006-52-05\2023-05-05\G1006-52-05 Geo Map.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC 1AP
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
100'05 - 05 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
5 6 5
INDEX MAP
NO SCALE
1
FIGURE
2
FIGURE
3
FIGURE
5
FIGURE
4
FIGURE
6
FIGURE
(3')
H H'
........COMPACTED FILL
........UNDOCUMENTED FILL
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
........ALLUVIUM
....TERRACE DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone) (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Dotted Where Buried, Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
........APPROX. DEPTH TO FORMATIONAL (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
........REQUIRED WIDTH OF BUTTRESS (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 6-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 8-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 6-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SUBDRAIN
(Geotechnics, 2005)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN (In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL (In Feet, MSL)
GEOCON LEGEND
Qal
To
?
?
Qudf
Qcf
350
B-19
T-57
423
344
W=30'
Tog
Qpf
Qt
Page 207 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
P-2A
COMMUNITY PARK
OS-2
OS-2
OS-5 P-2A
COMMUNITY PARK
P-2B
COMMUNITY PARK
Qt
Qal/
Qal/
WILEY
R
O
A
D
Qal/
Qal/
T-30
T-33
T-53T-52
T-51
T-50
(11')
(3')
(4')
(3')
(5')(2.5')
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:05/05/2023 6:47AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:W:\1_GEOTECH\G1000\G1006-52-05\2023-05-05\G1006-52-05 Geo Map.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC 1AP
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
100'05 - 05 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
6 6 6
INDEX MAP
NO SCALE
1
FIGURE
2
FIGURE
3
FIGURE
5
FIGURE
4
FIGURE
6
FIGURE
(3')
H H'
........COMPACTED FILL
........UNDOCUMENTED FILL
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
........ALLUVIUM
....TERRACE DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone) (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Dotted Where Buried, Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
........APPROX. DEPTH TO FORMATIONAL (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
........REQUIRED WIDTH OF BUTTRESS (In Feet)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 6-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 8-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 6-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SUBDRAIN
(Geotechnics, 2005)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN (In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF OBSERVED BENTONITE CLAYSTONE BED
(In Feet, MSL)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL (In Feet, MSL)
GEOCON LEGEND
Qal
To
?
?
Qudf
Qcf
350
B-19
T-57
423
344
W=30'
Tog
Qpf
Qt
Page 208 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 120010001100 1300 1400 1500 1600 185017001800
0 200100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 120010001100 1300 1350
0 200100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 120010001100 1300 1400 1450
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 100' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A'
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 100' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B'
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 100' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION C-C'
250
350
450
550
650
A
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
250
350
450
550
650
B
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
250
350
450
550
650
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
250
350
450
550
650
A'
B'
250
350
450
550
650
C
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
C'
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
250
350
450
550
650
B-1
(Projected
75' East)B-3
(Projected
50' West)
B-2
PROPOSED
GRADE
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
EXISTING
GRADE
To
To
To
N14°W
B-13
(Projected
20' West)
??????
N33°W
B-4
(Projected
120' East)
B-5
(Projected
310' East)
B-6
(Projected
10' West)
To
To
To
PROPOSED
MAIN ST
EXISTING
GRADE PROPOSED
GRADE
?????????
N21°W
B-2
(Projected
30' East)
T-34
(Projected
100' East)
T-40
(Projected
200' West)
PROPOSED
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
To To ToTob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
??????
Tog Tog
Tog
Tog TogTog
Tog Tog Tog
?
PROPOSED UNDERCUT
FOR BENTONITE
PROPOSED UNDERCUT
FOR BENTONITE
PROPOSED MSE
RETAINING WALL
25' WIDE FILL AREA
BEHIND MSE WALL
To
ENVIRONMENTAL
STOCKPILE
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
PROPOSED UNDERCUT
FOR BENTONITE
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
ORIGINAL
GRADE
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
20' WIDE FILL AREA
BEHIND MSE WALL
ORIGINAL
GRADE
Qudf
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
Qudf
Qudf
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:05/05/2023 6:48AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:W:\1_GEOTECH\G1000\G1006-52-05\2023-05-05\G1006-52-05 XSection.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC CROSS SEC8ION
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
100'05 - 05 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
1 2 7
B-19
........ALLUVIUM
........OTAY FORMATION
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Queried Where Uncertain)
.........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
.........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
GEOCON LEGEND
?
Qal
To
Tog
B-41
Page 209 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1050
0 200100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 120010001100 1300 13500200100300400500600700800900
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 100' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION D-D'
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 100' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION E-E'
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 100' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION F-F'
200
300
400
500
600
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
200
300
400
500
600
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
D'
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
200
300
400
500
600
E'
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
200
300
400
500
600
200
300
400
500
600
F
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
F'
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
200
300
400
500
600
N16°W
B-9 EXISTING
GRADE
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
ToTo T-41
????
PROPOSED
GRADE
N73°E
PROPOSED
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
ToToTo
B-8
(Projected
along contour)
Qal
INTERSECTION
D-D'
B-15B-19
(Projected
60' North)
?????
ORIGINAL
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
?????
Tog Tog
Tog TogTog
Tog Tog
To
ToTo
0 200100 300 400 500 600 700
D I S T A N C E
350
450
550
650
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
350
450
550
650
SCALE: 1" = 100' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION G-G'
G G'
0 200100 300 400 500 600
D I S T A N C E
350
450
550
650
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
350
450
550
650
SCALE: 1" = 100' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION H-H'
H H'
750 750
750 750
PROPOSED
20' BUTTRESS Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
PROPOSED
30' BUTTRESS
PROPOSED
BUTTRESS
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
B-1
(Projected
10' North)
SR-125
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
To
To
To
PROPOSED
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
SR-125PROPOSED MSE
RETAINING WALL
To To
PROPOSED
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
To
B-7
(Projected
20' North
PROPOSED MSE
RETAINING WALL
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
PROPOSED
CMU WALL
ORIGINAL
GRADE
Qcf
Qudf
PROPOSED
GRADE
Tob BENTONITE
CLAYSTONE BED
PROPOSED
20' BUTTRESS20' WIDE FILL AREA
BEHIND WALL
1:1 BACKCUT
N75°E N70°E
N65°E
To
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:05/05/2023 6:49AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:W:\1_GEOTECH\G1000\G1006-52-05\2023-05-05\G1006-52-05 XSection.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC CROSS SEC8ION
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
100'05 - 05 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
2 2 8
B-19
........ALLUVIUM
........OTAY FORMATION
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Queried Where Uncertain)
.........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
.........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
GEOCON LEGEND
?
Qal
To
Tog
B-41
Page 210 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A
Page 211 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A
PREVIOUS BORING AND TRENCH LOGS
FOR
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G1006-52-05
Page 212 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, brown, Sandy CLAY; trace rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Hard, moist, gray, Sandy SILTSTONE; blocky texture; some carbonates
Very dense, damp, gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; moderately
cemented
Hard to dense, damp, olive brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; interlayered with
dense, Silty SANDSTONE
-Becomes increasingly fine-grained at 19 feet
Very dense, damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE,
moderately cemented
-Subtle gradational change to claystone
115.8
110.1
13.3
13.6
B1-1
B1-2
B1-3
5
5
SC
ML
SM
CL/SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 3
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)571'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 213 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Very hard, brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE, about 3" thick N20ºW, 3ºSE
Very hard, damp, olive brown to gray, Sandy SILTSTONE; interlayered with
fissile laminations of brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE
-Gradational contact
Very hard, damp, pinkish to grayish brown, bentonitic CLAYSTONE;
N25ºW, 5ºSE; approximate 8" thick fractured and well developed
Dense, dry, light gray to whitish, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
Very hard, damp, grayish brown, bentonite CLAYSTONE
Dense, dry, light gray to whitish, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
-Massive homogeneous, moderately cemented, undisturbed and intact
-Trace angular gravels
Very dense, damp, gray-brown, Silty SANDSTONE
-Becomes interlayered, fine SANDSTONE to Sandy SILTSTONE
102.5
93.1
111.1
23.0
31.5
13.9
B1-4
B1-9
B1-5
B1-6
B1-7
10
6
10
CL
CH
SM
CH
SM
SM
SM/ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B 1, Page 2 of 3
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)571'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 214 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Very hard, damp, olive brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE to Sandy SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 64 FEET
No groundwater encountered
89.1 34.2B1-8 12CL-ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
60
62
64
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B 1, Page 3 of 3
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)571'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 215 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, dark brown, Clayey SAND; some carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; blocky
texture; occasional angular clasts of well cemented sandstone; trace
carbonates
-Becomes dense at five feet
Very dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; moderately
cemented
-Subtle gradational color change to reddish brown
-Trace clay
-Trace gravels to 20 feet
-Sharp, near horizontal contact, N25ºW, 5ºSE
Very dense, damp, light reddish brown to brown, Silty, fine-to medium
grained SANDSTONE
-Becomes very difficult excavation
Very dense, damp, dark gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; well
cemented
-At 29 feet, 1" thick, trace clasts of bentonitic CLAYSTONE; non contiguous
103.1
110.9
22.2
16.4
B2-1
B2-2
B2-3
5
7
SC
SM
SM
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 2
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)515'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 216 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Very dense, dry, gray brown to whitish, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE;
slightly cemented; trace biotite micas
-Becomes light reddish brown
Very hard, dry, light brown, Sandy SILTSTONE
-Massive homogeneous
BORING TERMINATED AT 45 FEET
No groundwater encountered
108.9
105.1
16.9
7.4
B2-4
B2-5
10
10/7"
SM
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B 2, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 2
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)515'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 217 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine -grained; some carbonates
-Clay lense about 3" thick
Hard, damp, gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
Very dense,damp, whitish to gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; with
interlayered Sandy SILTSTONE
-Subtle gradational contact
Hard, damp, gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
-Becomes dark gray siltstone
-Faint bedding
Very hard, damp, olive brown to brown, Sandy to Clayey SILTSTONE with
noncontinuous clasts of CLAYSTONE
N70ºW, 5ºSE
115.9
104.1
115.5
8.6
19.9
12.0
B3-1
B3-2
B3-3
B3-4
B3-5
5
6
8
1
SC
SM
ML
SM
ML
ML
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 3
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)558'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 218 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Very dense, damp, brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE
Very hard, damp, light grayish brown, bentonitic CLAYSTONE; waxy texture
bed approximately 3" thick
-Near horizontal contact
Very hard, damp, olive brown, Sandy SILTSTONE
-Massive, homogeneous, intact
Very hard, dry, light gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 44 FEET
No groundwater encountered
117.9 15.8
B3-6
B3-7 10/8"
CH
ML
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B 3, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 3
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)558'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 219 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, moist, gray brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; blocky texture
with trace carbonates
Dense, dry, gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; micaceous
Very hard, olive, bentonitic CLAYSTONE, 6-inches thick, highly weathered
Very dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE;
moderately to locally strongly cemented
Hard, damp, brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; 1' thick
Very hard, damp, dark gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
111.4 17.9B4-1
B4-2
5
8/10"
SC
SM
SM
CH
SM
CL
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 4
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)588'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 220 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-Very difficult drilling, auger attached to past 30 feet, sampling not practical
-Massive and intact
Very hard, olive gray, Silty CLAYSTONE to Clayey SILTSTONE; trace
clasts of reworked claystone embedded with matrix
BORING TERMINATED AT 44 FEET
No groundwater encountered
105.3 24.1
B4-3
B4-4
ML
CL-ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring B 4, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 4
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)588'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 221 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp, brown, Clayey SAND; some rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine SANDSTONE, some carbonates
Dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; moderately cemented
-Gradational contact
Very hard, olive brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; trace clasts of reworked
bentonitic claystone within matrix
-Gradational contact
Very dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; trace clasts
of reworked bentonitic claystone within matrix
Very dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
108.2
114.6
17.4
12.5
B5-1
B5-2
B5-3
5
7/10"
SC
SM
SM
CL/CH
SM/CH
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 5
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)553'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 222 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Very hard, light olive gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
-Becomes interlayered with very dense, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE;
faintly bedded
-Becomes interlayered, very dense, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE to very
hard, Sandy SILTSTONE; faintly bedded
Very hard, damp, gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 45 FEET
No groundwater encountered
100.3
116.0
21.3
10.3
B5-4
B5-5
7
10/8"
ML
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring B 5, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 5
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)553'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 223 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, brown, Silty SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense, moist, light gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; blocky
texture, trace carbonate
-Well cemented, sandstone layer 4-inch thick
Hard, damp, dark gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
-Becomes interbedded, Sandy SILTSTONE and Silty SANDSTONE
Very hard, damp, olive brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; approximately 8" thick
Very hard to dense, gray to reddish gray brown, interbedded, Sandy
SILTSTONE to Silty fine-grained SANDSTONE
-Massive and intact
-Homogeneous to about 30 feet
114.3
114.3
15.6
18.6
B6-2
B6-2
4
6
SM
SM
ML
CL
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-6,
Log of Boring B 6, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 6
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)519'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 224 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Very dense, damp, light gray to yellowish brown, fine-to-medium grained
SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 32 FEET
No groundwater encountered
116.2 13.5B6-3 10/8"SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
Figure A-6,
Log of Boring B 6, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 6
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)519'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 225 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Silty SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense, moist, gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; some
carbonates, blocky texture
Very hard, damp, light grayish brown, Sandy SILTSTONE
-Grades to Clayey SILTSTONE/Sandy CLAYSTONE from 19-20 feet
Very dense, damp, gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
-Clasts of well cemented sandstone
-Concretion layer about 3-inch thick
105.2
110.8
8.7
12.6
B7-1
B7-2
B7-3
8/10"
6/10"
SM
SP
ML
ML/CL
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-7,
Log of Boring B 7, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 7
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)479'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 226 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Very dense, damp, gray to reddish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 35 FEET
No groundwater encountered
115.9 13.4B7-4 6/3"SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
34
Figure A-7,
Log of Boring B 7, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 7
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)479'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 227 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, brown, Clayey SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, moist, gray, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE
-Near horizontal contact
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp, yellowish to gray brown, Silty, fine-to coarse
SANDSTONE ("GRITSTONE"); generally well-graded and intact
-Massive and homogeneous, some fine gravel, sized clasts, intact
-Very difficult excavation
-Sampling not practical
BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET
No groundwater encountered
123.3 8.1B8-1 8/10"
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Figure A-8,
Log of Boring B 8, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 8
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)379'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 228 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense to dense, moist, gray, Silty SANDSTONE
Hard, dense, brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE
Very hard, olive brown, Sandy SILTSTONE; trace clasts of claystone within
matrix
Very dense, damp, gray, Silty SANDSTONE
Hard, moist, olive brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; N75ºE, 5ºSW
Hard, damp, olive gray to pink and white, bentonitic CLAYSTONE; fractured
and approximately 12" thick; well developed
-Distinct and continuous bed of bentonite
Very dense, damp, reddish brown to brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
Very dense, dry, whitish gray, Silty, medium to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; some fine gravels and cobbles, massive and intact
-Large auger attached
-Very difficult excavation, practical refusal
100.4
116.3
24.3
14.6
B9-1
B9-2
6/10"
6/10"
SC
SM
CL
ML
SM
CL
CH
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-9,
Log of Boring B 9, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 9
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)440'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 229 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET
No groundwater encountered
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
Figure A-9,
Log of Boring B 9, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 9
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)440'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 230 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, dark brown, Clayey SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Very dense, reddish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse SAND; some gravels
-Sharp horizontal contact
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp, grayish brown, Silty, medium-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE"); massive and intact
-Trace subangular gravels, up to 2 -inches in maximum dimension
-Massive, very dense, difficult excavation, practical refusal
-Trace pockets of gravel, 2"-4" within matrix
-Very difficult drilling, sampling not practical
137.7 5.2
B10-1
B10-2
8/8"
8/8"
SC
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-10,
Log of Boring B 10, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 10
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)379'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 231 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET
No groundwater encountered
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
Figure A-10,
Log of Boring B 10, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 10
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)379'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 232 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Silty SAND
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Dense, moist, gray to yellowish brown, Silty, fine-to-coarse SANDSTONE ("
GRITSTONE")
-Clasts of subangular gravel and cobble up to 4-inches in matrix dimension
Very dense, dry, whitish gray, Silty, medium-to-coarse grained
SANDSTONE; moderately cemented
-Becomes well cemented, difficult excavation
-Increased conglomerate (gravel, cobble) clasts metavolcanic rock
-Massive, homogeneous
BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET
No groundwater encountered
110.4 4.6B11-1
SM
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure A-11,
Log of Boring B 11, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 11
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)354'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 233 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY, trace organic
-Rootlets and abundant carbonates at about 3.5 feet
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, dry, yellowish brown, Silty, medium-to-coarse SANDSTONE;
("GRITSTONE"), moderately cemented
-Gravel and cobble up to 2"-4", massive and intact
-Very difficult excavation, practical refusal with auger attached
BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
No groundwater encountered
133.7 7.3
B12-1
B12-2 8/8"
CL
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Figure A-12,
Log of Boring B 12, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 12
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)370'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 234 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense to dense, light gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE
-Becomes dense; slightly cemented
Very dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE;
moderately cemented
-Thinly bedded
Hard, damp, olive brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE
Very dense, damp, gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; medium cemented
Very dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
Hard, moist, brown, Silty, bentonitic CLAYSTONE approximately 1 foot
thick; poorly developed
Very dense, damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE;
114.1
90.9
13.5
28.2
B13-1
B13-2
8
5
SC
SM
SM
CL
SM
SM
CH
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-13,
Log of Boring B 13, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 13
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-04-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)560'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 235 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-Becomes light gray to whitish with trace rip-up clast of whitish bentonite
CLAYSTONE within SANDSTONE matrix
Hard,damp, pinkish to grayish brown, bentonitic CLAYSTONE; N25º,5ºSE;
approx. 12-inch thick; fractural and well developed
Very dense, damp, brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; moderately
cemented
Very dense, damp, light brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
-Auger attached
-Very dense, difficult drilling
-Massive
BORING TERMINATED AT 51 FEET
No groundwater encountered
66.1
114.4
119.2
49.5
14.6
11.6
B13-3
B13-4
B13-5
6
10/10"
10/10"
CH
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
Figure A-13,
Log of Boring B 13, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 13
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-04-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)560'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 236 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense, moist, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE;
trace clay
Dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; slightly cemented;
trace clay and manganese oxide staining
-Thinly bedded
-Very difficult excavation
Very dense, moist, grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE;
moderately cemented; trace gravel
Very dense, damp, grayish brown, medium- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 28 FEET
No groundwater encountered
111.2
115.6
16.7
14.7
B14-1
B14-2
4
8/10"
SC
SM
SM
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-14,
Log of Boring B 14, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 14
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-04-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)436'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 237 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; trace carbonates
-Becomes dense; moderately cemented
Hard, moist, olive brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE
Hard, moist, olive brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; grades to bentonite claystone
at 21 feet
Medium stiff, moist, whitish gray, bentonitic CLAYSTONE
Very dense, damp, reddish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
Very dense, damp, gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 28 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SM
CL
CL
CH
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-15,
Log of Boring B 15, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 15
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-05-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)444'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 238 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense, moist, gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE;
blocky texture; trace carbonate
-Becomes dense
Dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine grained SANDSTONE; slightly cemented
Very hard, olive brown, bentonitic CLAYSTONE approx. 1.5 feet thick
Very dense, light grayish brown, Silty, fine grained SANDSTONE;
moderately cemented
-Becomes well cemented
Very hard, damp, gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
119.0
111.3
116.3
10.3
14.0
15.1
B16-1
B16-2
B16-3
7
5
10
SC
SM
SM
CH
SM
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-16,
Log of Boring B 16, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 16
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-05-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)586'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 239 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET
No groundwater encountered
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
Figure A-16,
Log of Boring B 16, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 16
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-05-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)586'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 240 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense, moist, light gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; blocky texture
Very dense, gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
Hard, damp, light olive brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE
Very dense, gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE; slightly
cemented
Very dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE;
moderately cemented
-Homogeneous
Very dense, damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; well
cemented
99.8
115.2
23.5
13.3
B17-1
B17-2
5
10
SC
SM
SM
CL
SM
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Figure A-17,
Log of Boring B 17, Page 1 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 17
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-05-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)604'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 241 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Very hard, damp, olive gray, bentonitic CLAYSTONE; poorly developed
Very dense, damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; well
cemented
BORING TERMINATED AT 40 FEET
No groundwater encountered
122.7 11.5B17-3
CH
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30
32
34
36
38
40
Figure A-17,
Log of Boring B 17, Page 2 of 2
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 17
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-05-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)604'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 242 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, moist, light gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
Medium stiff, damp, whitish gray, bentonite CLAYSTONE; highly
weathered; trace rootlets and carbonates; well developed
Very dense, damp, light reddish brown, Silty, fine grained SANDSTONE
Very dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
No groundwater encountered
110.6
109.6
8.9
18.6
B18-1
B18-2
6/10"
50/10"
SC
SM
CH
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Figure A-18,
Log of Boring B 18, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 18
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-05-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)446'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 243 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp, Silty, fine to medium SAND; krotovina from 2.5 to 3 feet
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, moist, light gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE
-Becomes reddish brown with locally cemented zones
Dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; slightly cemented
-Alternating layers of siltstone/sandstone
-Cemented zone; some gravels
Very dense, damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine to grained SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
No groundwater encountered
114.0
109.6
16.3
14.5
B19-1
B19-2
8
8
SM
SM
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Figure A-19,
Log of Boring B 19, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
BORING B 19
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.09-05-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)404'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 244 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose to medium dense, damp, dark brown, Clayey, fine-to coarse SAND;
some cobbles
Medium dense, damp, light brown to grayish brown, Silty, fine to coarse
SAND; up to ½" gravel
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE") up to ½" gravel
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T1-1
T1-2
SC
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-20,
Log of Trench T 1, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)370'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 245 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, moist, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY; rootlets
Loose to medium dense, dry, dark grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND; trace clay
lense
-Trace carbonates
Medium dense, moist, dark brown with lighter nodules of Silty SAND,
Clayey, fine to medium SAND or Sandy CLAY
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Very dense, moist, light brown to white, Clayey, fine-to coarse grained
SANDSTONE; trace gravel up to 3", oxidized
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
No groundwater encountered
CL
SM
SC
SC
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-21,
Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 2
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)370'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 246 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, moist, dark brown, fine-to medium Sandy CLAY
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, damp, light brown, Clayey, fine to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
CL
SC
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-22,
Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 3
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)380'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 247 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, damp to moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY
-Few carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; few gravel
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
CL
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-23,
Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 4
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)410'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 248 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose to medium dense, dry to damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium
SAND; trace clay and rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, dry, light brown, fine-grained SANDSTONE; weakly
cemented, massive
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-24,
Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 5
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)444'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 249 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose to medium dense, damp, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND or
fine to medium Sandy CLAY
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Very dense, dry, light brown to white, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE,
moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T6-1
SC-CL
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-25,
Log of Trench T 6, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 6
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)488'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 250 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine SAND; rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, dry, light gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; moderately
cemented; blocky structure
Stiff, dry, light brown, Clayey SILTSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T7-1
SC
SM
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-26,
Log of Trench T 7, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 7
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)560'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 251 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp to moist, dark brown to dark grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND;
some clay; trace rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, damp, light brownish gray, Silty, fine-grained
SANDSTONE; very thinly bedded to moderately bedded
-Massive and homogeneous
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-27,
Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 8
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-21-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)570'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 252 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose to medium dense, damp, dark brown, Clayey, fine SAND; rootlets;
trace carbonates and krotovinas
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Very dense, dry, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-28,
Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 9
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)444'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 253 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp, brown, Silty, fine SAND; rootlets, few carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, reddish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
-Thinly to moderately bedded, light grayish brown; blocky texture, trace
carbonates
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T10-1
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-29,
Log of Trench T 10, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 10
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)520'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 254 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp, brown, Silty, fine SAND; rootlets; trace carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Stiff to very stiff, dry, light grayish brown, fine Sandy SILTSTONE; very
thinly bedded
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-30,
Log of Trench T 11, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 11
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)540'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 255 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, dry to damp, brown to dark brown, Silty, fine SAND
-Trace carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Stiff, dry, light grayish brown, fine Sandy SILTSTONE to Silty fine
SANDSTONE; slightly cemented
-Decreased cohesive strength
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-31,
Log of Trench T 12, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 12
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)510'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 256 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Soft, damp, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY; trace rootlets
-Trace carbonates and krotovinas up to 8"
Soft, damp, brown, Silty, fine SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained
SANDSTONE; moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T13-1
CL
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-32,
Log of Trench T 13, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 13
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)446'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 257 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Soft to firm, damp to moist, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY
Medium dense, damp, white to light brown with lenses of Silty, fine SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE
-Becomes moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
CL
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-33,
Log of Trench T 14, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 14
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)450'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 258 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Soft to firm, damp, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY; rootlets
-Trace carbonates, white to very light brown
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
CL
SC-SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-34,
Log of Trench T 15, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 15
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)405'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 259 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Soft to firm, damp, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY; trace rootlets
-No rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, light grayish brown and light brown, Clayey SANDSTONE; thinly
bedded, light brown Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; with low cohesive
strength
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T6-1
CL
SC-SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-35,
Log of Trench T 16, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 16
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)415'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 260 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Firm, damp, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY
Medium dense, dry, dark brown, Silty SAND
-Becomes Clayey SAND; with trace carbonates
-Becomes reddish brown, Silty SAND; little gravel up to 3"
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Medium dense to dense, dry, light brown to very light brown, Silty, fine-to
coarse-grained SANDSTONE; trace subangular gravel up to 3"; trace
carbonates
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T17-1
CL
SM
SC
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-36,
Log of Trench T 17, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 17
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)392'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 261 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Medium dense, damp to moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND ;
trace rootlets
-Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; gravel up to ½"
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp, light yellowish brown, medium-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE"), trace subangular to subround gravel up to
1"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SW
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-37,
Log of Trench T 18, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 18
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)370'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 262 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose to medium dense, damp, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND;
rootlets
-Trace carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, damp, light yellowish brown, Silty, medium-to
coarse-grained SANDSTONE; trace carbonates
-Becomes very dense, grayish brown, fine-to coarse-grained SANDSTONE;
moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-38,
Log of Trench T 19, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 19
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-22-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)402'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 263 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp to moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; trace
gravel up to 2"
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp, light yellowish brown, medium-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE") subround to subangular gravel up to 3"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SW
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-39,
Log of Trench T 20, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 20
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)340'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 264 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown, fine to medium Sandy CLAY;
some rootlets
-Trace carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Medium dense to dense, damp, light yellowish brown, Silty, medium-to
coarse-grained SANDSTONE
Dense, damp, light grayish brown, Silty, medium-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE") subround to subangular gravel up to ½"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
CL
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-40,
Log of Trench T 21, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 21
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)358'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 265 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, damp to moist, light yellowish brown to dark brown, Clayey, fine to
medium SAND to Gravelly fine to coarse SAND; few roots,
subround to subangular gravel
-Thinly to moderately bedded
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp to moist, light yellowish brown, medium-to coarse -grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE") trace gravel up to 1"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SW
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-41,
Log of Trench T 22, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 22
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)324'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 266 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; trace roots
and rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, dry, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE") few gravel up to approximately ½"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-42,
Log of Trench T 23, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 23
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)350'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 267 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, moist, dark brown to brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; trace gravel
-Becomes reddish brown
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Very dense, moist, brown to reddish brown, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; trace gravel up to 1"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T24-1
SC
SW
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-43,
Log of Trench T 24, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 24
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)314'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 268 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; trace
gravel up to approximately 2"
-Becomes brown
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Dense, dry, reddish brown, fine-to medium-grained SANDSTONE
Very dense, damp, reddish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; trace subrounded cobble up to approximately 5"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T25-1
SC
SM
SW
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-44,
Log of Trench T 25, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 25
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)315'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 269 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; trace
subangular cobble up to 5"
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Very dense, moist, dark reddish brown, fine-to coarse-grained SANDSTONE;
trace clay and subrounded gravel up to 2", subangular cobbles up to 5"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T26-1
SC
SW
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-45,
Log of Trench T 26, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 26
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)310'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 270 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
-Trace carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE") slightly cemented; trace gravel 1"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-46,
Log of Trench T 27, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 27
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)370'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 271 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
-Trace carbonates
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp, light grayish brown to yellowish brown, Silty, fine-to
coarse-grained SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE") trace gravel up to
approximately 1"
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-47,
Log of Trench T 28, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 28
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)336'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 272 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, dry to damp, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
-Becomes moist, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; cobbles ranging from
approximately 3" to approximately 18"
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Very dense, damp to moist, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; trace gravel
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Figure A-48,
Log of Trench T 29, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 29
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-23-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)235'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 273 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; trace gravel
Medium dense, damp, dark brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; trace gravel
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey, medium-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; trace gravel and cobbles up to 18" maximum dimension
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 17.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T30-1
SC
SC
SC
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Figure A-49,
Log of Trench T 30, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 30
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
A. GASTELUM CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)219'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 274 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Medium dense, dry, dark grayish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Desne to very dense, moist, reddish brown to grayish brown, Clayey, fine-to
coarse-grained SANDSTONE; trace gravel and cobble; angular to rounded
cobble up to 12"
-Becomes wet, dark reddish brown
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 19 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T31-1
T31-2
SC
SC
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Figure A-50,
Log of Trench T 31, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 31
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
A. GASTELUM CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)223'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 275 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Medium dense, damp, brown to reddish brown, Clayey, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; little gravel and rounded to angular cobble up to 12"
Dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey, fine-to coarse-grained SANDSTONE;
little gravel and cobble; trace boulders up to 18"
-Becomes grayish brown
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 18 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T32-1 SM
SC
SC
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Figure A-51,
Log of Trench T 32, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 32
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
A. GASTELUM CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)227'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 276 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose to medium dense, damp, dark grayish brown, fine to medium Sandy
CLAY; trace cobbles
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Dense to very dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; little gravel and cobbles up to 18"
Dense to very dense, moist, pale light grayish brown, Silty, medium-to
coarse-grained SANDSTONE; little gravel, trace cobble and boulders up to
24", cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 18 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T33-1
T33-2
CL
CL
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Figure A-52,
Log of Trench T 33, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 33
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
A. GASTELUM CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-24-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)214'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 277 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, dry, dark brown, Silty, fine SAND; few rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, dry, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine-to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; trace gravel, weakly cemented
-Strongly cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-53,
Log of Trench T 34, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 34
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
A. GASTELUM CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-27-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)420'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 278 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, damp, dark brown, Silty, fine SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense to very dense, dry, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine-to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; trace gravel, moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-54,
Log of Trench T 35, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 35
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-27-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)430'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 279 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, damp, dark brown, Silty, fine SAND; few rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, dry, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; strongly
cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-55,
Log of Trench T 36, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 36
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-27-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)472'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 280 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, dry, dark brown, Silty, fine SAND; few rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, dry, light yellowish brown, fine-to medium-grained SANDSTONE;
moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SW
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-56,
Log of Trench T 37, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 37
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-27-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)508'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 281 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, dark brown, Silty, fine SAND; few rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Dense, dry, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; strongly
cemented, krotovinas to about 3 feet
Stiff, grayish brown, Silty CLAYSTONE
Dense, dry, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SM
CL
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-57,
Log of Trench T 38, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 38
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-27-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)546'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 282 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Loose, damp, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few rootlets, trace
carbonates and trace subangular gravel up to approximately 3"
-Medium dense, dark brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND; few clay; few
rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Dense to very dense, damp, yellowish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("GRITSTONE") trace clay and gravel up to 3"
-No gravel
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T39-1
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
Figure A-58,
Log of Trench T 39, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 39
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-27-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)356'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 283 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Hard, damp, whitish brown, fine-grained Sandy SILTSTONE
Very dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; massive
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
ML
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Figure A-59,
Log of Trench T 40, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 40
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-27-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)420'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 284 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, damp, dark brown, Silty, fine SAND; rootlets
OTAY FORMATION (To)
Stiff, dry, light grayish brown, fine-grained Sandy SILTSTONE
Stiff, damp, brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; bentonite, approximately 3" thick
Stiff, dry, light grayish brown, fine-grained Sandy SILTSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T41-1
SM
ML
CH
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-60,
Log of Trench T 41, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
BACKHOE JD 455 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 41
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
E. MILLER CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.02-27-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)426'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 285 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt)
Dense, moist to damp, light reddish brown, Silty, fine-to medium-grained
SANDSTONE, trace clay and subrounded cobbles
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Dense to very dense, damp, light grayish brown, fine-to coarse-grained Silty
SANDSTONE ("Gritstone")
-Abundant carbonates to about 6'
-Becomes slightly cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T42-1
SC
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-61,
Log of Trench T 42, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 42
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-28-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)334'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 286 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine-to coarse SAND, trace
rootlets
-Abundant cobble within 2 feet
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Dense, damp, reddish brown, Sandy CONGLOMERATE; pockets of grayish
brown, fine to coarse sand
-Abundant cobble up to 4" in maximum dimension
-Locally slight cemented
Very dense, damp, reddish brown, Silty, medium to-coarse grained
SANDSTONE
-Some subangular gravel and cobble
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Very dense, damp, light yellowish brown, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; ("Gritstone"), slightly cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
GP
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure A-62,
Log of Trench T 43, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 43
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-28-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)432'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 287 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey SAND
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Highly weathered, medium dense, damp, whitish, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE; abundant carbonates
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-63,
Log of Trench T 44, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 44
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-28-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)348'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 288 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey SAND
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Highly weathered,Silty, medium- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE; slightly
cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 3 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
Figure A-64,
Log of Trench T 45, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 45
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-28-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)336'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 289 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Dense, moist, grayish brown, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE; highly
weathered; friable; pebble sized gravel
Dense, moist, grayish brown, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE, weakly
cemented
Dense, damp, moist, reddish brown, Clayey SANDSTONE to
CONGLOMERATE; approximately 20% to 30% cobble up to 4" diameter
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T46-1
T46-2
SC
SM
SM
SM-GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure A-65,
Log of Trench T 46, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 46
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-28-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)324'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 290 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Stiff, moist, reddish brown, Sandy CLAY; common parting surfaces and
blocky texture
-Trace cobble
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Highly weathered, medium dense, moist, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-to
coarse -grained SANDSTONE; trace pinhole porosity
Dense, moist, light grayish to reddish brown, Silty, medium-to coarse-grained
SANDSTONE ("Gritstone") slightly cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T47-1
T47-2
T47-3
SC
SC
SM
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-66,
Log of Trench T 47, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 47
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-28-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)334'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 291 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
OTAY FORMATION (Tog)
Dense, damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine-to coarse-grained SANDSTONE;
("Gritstone"); slightly cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-67,
Log of Trench T 48, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 48
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-28-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)340'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 292 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Stiff, moist, brown, Sandy CLAY
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; trace pinhole porosity to approximately 8 feet
-Trace of carbonates and cobble
-Some burrows
-Becomes dense
Very dense, damp, reddish to gray brown, Silty, fine-to coarse SANDSTONE
to CONGLOMERATE; weakly cemented
-Approximately. 10% to 20% cobble and becomes moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SC
SM-GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure A-68,
Log of Trench T 49, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 49
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)328'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 293 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Stiff, dark reddish brown, Clayey, fine-to medium grained SAND; trace
rootlets and subrounded cobble
-Becomes reddish-brown with manganese oxide staining and trace pinhole
porosity
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey, fine-to medium grained SANDSTONE;
little cobble and trace gravel
Very dense, damp, reddish brown, Sandy CONGLOMERATE, with pockets
of light brown, fine-to medium SAND
-Approximately. 20% to 30% cobble, difficult excavations
-Trench belling
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T50-1
SC
SM
GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
Figure A-69,
Log of Trench T 50, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 50
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)209'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 294 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Stiff, moist, dark, reddish brown, Sandy CLAY; trace rootlets and subrounded
cobble
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt)
Very dense, reddish brown, Silty SANDSTONE to Conglomerate
REFUSAL AT 4 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SM-GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-70,
Log of Trench T 51, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 51
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)205'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 295 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Medium dense, moist, light grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; trace
carbonates
-Becomes dense
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt)
Very dense, moist, reddish brown, fine to coarse Sandy CONGLOMERATE;
approximately 20% to 30% cobble; moderately weakly cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-71,
Log of Trench T 52, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 52
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)210'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 296 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Medium dense, moist, olive brown to brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt)
Very dense, moist, reddish brown, fine to coarse Sandy CONGLOMERATE;
approximately 20% to 30% cobble; moderately weakly cemented
REFUSAL AT 3 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
Figure A-72,
Log of Trench T 53, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 53
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)214'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 297 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Firm, moist, brown, Sandy, fine to medium SAND; trace rootlets and gravel
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt)
Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey, fine-to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; friable, trace pinhole, porosity
Very dense, damp, reddish brown, Sandy CONGLOMERATE; with pockets
of silty sand, moderately cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SM
SC
GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
Figure A-73,
Log of Trench T 54, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 54
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)220'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 298 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND
Stiff, moist, brown, Sandy CLAY; trace pinhole porosity and burrows
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt)
Dense to very dense, reddish brown, Sandy CONGLOMERATE; pockets of
silty sand; approximately 20%-30% cobble
REFUSAL AT 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
SC
SC
GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
Figure A-74,
Log of Trench T 55, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 55
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)222'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 299 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, grayish, brown, Silty SAND; abundant rootlets and burrows
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt)
Stiff, moist, reddish brown, Sandy CLAY; abundant carbonates stringers
Dense, moist, reddish brown, fine-to coarse-grained SANDSTONE,
approximately 10% cobble; trace boulders up to 12 inches
Very dense, moist, reddish brown, CONGLOMERATE with pockets of silty
sand
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T56-1
SM
SC
SM
GP
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure A-75,
Log of Trench T 56, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 56
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)230'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 300 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, dry, light reddish brown, Silty, fine-to medium SAND; trace
rootlets
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt)
Stiff, moist, reddish brown, Sandy CLAY; abundant cobble
Very dense, reddish brown, Sandy CONGLOMERATE; pockets of silty sand
Very stiff, reddish brown, Sandy CLAY, trace subangular gravel
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
T57-1
SM
CL
GP
SC
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
2
4
6
Figure A-76,
Log of Trench T 57, Page 1 of 1
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
.
C
.
F
.
)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
JD 555 PE
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
RE
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(B
L
O
W
S
/
F
T
.
)
TRENCH T 57
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M. ERTWINE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
SAMPLE
NO.08-29-2012
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.)237'
G1006-11-05.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G1006-11-05
Page 301 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX B
Page 302 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX B
PREVIOUS LABORATORY TESTING
FOR
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G1006-52-05
Page 303 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 B- 1 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
APPENDIX B
PREVIOUS LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests during our previous geotechnical investigation in accordance with generally
accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested
procedures. Selected soil samples were analyzed for in-situ dry density and moisture content, maximum
dry density and optimum moisture content, direct shear strength, expansion potential, water-soluble sulfate,
Atterberg Limits, R-Value, and gradation. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on Tables B-I
through B-VI and Figure B-1. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are
presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557
Sample No. Description (Geologic Unit) Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (% dry wt.)
B1-1 (To) Brown, Clayey SILT 114.1 16.3
B2-2 (To) Brown, Silty, fine SAND 112.7 15.1
B7-3 (To) Brown, Silty, fine SAND 116.2 13.8
T16-1 (Qal) Dark gray, Silty CLAY with trace gravel 114.0 15.3
T30-1 (Qal) Dark yellowish brown, Clayey, fine to
medium SAND 134.5 7.7
TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
Sample No.
(Geologic Unit)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture Content (%) Peak [Ultimate]
Cohesion (psf)
Peak [Ultimate]
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees) Initial After Test
B1-6 (To) 111.1 13.9 22.3 185 [50] 41 [41]
B1-8 (To) 89.1 34.2 42.7 295 [0] 27 [29]
B2-2* (To) 103.2 12.7 25.8 120 [20] 29 [30]
B3-2 (To) 104.1 19.9 28.9 590 [165] 34 [36]
B3-5 (To) 108.3 15.1 24.9 650 [235] 32 [36]
B4-2 (To) 116.6 14.1 20.3 70 [0] 41 [40]
B7-3* (To) 103.6 14.6 21.7 335 [30] 28 [30]
*Sample remolded to a dry density of approximately 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near optimum
moisture content.
Page 304 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 B- 2 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829
Sample No.
(Geologic
Unit)
Moisture Content (%) Dry
Density
(pcf)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Classification
2022
Expansion
Classification Before Test After Test
B1-1 (To) 10.8 26.4 102.2 68 Medium Expansive
B2-2 (To) 12.6 28.2 98.6 62 Medium Expansive
T16-1 (Qal) 12.6 29.6 100.7 82 Medium Expansive
T30-1 (Qal) 8.7 16.3 114.2 19 Very Low Non-Expansive
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No.
(Geologic Unit)
Water-Soluble
Sulfate (%)
Water-Soluble
Sulfate (ppm)
ACI 318 Sulfate
Exposure
B1-1 (To) 0.028 275 Not Applicable (S0)
B2-2 (To) 0.000 2 Not Applicable (S0)
TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4318
Sample No. (Geologic
Unit) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index
B1-9 (Tob) 77 37 40
B3-6 (To) 117 61 56
B9-2 (To) 105 51 54
TABLE B-VI
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
Sample No. (Geologic Unit) R-Value
B3-4 (To) 15
Page 305 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110
3/8"4
30.0 117
PROJECT NO. G1006-11-02
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
COARSE
3"3/4"1-1/2"8 16 20 30 40
37
51
PL
54
FINE
NAT WC
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
105
77
18.0
(MH) SILT33.0
PI
COARSE
56
GRAVEL
61
40
G1006-11-02.GPJ
B1-9
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
(MH) SILT
SAND
MEDIUM
5060 100 200
SAMPLE
GEOCON
SILT OR CLAYFINE
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
CLASSIFICATION
B3-6
B9-2
LL
(MH) SILT
10
DEPTH (ft)
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8
Figure B-1
GRADATION CURVE
Page 306 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX C
Page 307 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 C- 1 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
We performed slope stability analyses using a two-dimensional computer program GeoStudio2018 created
by Geo-Slope International Ltd. We analyzed the critical modes of potential slip surfaces including
rotational-mode and block-mode based on Spencer’s method. The soil parameters used, case conditions,
and the calculated factors of safety were presented herein. Plots of analyses’ results, including the soil
stratigraphy, potential failure surfaces, and calculated Factors of Safety, are included in this appendix.
We evaluated the shear strength parameters for the existing geologic features from laboratory direct shear
and residual shear tests on samples obtained during our field investigation and on samples obtained from
other investigations in the area in accordance with ASTM D 3080. We performed direct shear tests on
samples of the Terrace Deposits, and the Otay Formation. The geologic units encountered and the shear
strength properties used in the analyses is presented on Table C-I.
TABLE C-I
SUMMARY OF SOIL PROPERTIES USED FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Geologic Unit/Material Density
(pcf)
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Compacted Fill (Qcf) 125 250 28
Otay Formation (To) 130 350 34
Otay Formation (Tog) 130 350 34
Otay Formation Bentonite 120 30 6
We selected Geologic Cross-Sections A-A′ through H-H′ to perform the slope stability analyses. Table C-
II provides a summary of cases analyzed and calculated Factors of Safety. A minimum Factor of Safety of
1.5 under static conditions is currently required by the City of Chula Vista for slope stability. Figures C-1
through C-34 present the results of slope stability analyses generated by GeoStudio 2018. As discussed
herein, we encountered claystone layers in several of the exploratory borings within the Otay Formation.
The claystone possesses relatively low shear strengths and may be prone to slope instability if exposed in
cut slopes. A factor of safety of 1.5 for all static slopes is currently required by the City of Chula Vista to
build structures above or below a slope.
Page 308 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 C- 2 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
TABLE C-II
SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Figure
Number
Cross
Section Condition of Slope Stability Analyses Calculated
Factor of Safety
B-1 A-A′
MSE Wall: Geogrids = Miragrid 5XT spaced at 2 ft. intervals,
Lengths=20 ft..; Fill behind face of wall = minimum 20 ft. wide at
bottom; Block-mode analysis along bentonite, static condition
1.95
B-2 A-A′
MSE Wall: Geogrids = Miragrid 5XT spaced at 2 ft. intervals,
Lengths=20 ft..; Fill behind face of wall = minimum 20 ft. wide at
bottom; Block-mode analysis along upper bentonite behind fill, static
condition
3.23
B-3 A-A′
MSE Wall: Geogrids = Miragrid 5XT spaced at 2 ft. intervals,
Lengths=20 ft..; Fill behind face of wall = minimum 20 ft. wide at
bottom; Rotational-mode analysis, static condition
1.63
B-4 B-B′
MSE Wall: Bottom 4 Geogrids = Miragrid 10XT & Upper
Geogrids=Miragrid 8XT, spaced at 2 ft. intervals, Lengths=25 ft..;
Fill behind face of wall = minimum 25 ft. wide at bottom; Rotational-
mode analysis, static condition
1.55
B-5 B-B′
MSE Wall: Bottom 4 Geogrids = Miragrid 10XT & Upper
Geogrids=Miragrid 8XT, spaced at 2 ft. intervals, Lengths=25 ft..;
Fill behind face of wall = minimum 25 ft. wide at bottom; Block-
mode analysis along bentonite behind wall, static condition
1.75
B-6 B-B′
MSE Wall: Bottom 4 Geogrids = Miragrid 10XT & Upper
Geogrids=Miragrid 8XT, spaced at 2 ft. intervals, Lengths=25 ft..;
Fill behind face of wall = minimum 25 ft. wide at bottom; Block-
mode analysis along upper bentonite behind wall, static condition
2.10
B-7 B-B′
MSE Wall: Bottom 4 Geogrids = Miragrid 10XT & Upper
Geogrids=Miragrid 8XT, spaced at 2 ft. intervals, Lengths=25 ft..;
Fill behind face of wall = minimum 25 ft. wide at bottom; Block-
mode analysis along bentonite below wall, static condition
1.97
B-8 C-C′ Upper Slope; Proposed Pad Undercut of bentonite in front of slope,
Block-mode analysis along bentonite, static condition 1.80
B-9 C-C′ Upper Slope; Proposed Pad Undercut of bentonite in front of slope,
Rotational-mode analysis, static condition 2.66
B-10 C-C′ Lower Slope; Rotational-mode analysis, static condition 2.07
B-11 D-D′ Upper Slope; Block-mode analysis along bentonite, static condition 1.22
B-12 D-D′ Upper Slope; 20 ft. wide buttress; Block-mode analysis along
bentonite, static condition 1.53
B-13 D-D′ Upper Slope; 20 ft. wide buttress; Rotational-mode analysis, static
condition 2.16
B-14 D-D′ Lower Slope; MSE Wall: Geogrids = Miragrid 5XT spaced at 2 ft.
intervals, Lengths=10 ft..; Rotational-mode analysis, static condition 1.98
B-15 E-E′
MSE Wall: Geogrids = Miragrid 5XT spaced at 2 ft. intervals,
Lengths = 8 ft..; Fill behind face of wall = minimum 8 ft. wide at
bottom; Block-mode analysis along bentonite, static condition
1.34
B-16 E-E′
MSE Wall: Geogrids = Miragrid 5XT spaced at 2 ft. intervals,
Lengths = 8 ft..; Minimum 30 ft. wide buttress behind face of wall at
bottom; Block-mode analysis along bentonite, static condition
1.58
Page 309 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 C- 3 - September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
Figure
Number
Cross
Section Condition of Slope Stability Analyses Calculated
Factor of Safety
B-17 E-E′
MSE Wall: Geogrids = Miragrid 5XT spaced at 2 ft. intervals,
Lengths = 8 ft..; Minimum 30 ft. wide buttress behind face of wall at
bottom; Rotational-mode analysis, static condition
1.69
B-18 F-F′ Lower slope; Block-mode analysis along lower bentonite, static
condition 1.31
B-19 F-F′ Lower slope; 15 ft. wide buttress within limits of grading; Block-
mode analysis along lower bentonite, static condition 0.99
B-20 F-F′
Lower slope; 15 ft. wide buttress within limits of grading; Required
Setback where Factor of Safety = 1.50; Block-mode analysis along
lower bentonite, static condition
1.50
B-21 F-F′ Lower slope; 15 ft. wide buttress outside of limits of grading;
Block-mode analysis along lower bentonite, static condition 1.54
B-22 G-G′ Block-mode analysis along bentonite, static condition 1.89
B-23 G-G′ Rotational-mode analysis, static condition 3.48
B-24 H-H′
MSE Wall: Bottom 4 Geogrids = Miragrid 10XT & Upper
Geogrids=Miragrid 8XT, spaced at 2 ft. intervals, Lengths=20 ft..;
Fill behind face of wall = minimum 20 ft. wide at bottom; Rotational-
mode analysis, static condition
1.54
B-25 H-H′
MSE Wall: Bottom 4 Geogrids = Miragrid 10XT & Upper
Geogrids=Miragrid 8XT, spaced at 2 ft. intervals, Lengths=20 ft..;
Fill behind face of wall = minimum 20 ft. wide at bottom; Block-
mode analysis along bentonite below wall, static condition
2.31
B-26 H-H′
MSE Wall: Bottom 4 Geogrids = Miragrid 10XT & Upper
Geogrids=Miragrid 8XT, spaced at 2 ft. intervals, Lengths=20 ft..;
Fill behind face of wall = minimum 20 ft. wide at bottom; Block-
mode analysis along lower bentonite behind wall, static condition
1.60
B-27 H-H′
MSE Wall: Bottom 4 Geogrids = Miragrid 10XT & Upper
Geogrids=Miragrid 8XT, spaced at 2 ft. intervals, Lengths=20 ft..;
Fill behind face of wall = minimum 20 ft. wide at bottom; Block-
mode analysis along upper bentonite behind wall, static condition
1.73
B-28 H-H′ Slope at limits of grading; Block-mode analysis along lower
bentonite, static condition 0.99
B-29 H-H′ Slope at limits of grading; Block-mode analysis along upper
bentonite, static condition 0.31
B-30 H-H′ Slope at limits of grading; 20 ft. wide buttress; Block-mode analysis
along lower bentonite, static condition 1.78
B-31 H-H′ Slope at limits of grading; 20 ft. wide buttress; Block-mode analysis
along upper bentonite, static condition 2.12
B-32 H-H′ Slope at limits of grading; 20 ft. wide buttress; Rotational-mode
analysis, static condition 1.94
B-33 N/A 2:1 fill slope, 50 feet high, rotational-mode analysis, static condition 1.67
B-34 N/A 2:1 cut slope, 45 feet high, rotational-mode analysis, static condition 2.22
Page 310 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.95
Distance
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
To
Proposed Undercut
To
To
Extended for Analysis
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 20 ft.
W=20'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\A-A'\A-A'_Case1.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section A-A'
File Name: A-A'_Case1.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 09:17:56 AM
A A'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-1
Page 311 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3.23
Distance
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
To
Proposed Undercut
To
To
Extended for Analysis
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 20 ft.
W=20'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\A-A'\A-A'_Case2.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section A-A'
File Name: A-A'_Case2.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 09:30:31 AM
A A'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-2
Page 312 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.63
Distance
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
To
Proposed Undercut
To
To
Extended for Analysis
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 20 ft.
W=20'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\A-A'\A-A'_Case3.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section A-A'
File Name: A-A'_Case3.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 09:33:24 AM
A A'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-3
Page 313 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.55
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 1,750 1,800 1,850
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
Tob (bentonite)To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
To
To
Tog
To
To
Proposed Undercut for Bentonite
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 25 ft.
Bottom 4 Grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper Grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
W=25'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\B-B'\B-B'_Case1a.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section B-B'
File Name: B-B'_Case1a.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 09:43:30 AM
B B'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Rotational-mode Analysis
B-4
Page 314 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.75
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 1,750 1,800 1,850
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
Tob (bentonite)To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
To
To
Tog
To
To
Proposed Undercut for Bentonite
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 25 ft.
Bottom 4 Grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper Grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
W=25'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\B-B'\B-B'_Case2a.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section B-B'
File Name: B-B'_Case2a.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 09:51:31 AM
B B'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-5
Page 315 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.10
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 1,750 1,800 1,850
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
Tob (bentonite)To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
To
To
Tog
To
To
Proposed Undercut for Bentonite
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 25 ft.
Bottom 4 Grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper Grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
W=25'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\B-B'\B-B'_Case3a.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section B-B'
File Name: B-B'_Case3a.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 09:52:24 AM
B B'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-6
Page 316 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.97
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 1,750 1,800 1,850
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
Tob (bentonite)To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
To
To
Tog
To
To
Proposed Undercut for Bentonite
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 25 ft.
Bottom 4 Grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper Grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
W=25'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\B-B'\B-B'_Case4a.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section B-B'
File Name: B-B'_Case4a.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 09:56:40 AM
B B'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Rotational-mode Analysis
B-7
Page 317 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.80
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To Tob (bentonite)To To
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
Qcf
Proposed Grade
Proposed Grade
To To
Proposed Underecut for Bentonite
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\C-C'\C-C'_Case1.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section C-C'
File Name: C-C'_Case1.gsz
Date: 09/23/2022, Time: 11:45:17 PM
C C'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-8
Page 318 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.66
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To Tob (bentonite)To To
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
Qcf
Proposed Grade
Proposed Grade
To To
Proposed Underecut for Bentonite
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\C-C'\C-C'_Case2.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section C-C'
File Name: C-C'_Case2.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 08:26:38 AM
C C'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Rotational-mode Analysis
B-9
Page 319 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.07
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To Tob (bentonite)To To
Existing Grade
Tog Tog Tog
Qcf
Proposed Grade
Proposed Grade
To To
Proposed Underecut for Bentonite
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\C-C'\C-C'_Case3.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section C-C'
File Name: C-C'_Case3.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 10:23:06 AM
C C'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Rotational-mode Analysis
B-10
Page 320 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.22
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Tob (bentonite)
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
To
ToTo
Tog
Tog
Tog
To
Qcf
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 10 ft.
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\D-D'\D-D'_Case 1.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section D-D'
File Name: D-D'_Case 1.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 10:26:10 AM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
D D'
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-11
Page 321 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.53
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Tob (bentonite)
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
To
ToTo
Tog
Tog
Tog
To
Qcf
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 10 ft.W=20'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\D-D'\D-D'_Case 2.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section D-D'
File Name: D-D'_Case 2.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 02:48:35 PM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
D D'
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
w/ 20 ft. Buttress
B-12
Page 322 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.16
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Tob (bentonite)
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
To
ToTo
Tog
Tog
Tog
To
Qcf
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 10 ft.W=20'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\D-D'\D-D'_Case 3.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section D-D'
File Name: D-D'_Case 3.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 02:53:15 PM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
D D'
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
w/ 20 ft. Buttress
B-13
Page 323 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.98
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Tob (bentonite)
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
To
ToTo
Tog
Tog
Tog
To
Qcf
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 10 ft.W=20'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\D-D'\D-D'_Case 4.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section D-D'
File Name: D-D'_Case 4.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 02:55:41 PM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
D D'
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
w/ 25 ft. Buttress
B-14
Page 324 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.34
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
Qcf To
To To To
Tog Tog Tog
Tob (bentonite)
To
QcfQcf
Qcf
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; Spaced at 2 ft. Intervals
Length = 8 ft.
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\E-E'\E-E'_Case1.gsz
E E'
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section E-E'
File Name: E-E'_Case1.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 12:58:31 PM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-15 Page 325 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.58
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
Qcf To
To To To
Tog Tog Tog
Tob (bentonite)
To
QcfQcf
Qcf
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; Spaced at 2 ft. Intervals
Length = 8 ft.
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
8 ft. grids
1:1 backcut
13 ft.
addt'l
Buttress
30 ft. total buttress behind MSE wall face
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\E-E'\E-E'_Case2.gsz
E E'
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section E-E'
File Name: E-E'_Case2.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 12:57:35 PM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
w/ 30 ft. Wide Total Buttress (benched cut)
B-16
Page 326 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.69
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
Qcf To
To To To
Tog Tog Tog
Tob (bentonite)
To
QcfQcf
Qcf
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; Spaced at 2 ft. Intervals
Length = 8 ft.
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
8 ft. grids
1:1 backcut
13 ft.
addt'l
Buttress
30 ft. total buttress behind MSE wall face
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\E-E'\E-E'_Case3.gsz
E E'
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section E-E'
File Name: E-E'_Case3.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 03:05:27 PM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Rotational-mode Analysis
w/ 30 ft. Wide Total Buttress (benched cut)
B-17
Page 327 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.31
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Tog Tog
To To
Tob (bentonite)
ToTo
Proposed GradeExisting Grade
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 10 ft.
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\F-F'\F-F'_Case1.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section F-F'
File Name: F-F'_Case1.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 01:12:41 PM
F F'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-18
Page 328 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0.99
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Tog Tog
To To
Tob (bentonite)
ToTo
Proposed GradeExisting Grade
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 10 ft.
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
W=15'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\F-F'\F-F'_Case2.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section F-F'
File Name: F-F'_Case2.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 11:11:28 PM
F F'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-19
Page 329 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.50
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Tog Tog
To To
Tob (bentonite)
ToTo
Proposed GradeExisting Grade
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 10 ft.
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
Setback Where
FOS = 1.5
(Sta. 8+77)
W=15'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\F-F'\F-F'_Case3.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section F-F'
File Name: F-F'_Case3.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 11:18:28 PM
F F'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
Setback Where FOS=1.5
B-20
Page 330 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.54
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Tog Tog
To To
Tob (bentonite)
ToTo
Proposed GradeExisting Grade
Proposed MSE Wall
Miragrid 5XT; spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Length = 10 ft.
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
W = 15 ft.
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\F-F'\F-F'_Case4.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section F-F'
File Name: F-F'_Case4.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 03:16:26 PM
F F'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Tog 130 350 34
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
Buttress Outside Limits of Grading; width = 15 ft.
B-21 Page 331 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.89
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR-125
To To
To
To
To To
To
To
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\G-G'\G-G'_Case1.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section G-G'
File Name: G-G'_Case1.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 01:23:37 PM
G G'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite Layer
B-22
Page 332 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3.48
Distance
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR-125
To To
To
To
To To
To
To
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\G-G'\G-G'_Case2.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section G-G'
File Name: G-G'_Case2.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 01:32:18 PM
G G'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Static Condition
Rotational-mode Analysis
B-23
Page 333 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.54
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case1.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
File Name: H-H'_Case1.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 01:56:06 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Rotational Mode Analysis - MSE Wall
W=20'
B-24
Page 334 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.31
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case2.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section H-H'
File Name: H-H'_Case2.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 01:57:49 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite - Below MSE Wall
W=20'
B-25
Page 335 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.60
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case3.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section H-H'
File Name: H-H'_Case3.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 02:06:07 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite - Behind MSE Wall
W=20'
B-26
Page 336 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.73
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case4.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section H-H'
File Name: H-H'_Case4.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 02:09:09 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite - Behind MSE Wall
W=20'
B-27
Page 337 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0.99
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case5.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-11-05
Section H-H'
File Name: H-H'_Case5.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 02:14:22 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
W=20'
B-28
Page 338 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0.31
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case6.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section H-H'
File Name: H-H'_Case6.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 10:12:55 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
W=20'
B-29
Page 339 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.78
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
W=20'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case7.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-11-05
Section H-H'
File Name: H-H'_Case7.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 10:36:56 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
W=20'
B-30
Page 340 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.12
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
W=20'W=20'
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case8.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-11-05
Section H-H'
File Name: H-H'_Case8.gsz
Date: 09/27/2022, Time: 10:33:05 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Block-mode Analysis Along Bentonite
B-31 Page 341 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.94
Distance
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
To
To
Tob (bentonite)
To
To
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
SR 125
To
To
To
To
To
QcfTo
Proposed MSE Wall
Length = 20 ft.
Bottom 4 grids = Miragrid 10XT
Upper grids = Miragrid 8XT
spaced at 2 ft. intervals
Extended
for
Analysis
Approx. Limits
of
Grading
W=20 ft.
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\H-H'\H-H'_Case9.gsz
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
Section H-H'
File Name: H-H'_Case9.gsz
Date: 09/26/2022, Time: 02:53:51 PM
HH'
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 28
To 130 350 34
Tob
(bentonite)
120 30 6
Proposed Grade
Rotational-mode Analysis
w/ 20 ft. Wide Buttress
W=20'
B-32
Page 342 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.67
Distance
0 100 200
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
H = 50 feet1
Qcf
Qcf
2
Qcf
Proposed Grade
Fill Slope
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
File Name: Fill Slope H=50.gsz
Date: 09/28/2022, Time: 09:44:14 PM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qcf 125 250 28
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\
50 ft. High Fill Slope
B-33
Page 343 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.22
Distance
0 100 200
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
H = 45 feet1
To
To
2
Proposed Grade
Cut Slope
Project Name: Otay Ranch Village 8
Project No. G1006-52-05
File Name: Cut Slope H=45.gsz
Date: 09/28/2022, Time: 09:51:43 PM
Material Properties:
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
To 130 350 34
S:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2018\G1006-52-05\2022-09-04_V8E Update\
45 ft. High Cut Slope
B-34
Page 344 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX D
Page 345 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G1006-52-05
Page 346 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained
in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications
and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.
1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so
that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial
conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to
assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that
personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in
conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the
work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
Page 347 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than
12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than ¾ inch in size.
3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than
4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than
12 inches.
3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be
less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
Page 348 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect
the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the
termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This
procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and
Consultant.
3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the
Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where
appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition.
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by
Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may
be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this
document.
Page 349 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or
porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The
depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of
the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth
of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Consultant
Finish Grade Original Ground
Finish Slope Surface
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur Varies
“B”
See Note 1
No Scale
See Note 2
1
2
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit
complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should
be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material
and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the
bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as
approved by the Consultant.
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture
conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in
Section 6 of these specifications.
Page 350 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock
materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.
6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
Page 351 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed
at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture
content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the
material.
6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill sl opes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and
4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
Page 352 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.
The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center
with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The
minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of
a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.
6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.
6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The
rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic
pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected
to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both
the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required
minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a
minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly
compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing
tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes
and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes
required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate
bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection
Page 353 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction
equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are
equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case
will the required number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to
observe that the minimum number of “passes” have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual
number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.
6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for “piping” of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the
Consultant.
7. SUBDRAINS
7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture
systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon
subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with
seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of
existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500
feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.
Page 354 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL
7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes.
Page 355 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading
operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and
the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be
evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.
7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to
mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The
subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.
Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains.
Page 356 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during
future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/
perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of
the pipe.
TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL
7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be
provided with a permanent headwall structure.
Page 357 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL
7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After
completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer
should survey the drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map showing the drain
locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading
operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed
on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The
grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check
proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of
the drains.
Page 358 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner’s representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the
compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill
material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted
materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any
layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas
represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant
should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on
the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for
expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture
has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any
portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the
rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have
been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
Page 359 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GI rev. 07/2015
8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound
Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.
8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.
9. PROTECTION OF WORK
9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
Page 360 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 September 30, 2022
Revised May 5, 2023
LIST OF REFERENCES
1.2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, based on the 2018 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards Commission, dated July 2019.
2.ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, prepared by the American Concrete Institute, dated September 2014.
3.American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, dated August, 2011.
4.ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, 2017.
5.California Geologic Survey (CGS), Geologic Map of the Jamul Mountains 7.5′ Quadrangle, San Diego County, California: A Digital Database, scale 1:24,000, 2002.
6.California Geologic Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April 2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html
7.Geocon Incorporated, Geotechnical Investigation, Otay Ranch Village 4, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated July 19, 2019 (Project No. G1806-11-02).
8.Geocon Incorporated, Update Geotechnical Investigation, Otay Ranch Village 3 North, and Village 4 Park Site, 40-Scale Grading Plan Submittal, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated April 21, 2016 (Project No. 06930-52-05).
9.Geotechnics, Incorporated, Interim As-Graded Report, High School 13 Portion of McMillin Otay Ranch, Village 7, Chula Vista, California, May 11, 2005.
10.Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California, California Division of
11.Todd, Victoria R., Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, USGS, Open File Report 2004-1361, Scale 1:100,000, 2004.
12.Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/, accessed January 11, 2019.
13.United States Geological Survey, 2002 Interactive Deaggregations, http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2002/index.php
14.Unpublished Geotechnical Reports and Information, Geocon Incorporated.
15.USGS computer program, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/
16.Walsh, Stephen L., and Demere, Thomas A., 1991, Age and Stratigraphy of the Sweetwater and Otay Formations, San Diego County California, In Abbott, P. L. and May, J. A., eds., 1991, Eocene Geologic history San Diego Region, Pacific section SEPM, Vol. 68, p. 131-148.
Page 361 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
To: Jeff O’Connor, HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
From: Angela Pham, M.A. RPA, Michael Williams, Ph.D.
Subject: Archaeological and Paleontological Memorandum for the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Project,
Chula Vista, CA
Date: January 2024
cc: Erin Lucett, Dudek; Brian Grover, Dudek; Micah Hale, PhD, RPA, Dudek; Brad Comeau MSc.
RPA, Dudek
Attachment(s): Figure 1 – Village 8 East Project Area
Figure 2 – Confidential Village 8 East Cultural Resources Overview Map
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (Applicant) requested that Dudek determine whether additional archaeological and
paleontological impacts would occur as a result of proposed land use changes within the Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Project (Proposed Project), beyond those impacts identified in the Otay Ranch University Villages Project
Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH No.
2013071077; City of Chula Vista, November 2014) (University Villages FEIR).
1 Project Description
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley, east of Village 8
West and west of SR-125. This urban village was originally approved in 2014 and subsequently amended in 2020.
Current entitlements accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893
attached homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting. Village 8 East also included 20,000 square feet
of retail/commercial uses, an elementary school, a neighborhood park, and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and La Media Parkway
with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a utility corridor in the southeast
portion of Village 8 East.
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC, (Applicant), proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to reflect current market
conditions, housing needs and to ensure the community relates more closely to the adjacent Village 8 West
community and future Village 9 and University Innovation District planned east of SR -125 and accommodate the
SR-125 couplet interchange design between Main Street and La Media Parkway. The project applicant proposes to
amend the Village Eight East land use plan to reflect current market conditions The proposed project would
accommodate the approved 3,276 residential units, 20,000 square feet of commercial uses and other village-
related land uses such as an elementary school, neighborhood park and a Community Purpose Facility use. The
proposed project would now include all multi-family residential units instead of the previously proposed single- and
Page 362 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT
13570 2 JANUARY 2024
multi-family residential units. Additional offsite grading areas were identified when reviewing the current tentative
map (2023) against the previous project boundary analyzed in the University Villages FEIR.
2 Archaeological Review
As described above, the Proposed Project would include a minor modification to the development area analyzed in
the University Villages FEIR.
The Village 8 East Project area was previously studied by the 2014 EIR for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project.
Brian F. Smith & Associates (BFSA) conducted the cultural resources study and evaluation for Village 8 East in 2012
(revised in 2014) and the paleontological resources study in 2012 (revised in 2013). There are eight locations,
approximately 0.99 acres in total, along the eastern edge of Village 8 East where grading is proposed to extend
beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR (Figure 1). These additional grading impacts, identified as Areas 1-8, are
primarily related to grading associated with the frontage road and southbound ramp and Main Street serving the
proposed SR-125 Interchange. Based on the review of the previous cultural resources studies and the EIR for Village
8 East, only a portion of one cultural resource, designated as Locus E of CA-SDI-12809, was identified within offsite
grading areas (Area 7; see Confidential Figure 2).
CA-SDI-12809
CA-SDI-12809 is a prehistoric site that was originally recorded by McGowan in 1971 (McGowan 1997). CA-SDI-
12809 was also previously determined eligible listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
under Criterion 4 (Smith and Stropes 2014) and on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion
D (McDonald et al. 1993). Initially, the site measured approximately 274 x 366 meters (Caltrans 1990; McDonald
et al. 1993). The site has been subject to numerous surveys and excavations since 1971, with each researcher
adjusting the boundary.
Southwestern College, under direction of McGowen, extensively excavated one portion of the site as part of an
archaeological field school between 1972 and 1983 (primarily in what is now known as Locus A). The archaeological
work conducted by McGowan uncovered an abundant quantity and diversity of artifact classes including lithic tools,
lithic debitage, ceramics, milling stones, shell, subsurface features, fire-affected rock, bone awls, faunal remains,
and human remains (McGowan 1997).
A site boundary testing program was conducted by TMI Environmental Servies in 1986 where the site intersected
the proposed SR-125 corridor (Berryman and Berryman 1987). Brian F. Mooney and Associates conducted an
extensive and systematic testing of CA-SDI-12809 to determine eligibility for listing in the NRHP as part of the SR-
125 project for Caltrans (McDonald et al. 1993). The site was divided into 10 areas of artifact concentrations (Loci
A through J) based on STP data. Brian F. Mooney and Associates concluded that each of the 10 delineated loci
contain significant archaeological deposits that have the potential to answer regional research questions and that
the site is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D (McDonald et al. 1993). The remaining portions of the
site outside the delineated loci were determined to lack significant archaeological deposits and are considered non-
contributing elements to the overall eligibility of the site. Caltrans determined the site eligible for listing in the NRHP;
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this determination in 1995 (Caltrans 1995).
Page 363 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT
13570 3 JANUARY 2024
Construction of SR-125 from 2003-2008 graded through the site and erected three structures supporting the
elevated roadway within the site boundary. Two of these structures are located with in Locus E; earthwork to grade
this area for the SR-125 bridge structures, access roads, and other facilities destroyed the locus. Locus E is no
longer extant. According to Smith and Stropes (2014), impacts to Locus E were previously mitigated by Caltrans as
part of the environmental clearance for the SR-125 ROW.
BFSA conducted a Phase II testing program under CEQA in 2010. The testing program was to update the information
from the McDonald et al. (1993) study and confirm that the site retains the same general character and condition
as identified in 1993. Locus K was also tested, which is outside the Village 8 East boundary. Smith and Stropes
(2014) stated that Locus K was identified by McDonald et al. (1993) but this is a mistake. As of this time, it is not
clear when or by whom Locus K was initially delineated. Smith and Stropes (2014) concluded CA-SDI-12809 is an
important cultural resource under CEQA and is eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 4 (data potential).
Loci A-K represent the contributing elements to eligibility of the site under CRHR Criterion 4; the remaining portions
of the site comprise non-contributing elements to the eligibility of the site. The testing efforts documented by Smith
and Stropes (2014) confirm the prior NRHP eligibility determination (McDonald et al. 1993; Caltrans 1995).
3 Archaeological Impact Analysis
Based on the review of the previous cultural resources studies and the FEIR for Village 8 East, only a portion of one
cultural resource, designated as Locus E of CA-SDI-12809, was identified within an offsite grading area. Grading
Area 7 intersects the western portion of Locus E (Confidential Figure 2). Construction of SR-125 from 2003-2008
destroyed Locus E. According to Smith and Stropes (2014), impacts to Locus E were previously mitigated by Caltrans
as part of the environmental clearance for the SR-125 ROW. The Otay Ranch Village 8 East Project will not impact
Locus E as it is no longer extant.
The Loci A-D and K portions of the site are intact and are located outside the eight grading areas discussed herein,
as well as outside the grading impacts analyzed in the FEIR. These portions of the site are located in Chula Vista
Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) open space preserve; these extant portions of the site will be avoided
by the project design, and therefore, impacts within these loci would not occur result with future development.
The remaining loci of CA-SDI-12809 that are intact and considered as contributing elements to eligibility of the site
(Loci F-J) have already been addressed by the FEIR. The approved Village 8 East Project has been conditioned with
a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) by the City of Chula Vista (City of Chula Vista 2014).
Relevant mitigation measures for the Project are discussed below in Section 5 of this memorandum.
4 Paleontological Review
Based on review of the previous paleontological resources studies and EIRs for Village 8 East, the Proposed
Project’s development area was adequately analyzed by the previous studies and EIRs since the geological units
(the Otay Formation, Quaternary terrace deposits, and Quaternary alluvium) present in the additional areas were
analyzed in the previous studies, and the San Diego Natural History Museum paleontological records search
conducted for the previous studies covered the additional area. The lower fanglomerate member of the Otay
Page 364 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT
13570 4 JANUARY 2024
Formation was mapped by Kennedy (1977) as unnamed fanglomerate deposits (map unit Tfg) in this area. Based
on the review of the previous paleontological resources studies, no paleontological resources were identified within
the modified boundary for the Project as currently proposed.
5 Management Recommendations
Mitigation Measures within the University Villages FEIR were reviewed as part of this memorandum. The mitigation
measures from the University Villages FEIR presented below remain applicable to the proposed project and will be
implemented to reduce project impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with the significance findings of
the 2014 University Villages FEIR.
MM CUL-1 - Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits, the
Applicant shall provide written confirmation and incorporate into grading plans, to the satisfaction of the
Development Services Director or their designee, that a principal investigator (PI) meeting the criteria listed in the
Secretary of the Interior guidelines (36 CFR 61) has been retained in an oversight capacity to ensure that an
archaeological monitor(s) will be present during all cutting of previously undisturbed soil. If these cutting activities
occur in more than one location, multiple monitors shall be provided to monitor these areas, as determined
necessary by the PI.
MM CUL-2- During the initial grading of previously undisturbed soils within the SPA Plan areas) and off-site
improvement areas, prehistoric and historic resources may be encountered. In the event that the archaeological
monitor identifies a potentially significant site, the monitor shall secure the discovery site from further impacts by
delineating the site with staking and flagging, and by diverting grading equipment away from the archaeological
site. Following notification to the City, the archaeological monitor shall conduct investigations as necessary to
determine if the discovery is significant under the criteria listed in CEQA and the environmental guidelines of the
City. If the discovery is determined to be not significant, grading operations may resume and the archaeological
monitor shall summarize the findings in a letter report submitted to the City following the completion of mass
grading activities. The letter report shall describe the results of the on -site archaeological monitoring, each
archaeological site observed, the scope of testing conducted, results of laboratory analysis (if applicable), and
conclusions. The letter report shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista’s Development
Services Director or their designee prior to the release of grading bonds. Any artifacts recovered during the
evaluation of resources shall be curated at a facility approved by the City.
MM CUL-3- For the cultural prehistoric/historic resources that are determined to be significant, alternate means of
achieving mitigation shall be pursued. In general, these forms of mitigation include:
1. site avoidance by preservation of archaeological site in a natural state in open space, or in specific open
space easements,
2. site avoidance by preservation through capping the site and placing landscaping on top of the fill,
3. data recovery through implementation of an excavation and analysis program,
4. a combination of one or more of the above measures.
Page 365 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT
13570 5 JANUARY 2024
See Chapter 9.0 in the Cultural Resources Study for the University Villages Project at Otay Ranch (Appendix
F of this EIR) for the detailed mitigation and monitoring program for each of the identified significant sites that
would be impacted.
MM CUL-4 - For those sites that are found to contain significant resources and for which avoidance and preservation
is not feasible or appropriate, the Applicant shall prepare a Data Recovery Plan. The plan will, at a minimum, include
the following:
1. a statement of why data recovery is appropriate as a mitigation measure,
2. a research plan that explicitly provides the research questions that can reasonably be expected to be
addressed by excavation and analysis of the site,
3. a statement of the types and kinds of data that can reasonably be expected to exist at the site and how
these data will be used to answer important research questions,
4. a step-by-step discussion of field and laboratory methods to be employed,
5. provisions for curation and storage of the artifacts, notes, and photographs will be stated.
Grading operations within the affected area may resume once the site has been fully evaluated and mitigated to
the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or their designee. All significant artifacts collected during the
implementation of the Data Recovery Plan shall be curated at a facility approved by the City of Chula Vista .
MM CUL-5 -Following the completion of mass grading operations, the Applicant shall prepare a plan that addresses
the temporary on-site presentation and interpretation of the results of the archaeological studies for the proposed
project. This could be accomplished through exhibition within a future community center, civic building and/or multi-
purpose building. Any artifacts used for public displays shall be selected from the curated collections originating
from the project. This exhibition will only be for temporary display of artifacts for public interpretation and display
purposes. Artifacts selected for the exhibit shall be withdrawn on loan from the curation facility and will
subsequently be returned to that facility upon the close of the exhibition. The applicant will be responsible for the
artifacts during the display period and for the return of the artifacts at the close of the exhibition. The consulting
archaeologist shall act on the applicant’s behalf to coordinate the curation of all collections and the subsequent
use of selected artifacts for the public display.
MM PAL-1 -Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, including the Offsite Improvement
Areas, the Applicant shall confirm to the Development Services Director, or their designee, that a qualified
paleontologist (QP) has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. A QP is defined as an
individual with a doctorate or a master’s degree in paleontology or geology, who is familiar with paleontological
procedures and techniques. A pre-grade meeting shall be held between the paleontologist and the grading and
excavation contractors.
MM PAL-2 -A paleontological monitor shall be on site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed
sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (i.e., San Diego, Otay, and Sweetwater formations) to inspect cuts
for contained fossils. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection
and salvage of fossil materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
Page 366 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT
13570 6 JANUARY 2024
paleontologist. The monitor shall be on site on at least a half-time basis during the original cutting of previously
undisturbed sediments of moderately sensitive geologic formations (i.e., unnamed river terrace deposits of the
Mission Valley Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
a. The monitor shall be on site on at least a quarter-tie basis during the original cutting of previously
undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity geologic formations (i.e., Lindavista Formation and Santiago Peak
Volcanics [metasedimentary portion only] to inspect cuts for contained fossils. He or she shall periodically
(every several weeks) inspect original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary
alluvium).
b. In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low, or moderately sensitive formations, the Applicant
shall increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring, at
the discretion of the Planning Department, shall be reduced. A paleontological monitor is not needed during
grading of rocks with no resource sensitivity (i.e., Santiago Peak Volcanics, metavolcanic portion).
MM PAL-3 -When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most
cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a
complete whale skeleton) may require an extended salvage time. In these instances, the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil
remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated
mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances and at the discretion of the paleontological monitor to set
up a screen-washing operation on the site.
MM PAL-4 Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall be deposited in a
scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final
summary report shall be completed. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphy
exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
As mentioned in MM CUL-3, archaeological data recovery methods and requirements are presented in Chapter 9.0
of the cultural resources report prepared in support of the FEIR (Smith and Stropes 2014). Data recovery is required
at Loci F through J of CA-SDI-12809). This data recovery effort remains applicable to those loci and is required prior
to any project-related ground disturbance in those areas.
As previously noted, grading Area 7 intersects a portion of site CA-SDI-12809. This portion of the site corresponds
to Locus E of CA-SDI-12809. This area was graded and destroyed by construction of SR-125. As such, it no longer
exists, and impacts to site CA-SDI-12809 withing grading Area 7 will be less than significant. No additional mitigation
measures are necessary at this site as a result of the revised grading impacts identified herein. Construction
monitoring will be implemented in all eight of the grading areas.
REFERENCES
Caltrans 1995. First Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report State Route 125 – South. Caltrans District 11:
San Diego.
Page 367 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT
13570 7 JANUARY 2024
City of Chula Vista. 2014. University Villages Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Report. (EIR; SCH No. 2013071077)
Kennedy, M.P. and Tan. S. S. 1977. Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles,
Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet
29
Kennedy, George L. and Todd A. Wirths. 2013. Paleontological Resource and Monitoring
Assessment for Village 3 North and a Portion of Village 4, Village 8 East, and Village 10, City of Chula Vista,
California. Unpublished report on file at the City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista, California.
McDonald, M., C. Serr, and J. Schaefer. 1993. Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of CA-SDI-12,809 A Alate
Prehistoric Habitation Site in the Otay River Valley, San Diego County, California. Brian F. Mooney
Associates: San Diego.
McGowan, C. 1997. Vol. I. Final Report of the Excavation of Cal. F:5:1 (CA-SDI-12,809). Professor Charlotte
McGowan: Chula Vista, California.
Smith, Brian F. and Tracy A. Stropes. 2014. Archaeological Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Otay Ranch
Villages Project, Village 3 North and a Portion of Village 4, Village 8 East, and Village 10, City of Chula
Vista, California. Unpublished report on file at the City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista, California
Page 368 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Area 8
Area 1
Area 4
Area 3
Area 6
Area 7
Area 2
Area 5
125
Village 8 East Project Area Map
Village 8 East
SOURCE: AERIAL-SANGIS 2020
Date: 11/29/2023 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1357201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\CEQA\Figure1_Village8East Project Area 20231129.mxd
Prop osed Project Bo unda ry EIR Pro perty Boun dary Area Previo usly Not Analyze d in U niversity Villa ges EIR
FIGURE 1
1:8,400
0 710355Feet0200100Meters Page 369 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
To: Jeff O’Connor, HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
From: Patricia Schuyler, Dudek
Subject: Village 8 East Tentative Map Revisions – Biological Review
Date: January 2024
cc: Erin Lucett, Dudek; Brian Grover, Dudek
Attachment(s): Figure 1 – Biological Resources; Figure 1a-Areas not Previously Analyzed- Areas 1,2,3, and
4; Figure 1b- Areas not Previously Analyzed- Areas 5,6,7, and 8
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (Applicant) requested that Dudek determine whether additional biological impacts would
occur as a result of proposed land use changes within the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Project (Proposed Project),
beyond those impacts identified in the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (EIR; SCH No. 2013071077; City of Chula
Vista, November 2014) (University Villages FEIR)
As part of the 2014 FEIR, the Otay Ranch Village Eight East project was approved by the City of Chula Vista City
Council in December 2014 and incorporated into the Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. Current entitlements accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached
homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting. Village Eight East also included
20,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses, an elementary school, a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre
(gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and
Otay Valley Road with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a utility corridor i n
the southeast portion of Village 8 East.
The project applicant proposes to amend the Village Eight East land use plan to reflect current market conditions
and housing needs, and to ensure the community relates more closely to the adjacent Village Eight West community
and future Village Nine and University Innovation District planned east of State Route (SR) 125 and accommodates
the SR-125 couplet interchange design between Main Street and Otay Valley Road. The proposed project would
accommodate the approved 3,276 residential units, 20,000 square feet of commercial uses and other village-
related land uses such as an elementary school, neighborhood park and Community Purpose Facility uses. The
proposed project would now include all multi-family residential units instead of the previously proposed single- and
multi-family residential units.
Dudek biologists identified eight additions to the development area analyzed in original biological studies conducted
for the Village 8 East project. Survey dates, time, and weather for the surveys conducted in support of the FEIR for
the project are documented in Appendix E of the University Villages FEIR. Additional offsite grading areas were
identified when reviewing the current tentative map against the previous FEIR . In spring/summer of 2023,
vegetation mapping was conducted in support of the CALTRANS State Route (SR) 125-interchange project. This
Page 370 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 2 JANUARY 2024
information was utilized to review areas outside of the project boundary previously analyzed in the 2014 University
Villages FEIR (Helix 2023a &2023b). This memo documents these findings.
1 Previous Environmental Documentation
There are six locations along the eastern edge of Village 8 East where grading is proposed to extend beyond what
was analyzed in the 2014 FEIR (Figure 1, 1a &1b). These additional grading impacts are primarily related to grading
associated with the frontage road and southbound ramp at Main Street serving the proposed SR-125 Interchange.
Additional grading associated with the emergency access road, utility corridor and vehicular access and utilities to
serve the future development of AR-11 within and adjacent to the SR-125 right-of-way requires one additional area.
A portion of these grading impacts were analyzed in the FEIR, while Area 7 described below is within the CALTRANS
right of way and was not included in the FEIR study area. Area 8 is located east of SR-125, between what was
“Future Lots A and B” (now Lot B), was not included in the University Villages FEIR. This area was a portion of the
Otay Valley Road right-of-way on the 2014 Tentative Map. With the Proposed Project, Otay Valley Road would be
realigned northward to accommodate the proposed SR-125 couplet interchange design between Main Street and
Otay Valley Road and this area would be designated as part of Future Development Lot, Lot B.
2 Biological Review
Table 1 identifies the 8 areas that were not included in the University Villages FEIR (shown in Figures 1a & 1b). In
total, the changes to the Village 8 East boundary would result in 0.99 acres of impacts not previously analyzed in
the FEIR. Most of these impacts are to non-native grassland (0.62 acres) followed by 0.29 acres of coastal sage
scrub and 0.08 acres of agricultural and developed areas.
Table 1. Vegetation Communities for Areas not Identified in the FEIR
Vegetation
Community
Areas Not Evaluated in the FEIR
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Total
Non-Native
Grassland
0.39 0.01 0.06 0 0.10 0 0.07 0 0.62
Coastal Sage
Scrub
(including
disturbed)
0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.06 0.22 0.29
Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0.07
Developed 0 0 0 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01
Total 0.39 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.20 0.22 0.99
CALTRANS conducted a suite of surveys for the SR-125-interchange project. Since SR-125 is located immediately
adjacent to Village 8 East, the survey buffers overlapped with portions of Village 8 East. The vegetation mapping
conducted for the SR-125 project was utilized to review the biological impacts associated with the additional grading
(Areas 1-6) along the east side of the proposed project. Focused surveys conducted for the SR-125 project did not
detect special-status plant or wildlife species within Areas 1 through 6.
Page 371 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 3 JANUARY 2024
As depicted on Figure 1b, Area 7 grading will extend into AR-11 and totals 0.2 acre. Of that 0.2 acre, 0.13 was
included in the FEIR analysis while 0.07 acres were reviewed in conjunction with the CALTRANS updated surveys.
Dudek obtained the SR-125 vegetation mapping for these areas to include in this biological review for the updated
Village 8 East project (Table 1). There are no locations of either special-status plant or wildlife species within Area
7.
The added portion of Lot B (Area 8) was not previously covered under any environmental documents. However, the
areas immediately to the north and south, designated Future Development Lots A and B on the 2014 Tentative
Map, were analyzed in the University Villages FEIR. The Village 8 East jurisdictional aquatic resource delineation
was recently updated for Future Development Lots A and B and included the 0.22-acre addition to Lot B (Dudek
2023). The vegetation in the added portion of Lot B was also documented during this field work. The 0.22-acre area
is comprised of coastal sage scrub similar to the surrounding areas as documented in the University Villages FEIR
(Chula Vista 2014) (Figures 1 & 1b). A non-wetland water regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is located
along the western boundary of this area but not within the project site. A swale regulated by RWQCB and CDFW is
located to the south of the area but does not extend into it. The 0.22-acre addition does not support any riparian
vegetation. In addition, CALTRANS has conducted focused surveys for rare plants and special-status wildlife. Based
on those surveys, there are no locations of either special-status plant or wildlife species within Area 8 (Helix 2023a
&2023b)
During the 2023 focused surveys for Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) for a nearby but unrelated project, a
permitted biologist from Harris detected one adult QCB within the Village 8 East SPA Plan area at a location that
will be on the edge of grading within the Otay Ranch Preserve for a facility that will serve as a utility corridor, trail,
and emergency access. No other QCB sightings have been documented during the 2023 surveys.
3 Discussion
In total, the changes to the Village 8 East project boundary would result in 0.99 acres of impacts not previously
analyzed in the University Villages FEIR. Most of these impacts are to non-native grassland (0.62 acres) followed by
0.29 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.08 acres of agricultural and developed areas. Both non -native grassland
and coastal sage scrub are considered sensitive vegetation communities. While the impacts at these particular
locations were not analyzed in the University Villages FEIR, impacts to coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland
as a whole were analyzed in the FEIR. Impacts to coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland were deemed less
than significant with incorporation of mitigation, specifically MM B IO-1 which requires the conveyance of acreage
to the preserve at a ratio of 1.188 of preserve for every acreage (1 acre) of impact, consistent with the Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan. Therefore, the addition of 0.91 acre of impact to the overall impact total does
not represent a new or significant impact. Impacts to 0.08 acre of agricultural and developed lands, neither of which
is a sensitive land cover, would not be significant. However, these impacts will be included in the overall conveyance
as described in MM-BIO-1. Therefore, no new significant biological resources impacts would occur beyond those
identified in the University Villages FEIR and no new mitigation is required.
Potential impacts to the QCB associated with the development of Otay Ranch have been addressed in prior
environmental review. Specifically, the University Villages FEIR (2014) addressed potential QCB impacts and
discussed previous sightings of QCB within the Preserve. The FEIR directly addresses impacts to the QCB within its
discussion of Special Status Wildlife Species:
Page 372 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 4 JANUARY 2024
Although Quino checkerspot were not observed within the project boundaries, there is suitable
habitat throughout all villages due to presence of host plant and suitable coastal sage scrub habitat
except for the Portion of Village Four. The MSCP Subarea Plan requires that impacts to Quino
checkerspot habitat in the Preserve east of SR-125 be minimized to the extent possible, whether
or not it is occupied. This avoidance criteria applies only to a portion of Village Eight East (east of
SR-125) and Village Ten. Development within these areas will be required to comply with avoidance
and minimization measure 4.b of the MSCP Subarea Plan. The proposed project would not impact
any significant Quino checkerspot habitat patches of plantain east of SF-125 that are in the Salt
Creek drainage or Otay River Valley and no preserve areas would be impacted that contain such
plantain patches. Impacts to Quino checkerspot would be less than significant.1
QCB is a covered species within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan and any impacts to suitable habitat for the species
would be mitigated through conveyance of habitat to the MSCP Preserve system as required by MM BIO-1 outlined
below. Therefore, the sighting of a QCB within the Village 8 East SPA area does not constitute new information of
substantial importance that warrants further environmental review for the current project.
4 University Villages FEIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures within the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment FEIR
(2014) were reviewed as part of this memorandum. The following mitigation measures from the University Villages
FEIR remain applicable to the proposed project. Note that these measures are taken directly from the FEIR and
have not been modified.
MM BIO-1 Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for the project, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with the
City of Chula Vista (City) Engineer and annex the project area within the Otay Ranch Preserve Community
Facilities District No. 97-2.
Prior to the recordation of each Final Map, the Applicant shall convey land within the Otay Ranch
Preserve to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) or its designee at a ratio of 1.188
acres for each acre of “Developable Area” as defined by the RMP. Access for maintenance
purposes shall also be conveyed to the satisfaction of the POM. Each tentative map shall be subject
to a condition that the Applicant shall execute a maintenance agreement with the POM stating that
it is the responsibility of the Applicant to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Preserve CFD has
generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities. The
Applicant shall maintain and manage the offered conveyance property consistent with the RMP
Phase 2 until the Preserve CFD has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume
maintenance and management responsibilities.
Prior to the POM’s formal acceptance of the conveyed land in fee title, the Project Applicant shall
prepare, to the satisfaction of the POM, Area Specific Management Directives (ASMDs) for the
associated conveyance areas. The ASMDs shall incorporate the guidelines and specific
requirements of the Otay Ranch RMP plans and programs, management requirements of Table 3 -
5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan, and information and recommendations from any relevant special
1 University Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment EIR, p. 5.8-57 (emphasis in original).
Page 373 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 5 JANUARY 2024
studies. Guidelines and requirements from these documents shall be evaluated in relationship to
the Preserve configuration and specific habitats and species found within the associated
conveyance areas and incorporated into the ASMDs to the satisfaction of the POM.
MM BIO-2 Prior to the issuance of any land development permits that impact maritime succulent scrub,
including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare a restoration
plan to restore impacts to maritime succulent scrub at a 1:1 ratio pursuant to the Otay Ranch RMP.
A total of 5.5 acres will require restoration. The maritime succulent scrub restoration shall be
prepared by a City-approved biologist and to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director
(or their designee) pursuant to the Otay Ranch RMP restoration requirements. The restoration plan
shall include, at a minimum, an implementation strategy; species salvage and relocation;
appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation; quantitative and qualitative success
criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and
contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall also be required to implement the revegetation
plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM BIO-3 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading and construction
permits for the Future and Planned Facilities associated with Village Ten, the Project Applicant shall
provide a revegetation plan for temporary impacts to 0.3 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. The
revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City-approved biologist familiar with the City’s MSCP
Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation plan; appropriate seed
mixtures and planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and qualitative success criteria;
maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency
measures. The Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan
subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM BIO-4 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or
construction permits for any areas adjacent to the preserve and the off-site facilities located within the
preserve, the Project Applicant shall provide written confirmation that a City-approved biological monitor
has been retained and shall be on site during clearing, grubbing, and/or grading activities. The biological
monitor shall attend all pre-construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation
to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of
the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas and protective fencing.
The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated project activities that may be in violation
of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and/or permits issued by any other agencies having jurisdictional
authority over the project.
Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources within the off-
site facilities area, all workers shall be educated by a City-approved biologist to recognize and avoid
those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources.
MM BIO-5 Prior to issuance of grading permits in portions of the SPA Plan areas that are adjacent to the Preserve,
the Project Applicant shall install fencing. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including
clearing, grubbing, grading and/or construction permits, the Project Applicant shall install fencing in
accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) 17.35.030. Prominently colored, well-installed
fencing and signage shall be in place wherever the limits of grading are adjacent to sensitive vegetation
Page 374 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 6 JANUARY 2024
communities or other biological resources, as identified by the qualified monitoring biologist. Fencing
shall remain in place during all construction activities. All temporary fencing shall be shown on grading
plans for areas adjacent to the preserve and for all off-site facilities constructed within the preserve.
Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that
work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans.
MM BIO-6 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and
construction permits, the following notes shall be included on the applicable construction plans to
the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee):
• A qualified biologist shall be on site to monitor all vegetation clearing and periodically thereafter
to ensure implementation of appropriate resource protection measures.
• Dewatering shall be conducted in accordance with standard regulations of the RWQCB. A
permit to discharge water from dewatering activities will be required. This will minimize
erosion, siltation, and pollution within sensitive communities.
• During construction, material stockpiles shall be placed such that they cause minimal
interference with on-site drainage patterns. This will protect sensitive vegetation from being
inundated with sediment-laden runoff.
• Material stockpiles shall be covered when not in use. This will prevent fly-off that could
damage nearby sensitive vegetation communities.
• Graded area shall be periodically watered to minimize dust that may affect adjacent
vegetation.
MM BIO-7 Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or
construction permits, the project will be required to obtain a HILT Permit pursuant to Section 17.35
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code for impacts to Chula Vista MSCP Tier I, II, and II vegetation
communities as shown below in Tables 5.8-24 and 5.8-25 and in accordance with Table 5-3 of the
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. These impacts are due to the proposed development and
are not associated with Planned or Future Facilities. Mitigation for off-site impacts outside of Otay
Ranch will be in accordance with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the City’s Habitat
Loss and Incident Take (HLIT) Ordinance and as provided in the HLIT Findings. Mitigation for
impacts associated with the landfill (off-site Area 5) is not required.
Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the Applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts
pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. In compliance with the City’s MSCP
Subarea Plan, the Applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City/Wildlife Agency-approved
Conservation Bank or other approved location offering such credits consistent with the ratios
specified in Tables 5.8-24 and 5.8-25.
The Applicant shall be required to provide verification of purchase to the City, prior to issuance of
any land development permits.
Page 375 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 7 JANUARY 2024
In the event that a Project Applicant is unable to secure mitigation through an established
mitigation bank approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies, the Project Applicant shall secure the
required mitigation through the conservation of an area containing in-kind habitat within the City’s
MSCP Subarea Plan or MSCP Planning Area in accordance with the mitigation ratios contained in
Table 5-3 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and subject to Wildlife Agency concurrence.
Table 5.8-24 Mitigation for Permanent Impacts to Upland Vegetation Outside of
Otay Ranch (HLIT)
Off-Site
Area Ownership
Vegetation
Community Tier
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Location of
Impact
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Required
(acres)
1 Takashima Coastal Sage
Scrub
II 0.8 Inside Preserve 1.5:1 1.2
Coastal Sage
Scrub
II 5.3 Outside
Preserve
1:1 5.3
2 Auto
Dismantler1
Coastal Sage
Scrub
II 0.3 Outside
Preserve
1:1 0.3
Valley
Needlegrass
grassland
I 0.1 Outside
Preserve
1:1 0.1
3 City of
Chula Vista
Broom Baccharis
Scrub
II 0.2 Inside Preserve 1.5:1 0.3
Cismontane
Alkali Marsh
I 0.2 Inside Preserve 1.5:1 0.3
Coastal Sage
Scrub
II 0.7 Inside Preserve 1.5:1 1.1
Disturbed
Coastal Sage
Scrub
II 0.1 Inside Preserve 1.5:1 0.2
Non-Native
Grassland
III 0.3 Inside Preserve 1:1 0.3
1 Mapping was unable to be conducted on this property. Impacts and mitigation will be based on updated information determined
within one year of construction as stated in Section 5.1.2.
Note: Tiers and Mitigation Ratios are in accordance with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan’s HLIT Upland Habitat Mitigation
Ratios. No mitigation is required for Tier IV habitat types (i.e., non-sensitive vegetation communities and land covers including
disturbed land, ornamental, or developed land). It is assumed that mitigation will be located inside the Preserve. M itigation
outside of the Preserve (i.e., Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan or Planning Area boundary) will require increased mitigation per
Table 5-3.
Page 376 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 8 JANUARY 2024
Table 5.8-25
Mitigation for Impacts to Wetlands Outside of Otay Ranch (HILT)
Outside of
Otay Ranch
Area
Wetlands Vegetation Community /Water Feature
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Required
Ephemeral
Channel
Cismontane
Alkali Marsh
Tamarisk
Scrub
1 0.05 1:1 to 2:1 0.05 to 0.10
2 <0.01 1:1 to 2:1 <0.01 to 0.01
3 0.18 0.80 1:1 to 2:1 0.98 to 1.96
Prior to issuance of any land development permit, and to the satisfaction and oversight of the City’s
Development Services Director (or their designee), the Applicant shall secure the parcel(s) that will
be permanently preserved for in-kind habitat impact mitigation, prepare a long-term Management
and Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the mitigation area, secure an appropriate management entity to
ensure long-term biological resource management and monitoring of the mitigation area is
implemented in perpetuity, and establish a long-term funding mechanism for the management and
monitoring of the mitigation area in perpetuity.
The long-term MMP shall provide management measures to be implemented to sustain the viability
of the preserved habitat and identify timing for implementing the measures prescribed in the MMP.
The mitigation parcel shall be restricted from future development and permanently preserved
through the recordation of a conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife
Agencies as being sufficient to insure that the lands are protected in perpetuity. The conservation
easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies shall be recorded prior to
issuance of any land development permits.
The Project Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the biological integrity of the mitigation area
and shall abide by all management and monitoring measures identified in the MMP until such time as
the established long-term funding mechanism has generated sufficient revenues to enable a City-
approved management entity to assume the long-term maintenance and management responsibilities.
MM BIO-8 Prior to issuance of grading permits in portions of the SPA Plan areas that are adjacent to the
Preserve, the Project Applicant shall develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
SWPPP shall be developed, approved, and implemented during construction to control storm water
runoff such that erosion, sedimentation, pollution, and other adverse effects are minimized. The
following performance measures contained in the Edge Plans shall be implemented to avoid the
release of toxic substances associated with urban runoff:
▪ Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriate
measures.
▪ Where deemed necessary, storm drains shall be equipped with silt and oil traps to remove oils,
debris, and other pollutants. Storm drain inlets shall be labeled “No Dumping–Drains to Ocean.”
Storm drains shall be regularly maintained to ensure their effectiveness.
Page 377 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 9 JANUARY 2024
▪ The parking lots shall be designed to allow storm water runoff to be directed to vegetative
filter strips and/or oil-water separators to control sediment, oil, and other contaminants.
▪ Permanent energy dissipaters shall be included for drainage outlets.
▪ The BMPs contained in the SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, silt fences, fiber rolls,
gravel bags, and soil stabilization measures such as erosion control mats and hydro-seeding.
▪ The project area drainage basins will be designed to provide effective water quality control
measures, as outlined in the Water Quality Technical Report. Design and operational features
of the drainage basins will include design features to provide maximum infiltration, maximum
detention time for settling of fine particles; maximize the distance between basin inlets and
outlets to reduce velocities; and establish maintenance schedules for periodic removal of
sedimentation, excessive vegetation and debris.
MM BIO-9 The City requires that impacts to wetlands be avoided to the maximum extent possible and where
impacts are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation within the Chula Vista Subarea or Chula Vista
Planning Area shall be required resulting in no overall net loss of wetlands. A total of up to 1.03
acres of wetland and 0.56 acre of waters of the U.S./State within the project may be impacted
within the Development Area. Off-site areas may impact a total of up to 0.98 acre of wetlands and
0.38 acre of waters (0.24 acre of waters of the U.S. and 0.14 acre of water of the State). Prior to
issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, and grading permits that
impact jurisdictional waters, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Wetlands Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to the satisfaction of the City, ACOE, and CDFW. This plan shall include, at a
minimum, an implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion
time, and any relevant contingency measures. Areas under the jurisdictional authority of ACOE and
CDFW shall be delineated on all grading plans. Mitigation areas shall occur within the Otay River
watershed in accordance with the Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to the satisfaction of
the City, ACOE, and CDFW. The Project Applicant shall also be required to implement the Wetlands
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan subject to the oversight of the City, ACOE, and CDFW.
MM BIO-10 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, and grading permits for
areas that impact jurisdictional waters, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence that all required
regulatory permits, such as those required under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, Section
1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act have been
obtained.
MM BIO-11 The Project Applicant shall implement one of the following prior to the issuance of grading permits
for areas impacting vernal pools within Village Three North:
1. The Project Applicant shall restore 240 square feet of vernal pools within the Village Thirteen (resort)
planning area. The restoration would involve reconfiguration and reconstruction of the mima mounds
and basins, removal of weedy vegetation, revegetation of the mounds with upland sage scrub species
and inoculation of the pools with vernal pool species. The property owner has prepared a Conceptual
Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan (Dudek 2008). The Plan includes, but is not limited to an implementation
Page 378 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 10 JANUARY 2024
plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and relevant contingency
measures.
2. The Project Applicant shall restore 240 square feet of vernal pools somewhere other than the
Village Thirteen (resort) planning area. The restoration would still involve reconfiguration and
reconstruction of the mima mounds and basins, removal of weedy vegetation, revegetation of the
mounds with upland sage scrub species and inoculation of the pools with vernal pool species.
3. The Project Applicant shall buy into a mitigation bank in an amount that would mitigate for
impacts to 120 square feet of vernal pool.
MM BIO-12 Prior to the issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading
permits, for areas with salvageable sensitive biological resources, including Otay tarplant,
variegated dudleya, San Diego barrel cactus, San Diego bur-sage, singlewhorl burrobush, south
coast saltscale, San Diego marsh-elder, and Robinson’s pepper grass (including plant materials
and soils/seed bank), the Project Applicant shall prepare a Resource Salvage Plan. The Resource
Salvage Plan shall be prepared by a City-approved biologist to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Director (or their designee).
The Resource Salvage Plan shall, at a minimum, evaluate options for plant salvage and relocation,
including individual cactus salvage, native plant mulching, selective soil salvaging, application of
plant materials on manufactured slopes, and application/relocation of resources within the
Preserve. The Resource Salvage Plan shall include incorporation of relocation efforts for non -
covered species, including singlewhorl burrobush, south coast saltscale, San Diego marsh-elder,
and Robinson’s pepper grass, species that are all considered special-status by the CEQA and that
would be impacted with project implementation. Relocation efforts may include seed collection
and/or transplantation to a suitable receptor site and will be based on the most reliable methods
of successful relocation. The program shall also contain a recommendation for method of salvage
and relocation/application based on feasibility of implementation and likelihood of success. The
program shall include, at a minimum, an implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring
program, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. The program shall
also be subject to the oversight of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM BIO-13 To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds protected under the MBTA,
removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance should occur
outside of the breeding season for these species. The breeding season is defined as February 15
to August 15 for coastal California gnatcatcher and other non-raptor birds and January 15 to August
31 for raptor species. If removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during
the breeding season, the Project Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a pre-
construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area
of disturbance. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to
the start of construction, and the results must be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or
mitigation plan, as deemed appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include proposed
Page 379 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 11 JANUARY 2024
measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are avoided. The
report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented
to the satisfaction of the City. The City’s Mitigation Monitor shall verify and approve that all
measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction.
MM BIO-14 Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, and grading permits,
the Project Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct focused surveys for northern
harrier to determine the presence or absence of this species within 900-feet of the construction area.
The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of
construction. The results of the survey must be submitted to the City for review and approval. If
active nests are detected by the City-approved biologist, a bio-monitor shall be on site during
construction to minimize construction impacts and ensure that no nests are removed or disturbed
until all young have fledged.
MM BIO-15 Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including clearing, grubbing, and grading permits),
the Project Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct focused pre-construction surveys
for burrowing owls. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement
of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the City-approved
biologist shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan subject to the review and approval by the
Wildlife agencies and City, including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts
from construction-related activities.
MM BIO-16 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit evidence to the satisfaction
of the Development Services Director (or their designee), showing that the following features of the
Preserve Edge Plans (Otay Ranch Company 2013a through 2013c) have been incorporated into
grading and landscaping plans:
▪ Provide post and fencing and signage for sensitive habitat adjacent to trails. Prior to the
issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or
construction permits, for the project, the project owner shall submit wall and fence plans
depicting appropriate barriers to prevent unauthorized access to the Preserve. The wall and fence
plans shall, at a minimum, illustrate the locations and cross-sections of proposed walls, fences,
informational and directional signage, access controls, and/or boundary markers along the
Preserve boundary and off-site pedestrian trails as conceptually described in the Edge Plans. The
required wall and fence plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services
Director (or their designee).
▪ Install canyon subdrains to prevent erosion of drainage and wetlands within
the Preserve.
▪ Prevent release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials and other
elements that might degrade or harm the natural environment or ecosystem within the
Preserve.
Page 380 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 12 JANUARY 2024
▪ Implement all necessary requirements for water quality as specified by the State and local
agencies
▪ Phase out agricultural uses adjacent to the Preserve to remove pollutants from the project site.
▪ No invasive non-native plant species shall be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to,
or within, the Preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent, or within, to the Preserve shall be
planted with native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat, per the Edge Plan. Prior to
the issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or
construction permits, for 1) areas within the 100-foot Preserve edge, and 2) infrastructure (e.g.,
roads, trails, utilities, etc.) sited within the Preserve, the Project Applicant shall prepare and
submit to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) landscape
plans to ensure that the proposed plant palette is consistent with the plant list contained in
the Preserve Edge Plans for each village. The landscape plan shall also incorporate a manual
weeding program for areas adjacent to the Preserve. The manual weeding program shall
describe, at a minimum, the entity responsible for controlling invasive species, the
maintenance activities and methods required to control invasive species, and a
maintenance/monitoring schedule.
▪ All fuel modification shall be incorporated into development plans and shall not include any
areas within the Preserve.
MM BIO-17 In accordance with the City’s Adjacency Management Guidelines, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented to further reduce indirect impacts (from lighting, noise, invasive
species, toxic substances, and public access) to sensitive biological resources located in the
adjacent Preserve areas:
▪ Lighting. In compliance with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, all lighting shall be shielded and
directed away from the Preserve. Concurrent with design review and prior to issuance of a building
permit for any development located adjacent to the Preserve, the Applicant shall prepare a lighting
plan and photometric analysis to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their
designee), for review and approval. The lighting plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed
lighting standards and type of shielding measures. Low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used, if
feasible, and shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
• Noise. Noise impacts adjacent to the Preserve lands shall be minimized. Berms or walls shall
be constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other use that may introduce noises that
could impact or interfere with wildlife utilization of the Preserve. A 100 -foot buffer around
community park areas, specifically Community Parks (P-2) south of Village Eight East and in
Portion of Village Four, should be installed in sections adjacent to Preserve habitat occupied
by sensitive species such as the coastal cactus wren. Potential noise generating uses, such as
baseball diamonds and soccer fields, should be oriented away from sensitive species habitat
Page 381 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 13 JANUARY 2024
in these areas. Construction activities shall include noise reduction measures or be conducted
outside the breeding season of sensitive bird species.
▪ Noise, California Gnatcatcher. For any work proposed between February 15 and August 15, prior to
issuance of any land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction
permits, associated with the off-site facilities located within the Preserve, the Project Applicant shall
retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for the coastal California
gnatcatcher to reaffirm the presence and extent of occupied habitat. The pre-construction survey area
for the coastal California gnatcatcher shall encompass all habitats within the project work zone, as
well as within a 300-foot buffer. The survey shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Director (or their designee) by a qualified biologist familiar with the City’s MSCP Subarea
Plan. The results of the pre-construction survey must be submitted in a report to the Development
Services Director (or their designee) for review and approval prior to the issuance of any land
development permits and prior to initiating any construction activities. If the coastal California
gnatcatcher is detected, a minimum 300-foot buffer delineated by orange biological fencing shall be
established around the detected species to ensure that no work shall occur within the occupied
habitat from February 15 through August 15 and on-site noise reduction techniques shall be
implemented to ensure that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq-h at the location of
any occupied sensitive habitat areas. The Development Services Director (or their designee) shall
have the discretion to modify the buffer width depending on-site-specific conditions. If the results of
the pre-construction survey determine that the survey area is unoccupied, the work may commence
at the discretion of the Development Services Director (or their designee) following the review and
approval of the pre-construction report.
▪ Invasive Species. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading and/or construction permits for 1) areas within the 100-foot Preserve edge, and 2)
infrastructure (e.g., roads, trails, utilities, etc.) sited within the Preserve, the Project Applicant
shall prepare and submit to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their
designee), landscape plans to ensure that the proposed plant palette is consistent with the plant
list contained in the Preserve Edge Plan. The landscape plan shall also incorporate a manual
weeding program for areas adjacent to the preserve. The manual weeding program that shall
describe at a minimum, the entity responsible for controlling invasive species, the maintenance
activities and methods required to control invasives, and a maintenance/monitoring schedule.
▪ Toxic Substances. See MMs BIO-4, BIO-6, BIO-8, BIO-16
▪ Public Access. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit wall
and fence plans depicting appropriate barriers to prevent unauthorized access into the
Preserve. The wall and fence plans shall illustrate the locations and cross -sections of
proposed walls and fences along the Preserve boundary, subject to the approval the City’s
Development Services Director (or their designee).
Page 382 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 14 JANUARY 2024
MM BIO-18 In accordance with the City’s Adjacency Management Guidelines, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented to further reduce indirect impacts from noise to sensitive
biological resources located in the adjacent Preserve areas emanating from the community
parks:
Concurrent with the preparation of site -specific plan(s), and prior to the approval of a precise
grading plan, the Project Applicant shall prepare, or in the case of the City being the lead on the
preparation of the site specific plan, the Project Applicant shall fund the preparation of an
acoustical analysis to ensure that noise impacts to surrounding Preserve areas have been
minimized. The park design shall include measures to minimize noise impacts adjacent to the
Preserve. Features that may be in cluded in the park design may include, but are not limited to:
• berms or walls;
• inclusion of a minimum of 100 feet between the Preserve boundary and park uses where
adjacent to habitat occupied by sensitive species such as coastal California gnatcatcher and
coastal cactus wren;
• allow uses within the 100-foot buffer adjacent to the Preserve that may include access roads,
parking, picnic areas, walking paths, and graded slopes;
• orient potential noise generating uses such as soccer fields and baseball diamonds away from
occupied coastal California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren habitat.
Page 383 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: VILLAGE 8 EAST TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS – BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
13570 15 JANUARY 2024
REFERENCES
City of Chula Vista. 2014. University Villages Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Report. December.
Dudek. 2023. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Village Eight East Project. Prepared for HomeFed. August
2023.
Helix 2023a. 2023 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report for the State Route 125 Interchanges Project.
Prepared by Helix June 2023.
Helix 2023b. 2023 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Survey Report for the State
Route 125 Interchanges Project. Prepared by Helix July 2023.
Page 384 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Area 8
Area 1
Area 2
Area 4
Area 3
Area 5
Area 6
Area 7
Village 8 East Tentative Map Revisions - Biological Review
Village 8 East
SOURCE: AERIAL-ESRI MAPPING SERVICE 2022
Date: 11/28/2023 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1357201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Bio Review\Figure 1_BiologicalReview 20231128.mxd
EIR Property Boundary
Area Previous ly Not Analyz ed EIR Impact LimitsVegetation and Land C over Types
Agric ultureCismontane Alkali Marsh
Coastal Sage Sc rubMaritime Succulent ScrubMixed RiparianMulefat ScrubNon-native GrasslandTamarisk Scrubdisturbed Broom Baccha ris Scrub
disturbed Cismonta ne Alkali Marshdisturbed Coastal Sage Scrubdisturbed Maritime Succule nt Sc rubdisturbed Mulefat ScrubDisturbed LandDeveloped
FIGURE 1
1:8,282
0 700350Feet0200100Meters Page 385 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
AREA 1NNG
AREA 2NNG
AREA 3NNG
AREA 4DEV
Village 8 East
SOURCE: AERIAL-SANGIS 2023;BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 2023; DESIGN-HUNSAKER November 17, 2023
Date: 11/27/2023 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1357201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Bio Review\Figure 1A_Areas not Previously Analyzed.mxd
Areas Not Previous ly Analy zedEIR Property Boundary EIR Impact Limits
1:2,640
0 220110Feet06030Meters
FIGURE 1aAreas Not Previously Analyzed, Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 - Biological Review
Page 386 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
AREA 5NNG
AREA 6DEV
AREA 5dCSS
AREA 7NNG
AREA 7AGR (DUDEK VEG)AREA 7dCSS (DUDEK VEG)
AREA 7DEV (DUDEK VEG)
AREA 8CSS
AREA 5NNG
Village 8 East
SOURCE: AERIAL-SANGIS 2023;BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 2023; DESIGN-HUNSAKER November 17, 2023
Date: 11/27/2023 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1357201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Bio Review\Figure 1B_Areas not Previously Analyzed.mxd
Areas Not Previous ly Analy zedEIR Property Boundary
EIR Impact Limits
1:2,640
0 220110Feet06030Meters
FIGURE 1bAreas Not Previously Analyzed, Areas 5, 6, 7, and 8 - Biological Review
Page 387 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
04-24-2023
646-010-08, 644-070-20 & 644-070-21
TM22-0005
11-14-2023
Page 388 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 389 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 390 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 391 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 392 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
TM22-0005
47945 12/31/23
Alisa S. Vialpando
Hunsaker & Associates San Diego
04/24/2311/14/2023
Page 393 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
09/30/22
04/24/23 Second Submittal05/12/23
11/14/2023 Final SubmittalX
09/14/23 Third Submittal
Page 394 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 395 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
23,824,296
11-14-2023
Page 396 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 397 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 398 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 399 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 400 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 401 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 402 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 403 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 404 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 405 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 406 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 407 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 408 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 409 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 410 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 411 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 412 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 413 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 414 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 415 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 416 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street,north of the Otay River Valley,east of Village 8 West and west of SR-125.This urban village
was originally approved by the Chula Vista City Council in 2014 and subsequently amended in 2020.Current entitlements accommodate a total of 3,276 residen-
tial units,including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting, 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses,an
elementary school site,a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South.Access to the village is provided via the extension of
Main Street and La Media Parkway with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a utility corridor in the southeast portion of Vil-
lage 8 East.Primary access to the community park is via existing Avenida Caprise within Village West. HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC, (Applicant),proposes to
amend the Village 8 East land use plan to reflect current market conditions and housing needs and to ensure the community relates more closely to the adjacent
Village 8 West community and future Village 9 planned east of SR-125.The replanning effort also addresses the redesign of the SR-125 interchanges at Main
Street and La Media Parkway.Village 8 East Proposed Land Use:The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include a Village Core area that would
accommodate a mix of uses including multi-family residential and retail/commercial uses along with an elementary school site and a centrally located neighbor-
hood park. A future multi-modal bridge,planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV),bicycles and pedestrians is also planned in the Village
Core linking Village 8 East and future Village 9.
Page 417 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 418 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 419 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 420 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 421 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 422 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
It's important to note that a project can be classified as HMP exempt without directly
discharging into an ESA. Conversely, a project might directly discharge to an ESA but not qualify
as HMP exempt. Let me elaborate further:
The criteria for direct discharge in the context of HMP exemption involve the outlet pipe invert
being situated below the 100-year Water Surface Elevation (WSE). This is a specific technical
requirement for HMP exemption.
On the other hand, the definition of direct discharge in relation to an ESA refers to the pipe's
discharge representing an isolated flow originating solely from our project to the ESA, without
intermingling with flows from adjacent lands. This is aimed at ensuring the integrity of the
discharge's contribution to the ESA's ecosystem.
It's important to highlight that our project's discharge point experiences the mixing of basin
outflows with bypass flows prior to reaching the ESA. As a result, while the project still satisfies
the criteria for HMP exemption, its discharge is not considered "direct" into the ESA due to the
flow commingling with others before entering the ESA.
Page 423 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 424 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Otay Ranch, Village 8 East
Units have not yet been calculated.
Page 425 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Otay Ranch, Village 8 East
Page 426 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 427 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name.: _______________________________________________________
Otay Ranch, Village 8 East
Page 428 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name/Address/N ______________________________________________
Per Form I-7, Harvest and Use deemed to be infeasible.
Page 429 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 430 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
The overall site is characterized by 3 DMAs and 3 areas that are considered Self
Mitigating Areas according to Section 5.2.1.
The following steps were obtained as presented in Section 5.1 on the BMP Design Manual.
Step 1
1a. DMAs were delineated, and broken down per surface cover. Self mitigating areas were identified.
Weighted runoff factor was calculated for each DMA based on area break down.
1b. DCV for all other DMAs were calculated using worksheet B.2-1 which determines water quality vol-
ume that needs to be biofiltrated (1.5 DCV) for all DMAs
Step 2
2a. Harvest and use is not used and unfeasible according to Form I-7.
Step 3
3a. Using Form I-8 to conduct a preliminary feasibility screening determined that no infiltration to be
feasible.
3b. Volume based Proprietary Biofiltration BMPs chosen for DMA1, and flow based Proprietary
Biofiltration BMPs chosen for DMA3, Nutrient sensitive media biofiltration basin has been chosen for
DMA2 .
3c. Worksheets B.5-1 was used to size the biofiltration Bf-2-2.
3d. Worksheeet B.6-1 was used to calculate the required treatment flow rates and size the flow based
proprietary biofiltration BMP BF-3-3. Required Minimum retention was calculated and will be provided
via site design BMPs for DMA 1 and DMA 3
Step 4-4a. Proposed BMPs fit minimum footprint required. Project meets pollutant control standards.
Page 431 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Detention basin for DCV Storage upstream of volume based MWS units
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Basin 1
Alisa S. Vialpando
Hunsaker & Associates-San Diego, Inc.
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Homeowners fees to the HOA for Otay
Ranch -Village 8 East
Page 432 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Basin 1
The proposed basin is a standard graded DCV Storage, flow control, and detention
basin that is 6 feet deep with a bottom area of 90,000 sf. The basin will have installed
a 4'x3' open top concrete outlet structure (riser) with a rim height of 4.96' for overflow.
The water quality design capture volume will be discharged gradually through WQ
flow control orifices (7-6" diameter) at invert elevation of 0 which are to control the
flows downstream towards the MWS units.
The storage volume was sized using worksheet B-2.1 to store the total 1.5 DCV which
was calculated to be 476,562 ft^3. Calculations are shown in this report.
This volume was used to size the proposed MWS units as shown previously.
Page 433 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
BF-2 Nutrient sensitive media
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
BF-2-2
Alisa S. Vialpando
Hunsaker & Associates-San Diego, Inc.
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Homeowners fees to the HOA for Otay
Ranch -Village 8 East
Page 434 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
BF-2-2
BF-2-2 is to be designed as a biofiltration basin, working as a pollution control
BMP.
Page 435 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
BF-3 Proprietary Biofiltration
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
BF-3-1
Alisa S. Vialpando
Hunsaker & Associates-San Diego, Inc.
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Homeowners fees to the HOA for Otay
Ranch -Village 8 East
Page 436 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
BF-3-1
The required total DCV from worksheet B.2-1 is 317,708 ft^3. The design cubic feet
corresponds to a 1.5 DCV of 476,562 ft^3.
The proposed BF-3-1 which consists of Twenty (20) - MWS L-8-24. This is based off
of volume based sizing to treat 1.5 DCV and draw-down within the 36-Hour Period.
The total 1.5 DCV was provided to Contech and per their consultation the size and
number of Modular Wetland Units were calculated. These details are shown in the
SWQMP Report.
Page 437 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch, Village 8 East
Alisa S. Vialpando
Hunsaker & Associates-San Diego
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
(858)558-4500
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Homeowners fees to the HOA for Otay
Ranch -Village 8 East
BF-3 Proprietary Biofiltration
BF-3-3
Page 438 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch, Village 8 East
For DMA-3 shown on the DMA map, the section Northeast of the project will need to
be treated with a 20 ft long by 8 ft wide Filterra unit with .648 cfs treatment capacity
0.593 cfs required flow was calculated using B-6-1 worksheet
For DMA-3 shown on the DMA map, the Northeast section of the project will need to
be treated with 2-Filterra Units (14 ft long by 8 ft wide). Each unit has a treatment ca-
pacity (per Table shown in SWQMP) of 0.4537 cfs.
2 Units x 0.4537 cfs = 0.9074 cfs
Final Design flow rate to be treated equates to 0.857 cfs per the Worksheet attached
in SWQMP.
BF-3-3
Page 439 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
BF-3 Proprietary Biofiltration
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
BF-3-4
Alisa S. Vialpando
Hunsaker & Associates-San Diego,
Inc.
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
HOA for Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Homeowners fees to the HOA for Otay
Ranch -Village 8 East
Page 440 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
BF-3-4
The required total DCV from worksheet B.2-1 is 828 ft^3. The design cubic feet cor-
responds to a 1.5 DCV of 1242 ft^3.
The proposed BF-3-4 consists of one flow based MWS L-8-8. This is based off of
flow based sizing to treat 1.5 DCV. The total 1.5 DCV was provided to Contech and
per their consultation the size of the Modular Wetland Unit was provided, in lieu of
this information this report also provides another way of calculating the flow based
MWS unit with the use of a table provided through Contech.
In line with prevailing Water Quality standards, as mentioned above we are propos-
ing the installation of a BF-3-4 flow-based Modular Wetlands System (MWS)
unit on Magadela Avenue.
The specifics presented on PDF page 128-131 regarding the BF-3-4 unit are derived
from analyses conducted on the region outlined as DMA 4A, identifying the target
treatment area. Initially, we determined the Design Capture Volume (DCV) essential
to dictate the necessary flow rate to be managed by the BMP unit.
Post determination, leveraging the data from the Storm Water Equivalency Calcula-
tion outlined on page 130 of the PDF, we refined our strategy to address the treat-
ment requirements in a different location (DMA 4B), as mentioned in Magadela Av-
enue. This adjustment became imperative owing to the challenges posed by DMA
4A's location in facilitating efficient treatment.
To ensure compliance, we made calculations to establish the exact acreage neces-
sary on Magadela Avenue for treating the designated flow rate, the details of which
are documented in the accompanying sheet.
Page 441 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 442 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 443 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 444 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1A
Page 445 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 446 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
STANDARD DETAIL
STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM
MWS-L-8-24-6'-0"-V-HC
FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO
www.ContechES.com/IP
SITE SPECIFIC DATA
PLAN VIEW
ELEVATION VIEW
RIGHT END VIEW
LEFT END VIEW
GENERAL NOTES
INSTALLATION NOTES
Page 447 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 448 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST
DMA CALCULATIONS
Imp. RF
Pervious
RF % Imp AREA
Fraction
of Total Imp Area
Pervious
Area
Summation
RF x A
(ac.)(ac.)(ac.)
BASIN 0.90 0.10 0 2.09 0.1%0.000 2.091 0.21
PARK 0.90 0.10 20 30.43 4.7%6.086 24.344 7.91
SCHOOL 0.90 0.10 80 9.96 4.4%7.972 1.993 7.37
ROAD 0.90 0.10 90 37.75 18.4%33.974 3.775 30.95
MIXED USE 0.90 0.10 85 47.77 22.1%40.601 7.165 37.26
SLOPES/LANDSCAPE 0.90 0.30 0 23.43 4.2%0.000 23.431 7.03
MULTIFAMILY 0.90 0.10 75 109.48 45.5%82.113 27.371 76.64
COMMUNITY PURPOSE 0.90 0.10 85 1.20 0.6%1.024 0.181 0.94
0.90 0.3 85 0.0%0.000 0.000 0.00
262.12 100.0%171.769 90.350 168.31
Weighted C =0.64
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Area DMA 1
9/14/2023 R:\0920\Hyd\TM\SWQMP\Calcs\Appendix B.5 Biofiltration BMP Sizing Worksheets
Page 449 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 450 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 451 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST
DMA CALCULATIONS
Imp. RF
Pervious
RF % Imp AREA
Fraction
of Total Imp Area
Pervious
Area
Summation
RF x A
(ac.)(ac.)(ac.)
SINGLE-FAMILY (SF)0.90 0.10 75 0.78 82.6%0.582 0.194 0.54
ROAD 0.90 0.10 90 0.14 17.4%0.126 0.014 0.11
0.92 100.0%0.708 0.208 0.66
Weighted C =0.72
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Area DMA 4A
9/13/2023 R:\0920\Hyd\TM\SWQMP\Calcs\Appendix B.5 Biofiltration BMP Sizing Worksheets
Runoff factors & Impervious Areas used for Single Family and Road were obtained from
Hale Engineering SWQMP Otay Ranch Village 8 West.
Page 452 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 453 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
36 hr. toilet use per resident = 9.3 gal/resident x 2.0 residents per unit x 2101
units x 1.5 days = 58,617.9 cf
390 gals/ac x 291.87 ac = 113,829 gals = 15,217.78 cf
73,835.68 cf
Page 454 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 455 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
DMA 1, DMA 2, DMA 3, DMA 4A & 4B Planning
Page 456 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Per the Geotechnical Report attached in this document.
"Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for
prolonged periods of time."
"Infiltration areas are considered infeasible due to poor percolation and lateral
migration characteristics."
Please refer to the geotechnical report Dated September 30, 2022 by Geocon
Incorporated for additional information.
Page 457 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Page 458 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Per the Geotechnical Report attached in this document.
"Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for
prolonged periods of time."
"Infiltration areas are considered infeasible due to poor percolation and lateral
migration characteristics."
Please refer to the geotechnical report Dated September 30, 2022 by Geocon
Incorporated for additional information.
Page 459 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
DMA 1, DMA 2, DMA 3, DMA 4A & 4B Planning
Per the Geotechnical Report attached in this document.
"Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for
prolonged periods of time."
"Infiltration areas are considered infeasible due to poor percolation and lateral
migration characteristics."
Please refer to the geotechnical report Dated September 30, 2022 by Geocon
Incorporated for additional information.
Page 460 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Page 461 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Page 462 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Per the Geotechnical Report attached in this document.
"Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for
prolonged periods of time."
"Infiltration areas are considered infeasible due to poor percolation and lateral
migration characteristics."
Please refer to the geotechnical report Dated September 30, 2022 by Geocon
Incorporated for additional information.
Otay Ranch - Village 8 East
Page 463 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY
CONDITION LETTER
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
MAY 5, 2023
PROJECT NO. G1006-52-05
Page 464 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project No. G1006-52-05
May 5, 2023
Homefed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jeff O’Connor
Subject: INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY CONDITION LETTER
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
References: 1. Update Geotechnical Report, Otay Ranch Village 8 East, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, revised March 27, 2023 (Project No. G1006-52-05).
2. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Otay Ranch Village 8 East, Borrow and Disposal Sites, prepared by Geocon Inc., dated September 9, 2022 (Project No. G1006-52-04).
3. Proposed DMA Map – Village 8 East, City of Chula Vista, California, prepared by Hunsaker and Associates San Diego, Inc., undated, received April 17, 2023.
Dear Mr. O’Connor:
In accordance with the request of Mr. Brian Lessa with Hunsaker and Associates, San Diego
Inc., we prepared this letter to describe the existing geotechnical conditions for the purposes of storm
water management for the subject property. We reviewed the referenced update geotechnical report to
evaluate the current geologic conditions on the property in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Best
Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual, August 2021.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is located south of future Main Street (currently Rock Mountain Road) and
Olympian High School, west of State Route 125, north of the Otay River drainage and Wiley Road
access easement, and east of undeveloped land in the southeastern portion of Chula Vista, California.
The property is approximately 575 gross acres with about 265 gross acres planned for open space
resulting in the development of about 310 acres. The site consists of a series of south trending ridges
and canyons draining to the south into Otay River. Site elevations range from approximately 180 feet
above mean sea level (MSL) at the southwest corner of the Community Park site adjacent to the Otay
River drainage to approximately 610 feet MSL at the northeast corner of the site. Cut and fill slopes
exist on the northern portion of the site created during the previous grading of Main Street, Rock
Page 465 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 2 - May 5, 2023
Mountain Road, and Santa Luna Street. Previous grading for Main Street and Olympian High School
included the construction of canyon subdrains and a buttress fill along the northern boundary of the site.
Most recent grading of the consisted of placement of compacted fill from export material from Village
8 East within the disposal site. Additionally, a borrow site was utilized for fill placement in Village 8
West. A Chula Vista sewer line easement and an SDG&E overhead transmission line are located on the
southern portion of the project within the un-improved Wiley Road. Wiley Road provides access to the
Vulcan material plant to the west and further east within the Otay River Valley The City of San Diego’s,
Otay 2nd 40-inch and Otay 3rd 54-inch-inch waterlines (constructed in the late 1920s by cut and cover
techniques) cross the site from east to west in the middle portion of the project. We understand the invert
elevations of the pipeline are 10 to 15 below the existing grades based on observation of portion of mass
grading on Village 8 West. We understand the existing waterlines will be removed or abandoned from
the eastern and western points of connection, respectively. Portions of the existing 54-inch pipeline are
partially exposed above ground as it crosses several tributary drainages. Site vegetation consists of
sparse native coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats disturbed by farming. Some riparian vegetation
occurs on the north side of the Otay River drainage area. The Existing Site Map shows the current site
conditions on the subject property. The Project Location Map shows the areas surrounding the Village 8
West development area.
Project Location Map
We understand the development will generally occur from the north to south property lines leaving local
areas designated as open space and preserve for environmental purposes (MSCP). The site will
Page 466 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 3 - May 5, 2023
accommodate multi-family residential (108.8), village core (47.7 acres), park sites (73.2 acres), school
site (11.3 acres), community purpose facilities (2.0 acres), parks (73.2 acres, respectively), future
development lots (9.3 acres), circulation roadways (31.8 acres), active recreation (22.6 acres), and open
space (253.6 acres of preserve land, and basins (31.6 acres). A large community park is proposed on the
southern portion of the property adjacent to the Otay River drainage channel. In addition, water quality
basins will be constructed on the southeast and southwest portion of the site to the south of the developed
area and along the north side of the Otay River drainage. Mass grading of the site will consist of
maximum cuts and fills of approximately 75 feet with cut and fill slopes having a maximum height of
45 and 50 feet, respectively, and a maximum slope inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Several
reinforced earth retaining walls are proposed on the site with maximum heights on the order of 25 feet.
The proposed grading will require approximately 4.86 million cubic yards of excavation and fill.
Based on review of the referenced Drainage Management Area (DMA), the proposed site consists of three,
DMA areas 1 through 3. DMA area 1 is located along the northern property line along future Main Street,
the existing roadways preclude areas of infiltration. Planned DMA areas 2 and 3 are located within the
southwestern and southeastern margins of the site, respectively. Due to the planned fill thickness and
planned slopes greater than 5 feet precludes areas of infiltration within DMA areas 2 and 3, respectively,
preclude areas of infiltration. The proposed Drainage Management Area (DMA) plan presents the proposed
project are presented on Figure 1.
The locations and descriptions of the site and proposed development are based on the referenced site
plan and our understanding of project development. If project details vary significantly from those
described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to evaluate the necessity for review and
revision of this report.
PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT
In general, a portion of Otay Ranch Village 8 East has been partially grading during mass grading
operations for Village 8 West. The disposal and borrow areas within Village 8 West consisted of
remedial grading of surficial soil and placing compacted fill resulting in a total maximum thickness
ranging up to approximately 40 feet. The surficial soil (topsoil) and upper weathered formational
materials were excavated to expose competent Otay Formation. The topsoil and portions of the
weathered Otay Formation were stockpiled for environmental purposes highlighted blue and labeled
environmental stockpile. Prior to fill placement, toe drains were installed and canyon subdrains were
placed within the former canyon drainages. The grading contractor generated additional fill material
from within the Otay Formation and placed within the lower temporary slope zone margins subsequent
to the installation of the toe drains. Excavation depths ranged from 5 feet within the former mesa areas
and up to 10 feet within the flanks of the central canyon drainage.
Page 467 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 4 - May 5, 2023
The middle member of the Otay Formation (informally named the “gritstone” unit) is expected to be
predominately exposed at the surface on the central and southern portion of the site. Subsequent to mass
grading, dense to very dense, compacted fill and formational materials will be exposed at grade across the
site. The formational materials are typically cemented and very difficult excavation should be expected.
Localized cemented or very hard zones will be encountered within the Otay Formation that will require
very heavy effort to excavate with oversize chunks generated. Based on observations during mass grading,
we expect that at a minimum a D9 or D10 bulldozer would be required to perform excavations within the
cemented portions of the “gritstone member” of the Otay Formation. Additionally, planned 5-foot
undercuts within bentonitic claystone are planned within the resulting fill thickness of greater than feet.
STORM WATER INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY
The following information provided responses to discussions requested from Section C.1.1 of the 2021
City of City of Chula Vista Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual, August 2021.
The Phase of the Project In which the geotechnical engineer first analyzed the site for infiltration
feasibility:
The current submittal is in the design phase.
Results of previous geotechnical analyses conducted in the project area, if any.
During our field investigation, disposal and borrow site grading operations, we encountered four
surficial deposits (consisting of previously placed fill, undocumented fill, topsoil, and alluvium)
and two formational units (consisting of Pleistocene age Terrace Deposits and Tertiary-age Otay
Formation). We subdivided the Otay Formation into the upper sandstone/siltstone/claystone
member (To) and an underlying middle gritstone member (Tog). The gritstone member is
typically well cemented, very difficult excavation should be expected. Localized cemented or very
hard zones will be encountered within the Otay Formation that will require very heavy effort to
excavate with oversize chunks generated. Based on observations during mass grading within the
gritstone member, we expect that at a minimum a D9 or D10 bulldozer would be required to
perform excavations within the cemented portions of the “gritstone member” of the Otay
Formation. We did not encounter the lower basal conglomerate member of the Otay Formation
on site. Tertiary-age Otay Formation is exposed across the site or located below the surficial
soil and Terrace Deposits. The upper member of this unit (To) consists of interbeds of dense to
very dense, slightly cemented, silty to clayey sandstone and hard, siltstone and claystone layers.
In addition, several layers of bentonitic claystone (Tob) with a maximum thickness of
approximately 1 foot thick are present within this unit on the northern and middle portions of
the site that can create slope instability. Some of the layers are locally discontinuous and range
in elevations as high as 573 feet MSL to as low as 416 feet MSL. Additionally, some minor
discontinuous layers of bentonitic claystone are also present with a thickness of 1 to 3 inches.
The Tertiary-age (upper Oligocene) Otay Formation underlies the site on canyon slopes or
underlying the younger geologic formations and surficial soil at depth. The Otay Formation
consists of dense, silty, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone, clayey and sandy siltstone, and silty
claystone with continuous and discontinuous interbeds of highly expansive bentonitic claystone.
The coarse-grained portions of the Otay Formation typically possess a “very low” to “low”
expansion potential (expansion index of 50 or less) and adequate shear strength. The fine-
Page 468 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 5 - May 5, 2023
grained siltstone and claystone portions of the formation can exhibit a “medium” to “very high”
expansion potential (expansion index greater than 50). With the exception of the bentonitic
claystone, the Otay Formation is suitable for the support of compacted fill and structural loads.
The formational materials ae fine-grained in nature and are hard/cemented.
Pleistocene-age Terrace Deposits are deposited as shallow marine and non-marine near shore
soil located on the southern portion of the site and the northern flank of the Otay River canyon
drainage. We expect this unit may be in excess of 50 feet thick. The Terrace Deposits are
generally dense to very dense, reddish brown, silty to clayey sandstone with portions of the unit
containing intermittent layers of cobbles and boulders up to about 2 feet in diameter. The
Terrace Deposits are suitable for the support of proposed fill and structural loads; however,
select grading operations will be required to properly place the cobble and boulders where
encountered.
Alluvium exists within the canyon drainages located in the central portion of the project. The
alluvium within the canyon drainages is loose to medium dense, can become saturated and
difficult to excavate during the rainy season. We estimate the thickness of the alluvium to range
up to approximately 7 feet within the tributary canyons and 11 feet within the Otay River
Drainage on the south side of the site. Due to the relatively unconsolidated nature of these
deposits, remedial grading will be necessary in areas to receive proposed fill or structures and
alluvium will not be present in the final graded condition.
The coarse-grained units of the formational units possess a “low” to “medium” expansion
potential (expansion index of 21 to 90). The fine-grained bentonitic claystone of the Otay
Formation possesses a “high” to “very high” expansive potential (expansion index greater than
90). Expansion would occur on the existing soil if infiltration we to be allowed on the property.
Planned development and mass grading of Otay Ranch Village 8 East area has not been
completed and buttresses will need to be constructed due to the presence of bentonitic claystone
layers (Tob). Buttress designs have assumed a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) frontcut and backcut
extending down to intercept the bentonite. Infiltration should not occur because we will be
installing buttresses to help increase the factor of safety of the adjacent slope for the planned
development. Buttress and fill slopes are presented on Figure 1.
The development status of the site prior to the project application.
The central area has been used as a fil placement site from rock materials generated from the
Otay Ranch Village 8 West property. The remaining areas have not been graded and the
topography is in a generally natural condition. Additional mass grading will be required to
achieve the current design grade and construct planned BMPs.
The history of design discussion for the project footprint, resulting the final design determination.
Based on the discussion herein, infiltrating storm water devices will not be allowed on the
property due to the fill thicknesses, the “expansive” characteristics of the soil and the planned
buttress/graded fill slope. The storm water devices are planned to be lined to prevent infiltration
and distress from occurring on the subject and adjacent properties.
Page 469 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 6 - May 5, 2023
Full/partial infiltration BMP standard setbacks to underground utilities, structures, retaining
walls, fill slopes, and natural slopes applicable to the DMA that prevent full/partial infiltration.
Existing utilities are located within the adjacent public right-of-way/roadways on the site. Full
or partial infiltration should not be allowed in the areas of the utilities to help prevent potential
damage/distress to improvements. Mitigation measures to prevent water from infiltrating the
utilities consist of setbacks, installing cutoff walls around the utilities and installing subdrains
and/or installing liners. The horizontal and vertical setbacks for infiltration devices should be a
minimum of 10 feet and a 1:1 plane of 1 foot below the closest edge of the deepest adjacent
utility, respectively.
Due to the presence of bentonite layers in the Otay Formation, some buttresses will be required.
Water should not be allowed in buttress areas to help reduce the potential for slope instability
and movement. In addition, infiltration should not occur adjacent to proposed slopes to help
prevent seepage from occurring and surficial instability.
Physical impairments (i.e., fire road egress, public safety considerations, etc.) that prevent
full/partial infiltration.
There are existing improvements and structures located adjacent to the northern property
margin. The storm drains and water lines within the site would require setbacks for infiltration
if it were allowed. Infiltration near these structures and improvements should not be allowed.
In addition, allowing infiltration would saturate the underlying fill and result decrease of the
factor of safety for the adjacent slope. The slope is not designed as a saturated condition and the
slope would possess an increased risk of movement if infiltration were to occur.
Consideration of site design alternative to achieve partial/full infiltration within the DMA.
Based on the existing fill materials, expansion index and adjacent slopes, full and partial
infiltration should not be allowed on the property. Other options of infiltration would be deep
dry wells. However, the depth of the dry wells would need to extended relatively deep to not
affect the adjacent southern drainage areas. The existing materials are fine-grained where the
infiltration rates would be very slow. Therefore, dry wells are not an efficient design potential
in this area.
The extent site design BMPs requirements were included in the overall design.
BMPs are being incorporated into the site design for storm water management. The planned
storm water management devices should be properly lined to prevent water infiltration.
Conclusion or recommendation from the geotechnical engineer regarding the DMA’s infiltration
condition.
Infiltration should be considered infeasible and proposed storm water management devices
should be lined due to the fill soil with thicknesses greater than 5 feet, shallow hard and
dense/cemented Otay Formation and expansive soils, planned undercuts of expansive soils, the
location of the descending slopes, and the requirements for buttresses on the descending slopes.
Additional geotechnical investigation is not required due to our previous experience with the
geologic conditions and the infiltration characteristics of the existing soil encountered during
previous mass-grading operations and previous geotechnical investigations within the geologic
units. In addition, other areas of potential infiltration do not exist on the property. We opine the
existing soil cannot be mitigated to allow infiltration on the property. Based on the discussion
Page 470 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Geocon Project No. G1006-52-05 - 7 - May 5, 2023
herein, we opine full and partial infiltration is considered infeasible at the site. We recommend
storm water management BMPs be designed so that infiltration does not occur. Figures 1,
presents the DMA Exhibit Map overlayed with our geologic map presenting the existing slope
area, fill slope areas, shallow Otay Formation and expansive soils, and expected existing fill
greater than 5 feet.
An Exhibit for all applicable DMA’s that clearly labels:
Proposed development areas and development type.
All applicable features and setbacks that prevent partial or full infiltration, including
underground utilities, structures, retaining walls, fill slopes, natural slopes, and
existing fill materials greater than 5 feet.
Potential locations for structural BMPs.
Areas where full/partial infiltration BMPs cannot be proposed.
The DMA Exhibit Map, Figure 1, presents the development plan as a base map. The figure
shows the development area and improvements, and the area on the site infeasible to infiltration
due to fill thickness greater than 5 feet, shallow hard and dense/cemented Otay Formation and
expansive soils, and slope stabilization/planned sloping conditions. We opine the entire project
site is infeasible for infiltration.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Michael C. Ertwine
CEG 2659
Shawn Foy Weedon
GE 2714
SFW:MCE:am
(e-mail) Addressee
Page 471 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
·····
·
·
···
·
···
Qudf
Qal
Qa
l
Qal
Qal
Qal/
Qudf/
Qt
Qpf To
SECONDARY
DISPOSAL
SITEEnvironmental
Stockpile
Qudf
Qudf
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
Tog
To
To
To
To
Qt
Environmental
Stockpile
Qudf
Environmental
Stockpile
Qudf
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
Qt Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
Qt
To
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/To
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
To
To
(Stockpile)
Qudf
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
Qcf/
Qcf/
Qcf/
Qal/
Qcf/
Qcf/
Qal/
FALSE
SOIL
ROCK
SLOPE
FALSE
SOIL
ROCK
SLOPE
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
524
WILEY R
O
A
D
Qal/
WILEY ROAD
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
Qal/
Qt
To
To
To
Environmental
Stockpile
Qudf Environmental
Stockpile
Qudf
TEMPORARY STUB FOR
FUTURE CONNECTION
OF SUBDRAINS
TEMPORARY STUB FOR
FUTURE CONNECTION
EXTEND DRAINS OFF-SITE
TO ALLOW DRAINAGE WITH
HEADWALL OUTLET
Tog
Tog
Tog
Tog
Tog
To
To
To
Tog
Tog
Qal
NAP
To
Qpf
NAP
NAP
NAP
Qpf
Qpf
······
·····
·
Qt
Qpf
Qpf
···
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
Tog
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
TogQal
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT
LIMITS
EXTEND DRAINS OFF-SITE
TO ALLOW DRAINAGE WITH
HEADWALL OUTLETEXTEND DRAINS OFF-SITE
TO ALLOW DRAINAGE WITH
HEADWALL OUTLET
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
SHEET OF
Plotted:05/05/2023 11:17AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G1006-52-05 (Village 8 East)\SHEETS\G1006-52-05 DMA Exhibit.dwg
DMA EXHIBIT MAP - OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
200'05 - 04 - 2023
G1006 - 52 - 05
1 1 1 *LANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO CALI*ORNIA -
PHONE 88 8- - *AX 88 8-
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
........COMPACTED FILL
........UNDOCUMENTED FILL
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
........ALLUVIUM
....TERRACE DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........OTAY FORMATION (Gritstone) (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Dotted Where Buried, Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 6-INCH SOIL-ROCK FILL SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 8-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED 6-INCH CANYON SUBDRAIN
........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING 8-INCH SUBDRAIN
(Geotechnics, 2005)
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN (In Feet, MSL)
........PROPOSED FILL GREATER THAN 5 FEET
........PROPOSED BUTTRESS/FILL SLOPES
........SHALLOW DENSE OTAY FORMATION AND EXPANSIVE SOILS
GEOCON LEGEND
Qal
To
?
Qudf
Qcf
350
Tog
Qpf
Qt
Page 472 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 473 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST
DMA CALCULATIONS
Imp. RF
Pervious
RF % Imp AREA
Fraction
of Total Imp Area
Pervious
Area
Summation
RF x A
(ac.)(ac.)(ac.)
BASIN 0.90 0.10 0 2.09 0.1%0.000 2.091 0.21
PARK 0.90 0.10 20 30.43 4.7%6.086 24.344 7.91
SCHOOL 0.90 0.10 80 9.96 4.4%7.972 1.993 7.37
ROAD 0.90 0.10 90 37.75 18.4%33.974 3.775 30.95
MIXED USE 0.90 0.10 85 47.77 22.1%40.601 7.165 37.26
SLOPES/LANDSCAPE 0.90 0.30 0 23.43 4.2%0.000 23.431 7.03
MULTIFAMILY 0.90 0.10 75 109.48 45.5%82.113 27.371 76.64
COMMUNITY PURPOSE 0.90 0.10 85 1.20 0.6%1.024 0.181 0.94
0.90 0.3 85 0.0%0.000 0.000 0.00
262.12 100.0%171.769 90.350 168.31
Weighted C =0.64
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Area DMA 1
9/14/2023 R:\0920\Hyd\TM\SWQMP\Calcs\Appendix B.5 Biofiltration BMP Sizing Worksheets
Page 474 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 475 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 476 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST
DMA CALCULATIONS
Imp. RF
Pervious
RF % Imp AREA
Fraction
of Total Imp Area
Pervious
Area
Summation
RF x A
(ac.)(ac.)(ac.)
SINGLE-FAMILY (SF)0.90 0.10 75 0.78 82.6%0.582 0.194 0.54
ROAD 0.90 0.10 90 0.14 17.4%0.126 0.014 0.11
0.92 100.0%0.708 0.208 0.66
Weighted C =0.72
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Area DMA 4A
9/13/2023 R:\0920\Hyd\TM\SWQMP\Calcs\Appendix B.5 Biofiltration BMP Sizing Worksheets
Runoff factors & Impervious Areas used for Single Family and Road were obtained from
Hale Engineering SWQMP Otay Ranch Village 8 West.
Page 477 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Location
Page 478 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST
DCV CALCULATION
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure
B.1-1 d=0.52 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)A=262.12 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using
Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1)C=0.64 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction TCV=0.00 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction RCV=0.00 cubic-feet
6 Calculate DCV= (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV=317,708 cubic-feet
1.5DCV=476,562 cubic-feet
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure
B.1-1 d=0.52 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)A=12.83 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using
Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1)C=0.28 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction TCV=0.00 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction RCV=0.00 cubic-feet
6 Calculate DCV= (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV=6,737 cubic-feet
1.5DCV=10,106 cubic-feet
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure
B.1-1 d=0.52 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)A=3.78 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using
Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1)C=0.76 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction TCV=0.00 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction RCV=0.00 cubic-feet
6 Calculate DCV= (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV=5,390 cubic-feet
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure
B.1-1 d=0.52 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)A=0.92 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using
Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1)C=0.72 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction TCV=0.00 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction RCV=0.00 cubic-feet
6 Calculate DCV= (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV=1,242 cubic-feet
DMA 1: Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
DMA 2: Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
DMA 3: Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
DMA 4: Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
9/13/2023 R:\0920\Hyd\TM\SWQMP\Calcs\Appendix B.5 Biofiltration BMP Sizing WorksheetsPage 479 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name
BMP ID
1 11417900 sq. ft.
2 0.64
3 0.52 inches
4 317708 cu. ft.
5 0 in/hr.
6 2
7 0 in/hr.
10 7307 cu. ft.
Factor of safety
Area draining to the BMP
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
BF-3-1
Sizing Method for Volume Retention
Criteria Worksheet B.5-2
Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2)
85th percentile 24-hour rainfall depth
Design capture volume [Line 1 x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)]
Volume Retention Requirement
Measured infiltration rate in the DMA
Note:
When mapped hydrologic soil groups are used enter 0.10 for NRCS Type D soils
and for NRCS Type C soils enter 0.30
When in no infiltration condition and the actual measured infiltration rate is
unknown enter 0.0 if there are geotechnical and/or groundwater hazards identified
in Appendix C or enter 0.05
When Line 8 > 8% =
0.0000013 x Line 83 - 0.000057 x Line 82 + 0.0086 x Line 8 - 0.014
When Line 8 ≤ 8% = 0.023
Target volume retention [Line 9 x Line 4]
Reliable infiltration rate, for biofiltration BMP sizing [Line 5 / Line 6]
8
Average annual volume reduction target (Figure B.5-2)
3.5
9
Fraction of DCV to be retained (Figure B.5-3)
0.023
%When Line 7 > 0.01 in/hr. = Minimum (40, 166.9 x Line 7 +6.62)
When Line 7 ≤ 0.01 in/hr. = 3.5%
Page 480 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name
BMP ID
1 sq. ft.
2
3 sq. ft.
4 sq. ft.
5 sq. ft.
Identification 1 4 5
6
7
10 sq. ft.
11 sq. ft.
12
13
14 cu. ft.
15 cu. ft.
Identification
1 cu. ft.
2 cu. ft.
3 cu. ft.
4 cu. ft.
5 cu. ft.
cu. ft.
17
Effective impervious area draining to the BMP [Line 1 x Line 2]7331719
Required area for Evapotranspiration [Line 3 x 0.03]219952
Biofiltration BMP Footprint 1776
Is Line 16 ≥ Line 15?Implement Additional Site Design BMPs
0If (Line 8 >1.5, Line 6, Line 7/1.5]
Sum of Landscape area [sum of Line 9 Id’s 1 to 5]0
Provided footprint for evapotranspiration [Line 5 + Line 10]1776
Volume Retention Performance Standard
Is Line 11 ≥Line 4?No, Proceed to Line 13
Site Design Type Credit
Site Design BMP
Fraction of the performance standard met through the BMP footprint
and/or landscaping [Line 11/Line 4]0.01
Area draining to the biofiltration BMP 11417900
Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2)0.64
Volume Retention for No Infiltration Condition Worksheet B.5-6
Landscape Area (must be identified on DS-3247)
2 3
Landscape area that meet the requirements
in SD-B and SD-F Fact Sheet (sq. ft.)
Impervious area draining to the landscape
area (sq. ft.)
8 Impervious to Pervious Area ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00
7234.206742
Target Volume Retention [Line 10 from Worksheet B.5.2]7307
Volume retention required from other site design BMPs
[(1-Line 13) x Line 14]
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
BF-3-1
0.00 0.00
9 Effective Credit Area 0 0 0
[Line 7/Line 6]
0
16
Sum of volume retention benefits from other site design BMPs (e.g.
trees; rain barrels etc.). [sum of Line 16 Credits for Id’s 1 to 5]
Provide documentation of how the site design credit is calculated in
the PDP SWQMP.
0
The volume retention credits will be provided in Village 8 East Final Engineering
SWQMP via other means of retention credits and San Diego BMPs such as disper-
sion areas SD-B & SD-F, these will incorporated in the FE SWQMP.
BMP footprint was obtained by 20 MWS units 8'x'24'.
wetland perimeter=88.80 square feet, 88.80 sf x 20 units = 1,776 square feet.Page 481 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 482 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
96
Page 483 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 484 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 485 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 486 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 487 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 488 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 489 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 490 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 491 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 492 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 493 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 494 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 495 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 496 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 497 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 498 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 499 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 500 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 501 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 502 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 503 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 504 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
The BMP achieves 92% Average Annual Percent Capture of 1.5DCV @ 36hrs of Drawdown time.
Page 505 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
4.96
depth area area (ac)elevation volume (cf)
volume
(acft)
0.0 90000 0.0000 229.5 0 0.00
0.1 90250 2.0718 229.6 9,012 0.21
0.2 90499 2.0776 229.7 18,050 0.41
0.3 90749 2.0833 229.8 27,112 0.62
0.4 90998 2.0890 229.9 36,200 0.83
0.5 91248 2.0948 230.0 45,312 1.04
0.6 91498 2.1005 230.1 54,449 1.25
0.7 91747 2.1062 230.2 63,612 1.46
0.8 91997 2.1120 230.3 72,799 1.67
0.9 92246 2.1177 230.4 82,011 1.88
1.0 92496 2.1234 230.5 91,248 2.09
1.1 92746 2.1291 230.6 100,510 2.31
1.2 92995 2.1349 230.7 109,797 2.52
1.3 93245 2.1406 230.8 119,109 2.73
1.4 93494 2.1463 230.9 128,446 2.95
1.5 93744 2.1521 231.0 137,808 3.16
1.6 93994 2.1578 231.1 147,195 3.38
1.7 94243 2.1635 231.2 156,607 3.60
1.8 94493 2.1693 231.3 166,044 3.81
1.9 94742 2.1750 231.4 175,505 4.03
2.0 94992 2.1807 231.5 184,992 4.25
2.1 95242 2.1864 231.6 194,504 4.47
2.2 95491 2.1922 231.7 204,040 4.68
2.3 95741 2.1979 231.8 213,602 4.90
2.4 95990 2.2036 231.9 223,188 5.12
2.5 96240 2.2094 232.0 232,800 5.34
2.6 96490 2.2151 232.1 242,436 5.57
2.7 96739 2.2208 232.2 252,098 5.79
2.8 96989 2.2266 232.3 261,784 6.01
2.9 97238 2.2323 232.4 271,496 6.23
3.0 97488 2.2380 232.5 281,232 6.46
3.1 97738 2.2437 232.6 290,993 6.68
3.2 97987 2.2495 232.7 300,780 6.90
3.3 98237 2.2552 232.8 310,591 7.13
3.4 98486 2.2609 232.9 320,427 7.36
3.5 98736 2.2667 233.0 330,288 7.58
3.6 98986 2.2724 233.1 340,174 7.81
Village 8 East
Basin #1
Input DCV 317,708
Input Factor 1.5
WQ Ponding Depth ft
Note: Find out the elevation value in relation to required WQ volume
Basin #1 Stage Storage
Page 506 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3.7 99235 2.2781 233.2 350,085 8.04
3.8 99485 2.2839 233.3 360,021 8.26
3.9 99734 2.2896 233.4 369,982 8.49
4.0 99984 2.2953 233.5 379,968 8.72
4.1 100234 2.3010 233.6 389,979 8.95
4.2 100483 2.3068 233.7 400,015 9.18
4.3 100733 2.3125 233.8 410,076 9.41
4.4 100982 2.3182 233.9 420,161 9.65
4.5 101232 2.3240 234.0 430,272 9.88
4.6 101482 2.3297 234.1 440,408 10.11
4.7 101731 2.3354 234.2 450,568 10.34
4.8 101981 2.3412 234.3 460,754 10.58
4.9 102230 2.3469 234.4 470,964 10.81
4.96 102380 2.3503 234.5 477,103 10.95
5.0 102480 2.3526 234.5 481,200 11.05
5.1 102730 2.3583 234.6 491,460 11.28
5.2 102979 2.3641 234.7 501,746 11.52
5.3 103229 2.3698 234.8 512,056 11.76
5.4 103478 2.3755 234.9 522,392 11.99
5.5 103728 2.3813 235.0 532,752 12.23
5.6 103978 2.3870 235.1 543,137 12.47
5.7 104227 2.3927 235.2 553,548 12.71
5.8 104477 2.3985 235.3 563,983 12.95
5.9 104726 2.4042 235.4 574,443 13.19
6.0 104976 2.4099 235.5 584,928 13.43
1.5 DCV = 476,561 cfs
Page 507 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Discharge vs Elevation Table
Low orifice:6.00 "Top orifice:4 "
Number:7 Number:0
Cg-low:0.61 Cg-low:0.61
invert elev:0.00 ft invert elev:3.95 ft
Middle orifice:1 "Emergency inlet:
number of orif:0 Rim height:4.96 ft
Cg-middle:0.61 Riser Box D 4X3 ft
invert elev:2.90 ft Weir Length 10.00 ft
h H/D-low H/D-mid H/D-top Qlow-orif Qlow-weir Qtot-low Qmid-orif Qmid-weir Qtot-med Qtop-orif Qtop-weir Qtot-top Qpeak-top Qtot
(ft)---(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)(cfs)
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000
0.1 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.164 0.164 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1643
0.2 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.624 0.624 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.6238
0.3 0.60 0.00 0.00 1.504 1.327 1.327 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.3268
0.4 0.80 0.00 0.00 2.606 2.212 2.212 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.2124
0.5 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.364 3.214 3.214 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.2141
0.6 1.20 0.00 0.00 3.980 4.264 3.980 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.9805
0.7 1.40 0.00 0.00 4.513 5.296 4.513 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.5134
0.8 1.60 0.00 0.00 4.990 6.250 4.990 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.9898
0.9 1.80 0.00 0.00 5.424 7.077 5.424 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.4245
1.0 2.00 0.00 0.00 5.827 7.739 5.827 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.8268
1.1 2.20 0.00 0.00 6.203 8.217 6.203 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.2031
1.2 2.40 0.00 0.00 6.558 8.514 6.558 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.5579
1.3 2.60 0.00 0.00 6.894 8.657 6.894 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.8944
1.4 2.80 0.00 0.00 7.215 8.701 7.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.2152
1.5 3.00 0.00 0.00 7.522 8.735 7.522 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5224
1.6 3.20 0.00 0.00 7.817 8.883 7.817 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.8175
1.7 3.40 0.00 0.00 8.102 9.312 8.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.1019
1.8 3.60 0.00 0.00 8.377 10.229 8.377 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.3766
1.9 3.80 0.00 0.00 8.643 11.892 8.643 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.6426
2.0 4.00 0.00 0.00 8.901 14.610 8.901 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.9006
2.1 4.20 0.00 0.00 9.151 18.746 9.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.1514
2.2 4.40 0.00 0.00 9.395 24.723 9.395 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.3955
2.3 4.60 0.00 0.00 9.633 33.029 9.633 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.6334
2.4 4.80 0.00 0.00 9.866 44.215 9.866 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.8655
2.5 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.092 58.907 10.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.0923
2.6 5.20 0.00 0.00 10.314 77.801 10.314 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.3142
2.7 5.40 0.00 0.00 10.531 101.675 10.531 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.5313
2.8 5.60 0.00 0.00 10.744 131.387 10.744 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.7441
2.9 5.80 0.00 0.00 10.953 167.881 10.953 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.9528
3.0 6.00 1.20 0.00 11.158 212.192 11.158 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.1575
3.1 6.20 2.40 0.00 11.359 265.448 11.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.3586
3.2 6.40 3.60 0.00 11.556 328.872 11.556 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.5561
3.3 6.60 4.80 0.00 11.750 403.792 11.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.7503
3.4 6.80 6.00 0.00 11.941 491.637 11.941 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.9414
3.5 7.00 7.20 0.00 12.129 593.948 12.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.1295
3.6 7.20 8.40 0.00 12.315 712.377 12.315 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.3147
3.7 7.40 9.60 0.00 12.497 848.692 12.497 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.4971
3.8 7.60 10.80 0.00 12.677 1004.781 12.677 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.6770
3.9 7.80 12.00 0.00 12.854 1182.657 12.854 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8543
4.0 8.00 13.20 0.15 13.029 1384.460 13.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.0292
4.1 8.20 14.40 0.45 13.202 1612.462 13.202 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.2017
4.2 8.40 15.60 0.75 13.372 1869.069 13.372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.3721
4.3 8.60 16.80 1.05 13.540 2156.828 13.540 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.5403
4.4 8.80 18.00 1.35 13.706 2478.428 13.706 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.7064
4.5 9.00 19.20 1.65 13.871 2836.705 13.871 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.8706
4.6 9.20 20.40 1.95 14.033 3234.645 14.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.0328
4.7 9.40 21.60 2.25 14.193 3675.388 14.193 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.1932
4.8 9.60 22.80 2.55 14.352 4162.234 14.352 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.3518
4.9 9.80 24.00 2.85 14.509 4698.644 14.509 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.5087
4.96 9.92 24.72 3.03 14.602 5045.782 14.602 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.6020
5.0 10.00 25.20 3.15 14.664 5288.244 14.664 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.266 14.9302
5.1 10.20 26.40 3.45 14.817 5934.830 14.817 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.744 16.5617
5.2 10.40 27.60 3.75 14.969 6642.372 14.969 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.915 18.8846
5.3 10.60 28.80 4.05 15.120 7415.016 15.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.602 21.7216
5.4 10.80 30.00 4.35 15.269 8257.091 15.269 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.719 24.9878
5.5 11.00 31.20 4.65 15.416 9173.108 15.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.214 28.6303
5.6 11.20 32.40 4.95 15.562 10167.770 15.562 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.050 32.6120
5.7 11.40 33.60 5.25 15.707 11245.969 15.707 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.198 36.9051
5.8 11.60 34.80 5.55 15.851 12412.795 15.851 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 25.637 41.4874
5.9 11.80 36.00 5.85 15.993 13673.538 15.993 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30.348 46.3412
6.0 12.00 37.20 6.15 16.134 15033.692 16.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.318 51.4516
Basin 1 Discharge Riser
Page 508 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
36
Elevation QAVG (CFS)DV (CF)DT (HR)Total T
0.00 0.16 9012.48 15.24 36
0.10 0.62 9037.44 4.02 21
0.20 1.33 9062.40 1.90 17
0.30 2.21 9087.36 1.14 15
0.40 3.21 9112.32 0.79 14
0.50 3.98 9137.28 0.64 13
0.60 4.51 9062.40 0.56 13
0.70 4.99 9187.20 0.51 12
0.80 5.42 9212.16 0.47 11
0.90 5.83 9062.40 0.43 11
1.00 6.20 9262.08 0.41 11
1.10 6.56 9287.04 0.39 10
1.20 6.89 9137.28 0.37 10
1.30 7.22 9336.96 0.36 9
1.40 7.52 9361.92 0.35 9
1.50 7.82 9386.88 0.33 9
1.60 8.10 9411.84 0.32 8
1.70 8.38 9436.80 0.31 8
1.80 8.64 9461.76 0.30 8
1.90 8.90 9486.72 0.30 7
2.00 9.15 9062.40 0.28 7
2.10 9.40 9511.68 0.28 7
2.20 9.63 9561.60 0.28 7
2.30 9.87 9586.56 0.27 6
2.40 10.09 19198.08 0.53 6
2.50 10.31 9287.04 0.25 6
2.60 10.53 9661.44 0.25 5
2.70 10.74 9336.96 0.24 5
2.80 10.95 9711.36 0.25 5
2.90 11.16 9736.32 0.24 5
3.00 11.36 9761.28 0.24 4
3.10 11.56 9786.24 0.24 4
3.20 11.75 9811.20 0.23 4
3.30 11.94 9836.16 0.23 4
3.40 12.13 9861.12 0.23 3
3.50 12.31 9886.08 0.22 3
3.60 12.50 9911.04 0.22 3
3.70 12.68 9936.00 0.22 3
3.80 12.85 9960.96 0.22 2
3.90 13.03 9985.92 0.21 2
4.00 13.20 10010.88 0.21 2
4.10 13.37 10035.84 0.21 2
4.20 13.54 10060.80 0.21 2
4.30 13.71 10085.76 0.20 1
4.40 13.87 10110.72 0.20 1
4.50 14.03 10135.68 0.20 1
4.60 14.19 10160.64 0.20 1
4.70 14.35 10185.60 0.20 1
4.80 14.51 10210.56 0.20 0
4.90 14.60 5114.64 0.10 0
4.96 14.93 5120.88 0.10 0
WQ Drawdown @
At Elevation 4.96, WQ Flow to
draw down within the 36 hour
period as portrayed in this
sheet .
Page 509 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name
BMP ID
Sizing Method for Pollutant Removal Criteria
1 558682 sq. ft.
2 0.28
3 0.52 inches
4 6737 cu. ft.
5 6 inches
6 18 inches
7 15 inches
8 0 inches
9 0.2 in/in
10 0.4 in/in
11 5 in/hr.
12 6 hours
13 30 inches
15 45.6 inches
16 10106 cu. ft.
17 2659 sq. ft.
18 5053 cu. ft.
19 3887 sq. ft.
20 0.03
21 4664 sq. ft.
22 4664 sq. ft.
23 6000 sq. ft.
24 Is Line 23 ≥ Line 22?
Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2)
85th percentile 24-hour rainfall depth
Design capture volume [Line 1 x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)]
Porosity of aggregate storage
Media filtration rate to be used for sizing (maximum filtration rate of 5 in/hr. with no
outlet control; if the filtration rate is controlled by the outlet use the outlet controlled
rate (includes infiltration into the soil and flow rate through the outlet structure)
which will be less than 5 in/hr.)
Depth filtered during storm [ Line 11 x Line 12]
Media thickness [18 inches minimum], also add mulch layer and washed ASTM 33
fine aggregate sand thickness to this line for sizing calculations
Aggregate storage (also add ASTM No 8 stone) above underdrain invert (12 inches
typical) – use 0 inches if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area
Aggregate storage below underdrain invert (3 inches minimum) – use 0 inches if
the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area
Freely drained pore storage of the media
Required biofiltered volume [1.5 x Line 4]
Option 2 - Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding
Required Storage (surface + pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 4]
Depth of Detention Storage
[Line 5 + (Line 6 x Line 9) + (Line 7 x Line 10) + (Line 8 x Line 10)]
Total Depth Treated [Line 13 + Line 14]
Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 20]
Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Minimum(Line 17, Line 19), Line 21)
Footprint of the BMP
BMP Footprint Sizing Factor (Default 0.03 or an alternative minimum footprint
sizing factor from Line 11 in Worksheet B.5-4)
Required Footprint [Line 16/ Line 15] x 12
Yes, Performance Standard is Met
BF-2-2 Basin 2 (Biofiltration)
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Provided BMP Footprint
Worksheet B.5-1
Area draining to the BMP
BMP Parameters
Surface ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum]
Baseline Calculations
Allowable routing time for sizing
14 15.6 inches
Option 1 – Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV
Required Footprint [Line 18/ Line 14] x 12
Page 510 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Appendix B:
Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods
Worksheet B.5-1: Sizing Method for Pollutant Removal Criteria
Sizing Method for Pollutant Removal Criteria Worksheet B.5-1
1 Area draining to the BMP 7,056,720 sq. ft.
2 Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 0.60
3 85th percentile 24-hour rainfall depth 0.55 inches
4 Design capture volume [Line 1 x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)] 193,908 cu. ft.
BMP Parameter
5 Surface ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum] 12 inches
6 Media thickness [18 inches minimum], also add mulch layer and
washed ASTM 33 fine aggregate sand thickness to this line for sizing calculations 18 inches
7 Aggregate storage (also add ASTM No 8 stone) above underdrain invert(12
inches typical) – use 0 inches if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom 24 inches
8 Aggregate storage below underdrain invert (3 inches minimum) – use
0 inches if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area
inches
9 Freely drained pore storage of the media 0.2 in/in
10 Porosity of aggregate storage 0.4 in/in
11
Media filtration rate to be used for sizing (maximum filtration rate of 5in/hr. with
no outlet control; if the filtration rate is controlled by the outlet use the outlet-
controlled rate (includes infiltration into the soil and flow rate through the outlet
structure) which will be less than 5 in/hr.)
5
in/hr.
Baseline Calculations
12 Allowable routing time for sizing 6 hours
13 Depth filtered during storm [ Line 11 x Line 12]30 inches
14 Depth of Detention Storage
[Line 5 + (Line 6 x Line 9) + (Line 7 x Line 10) + (Line 8 x Line 10)] 25.2 inches
15 Total Depth Treated [Line 13 + Line 14]55.2 inches
Option 1 – Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV
16 Required biofiltered volume [1.5 x Line 4] 290,862 cu. ft.
17 Required Footprint [Line 16/ Line 15] x 12 63,231 sq. ft.
Option 2 - Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding
18 Required Storage (surface + pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 4] 145,431 cu. ft.
19 Required Footprint [Line 18/ Line 14] x 12 69,253 sq. ft.
Footprint of the BMP
20 BMP Footprint Sizing Factor (Default 0.03 or an alternative
minimum footprint sizing factor from Line 11 in Worksheet B.5-4).012
21 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 20] 50,769 sq. ft.
22 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum (Minimum (Line 17, Line 19), Line 21) 63,231 sq. ft.
23 Provided BMP Footprint 63,743 sq. ft.
24
Is Line 23 = Line 22?
If Yes, then footprint criterion is met.
If No, increase the footprint of the BMP.
YES
BMP Design Manual-Appendices
March 2019 Update
B-38
SOUTH
BASIN
Provided BMP Footprint for South Basin in Village 8
West Tract No. 19-03 per SWQMP Report is 63,743 sf
which is more than minimum that needs to be provided
by an amount portrayed above of 12,974 sf.
Otay Ranch -Village 8 West SWQMP
Page 511 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name
BMP ID
Sizing Method for Pollutant Removal Criteria
1 55567 sq. ft.
2 0.60
3 0.55 inches
4 1528 cu. ft.
5 12 inches
6 18 inches
7 24 inches
8 0 inches
9 0.2 in/in
10 0.4 in/in
11 5 in/hr.
12 6 hours
13 30 inches
15 55.2 inches
16 2292 cu. ft.
17 498 sq. ft.
18 1146 cu. ft.
19 546 sq. ft.
20 0.12
21 4001 sq. ft.
22 4001 sq. ft.
23 12,974 sq. ft.
24 Is Line 23 ≥ Line 22?Yes, Performance Standard is Met
Required Footprint [Line 18/ Line 14] x 12
Footprint of the BMP
BMP Footprint Sizing Factor (Default 0.03 or an alternative minimum footprint
sizing factor from Line 11 in Worksheet B.5-4)
Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 20]
Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Minimum(Line 17, Line 19), Line 21)
Provided BMP Footprint
Total Depth Treated [Line 13 + Line 14]
Option 1 – Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV
Required biofiltered volume [1.5 x Line 4]
Required Footprint [Line 16/ Line 15] x 12
Option 2 - Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding
Required Storage (surface + pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 4]
Depth filtered during storm [ Line 11 x Line 12]
14 Depth of Detention Storage 25.2 inches[Line 5 + (Line 6 x Line 9) + (Line 7 x Line 10) + (Line 8 x Line 10)]
Aggregate storage below underdrain invert (3 inches minimum) – use 0 inches if
the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area
Freely drained pore storage of the media
Porosity of aggregate storage
Media filtration rate to be used for sizing (maximum filtration rate of 5 in/hr. with no
outlet control; if the filtration rate is controlled by the outlet use the outlet controlled
rate (includes infiltration into the soil and flow rate through the outlet structure)
which will be less than 5 in/hr.)
Baseline Calculations
Allowable routing time for sizing
85th percentile 24-hour rainfall depth
Design capture volume [Line 1 x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)]
BMP Parameters
Surface ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum]
Media thickness [18 inches minimum], also add mulch layer and washed ASTM 33
fine aggregate sand thickness to this line for sizing calculations
Aggregate storage (also add ASTM No 8 stone) above underdrain invert (12 inches
typical) – use 0 inches if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area
Otay Ranch Village 8 West
South Basin on Village 8 West SWQMP
Worksheet B.5-1
Area draining to the BMP
Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2)
As shown on the previous sheet the excess BMP Footprint for South Basin in Village 8
West Tract No. 19-03 per SWQMP Report equates to 12,974 sf.
This calculation is to reaffirm that the DCV of the proposed Park 2A in Village 8 East can be
captured in the aforementioned basin. As shown on this worksheet the minimum BMP foot -
print that is required is far less (12,974 sf - 4001 sf) than the provided additional square
footage in the basin.
Page 512 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name
BMP ID
1 164590 sq. ft.
2 0.76
3 0.52 inches
4 5390 cu. ft.
5 0 in/hr.
6 2
7 0 in/hr.
10 124 cu. ft.
9
Fraction of DCV to be retained (Figure B.5-3)
0.023
When Line 8 > 8% =
0.0000013 x Line 83 - 0.000057 x Line 82 + 0.0086 x Line 8 - 0.014
When Line 8 ≤ 8% = 0.023
Target volume retention [Line 9 x Line 4]
Reliable infiltration rate, for biofiltration BMP sizing [Line 5 / Line 6]
8
Average annual volume reduction target (Figure B.5-2)
3.5 %When Line 7 > 0.01 in/hr. = Minimum (40, 166.9 x Line 7 +6.62)
When Line 7 ≤ 0.01 in/hr. = 3.5%
Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2)
85th percentile 24-hour rainfall depth
Design capture volume [Line 1 x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)]
Volume Retention Requirement
Measured infiltration rate in the DMA
Note:
When mapped hydrologic soil groups are used enter 0.10 for NRCS Type D
soils and for NRCS Type C soils enter 0.30
When in no infiltration condition and the actual measured infiltration rate
is unknown enter 0.0 if there are geotechnical and/or groundwater
hazards identified in Appendix C or enter 0.05
Factor of safety
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
BF-3-3
Sizing Method for Volume Retention
Criteria Worksheet B.5-2
Area draining to the BMP
Page 513 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name
BMP ID
1 sq. ft.
2
3 sq. ft.
4 sq. ft.
5 sq. ft.
Identification 1 4 5
6
7
10 sq. ft.
11 sq. ft.
12
13
14 cu. ft.
15 cu. ft.
Identification
1 cu. ft.
2 cu. ft.
3 cu. ft.
4 cu. ft.
5 cu. ft.
cu. ft.
17
Sum of volume retention benefits from other site design BMPs (e.g.
trees; rain barrels etc.). [sum of Line 16 Credits for Id’s 1 to 5]
Provide documentation of how the site design credit is calculated in
the PDP SWQMP.
0
Is Line 16 ≥ Line 15?Implement Additional Site Design BMPs
Volume retention required from other site design BMPs
[(1-Line 13) x Line 14]116.5345212
Site Design BMP
Site Design Type Credit
16
Is Line 11 ≥Line 4?No, Proceed to Line 13
Fraction of the performance standard met through the BMP footprint
and/or landscaping [Line 11/Line 4]0.06
Target Volume Retention [Line 10 from Worksheet B.5.2]124
If (Line 8 >1.5, Line 6, Line 7/1.5]
Sum of Landscape area [sum of Line 9 Id’s 1 to 5]0
Provided footprint for evapotranspiration [Line 5 + Line 10]224
Volume Retention Performance Standard
0.00 0.00[Line 7/Line 6]
9 Effective Credit Area 0 0 0 0 0
Impervious area draining to the landscape
area (sq. ft.)
8 Impervious to Pervious Area ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00
Biofiltration BMP Footprint 224
Landscape Area (must be identified on DS-3247)
2 3
Landscape area that meet the requirements
in SD-B and SD-F Fact Sheet (sq. ft.)
Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2)0.76
Effective impervious area draining to the BMP [Line 1 x Line 2]124388
Required area for Evapotranspiration [Line 3 x 0.03]3732
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
BF-3-3
Volume Retention for No Infiltration Condition Worksheet B.5-6
Area draining to the biofiltration BMP 164590
2 Filterra units x 112 sf = 224 square footage BMP Footprint The volume retention credits will be provided in Village 8
East Final Engineering SWQMP via other means of re-
tention credits and San Diego BMPs such as dispersion
areas SD-B & SD-F, these will incorporated in the FE
SWQMP.Page 514 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Flow-Based Proprietary Biofiltration Sizing
Description Units Filterra
Drainage Basin ID or Name unitless DMA 3
Location N/A -
Total Tributary Area ac 3.778
Total Tributary Area sq ft 164590
Final Adjusted Runoff Factor unitless 0.76
85th Percentile Design Rainfall Depth inches 0.52
Design Capture Volume cubic-feet 5,390
85th Percentile Design Rainfall Intensity in/hr 0.2
WQ Flow Rate CFS 0.571
Flow Rate Safety Factor unitless 1.5
Design Flow Rate CFS 0.857
Final Design Flow Rate CFS 0.857
2-Filterra 14'x8' (112ft^2) Units unitless UNIT ID
Filterra Treatment Flow Rate (each)CFS 0.454
Number of Units #2
Filterra Treatment Flow Rate (Total)CFS 0.907
Is The BMP Adequately Sized?unitless Yes
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Page 515 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Filterra Infiltration Rate = 175 (in/hr)
Filterra Flow per Square Foot = 0.00405 (ft3/sec/ft2)
Filterra Flow Rate, Q = 0.00405 ft3/sec x Filterra Surface Area
Rational Method, Q = C x I x A
San Diego Multiplier, M = 1.5
Site Flowrate, Q = (C x DI x DA x M x 43560) / (12 x3600)
OR DA = (12 x 3600 x Q) / (C x 43560 x DI x M)
where Q = Flow (ft3/sec)
DA = Drainage Area (acres)
DI = Design Intensity (in/hr)
C =Runoff coefficient (dimensionless)
M = Multiplier (dimensionless)
DI C C C
0.2 0.95 0.85 0.50
Filterra 100%Commercial Residential
L W Filterra Surface Area Flow Rate, Q Imperv. DA max DA max DA
(ft) (ft) (ft2) (ft3/sec) (acres) (acres) (acres)
4 4 16 0.0648 0.226 0.252 0.429
6 4 24 0.0972 0.338 0.378 0.643
6.5 4 26 0.1053 0.367 0.410 0.696
8 4 32 0.1296 0.451 0.504 0.857
12 4 48 0.1944 0.677 0.756 1.286
6 6 36 0.1458 0.507 0.567 0.964
8 6 48 0.1944 0.677 0.756 1.286
10 6 60 0.2431 0.846 0.945 1.607
12 6 72 0.2917 1.015 1.134 1.928
13 7 91 0.3686 1.283 1.434 2.437
12 8 96 0.3889 1.353 1.512 2.571
14 8 112 0.4537 1.579 1.765 3.000
16 8 128 0.5185 1.804 2.017 3.428
18 8 144 0.5833 2.030 2.269 3.857
20 8 160 0.6481 2.255 2.521 4.285
22 8 176 0.7130 2.481 2.773 4.714
Available Filterra Box Sizes
Filterra Sizing Spreadsheet
Uniform Intensity Approach
Storm Intensity = 0.20 in/hr
San Diego Region
9/20/2019
䕡捨 ⁆楬瑥牲愠畮楴
Page 516 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name
BMP ID
1 39901 sq. ft.
2 0.72
3 0.52 inches
4 1242 cu. ft.
5 0 in/hr.
6 2
7 0 in/hr.
10 29 cu. ft.
9
Fraction of DCV to be retained (Figure B.5-3)
0.023
When Line 8 > 8% =
0.0000013 x Line 83 - 0.000057 x Line 82 + 0.0086 x Line 8 - 0.014
When Line 8 ≤ 8% = 0.023
Target volume retention [Line 9 x Line 4]
Reliable infiltration rate, for biofiltration BMP sizing [Line 5 / Line 6]
8
Average annual volume reduction target (Figure B.5-2)
3.5 %When Line 7 > 0.01 in/hr. = Minimum (40, 166.9 x Line 7 +6.62)
When Line 7 ≤ 0.01 in/hr. = 3.5%
Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2)
85th percentile 24-hour rainfall depth
Design capture volume [Line 1 x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)]
Volume Retention Requirement
Measured infiltration rate in the DMA
Note:
When mapped hydrologic soil groups are used enter 0.10 for NRCS Type D
soils and for NRCS Type C soils enter 0.30
When in no infiltration condition and the actual measured infiltration rate
is unknown enter 0.0 if there are geotechnical and/or groundwater
hazards identified in Appendix C or enter 0.05
Factor of safety
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
BF-3-4
Sizing Method for Volume Retention
Criteria Worksheet B.5-2
Area draining to the BMP
Page 517 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Name
BMP ID
1 sq. ft.
2
3 sq. ft.
4 sq. ft.
5 sq. ft.
Identification 1 4 5
6
7
10 sq. ft.
11 sq. ft.
12
13
14 cu. ft.
15 cu. ft.
Identification
1 cu. ft.
2 cu. ft.
3 cu. ft.
4 cu. ft.
5 cu. ft.
cu. ft.
17
Sum of volume retention benefits from other site design BMPs (e.g.
trees; rain barrels etc.). [sum of Line 16 Credits for Id’s 1 to 5]
Provide documentation of how the site design credit is calculated in
the PDP SWQMP.
0
Is Line 16 ≥ Line 15?Implement Additional Site Design BMPs
Volume retention required from other site design BMPs
[(1-Line 13) x Line 14]28.5669384
Site Design BMP
Site Design Type Credit
16
Is Line 11 ≥Line 4?No, Proceed to Line 13
Fraction of the performance standard met through the BMP footprint
and/or landscaping [Line 11/Line 4]0
Target Volume Retention [Line 10 from Worksheet B.5.2]29
If (Line 8 >1.5, Line 6, Line 7/1.5]
Sum of Landscape area [sum of Line 9 Id’s 1 to 5]0
Provided footprint for evapotranspiration [Line 5 + Line 10]0
Volume Retention Performance Standard
0.00 0.00[Line 7/Line 6]
9 Effective Credit Area 0 0 0 0 0
Impervious area draining to the landscape
area (sq. ft.)
8 Impervious to Pervious Area ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00
Biofiltration BMP Footprint
Landscape Area (must be identified on DS-3247)
2 3
Landscape area that meet the requirements
in SD-B and SD-F Fact Sheet (sq. ft.)
Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2)0.72
Effective impervious area draining to the BMP [Line 1 x Line 2]28662
Required area for Evapotranspiration [Line 3 x 0.03]860
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
BF-3-4
Volume Retention for No Infiltration Condition Worksheet B.5-6
Area draining to the biofiltration BMP 39901
The volume retention credits will be provided in Village 8 East Final Engineering SWQMP via other means of retention credits and San
Diego BMPs such as dispersion areas SD-B & SD-F, these will incorporated in the FE SWQMP.
Page 518 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION FLOW-THRU SIZING CALCULATION
1 DCV DCV 1,242 cubic-feet
2 DCV Retained DCV Retained 0.00 cubic-feet
3 DCV Biofiltered DCV Biofiltered 0.00 cubic-feet
4 1.5 DCV requiring flow-thru (Line 1 - Line 2 -
0.67*Line 3)DCV flow-thru 1,242 cubic-feet
5 Adjustment Factor (Line 4 / Line1)AF=1.00 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity i=0.2 in/hr 1 Design rainfall intensity i=0.2 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP(s)A=0.92 acres 7 Area tributary to BMP(s)A=1.12 acres
8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate
using Appendix B.2)C=
0.72 unitless 8 Area-weighted runoff factor
(estimate using Appendix B.2)
C= 0.9 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = AF x (C x i x A) Q= 0.132 cfs 10 Treamtent Flow Rate = 1.5 X Q Q= 0.3024 cfs
10 Treamtent Flow Rate = 1.5 X Q Q= 0.197 cfs
1)
2)
3)
DMA 4B: Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
DMA 4A: Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Adjustment factor shall be estimated considering only retention and biofiltration BMPs
located upstream of flow-thru BMPs. That is, if the flow-thru BMP is upstream of the
project's retention and biofiltration BMPs then the flow-thru BMP shall be sized using an
adjustment factor of 1.
Volume based (e.g., dry extended detention basin) flow-thru treatment control BMPs shall
be sized to the volume in Line 4 and dlow based )e.g., vegetated swales) shall be sized to
flow rate in Line 9. Sand filter and media filter can be designed by either volume in :ie 4 or
Propietary BMPs, if used, shall provide certified treatment capacity equal to or greater than
the calculated flow rate in Line 9; certified treatment capacity per unit shall be consistent
with third party certifications.
9/13/2023 R:\0920\Hyd\TM\SWQMP\Calcs\Appendix B.5 Biofiltration BMP Sizing Worksheets
DMA 4A is portion of Village 8 West. This area drains towards the proposed browditch west of Village 8
East . This area is not disturbed by Village 8 east project. However, water quality for this area was not
addressed in Hale SWQMP for Village 8 West. In order to address water quality requirements for this area,
water quality equivalency calculation has been provided to treat a portion of the existing road " Magdalena
Avenue" that drains to the Otay River instead of the portion of Village 8 West that can not be treated in our
basin.
DMA 4A Area not being treated with Village 8 West Basin (Refer to SWQMP for Village 8 West Prepared by
Hale) is 0.92 ac
Land Use of this area is single family and transportation.
The runoff factor of this area is 0.72, Required flow to be treated is =1.5x0.2x0.92x0.72 = 0.197 cfs
DMA 4B is portion of exiting Magdalena Avenue street that is not treated or disturbed, this area will be
treated instead of DMA4-A. A proposed proprietary biofiltration BMP (MWS or equivalent) is proposed by
the existing inlet to treat the required flow.
DMA4 B area is 1.12 ac, Runoff factor is 0.9.
Land use of this area is transportation.
Land use factor was determined to be 0.65.
Flow generated from the equivalent area= 0.2x1.5x0.9x0.65x1.12= 0.197 cfs.
The porposed MWS capacity =0.2 3 cfs
Land use factor = 0.65
Q=0.65x0.3024=0.197 cfs
Page 519 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Agriculture 0.10 0.10 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00 0% Agriculture 0 0 % 0% Agriculture 0 0
Commercial 0.80 0.80 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.56 0.48 1.00 0.87 0% Commercial 0 0 % 0% Commercial 0 0
Education 0.50 0.50 0.13 0.20 0.11 0.14 0.25 0.39 0.13 0% Education 0 0 % 0% Education 0 0
Industrial 0.90 0.90 0.13 0.19 0.15 0.54 0.68 0.89 0.49 0% Industrial 0 0 % 0% Industrial 0 0
Multi Family Residential 0.60 0.60 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.29 0.27 0% Multi Family Residential 0 0 %0% Multi Family Residential0 0
Orchard 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.17 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.11 0% Orchard 0 0 % 0% Orchard 0 0
Rural Residential 0.30 0.30 1.00 0.51 0.14 0.10 0.71 0.13 0.19 0% Rural Residential 0 0 % 0% Rural Residential 0 0
Single Family Residential 0.78 0.40 0.40 0.13 0.20 0.15 0.27 0.43 0.35 0.63 71% Single Family Residential0.312 71 %0% Single Family Residential0 0
Transportation 0.14 0.90 1.12 0.90 0.11 0.26 0.12 0.53 0.31 0.62 0.12 29% Transportation 0.126 29 % 100% Transportation 1.008 100
Vacant / Open Space 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0% Vacant / Open Space 0 0 %0% Vacant / Open Space 0 0
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Water 0 0 % 0% Water 0 0
Total 0.92 -1.12 --------0.438 1.008
0.12 0.22 0.14 0.34 0.40 0.43 0.48
0.11 0.26 0.12 0.53 0.31 0.62 0.12
1.13 -1.18 0.65 --4.03
Notes:
Example: An ACP Tributary with 5.25 acres of Commercial, 1.63 Acres of Education, and 2.65 acres of Transportation land uses
produces a relative pollutant concentration 0.12 for Total Suspended Solids (assumes default runoff factors are applied).
Equation 2-2:Equation 2-2 Applied to Example:
Hydrologic Unit Otay (910.00)
Land Use Factor 5
* Applicants must provide user input for yellow shaded cells. Values for all other cells will be automatically generated.
1. Revisions to default runoff factors must be supported to the satisfaction of the applicable Copermittee.
2. Applicant-Implemented ACPs must identify reference tributary characteristics that are representative of their specific PDP.
Independent ACPs must reference Table 2-3 for appropriate area and runoff factor information applicable to their watershed
management area.
3. Relative Pollutant Concentrations by Land Use have been identified through examination of available EMC data. Additional
information on how these relative concentrations were developed is provided in Appendix B.
FC ACP Ref
Relative Pollutant Concentration for
ACP Tributary 4
Relative Pollutant Concentration for
Reference Tributary 4
Watershed Management Area San Diego Bay
TSS TP TN TCu TPb TZn
Automated Spreadsheet Calculation for Worksheet A.5: Land Use Factor Determination (Version 1.0)Effective area composition graphics are for illustrative purposes only.
Land Use Designation
ACP Tributary
Characteristics
Reference Tributary
Characteristics 2 Relative Pollutant Concentrations by Land Use 3
Area
(Acres)
Runoff
Factor 1
Area
(Acres)
Runoff
Factor 1
Effective Area Composition - ACP Tributary
0% Agriculture
0% Commercial
0% Education
0% Industrial
0% Multi Family Residential
0% Orchard
0% Rural Residential
71% Single Family Residential
29% Transportation
0% Vacant / Open Space
0% Water
Effective Area Composition - Reference Tributary
0% Agriculture
0% Commercial
0% Education
0% Industrial
0% Multi Family Residential
0% Orchard
0% Rural Residential
0% Single Family Residential
100% Transportation
0% Vacant / Open Space
0% Water
Page 520 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
For BF-3-4
Required flow to be treated =
0.197 cfs
Page 521 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
CHULA VISTA, CA
BF-3-4
0.23
Page 522 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
FOR VOLUME BASED
BF-2-2 (DMA 2)
Page 523 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 524 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 525 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 526 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 527 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 528 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
FOR VOLUME BASED
BF-3-1 (DMA 1)
Page 529 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 530 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 531 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 532 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 533 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 534 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
BF-3-3 (DMA 3)
Page 535 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 536 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 537 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 538 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 539 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 540 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
BF-3-4 (DMA 4A & 4B)
Page 541 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 542 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 543 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 544 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 545 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 546 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
August 2021
GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS)
ENHANCED AND PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT
For
MWS-Linear Modular Wetland
Ecology’s Decision
Based on Modular Wetland Systems, Inc, application submissions, including the Technical
Evaluation Report, dated April 1, 2014, Ecology hereby issues the following use level
designation:
1. General Use Level Designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater
Treatment System for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment
Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of:
1 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of Wetland Cell
Surface Area
Prefilter box (approved at either 22 inches or 33 inches tall)
3.0 gpm/sq ft of prefilter box surface area for moderate
pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential
basins).
2.1 gpm/sq ft of prefilter box surface area for high pollutant
loading rates (commercial and industrial basins).
2. Ecology approves the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment
System units for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment at the hydraulic
loading rate listed above. Designers shall calculate the water quality design flow
rates using the following procedures:
Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or
retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute water quality
treatment design flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western
Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology- approved continuous runoff
model.
Page 547 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention,
the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute water quality treatment
design flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in
Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington
(SWMMEW) or local manual.
Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality
treatment design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention
facility.
3. These use level designations have no expiration date but may be amended or
revoked by Ecology, and are subject to the conditions specified below.
Ecology’s Conditions of Use
Applicants shall comply with the following conditions:
1) Design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the MWS – Linear Modular
Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units, in accordance with Modular Wetland
Systems, Inc. applicable manuals and documents and the Ecology Decision.
2) Each site plan must undergo Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. review and approval
before site installation. This ensures that site grading and slope are appropriate for
use of a MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System unit.
3) MSW – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System media shall
conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology.
4) The applicant tested the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System
with an external bypass weir. This weir limited the depth of water flowing through the
media, and therefore the active treatment area, to below the root zone of the plants. This
GULD applies to MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment Systems whether
plants are included in the final product or not.
5) Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often
dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore,
Ecology does not endorse or recommend a “one size fits all” maintenance cycle for a
particular model/size of stormwater treatment technology.
Typically, Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. designs MWS – Linear Modular Wetland
systems for a target prefilter media life of 6 to 12 months.
Indications of the need for maintenance include effluent flow decreasing to
below the design flow rate or decrease in treatment below required levels.
Owners/operators must inspect MWS – Linear Modular Wetland systems
for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post-construction
operation to determine site-specific maintenance schedules and
requirements. You must conduct inspections monthly during the wet
season, and every other month during the dry season (According to the
SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April
Page 548 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
30. According to the SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is
October 1 to June 30). After the first year of operation, owners/operators
must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of
inspections.
Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer’s
guidelines, and use methods capable fo determining either a decrease in
treated effluent flowrate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability.
When inspections are performed, the following findings typically serve as
maintenance triggers:
Standing water remains in the vault between rain events, or
Bypass occurs during storms smaller than the design storm.
If excessive floatables (trash and debris) are present (but no standing
water or excessive sedimentation), perform a minor maintenance
consisting of gross solids removal, not prefilter media replacement.
Additional data collection will be used to create a correlation between
pretreatment chamber sediment depth and pre-filter clogging (see
Issues to be Addressed by the Company section below)
6) Discharges from the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment
System units shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in
receiving waters.
Applicant: Modular Wetland Systems, Inc.
Applicant’s Address: 5796 Armada Drive, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Application Documents:
Original Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear
Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., January 2011
Quality Assurance Project Plan: Modular Wetland System – Linear Treatment System
Performance Monitoring Project, draft, January 2011
Revised Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear
Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., May 2011
Memorandum: Modular Wetland System-Linear GULD Application Supplementary Data, April
2014
Page 549 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Technical Evaluation Report: Modular Wetland System Stormwater Treatment System
Performance Monitoring, April 2014
Applicant’s Use Level Request:
General Use Level Designation as a Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus treatment
device in accordance with Ecology’s Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater
Treatment Technologies Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) January
2011 Revision.
Applicant’s Performance Claims:
The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 80-percent
of TSS from stormwater with influent concentrations between 100 and 200 mg/L.
The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 50-percent
of total phosphorus from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.1 and 0.5
mg/L.
The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum 30-percent of
dissolved copper from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.005 and
0.020 mg/L.
The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum 60-percent of
dissolved zinc from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.02 and 0.30
mg/L.
Ecology’s Recommendations:
Modular Wetland System, Inc. has shown Ecology, through laboratory and field-
testing, that the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System
filter system is capable of attaining Ecology’s Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced
treatment goals.
Findings of Fact:
Laboratory Testing
The MWS-Linear Modular wetland has the:
Capability to remove 99 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in a
quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 270 mg/L.
Capability to remove 91 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in
laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 84.6 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm
per square foot of media.
Capability to remove 93 percent of dissolved Copper in a quarter-scale model with
influent concentrations of 0.757 mg/L.
Capability to remove 79 percent of dissolved Copper in laboratory conditions with
influent concentrations of 0.567 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.
Page 550 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Capability to remove 80.5-percent of dissolved Zinc in a quarter-scale model with
influent concentrations of 0.95 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.
Capability to remove 78-percent of dissolved Zinc in laboratory conditions with influent
concentrations of 0.75 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.
Field Testing
Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. conducted monitoring of an MWS-Linear (Model
# MWS-L-4-13) from April 2012 through May 2013, at a transportation maintenance
facility in Portland, Oregon. The manufacturer collected flow-weighted composite
samples of the system’s influent and effluent during 28 separate storm events. The system
treated approximately 75 percent of the runoff from 53.5 inches of rainfall during the
monitoring period. The applicant sized the system at 1 gpm/sq ft. (wetland media) and
3gpm/sq ft. (prefilter).
Influent TSS concentrations for qualifying sampled storm events ranged from 20 to 339
mg/L. Average TSS removal for influent concentrations greater than 100 mg/L (n=7)
averaged 85 percent. For influent concentrations in the range of 20-100 mg/L (n=18), the
upper 95 percent confidence interval about the mean effluent concentration was
12.8 mg/L.
Total phosphorus removal for 17 events with influent TP concentrations in the range of
0.1 to 0.5 mg/L averaged 65 percent. A bootstrap estimate of the lower 95 percent
confidence limit (LCL95) of the mean total phosphorus reduction was 58 percent.
The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 60.5 percent for
dissolved zinc for influent concentrations in the range of 0.02 to 0.3 mg/L (n=11).
The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 32.5 percent for
dissolved copper for influent concentrations in the range of 0.005 to 0.02 mg/L (n=14) at
flow rates up to 28 gpm (design flow rate 41 gpm). Laboratory test data augmented the
data set, showing dissolved copper removal at the design flow rate of 41 gpm (93 percent
reduction in influent dissolved copper of 0.757 mg/L).
Issues to be addressed by the Company:
1. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect maintenance and inspection data for the
first year on all installations in the Northwest in order to assess standard maintenance
requirements for various land uses in the region. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should
use these data to establish required maintenance cycles.
2. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect pre-treatment chamber sediment depth data
for the first year of operation for all installations in the Northwest. Modular Wetland
Systems, Inc. will use these data to create a correlation between sediment depth and pre-filter
clogging.
Page 551 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Technology Description:
Download at http://www.modularwetlands.com/
Contact Information:
Applicant: Zach Kent
BioClean A Forterra Company
5796 Armada Drive, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
zach.kent@forterrabp.com
Applicant website: http://www.modularwetlands.com/
Ecology web link: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/stormwater/newtech/index.html
Ecology: Douglas C. Howie,
P.E. Department of
Ecology Water
Quality Program
(360) 870-0983
douglas.howie@ecy.wa.gov
Revision History
Date Revision
June 2011 Original use-level-designation document
September 2012 Revised dates for TER and expiration
January 2013 Modified Design Storm Description, added Revision Table, added
maintenance discussion, modified format in accordance with Ecology
standard
December 2013 Updated name of Applicant
April 2014 Approved GULD designation for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced
treatment
December 2015 Updated GULD to document the acceptance of MWS – Linear Modular
Wetland installations with or without the inclusion of plants
July 2017 Revised Manufacturer Contact Information (name, address, and email)
December 2019 Revised Manufacturer Contact Address
July 2021 Added additional prefilter sized at 33 inches
August 2021 Changed “Prefilter” to “Prefilter box”
Page 552 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1
September 2019
GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS), ENHANCED,
PHOSPHORUS & OIL TREATMENT
For
CONTECH Engineered Solutions Filterra®
Ecology’s Decision:
Based on Contech’s submissions, including the Final Technical Evaluation Reports, dated
August 2019, March 2014, December 2009, and additional information provided to Ecology
dated October 9, 2009, Ecology hereby issues the following use level designations:
1. A General Use Level Designation for Basic, Enhanced, Phosphorus, and Oil Treatment for
the Filterra® system constructed with a minimum media thickness of 21 inches (1.75 feet), at
the following water quality design hydraulic loading rates:
Treatment Infiltration Rate (in/hr) for
use in Sizing
Basic 175
Phosphorus 100
Oil 50
Enhanced 175
2. The Filterra is not appropriate for oil spill-control purposes.
3. Ecology approves Filterra systems for treatment at the hydraulic loading rates listed above, to
achieve the maximum water quality design flow rate. Calculate the water quality design flow
rates using the following procedures:
Western Washington: for treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water
quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest
version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology-approved
continuous runoff model.
Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water
quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the
three flow rate based methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management
Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual.
Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design
flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility.
Page 553 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2
4. This General Use Level Designation has no expiration date, but Ecology may revoke or
amend the designation, and is subject to the conditions specified below.
Ecology’s Conditions of Use:
Filterra systems shall comply with these conditions shall comply with the following conditions:
1. Design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the Filterra systems in accordance with
applicable Contech Filterra manuals and this Ecology Decision.
2. The minimum size filter surface-area for use in Washington is determined by using the
design water quality flow rate (as determined in this Ecology Decision, Item 3, above) and
the Infiltration Rate from the table above (use the lowest applicable Infiltration Rate
depending on the level of treatment required). Calculate the required area by dividing the
water quality design flow rate (cu-ft/sec) by the Infiltration Rate (converted to ft/sec) to
obtain required surface area (sq-ft) of the Filterra unit.
3. Each site plan must undergo Contech Filterra review before Ecology can approve the unit for
site installation. This will ensure that design parameters including site grading and slope are
appropriate for use of a Filterra unit.
4. Filterra media shall conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology and
shall be sourced from Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC with no substitutions.
5. Maintenance includes removing trash, degraded mulch, and accumulated debris from the
filter surface and replacing the mulch layer. Use inspections to determine the site-specific
maintenance schedules and requirements. Follow maintenance procedures given in the most
recent version of the Filterra Operation and Maintenance Manual.
6. Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often
dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore,
Ecology does not endorse or recommend a “one size fits all” maintenance cycle for a
particular model/size of manufactured treatment device.
Contech designs Filterra systems for a target maintenance interval of 6 months in the
Pacific Northwest. Maintenance includes removing and replacing the mulch layer above
the media along with accumulated sediment, trash, and captured organic materials
therein, evaluating plant health, and pruning the plant if deemed necessary.
Conduct maintenance following manufacturer’s guidelines.
7. Filterra systems come in standard sizes.
8. Install the Filterra in such a manner that flows exceeding the maximum Filterra operating rate
are conveyed around the Filterra mulch and media and will not resuspend captured sediment.
9. Discharges from the Filterra units shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards
violations in receiving waters.
Page 554 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3
Approved Alternate Configurations
Filterra Internal Bypass - Pipe (FTIB-P)
1. The Filterra® Internal Bypass – Pipe allows for piped-in flow from area drains, grated inlets,
trench drains, and/or roof drains. Design capture flows and peak flows enter the structure
through an internal slotted pipe. Filterra® inverted the slotted pipe to allow design flows to
drop through to a series of splash plates that then disperse the design flows over the top
surface of the Filterra® planter area. Higher flows continue to bypass the slotted pipe and
convey out the structure.
2. To select a FTIB-P unit, the designer must determine the size of the standard unit using the
sizing guidance described above.
Filterra Internal Bypass – Curb (FTIB-C)
1. The Filterra® Internal Bypass –Curb model (FTIB-C) incorporates a curb inlet, biofiltration
treatment chamber, and internal high flow bypass in one single structure. Filterra® designed
the FTIB-C model for use in a “Sag” or “Sump” condition and will accept flows from both
directions along a gutter line. An internal flume tray weir component directs treatment flows
entering the unit through the curb inlet to the biofiltration treatment chamber. Flows in
excess of the water quality treatment flow rise above the flume tray weir and discharge
through a standpipe orifice; providing bypass of untreated peak flows. Americast
manufactures the FTIB-C model in a variety of sizes and configurations and you may use the
unit on a continuous grade when a single structure providing both treatment and high flow
bypass is preferred. The FTIB-C model can also incorporate a separate junction box chamber
to allow larger diameter discharge pipe connections to the structure.
2. To select a FTIB-C unit, the designer must determine the size of the standard unit using the
sizing guidance described above.
Filterra® Shallow
1. The Filterra Shallow provides additional flexibility for design engineers and designers in
situations where various elevation constraints prevent application of a standard Filterra
configuration. Engineers can design this system up to six inches shallower than any of the
previous Filterra unit configurations noted above.
2. Ecology requires that the Filterra Shallow provide a media contact time equivalent to that of
the standard unit. This means that with a smaller depth of media, the surface area must
increase.
3. To select a Filterra Shallow System unit, the designer must first identify the size of the
standard unit using the modeling guidance described above.
4. Once the size of the standard Filterra unit is established using the sizing technique described
above, use information from the following table to select the appropriate size Filterra
Shallow System unit.
Page 555 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
4
Shallow Unit Basic, Enhanced, and Oil Treatment Sizing
Standard Depth Equivalent Shallow Depth
4x4 4x6 or 6x4
4x6 or 6x4 6x6
4x8 or 8x4 6x8 or 8x6
6x6 6x10 or 10x6
6x8 or 8x6 6x12 or 12x6
6x10 or 10x6 13x7
Notes:
1. Shallow Depth Boxes are less than the standard depth of 3.5 feet but no less
than 3.0 feet deep (TC to INV).
Applicant: Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC.
Applicant’s Address: 11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive
Portland, OR 97220
Application Documents:
State of Washington Department of Ecology Application for Conditional Use
Designation, Americast (September 2006)
Quality Assurance Project Plan Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System Performance
Monitoring, Americast (April 2008)
Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System
Performance Monitoring, Americast (June 2008)
Draft Technical Evaluation Report Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System Performance
Monitoring, Americast (August 2009)
Final Technical Evaluation Report Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System Performance
Monitoring, Americast (December 2009)
Technical Evaluation Report Appendices Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System
Performance Monitoring, Americast, (August 2009)
Memorandum to Department of Ecology Dated October 9, 2009 from Americast, Inc. and
Herrera Environmental Consultants
Quality Assurance Project Plan Filterra® Bioretention System Phosphorus treatment and
Supplemental Basic and Enhanced Treatment Performance Monitoring, Americast
(November 2011)
Filterra® letter August 24, 2012 regarding sizing for the Filterra® Shallow System.
University of Virginia Engineering Department Memo by Joanna Crowe Curran, Ph. D
dated March 16, 2013 concerning capacity analysis of Filterra® internal weir inlet tray.
Terraphase Engineering letter to Jodi Mills, P.E. dated April 2, 2013 regarding
Terraflume Hydraulic Test, Filterra® Bioretention System and attachments.
Technical Evaluation Report, Filterra® System Phosphorus Treatment and Supplemental
Basic Treatment Performance Monitoring. March 27th, 2014.
State of Washington Department of Ecology Application for Conditional Use Level
Designation, Contech Engineered Solutions (May 2015)
Page 556 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
5
Quality Assurance Project Plan Filterra® Bioretention System, Contech Engineered
Solutions (May 2015)
Filterra Bioretention System Armco Avenue General Use Level Designation Technical
Evaluation Report, Contech Engineered Solutions (August 2019)
Applicant’s Use Level Request:
General Level Use Designation for Basic (175 in/hr), Enhanced (175 in/hr), Phosphorus (100
in/hr), and Oil Treatment (50 in/hr).
Applicant’s Performance Claims:
Field-testing and laboratory testing show that the Filterra® unit is promising as a stormwater
treatment best management practice and can meet Ecology’s performance goals for basic,
enhanced, phosphorus, and oil treatment.
Findings of Fact:
Field Testing 2015-2019
1. Contech completed field testing of a 4 ft. x 4 ft. Filterra® unit at one site in Hillsboro,
Oregon from September 2015 to July 2019. Throughout the monitoring period a total of 24
individual storm events were sampled, of which 23 qualified for TAPE sampling criteria.
2. Contech encountered several unanticipated events and challenges that prevented them from
collecting continuous flow and rainfall data. An analysis of the flow data from the sampled
events, including both the qualifying and non-qualifying events, demonstrated the system
treated over 99 % of the influent flows. Peak flows during these events ranged from 25 %
to 250 % of the design flow rate of 29 gallons per minute.
3. Of the 23 TAPE qualified sample events, 13 met requirements for TSS analysis. Influent
concentrations ranged from 20.8 mg/L to 83 mg/L, with a mean concentration of 46.3
mg/L. The UCL95 mean effluent concentration was 15.9 mg/L, meeting the 20 mg/L
performance goal for Basic Treatment.
4. All 23 TAPE qualified sample events met requirements for dissolved zinc analysis. Influent
concentrations range from 0.0384 mg/L to 0.2680 mg/L, with a mean concentration of
0.0807 mg/L. The LCL 95 mean percent removal was 62.9 %, meeting the 60 %
performance goal for Enhanced Treatment.
5. Thirteen of the 23 TAPE qualified sample events met requirements for dissolved copper
analysis. Influent concentrations ranged from 0.00543 mg/L to 0.01660 mg/L, with a mean
concentration of 0.0103 mg/L. The LCL 95 mean percent removal was 41.2 %, meeting the
30 % performance goal for Enhanced Treatment.
6. Total zinc concentrations were analyzed for all 24 sample events. Influent EMCs for total
zinc ranged from 0.048 mg/L to 5.290 mg/L with a median of 0.162 mg/L. Corresponding
effluent EMCs for total zinc ranged from 0.015 mg/L to 0.067 mg/L with a median of
Page 557 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
6
0.029 mg/L. Total event loadings for the study for total zinc were 316.85 g at the influent
and 12.92 g at the effluent sampling location, resulting in a summation of loads removal
efficiency of 95.9 %.
7. Total copper concentrations were analyzed for all 24 sample events. Influent EMCs for
total copper ranged from 0.003 mg/L to 35.600 mg/L with a median value of 0.043 mg/L.
Corresponding effluent EMCs for total copper ranged from 0.002 mg/L to 0.015 mg/L with
a median of 0.004 mg/L. Total event loadings for total copper for the study were 1,810.06
g at the influent and 1.90 g at the effluent sampling location, resulting in a summation of
loads removal efficiency of 99.9 %.
Field Testing 2013
1. Filterra completed field-testing of a 6.5 ft x 4 ft. unit at one site in Bellingham,
Washington. Continuous flow and rainfall data collected from January 1, 2013 through
July 23, 2013 indicated that 59 storm events occurred. Water quality data was obtained
from 22 storm events. Not all the sampled storms produced information that met TAPE
criteria for storm and/or water quality data.
2. The system treated 98.9 % of the total 8-month runoff volume during the testing period.
Consequently, the system achieved the goal of treating 91 % of the volume from the site.
Stormwater runoff bypassed Filterra treatment during four of the 59 storm events.
3. Of the 22 sampled events, 18 qualified for TSS analysis (influent TSS concentrations
ranged from 25 to 138 mg/L). The data were segregated into sample pairs with influent
concentration greater than and less than 100 mg/L. The UCL95 mean effluent
concentration for the data with influent less than 100 mg/L was 5.2 mg/L, below the 20-
mg/L threshold. Although the TAPE guidelines do not require an evaluation of TSS
removal efficiency for influent concentrations below 100 mg/L, the mean TSS removal
for these samples was 90.1 %. Average removal of influent TSS concentrations greater
than 100 mg/L (three events) was 85 %. In addition, the system consistently exhibited
TSS removal greater than 80 % at flow rates equivalent to a 100 in/hr infiltration rate and
was observed at 150 in/hr.
4. Ten of the 22 sampled events qualified for TP analysis. Americast augmented the dataset
using two sample pairs from previous monitoring at the site. Influent TP concentrations
ranged from 0.11 to 0.52 mg/L. The mean TP removal for these twelve events was 72.6
%. The LCL95 mean percent removal was 66.0, well above the TAPE requirement of 50
%. Treatment above 50 % was evident at 100 in/hr infiltration rate and as high as 150
in/hr. Consequently, the Filterra test system met the TAPE Phosphorus Treatment goal at
100 in/hr. Influent ortho-P concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.012 mg/L; effluent
ortho-P concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.013 mg/L. The reporting limit/resolution
for the ortho-P test method is 0.01 mg/L, therefore the influent and effluent ortho-P
concentrations were both at and near non-detect concentrations.
Page 558 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
7
Field Testing 2008-2009
1. Filterra completed field-testing at two sites at the Port of Tacoma. Continuous flow and
rainfall data collected during the 2008-2009 monitoring period indicated that 89 storm
events occurred. The monitoring obtained water quality data from 27 storm events. Not
all the sampled storms produced information that met TAPE criteria for storm and/or
water quality data.
2. During the testing at the Port of Tacoma, 98.96 to 99.89 % of the annual influent runoff
volume passed through the POT1 and POT2 test systems respectively. Stormwater
runoff bypassed the POT1 test system during nine storm events and bypassed the POT2
test system during one storm event. Bypass volumes ranged from 0.13 % to 15.3% of the
influent storm volume. Both test systems achieved the 91 % water quality treatment-goal
over the 1-year monitoring period.
3. Consultants observed infiltration rates as high as 133 in/hr during the various storms.
Filterra did not provide any paired data that identified percent removal of TSS, metals,
oil, or phosphorus at an instantaneous observed flow rate.
4. The maximum storm average hydraulic loading rate associated with water quality data is
<40 in/hr, with the majority of flow rates < 25 in/hr. The average instantaneous hydraulic
loading rate ranged from 8.6 to 53 in/hr.
5. The field data showed a removal rate greater than 80 % for TSS with an influent
concentration greater than 20 mg/L at an average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up
to 53 in/hr (average influent concentration of 28.8 mg/L, average effluent concentration
of 4.3 mg/L).
6. The field data showed a removal rate generally greater than 54 % for dissolved zinc at an
average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to 60 in/hr and an average influent
concentration of 0.266 mg/L (average effluent concentration of 0.115 mg/L).
7. The field data showed a removal rate generally greater than 40 % for dissolved copper at
an average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to 35 in/hr and an average influent
concentration of 0.0070 mg/L (average effluent concentration of 0.0036 mg/L).
8. The field data showed an average removal rate of 93 % for total petroleum hydrocarbon
(TPH) at an average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to 53 in/hr and an average
influent concentration of 52 mg/L (average effluent concentration of 2.3 mg/L). The data
also shows achievement of less than 15 mg/L TPH for grab samples. Filterra provided
limited visible sheen data due to access limitations at the outlet monitoring location.
9. The field data showed low percentage removals of total phosphorus at all storm flows at
an average influent concentration of 0.189 mg/L (average effluent concentration of 0.171
mg/L). We may relate the relatively poor treatment performance of the Filterra system at
this location to influent characteristics for total phosphorus that are unique to the Port of
Tacoma site. It appears that the Filterra system will not meet the 50 % removal
performance goal when the majority of phosphorus in the runoff is expected to be in the
dissolved form.
Page 559 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
8
Laboratory Testing
1. Filterra performed laboratory testing on a scaled down version of the Filterra unit. The
lab data showed an average removal from 83-91 % for TSS with influents ranging from
21 to 320 mg/L, 82-84 % for total copper with influents ranging from 0.94 to 2.3 mg/L,
and 50-61 % for orthophosphate with influents ranging from 2.46 to 14.37 mg/L.
2. Filterra conducted permeability tests on the soil media.
3. Lab scale testing using Sil-Co-Sil 106 showed removals ranging from 70.1 % to 95.5 %
with a median removal of 90.7 %, for influent concentrations ranging from 8.3 to 260
mg/L. Filterra ran these laboratory tests at an infiltration rate of 50 in/hr.
4. Supplemental lab testing conducted in September 2009 using Sil-Co-Sil 106 showed an
average removal of 90.6 %. These laboratory tests were run at infiltration rates ranging
from 25 to 150 in/hr for influent concentrations ranging from 41.6 to 252.5 mg/L.
Regression analysis results indicate that the Filterra system’s TSS removal performance
is independent of influent concentration in the concentration rage evaluated at hydraulic
loading rates of up to 150 in/hr.
Contact Information:
Applicant: Jeremiah Lehman
Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC.
11815 Glenn Widing Dr
Portland, OR 97220
(503) 258-3136
jlehman@conteches.com
Applicant’s Website: http://www.conteches.com
Ecology web link: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/index.html
Ecology: Douglas C. Howie, P.E.
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
(360) 407-6444
douglas.howie@ecy.wa.gov
Date Revision
December 2009 GULD for Basic, Enhanced, and Oil granted, CULD for Phosphorus
September 2011 Extended CULD for Phosphorus Treatment
September 2012 Revised design storm discussion, added Shallow System.
January 2013 Revised format to match Ecology standards, changed Filterra contact
information
February 2013 Added FTIB-P system
March 2013 Added FTIB-C system
April 2013 Modified requirements for identifying appropriate size of unit
Page 560 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
9
June 2013 Modified description of FTIB-C alternate configuration
March 2014 GULD awarded for Phosphorus Treatment. GULD updated for a
higher flow-rate for Basic Treatment.
June 2014 Revised sizing calculation methods
March 2015 Revised Contact Information
June 2015 CULD for Basic and Enhanced at 100 in/hr infiltration rate
September 2019 GULD for Basic and Enhanced at 175 in/hr infiltration rate
Page 561 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 562 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
NOT APPLICABLE
Otay Ranch, Village 8 East
Page 563 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
NOT APPLICABLE
Page 564 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 565 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 566 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 567 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 568 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 3, R-6 & R-20
Maintenance agreement to be provided in
Final Engineering Stage
Page 569 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
INSPECTION
FREQUENCY
MAINTENANCE
FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE ACTION
MONTHLY AS-NEEDED
RE-SEED, RE-PLANT OR RE-
ESTABLISH POOR VEGETATION.
REMOVE DEAD OR DISEASED
VEGETATION. MAKE APPROPRIATE
CORRECTIVE MASURES TO SOLVE
STANDING WATER IN VEGETATED
PERVIOUS AREA FOR LONGER THAN
24 HRS AND PRESENCE OF
MOSQUITOS.
WEEKLY ANNUAL DETERMINE REAPPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS OF AMENDED SOIL.
ANNUAL BI-ANNUAL REPAINT AS NECESSARY
BI-ANNUAL 6-12 MONTHS AS
NEEDED
REMOVE TRASH FROM SCREENING
DEVICE.
ANNUAL 12-24 MONTHS
REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM
SEPARATION CHAMBER.
REPLACEMENT OF MEDIA IN THE PRE-
FILTER CARTRIDGE. REPLACEMENT
OF DRAIN DOWN FILTER MEDIA.
QUARTERLY 6-12 MONTHS AS
NEEDED
REMOVE DEBRIS AS NEEDED, AND
CHECK ORIFICES
DESCRIPTION:IMPERVIOUS AREA
DISPERSION
SITE DESIGN, SOURCE CONTROL AND POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP OPERATION + MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT APPROVAL NO.:
O&M RESPONSIBLE PARTY DESIGNEE: PROPERTY OWNER: HomeFed Village II Master, LLC
BMP DESCRIPTION
SITE DESIGN ELEMENTS
DESCRIPTION:DETENTION BASIN WITH
ORIFICES FOR WATER QUALITY
DISCHARGE RATE CONTROL
DESCRIPTION: AMENDED SOIL
POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP(S)
SOURCE CONTROL ELEMENTS
DESCRIPTION: STORM DRAIN
STENCILING
DESCRIPTION:PROPRIETARY
BIOFILTRATION UNIT, MODULAR WETLAND
SYSTEMS, BIO CLEAN KRAKEN MEDIA
FILTERS, BIO CLEAN DVERT SYSTEM
Page 570 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 571 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 572 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 573 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 574 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 575 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 576 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 577 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 578 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 579 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 580 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 581 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 582 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 583 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 584 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 585 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 586 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 587 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
DRAINAGE REPORT TO BE
PROVIDED SEPARATELY
Page 588 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Page 589 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TO
BE PROVIDED SEPARATELY
Page 590 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TM DRAINAGE STUDY
For
OTAY RANCH - VILLAGE 8 EAST
TM22-0005
City of Chula Vista, California
Prepared for:
Homefed Village II Master, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 918-8200
W.O. 2395-0039
November 14, 2023
Hunsaker & Associates
San Diego, Inc.
Alisa S. Vialpando, R.C.E. 47945
President
No. 47945
Page 591 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Summary of Pre-Development Conditions
1.3 Summary of Developed Conditions
1.4 Results & Recommendations
1.5 References
Chapter 2 - Methodology & Model Development
2.1 Rational Method Model Development Summary
2.2 Design Rainfall Determination
50-year, 6 hr Rainfall Isopluvial Map
50-year, 24 hr Rainfall Isopluvial Map
100-year, 6 hr Rainfall Isopluvial Map
100-year, 6 hr Rainfall Isopluvial Map
2.3 Runoff Coefficient Determination
2.4 Rainfall Intensity Determination
Maximum Overland Flow Length & Initial Time of
Concentration Table
Urban Watershed Overland Time of Flow Nomograph
Manning’s Equation Nomograph
Intensity-Duration Design Chart
2.5 NRCS Unit Hydrograph Hydrologic Analysis
Chapter 3 - Hydrologic Analysis
3.1 100-Year Existing Condition AES Model Output
3.2 100-Year Developed Condition AES Model Output
3.3 50-Year Developed Condition AES Model Output
Chapter 4 – Hydrology Exhibits/Maps
Existing Condition Hydrology Map (Exhibit 1)Map Pocket 1
Developed Condition Hydrology Map (Exhibit 2)Map Pocket 2
Overlay of Flood Insurance Rate Map (Exhibit 3)Map Pocket 3
Page 592 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
Appendix A – HEC-HMS Study for Otay River Watershed for Time to Peak
Determination for 100-Year, 24-hour Storm Event
Input Parameters and Results for Existing and Developed Conditions
Existing Condition Watershed Map
Proposed Condition Watershed Map
Appendix B – HEC-RAS Study for 100-Year, 24-hour Storm Event Water
Surface Elevations at the Village 8 East Outlets
Input Parameters and Results
100-Year Water Surface Elevation Cross Sections
Concrete Energy Dissipator Outlet Velocity Calculation
Appendix C – Geologic Maps and Subdrain Outlet Headwall Detail
Appendix D – Reference Reports
Page 593 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
1
CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This Preliminary Drainage Study has been prepared to assess the pre-developed
and developed condition peak runoff rates from the proposed Otay Ranch Village 8
East site for Homefed Village II Master, LLC.
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay
River Valley, east of Village 8 West and west of SR-125. This urban village was
originally approved by the Chula Vista City Council in 2014 and subsequently
amended in 2020. Current entitlements accommodate a total of 3,276 residential
units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440 multi-family
units in a mixed-use setting, 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses, an
elementary school site, a neighborhood park, and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main
Street and La Media Parkway with emergency and pedestrian access to the
community park provided along a utility corridor in the southeast portion of Village 8
East. Primary access to the community park is via existing Avenida Caprise within
Village 8 West.
Page 594 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
2
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC, (Applicant), proposes to amend the Village 8 East land
use plan to reflect current market conditions and housing needs and to ensure the
community relates more closely to the adjacent Village 8 West community and future
Village 9 planned east of SR-125. The replanning effort also addresses the redesign
of the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and La Media Parkway.
Village 8 East Proposed Land Use: The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan
would include a Village Core area that would accommodate a mix of uses including
multi-family residential and retail/commercial uses along with an elementary school
site and a centrally located neighborhood park. A future multi-modal bridge, planned
to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), bicycles and pedestrians is
also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and future Village 9.
The proposed project would include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses
and 1,348 multi-family homes distributed across eight Village Core parcels. Other
residential land uses include 1,664 multi-family residential units in 10 parcels
designated Medium-High Residential. The elementary school site has an underlying
“High” residential land use designation that could accommodate 264 multi-family
units if the site is not utilized as a school site. The project also includes an
alternative elementary school site/neighborhood park site configuration which would
increase the size of the elementary school site and correspondingly reduce the
neighborhood park site. This alternative configuration would be implemented based
on the needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
The project also includes 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 16.4 acres of
manufactured slopes/basins and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located
east of SR-125. Approximately 15.3 acres comprising perimeter slope areas are
included in the gross acres of development parcels. The Village 8 East Final Map(s)
will include open space easements over perimeter slope areas based on final
engineering designs. The 43.3-acre (gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South is
located south of Village 8 East. An existing water quality basin that serves Village 8
West is located in the western portion of the community park and the proposed
project includes an additional water quality basin in the eastern portion of the
community park to serve Village 8 East.
There will be areas within the project limits which will remain unaffected by the
proposed development of Village 8 East. Examples of undisturbed areas include the
Preserve, the Otay River, and areas located at the southeast corner of the boundary.
The latter two were considered in the overall Otay River (HEC-HMS) hydrologic
analysis included in Appendix A. However, they were not included within the local
rational-method hydrologic analysis for Village 8 East included in Chapter 3 and 4.
For this reason, total acreages listed in the SPA Plan Area will not correlate with the
total watershed acreages listed below and included in the hydrologic analysis. For
comparison purposes, the pre and post development hydrologic study areas
presented in this study were set to match. Discharge points along the project
(hydrologic) boundary were identified based on actual (for existing condition) and
expected (for proposed condition) outlet points.
Page 595 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
3
The hydrologic watershed acreage affected by the development is approximately
545 acres. The southern portion of the site adjacent of the Otay River will include a
park and a water quality basin for treatment of site runoff. Refer to Chapter 4
Exhibits 1 and 2 for an overview of the existing and proposed drainage patterns of
the site.
The entire Village 8 East site drains south towards the Otay River in both the pre
and post developed conditions. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has
identified the Otay River as part of the Otay Hydrologic Unit and Otay Valley
Hydrologic Area (basin number 910.20). Per the Flood Insurance Rate Map Nos.
06073C2178 and 06073C2179, the developed areas of the site will be outside the
FEMA floodplain boundary. Therefore, a Letter of Map Revision is not required.
See Exhibit 1.3 for an overlay of the site on Flood Insurance Rate Map. The Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Open Space Preserve Area is located
immediately south of the developed areas and north of the community park along
the Otay River. The development of Otay Ranch Village 8 East, as proposed in the
TM, does not encroach into the existing (MSCP) Open Space Preserve Area with
the exception of the proposed park access roads and storm drain and sewer outfalls
which will have an assigned easement through the preserve.
A HEC-HMS hydrologic analysis wasrun to determine the pre and post-development
runoffs within the Otay River watershed at the major downstream outlet points of the
Village 8 East development. This analysis also determined the expected lag times
associated with the overall upstream Otay River watershed. The lag time was used
to compare with the local ‘Village 8 East’ peak times to the Otay River at the projects
downstream outlet location. This analysis is included in Appendix A. Using the
calculated flows from the HEC-HMS results, the HEC-RAS program was used to
determine the pre and post development flow depths and velocities within the Otay
River at the major proposed outlet location. Separately, the preliminary storm drain
outlet velocity was calculated for the major storm drain outlet based on using an
APWA impact basin energy dissipator at the outlet. Please refer to Appendix B for
HEC-RAS and impact basin calculations
Using the results from the HEC-HMS analysis, the HEC-RAS river analysis program
was used to determine pre and post development flow depths and velocities within
the Otay River at the two proposed outlet locations. The models helped to establish
the maximum velocities acceptable at the proposed discharge location from the site.
The preliminary storm drain outlet velocity was calculated for the major storm drain
system based on using an APWA impact basin energy dissipator at the outlet.
Please refer to Appendix B for HEC-RAS and impact basin calculations.
Per County of San Diego drainage criteria, the Modified Rational Method should be
used to determine peak design flow rates when the contributing drainage area is
less than 1.0-square mile. Since the total watershed area discharging from the Otay
Ranch Village 8 East site is less than 1.0-square mile, the AES-2003 computer
software was used to model the runoff response per the Modified Rational Method.
Page 596 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
4
Methodology used for the computation of design rainfall events, runoff coefficients,
and rainfall intensity values are consistent with criteria set forth in the most current
“San Diego County Hydrology Manual” and the “City of Chula Vista Subdivision
Manual”. A more detailed explanation of methodology and model development used
for this analysis is listed in Chapter 2 of this report.
1.2 Summary of Pre-Developed Conditions
The topography for existing Village 8 East project area is characterized by farmland,
rolling hills, vegetation consisting mainly of brush and incised canyons that partition
the site into several defined watersheds whose drainage patterns will be affected by
the proposed Village 8 East development. The pre-development condition has nine
distinguishable watersheds (see See Exhibit 1 in Chapter 4, and table 1 below). As
shown on the Existing Condition Hydrology Map, approximately 13.72 acres within
the northeast portion of the site currently drains towards an existing storm drain
located at the eastern edge of Main Street (Rock Mountain Road). This runoff is
directed west and connects to the Village 8 West development at the intersection of
Main Street and Magdalena Avenue to the “North Watershed”. The “Northwest
Watershed” is composed by approximately 10.11 acres of undeveloped slopes sheet
flowing to the west of the development and into Village 8 West. The “West
Watershed” consists of 14.26 acres of undeveloped slopes draining south and
toward the westerly portion of the project. The “Southwest Watershed” is tributary to
some undeveloped slopes as well as 181.2 acres of the Village 8 West development
that drain southerly to and existing water quality basin proposed as part of the
aforementioned site; the flows commingle with approximately 27.56 acres of hilly
and steep natural slopes (node 76) . The “South Watershed” is solely composed by
25.94 acres of natural slopes draining southerly towards the Otay River. The “East
Central Watershed” consists of 180.32 acres of natural slopes draining southerly and
discharging to the Otay River. The “East Watershed” also drains to the Otay River
but it only delineates approximately 19.96 acres. The “Southwest and Northeast
Watersheds” are also slopes that drain easterly towards SDR-125 but have the Otay
River as their ultimate discharge point. These watersheds consist of 13.28 and 51.54
acres of slopes for the Southwest and the Northeast watersheds respectively. Runoff
along the upper portion of the eastern boundary is conveyed via trapezoidal channel
and storm drain. A storm drain directs this runoff to the east side of SR125. The
southern portion is channeled south along the eastern project boundary en route to
the Otay River.
The northern half of Main Street currently extends approximately 1,130 feet east of
the Magdalena Avenue – Main Street intersection. This constructed street portion
allows access to Olympian High School located on its north side. As part of this TM,
a small area within the northeast portion of the project boundary will be developed
as Neighborhood R-16. However, this area is currently undeveloped and drains
towards the current eastern limit of Main Street. A headwall and storm drain direct
this runoff west along Main Street within the existing storm drain which will tie in to
the Village 8 West storm drain. The Village 8 West storm drain will outlet into the
Otay River downstream.
Page 597 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
5
The remaining areas within the project boundary currently drain via the incised
canyons located throughout the site. These canyons flow south and empty directly
into the Otay River. The Otay River flows from east to west accumulating runoff
from each tributary canyon along the way. The Otay River empties into the San
Diego Bay approximately 8.5 miles downstream.
Table 1 below summarizes the 100-year pre-development peak flows to each of the
delineated watersheds shown in Exhibit 1. A runoff coefficient of 0.50, 0.60, or 0.75
was assumed for the existing tributary area per the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual. These coefficients correspond to farm land, vegetated rolling and steep
slopes, as well as paved surfaces.
TABLE 1 - Summary of Pre-Developed Flows to the Otay River
Discharge Location Node Number Drainage Area
(ac)
100-Year Peak
Flow
(cfs)
North Watershed 612 13.72 28.62
Northwest
Watershed 302 10.11 21.75
West Watershed 403 14.26 27.18
Northeast
Watershed 705 51.54 75.59
Southwest
Watershed 802 208.76 380.71
South Watershed 203 25.94 50.66
East-Central
Watershed 511 180.32 211.11
East Watershed 552 19.96 45.72
Southeast
Watershed 104 13.28 25.93
Total 537.89 867.27
Supporting calculations for the data presented in Table 1 are located in Chapter 3 of
this report. The corresponding hydrology map is Exhibit 1.1 in Chapter 4.
1.3 Summary of Developed Conditions
The Otay Ranch Village 8 East Tentative Map will consist of mixed use area, multi-
family residential dwelling units, park areas, community purpose facilities, a school
site, open space areas, and paved roads. A community park and recreation site will
be located between the Preserve and the Otay River. The park site has been
included in the analysis within this study.
Page 598 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
6
Main Street, which has partially been constructed between the Village 8 West
boundary and SR125, will be completed and extend east through the Village 8 East
development. As shown on Exhibit 2, Developed Condition Hydrology Map, the
developed areas of the Village 8 East project will almost entirely consist of
residential development for multi-family dwelling residences. A school site,
community purpose facilities, and parks will also be included. A water quality basin
located at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the Otay River will treat a
portion of the community park while a basin with proprietary biofiltration units
downstream will treat Village 8 East stormwater runoff in compliance of City of Chula
Vista Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements for water
quality. More detailed discussion will be provided in the Priority Development Project
(PDP) Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for Village 8 East TM dated
May 2023.
The post-development condition has five distinguishable watersheds summarized
below: The “North Watershed” like in the existing conditions conveys flow from Main
street and into the Village 8 West development storm drain; the watershed only
bounds approximately 7.79 acres of road in this condition. The “Northeast
Watershed” and “Southeast Watershed” consist of 17.50 and 1.74 acres respectively
of existing and proposed slopes draining away from the project and towards SDR-
125 where it will be routed by a trapezoidal channel into the Otay River. The
“Southwest Watershed” is still tributary of 181.20 acres of the Village 8 West
development and existing slopes. The development of Village 8 east adds more area
to this watershed by discharging DMA 2 (a portion of the regional park) for a total of
230.42 acres. Finally, the “East Watershed” is tributary to all the imperviousness
associated with the development of Village 8 East (this includes public and private
roads, multifamily sites, commercial sites, schools, open space areas, and a
remaining acreage of the regional park not draining west) for a total of 288.39 acres.
The storm drain system within the Village 8 East development will consist of inlets,
catch basins, RCP pipe, cleanouts, and headwalls. The 50-year event has been
analyzed to provide estimated pipe sizes throughout the project using AES sizing
function. During the final engineering design phase, this system will be designed to
convey the peak 50-year flows through the site and outlet into the Otay River. The
entire developed site with its neighborhoods and streets will generally slope towards
the southern project boundary.
Although the Village 8 East site has two major outflall locations, the majority of the
onsite runoff is conveyed by the eastern storm drain system. The western storm
drain system conveys the offsite developed flow from the Village 8 West
development and will confluence onsite flows from the western portion of the park
site and a portion of the Preserve area which is located within the project boundary.
The eastern storm drain will be routed towards the southeastern corner of the
development in the vicinity of the proposed basin. The proprietary biofiltration units
located downstream of the project will treat the ‘first flush’ (85th percentile) flows. To
direct these lower water quality flows (compared to the peak flows), a cleanout with
an internal diversion will be located at the downstream portion of the system. The
Page 599 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
7
cleanout’s invert will be set below that of the peak flow outlet pipe which will allow
peak flows to continue towards the discharge point at the Otay River.
Table 2 below summarizes the 100-year developed condition peak flows to each of
the site’s discharge locations. Runoff coefficients assumed for the proposed roads,
multi-family development, single family development, school site, and park sites are
per the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual.
TABLE 2 - Summary of Developed Flows to Otay River
Discharge
Location Node Number Drainage Area
(ac)
100-Year Peak
Flow
(cfs)
North Watershed 305 7.79 32.35
Northeast
Watershed 503 17.50 22.13
Southwest
Watershed 602 230.42 400.61
East Watershed 198 288.39 774.35
Southeast
Watershed 406 1.74 3.94
Total 545.84 1233.38
Supporting calculations for the data presented in Table 2 is located in Chapter 3 of
this report. The corresponding hydrology map is Exhibit 2 in Chapter 4.
As evident on the pre and post condition hydrology maps, the majority of the runoff
from the developed portion of Village 8 East will be discharged upstream of its
natural confluence point with the Otay River. Therefore, analyses at the proposed
discharge points were conducted to determine the impact at the outfalls and
recommend outlet facilities to address erosivity concerns. A pre and post condition
HEC-HMS analysis was run for the Otay River Watershed to determine expected
river flows at the downstream end of the Village 8 East project boundary. Appendix
A contains the HEC-HMS model. These flows were then used for the pre and post
condition HEC-RAS analysis performed at the two proposed outfall locations. See
Appendix B for HEC-RAS calculations. Comparison of pre and post condition flow
velocities and depths do not show any increases caused by the Village 8 East
development. The flow velocities obtained from the HEC-RAS models established
the existing and maximum acceptable velocities at the two outlet locations. Using
the peak flows from the developed condition hydrologic analysis, a preliminary
hydraulic analysis was performed to determine expected outlet velocities and
recommend dissipation measures needed to reduce velocities to below existing
condition. Calculations during the final engineering stage will help determine the
appropriate and necessary energy dissipating measures at each respective outlet.
Alternatives such as D-41 headwalls or APWA energy dissipating impact basins will
be considered along with rip rap.
Page 600 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
8
Preliminary calculations have been included at the end of Appendix B and include
determination of the expected velocity at the downstream end of the proposed rip
rap. Calculations indicate that velocities were reduced to 5.04 fps.
Where possible, landform grading has been incorporated to mimic existing
conditions where the proposed grading ties into or daylights with the existing terrain.
It is intended that the stormwater from the manufactured slopes will sheet flow and
follow the existing drainage patterns.
1.4 Results & Recommendations
Table 3 summarizes the effects of site development at the receiving Otay River.
TABLE 3 - Summary of Pre vs. Post-Developed Flows from Village 8 East
PRE-DEVELOPED POST-DEVELOPED DIFFERENCE
Discharge
Location
Drainage
Area
(ac)
100-Year
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Drainage
Area
(ac)
100-Year
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Area
(ac)
100-Year
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
North
Watershed 13.72 28.62 7.79 32.35 -5.93 +3.73
Northwest
Watershed 10.11 21.75 N/A N/A -10.11 -21.75
West
Watershed 14.26 27.18 N/A N/A -14.26 -27.18
Northeast
Watershed 51.54 75.59 17.50 22.13 -34.04 -53.46
Southwest
Watershed 208.76 380.71 227.65 400.61 +21.66 +19.90
South
Watershed 25.94 50.66 N/A N/A -25.94 -50.66
East-Central
Watershed 180.32 211.11 N/A N/A -180.32 -211.11
East
Watershed 19.96 45.72 288.39 774.35 +267.53 +728.63
Southeast
Watershed 13.28 25.93 1.74 3.94 -11.54 -21.99
Total 537.89 867.27 545.84 1233.38 +7.95 +366.11
Development of Otay Ranch Village 8 East TM results in the net increase of runoff
discharged to the adjacent Otay River by approximately 366 cfs.
Per the Otay River Watershed Management Plan prepared in May 2006 by Aspen
Environmental Group, the Otay River Watershed at the existing Otay Valley
Road/Heritage Road bridge crossing is approximately 122.7 square miles.
This bridge crossing is approximately 2.2 miles downstream of Village 8 East. The
flow for the Otay River at this location is approximately 22,000 cfs (100-year storm
Page 601 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
9
event). Although the Savage Dam at the Lower Otay Reservoir impounds runoff
from over 60 percent of the Otay River’s tributary watershed, the analysis included in
this study assumes that the dam is full at the beginning of the rain event.The full
report mentioned above can be accessed at the following website:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/05-06FinalDraft_OtayRiverWMP.pdf.
The Otay River Watershed Management Plan (Section B.5.3) notes that the existing
Otay River downstream of the dam is starved for sediment and peak flows, stating
“Theoretically, an increase in peak flow would tend to counteract the degradation
trends by replacing water impounded by the reservoir and helping the River maintain
its original platform”. In addition, the time of concentration for the peak flows at the
proposed ‘Village 8 East’ eastern outlet to the Otay River is approximately 12
minutes. For the proposed western outlet, which includes the future ‘Village 2 West’
development, the time of concentration is about 21.0 minutes, as detailed in Section
3.2.
Considering that the Otay River watershed area spans over 100 square miles, a
substantial delay is expected between the peak flows exiting the proposed
development and the peak flows along the Otay River reaching the proposed
eastern outlet location. The Village 8 East drainage area represents 9.2% of the
Otay River Valley Center Subarea. According to the HEC-HMS study for a 100-Year,
24-hour storm event, the time to peak at the Village 8 East outlet along the Otay
River is approximately 21 hours, whereas it's 17 hours for the Otay River Valley
Center Subarea. This creates a lag time of over 4 hours. Due to this lag time, there
is no net increase of flows to the Otay River from the development of Village 8 East
when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, no detention basins are proposed
for this project other than a basin with proprietary biofiltration units downstream of it
and a biofiltration basin which will be used solely as a water quality device. Please
refer to Appendix A for HEC-HMS supporting calculations.
The San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area Water Quality Improvement Plan
and the City of Chula Vista BMP design manual were used for hydromodification
guidance for this project. The manuals specified above exempt the Otay River from
hydromodification criteria. The two major storm drain discharge points proposed for
Otay Ranch Village 8 East outlet directly into the Otay River. Therefore, the areas
from which their runoff is generated are considered exempt from hydromodification
requirements. Two outlets along the eastern project boundary, labeled Northeast
Watershed and Southeast Watershed on the attached exhibits, will need to address
hydromodification requirements since they do not directly discharge into the Otay
River. These two watersheds almost entirely consist of pervious areas in both pre
and post conditions and will be reduced in size once developed. Per the city of
Chula Vista BMP manual, an HMP exemption can be applied to areas that will not
experience increases in both imperviousness and in unmitigated peak flows. The
Southeast Watershed qualifies for this exemption. However, the Northeast
Watershed will increase its impervious areas once the SR-125/ Main Street
interchange is constructed. Further hydromodification analysis is required for the
Northeast Watershed and is included in Chapter 4 of this report. In regard to the
northeast portion of the project area (R-16), this area also qualifies for HMP
Page 602 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
10
exemption since it will tie in to the Village 8 West storm drain which will directly
discharge into the Otay River downstream. Formal discussion, calculations, and
analysis regarding hydromodification for Village 8 East are included in Chapter 4 of
the Village 8 East Master Water Quality Technical Report.
The main storm drain outfalls from the proposed Village 8 East development will
outlet directly to the Otay River. The outlets are located at the southeast and
southwest corners of the development. All outlet locations are shown on Exhibit 2
(Chapter 4). The storm drain at the outlet points will be reinforced concrete pipe
ranging in diameter sizes between 60” to 84”. Ultimate size will be determined
during the final engineering design phase. Concrete energy dissipator devices per
San Diego Regional Standard Drawings D-41 (or APWA Impact Basin 384-0) and
rip-rap apron will be constructed to reduce velocities as dictated by the standard
drawings prior to outletting to the Otay River.
A HEC-HMS (hydrologic) and HEC-RAS (hydraulic) analysis was also prepared as
part of this study to determine velocities and flows in the Otay River at the two
Village 8 East storm drain outlets. The HEC-HMS study shows that there is no net
increase of flows to the Otay River from the development of Village 8 East when
compared to existing condition (about 0.03% increase and it is still less than the flow
of the river per FEMA FIS which is 22,000 cfs). This can be attributed to the
differences in lag times as previously discussed above. The HEC-RAS study
calculates the approximate velocities in the Otay River to be between 6.35 and 7.34
fps at the two discharge locations during the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Energy
dissipation at the storm drain outlet will be addressed by constructing a headwall
with vertical baffle wall to reduce outlet velocities below 7.34 fps. Appendix C
includes a preliminary velocity calculation at the outlet end of an APWA Energy
Dissipator- Impact Basin with Vertical Baffle Wall. Average preliminary velocities of
5.88 fps and 7.78 fps were calculated at the outlets for the east and west outlets,
respectively. See Appendix C.
Table 4 summarizes pre and post-development runoffs within the Otay River
watershed at the major downstream outlet points of the Village 8 East development.
It also accounts for the expected lag times associated with the overall upstream
Otay River watershed.
TABLE 4 - Summary Of Pre And Post-Developed Runoffs And Lag Times
Within The Otay River At The Downstream Outlet Points Of The Village 8
PRE-DEVELOPED POST-DEVELOPED DIFFERENCE
Outfall
Location
Drainage
Area
(Mi^2)
100-Year
Peak Flow
(CFS)*
Time of
Peak
(lag time)
(Hr: Min)
Drainage
Area
(Mi^2)
100-Year
Peak Flow
(CFS)*
Time of
Peak
(Lag time)
(Hr: Min)
Area
(Mi^2)
100-Year
Peak
Flow
(CFS)*
Village 8
Outfall(1)115.954 19619.13 20:30 115.954 19625.37 20:30 0 +6.24
(+0.032%)
Ex. Otay
Valley Road
(2)
120.865 20345.45 20:40 120.865 20351.71 20:40 0 +6.26
(+0.031%)
*Summary table reflects values for the 100 year, 24 hour event
Page 603 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
11
In addition, Appendix B includes further analysis of the proposed rip rap at the east
outlet and determined that flow velocities were reduced to 5.04 fps. A rip rap
analysis for the western outlet was not included since that outlet is part of the Village
8 West project.
Erosion Control: The developer shall monitor any erosion at the project’s outfalls at
the Otay River and, prior to the last building permit for the project, obtain approval
for and complete any reconstructive work necessary to eliminate any existing
erosion and prevent future erosion from occurring, all to the satisfaction of the
Development Services Director.
Scour Analysis: Concurrent with all grading plan submittals, the applicant shall
prepare a scour analysis for all structures within the 100-year flood hazard area.
Additionally, all said structures shall be monitored until the last building permit for the
project has been issued.
Prior to discharge from the site, all developed site runoff will receive full water quality
treatment in accordance with the most current City of Chula Vista Storm Water
Manual standards applicable at the time of final engineering. Therefore,
groundwater should not be impacted. The project will be designed to avoid violation
of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Storm water
treatment design is further discussed in the Master Water Quality Technical Report
for Otay Ranch Village 8 East Tentative Map.
No impacts are anticipated from the proposed canyon subdrains which will carry low
and dry weather flows. The flow associated with the canyon drains is clean as any
flow would have percolated through the various layers of soil and would have been
filtered prior to its discharge. Appendix C includes the geologic maps for Village 8
East and a typical subdrain outlet detail which includes velocity dissipation
measures.
Summary:
· Drainage facilities within Village 8 East will be designed in accordance with
the requirements of the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, the San Diego
County Hydrology Manual and the requirements of the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
· Peak discharge flows from the Otay River Valley Center Subarea, of which
the proposed project's drainage area constitutes 9.2%, will take approximately
17 hours to reach their peak following the 100-Year-24hr storm event. In
comparison, the peak discharge flow from the entire Otay River Basin at the
downstream Village 8 East outlet will occur more than 20 hours after the
onset of the storm. Due to this difference in time, the projects direct, indirect
impacts are not significant.
· Due to the detaining effects of the Savage Dam and Lower Otay Reservoir,
detention and hydromodification basins are not proposed for this project.
Page 604 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
12
· Development of the project site will not further degrade potential beneficial
uses of downstream water bodies as designated by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, including water bodies listed on the Clean Water
Section 303d list.
· Onsite and offsite drainage easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works.
· Additional calculations for the following items will be included with the
Drainage report for final engineering:
o Street capacity
o Inlet sizing
o Hydraulics
o Sediment basin sizing
References
City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual; Engineering Department and Land Development;
Section 3, March 2012
City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual; August 2021
San Diego County Hydrology Manual; County of San Diego Department of Public Works
Flood Control Division, June 2003
San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area Analysis prepared by Rick Engineering on
April 2015.
Drainage Study for Otay Ranch Village 8 West prepared by Hale Engineering, approved on
December 2019
Rough Grading Plans for McMillin Otay Ranch –Village 7 prepared by Rick Engineering
Company, January 2005.
Drainage Study for McMillin Village 7 Vista Verde prepared by Rick Engineering, dated
November 29, 2004
Order No. R9-2013-0001; NPDES No. CAS 0109266, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the
Watersheds within the San Diego Region (Regional MS4 Permit).
.
“Otay Ranch Village 8 East TM PDP SWQMP”,Hunsaker & Associates; May 2023.
Page 605 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
13
CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY
2.1 - Rational Method Model Development Summary
Computer Software Package – AES-2010
Design Storm – 100-Year Return Interval (TM phase)
Land Use – School, Park, Multi-Use, Multi-Family, Single Family, Community
Purpose Facilities, and Open Space
Soil Type - Hydrologic soil group D was used for all areas since the site consists
chiefly of soil type Groups C and D. Using soil group D is the most conservative
assumption. For additional soil information for Village 8 East, please reference the
Geotechnical Investigation for Otay Village 8 East prepared by Geocon
Incorporated, dated April 2013. Group D soils have very slow infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted. Consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils
with a high permanent water table, soils with clay pan or clay layer at or near the
surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious materials, Group D soils have a
very slow rate of water transmission.
Runoff Coefficient – In accordance with the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual,
a runoff coefficient of 0.90 was used for fully paved areas, 0.85 for the School Site,
0.75 for the Multi-Family Sites and dense residential, 0.60 for proposed vegetated
slopes, 0.45 for proposed open space, and 0.30 for parks.
Method of Analysis – The Rational Method is the most widely used hydrologic model
for estimating peak runoff rates. Applied to small urban and semi-urban areas with
drainage areas less than 1.0 square mile, the Rational Method relates storm rainfall
intensity, a runoff coefficient, and drainage area to peak runoff rate. This
relationship is expressed by the equation:
Q = CIA, where:
Q = The peak runoff rate in cubic feet per second at the point of analysis.
C = A runoff coefficient representing the area - averaged ratio of runoff to rainfall
intensity.
I = The time-averaged rainfall intensity in inches per hour corresponding to the
time of concentration.
A = The drainage basin area in acres.
To perform a node-link study, the total watershed area is divided into subareas
which discharge at designated nodes.
Page 606 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
14
The procedure for the subarea summation model is as follows:
(1) Subdivide the watershed into an initial subarea (generally 1 lot) and
subsequent subareas, which are generally less than 10 acres in size. Assign
upstream and downstream node numbers to each subarea.
(2) Estimate an initial Tc by using the appropriate nomograph or overland flow
velocity estimation.
(3) Using the initial Tc, determine the corresponding values of I. Then Q = C I A.
(4) Using Q, estimate the travel time between this node and the next by
Manning’s equation as applied to the particular channel or conduit linking the
two nodes. Then, repeat the calculation for Q based on the revised intensity
(which is a function of the revised time of concentration)
The nodes are joined together by links, which may be street gutter flows, drainage swales,
drainage ditches, pipe flow, or various channel flows. The AES-2010 computer
subarea menu is as follows:
SUBAREA HYDROLOGIC PROCESS
1.Confluence analysis at node.
2.Initial subarea analysis (including time of concentration calculation).
3.Pipeflow travel time (computer estimated).
4.Pipeflow travel time (user specified).
5.Trapezoidal channel travel time.
6.Street flow analysis through subarea.
7.User - specified information at node.
8.Addition of subarea runoff to main line.
9.V-gutter flow through area.
10. Copy main stream data to memory bank
11. Confluence main stream data with a memory bank
12. Clear a memory bank
At the confluence point of two or more basins, the following procedure is used to
combine peak flow rates to account for differences in the basin’s times of
concentration. This adjustment is based on the assumption that each basin’s
hydrographs are triangular in shape.
(1). If the collection streams have the same times of concentration, then
the Q values are directly summed,
Qp = Qa + Qb; Tp = Ta = Tb
Page 607 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
15
(2). If the collection streams have different times of concentration, the
smaller of the tributary Q values may be adjusted as follows:
(i). The most frequent case is where the collection stream with the
longer time of concentration has the larger Q. The smaller Q
value is adjusted by the ratio of rainfall intensities.
Qp = Qa + Qb (Ia/Ib); Tp = Ta
(ii). In some cases, the collection stream with the shorter time of
concentration has the larger Q. Then the smaller Q is adjusted
by a ratio of the T values.
Qp = Qb +Qa (Tb/Ta); Tp = Tb
Page 608 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY & MODEL DEVELOPMENT
2.2 – Design Rainfall Determination
100-Year, 6-Hour and 50-Year, 6-Hour Rainfall
Isopluvial Maps from City Of Chula Vista San
Diego County Hydrology Manual June 2003
Page 609 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.15
Page 610 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project
Location
32°36'13"
-116°58'12"
P6=4.0
Page 611 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.35
Page 612 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project
Location
32°36'13"
-116°58'12"
P6=4.25
Page 613 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY & MODEL DEVELOPMENT
2.3 – Runoff Coefficient Determination
Page 614 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 615 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
For the proposed road drainage areas, the runoff coefficient was calculated as a weighted
average, with 0.9 assigned for paved surfaces, 0.45 for landscape parkways, and 0.6 for
slopes. Although the actual imperviousness of these roads is under 85% (as detailed in the
street cross-sections), an imperviousness value of 88% was adopted for these calculations.Page 616 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project Location32°36'13"-116°58'12"Site is soil type D per the San Diego County Hydrology Manual
Page 617 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Project
Soil D
Soil C
Soil C
Page 618 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/21/2023
Page 1 of 4
36
0
5
4
0
0
36
0
5
7
0
0
36
0
6
0
0
0
36
0
6
3
0
0
36
0
6
6
0
0
36
0
6
9
0
0
36
0
7
2
0
0
36
0
7
5
0
0
36
0
7
8
0
0
36
0
8
1
0
0
36
0
5
4
0
0
36
0
5
7
0
0
36
0
6
0
0
0
36
0
6
3
0
0
36
0
6
6
0
0
36
0
6
9
0
0
36
0
7
2
0
0
36
0
7
5
0
0
36
0
7
8
0
0
36
0
8
1
0
0
501900 502200 502500 502800 503100 503400 503700
501900 502200 502500 502800 503100 503400 503700
32° 36' 39'' N
11
6
°
5
8
'
5
3
'
'
W
32° 36' 39'' N
11
6
°
5
7
'
3
2
'
'
W
32° 35' 9'' N
11
6
°
5
8
'
5
3
'
'
W
32° 35' 9'' N
11
6
°
5
7
'
3
2
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 200 400 800 1200
Meters
Map Scale: 1:13,600 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Page 619 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 14, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 24, 2022—Apr
29, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/21/2023
Page 2 of 4Page 620 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
DaC Diablo clay, 2 to 9
percent slopes
D 80.5 15.4%
DaD Diablo clay, 9 to 15
percent slopes, warm
MAAT
C 120.0 22.9%
GP Gravel pits 5.7 1.1%
HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
D 36.6 7.0%
LrG Las Posas loam, 30 to
65 percent slopes,
stony
D 13.9 2.7%
LsE Linne clay loam, 9 to 30
percent slopes
C 23.8 4.5%
OhC Olivenhain cobbly loam,
2 to 9 percent slopes
D 72.6 13.9%
OhE Olivenhain cobbly loam,
9 to 30 percent slopes
D 76.0 14.5%
Rm Riverwash 70.8 13.5%
SbC Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
C 13.7 2.6%
TeF Terrace escarpments 9.6 1.8%
Totals for Area of Interest 523.2 100.0%
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/21/2023
Page 3 of 4
Page 621 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive
precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively
drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well
drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of
water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay
layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious
material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in
their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/21/2023
Page 4 of 4
Page 622 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY & MODEL DEVELOPMENT
2.4 – Rainfall Intensity Determination
-Maximum Overland Flow Length & Initial Time
of Concentration
-Urban Watershed Overland Time of Flow
Nomograph
- Manning’s Equation Nomograph
-Intensity-Duration Design Chart
Page 623 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 624 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 625 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
F I G U R E
SOURCE: USDOT, FHWA, HDS-3 (1961)
3-7Manning’s Equation Nomograph
s =0 .0 0 3
n =0 .0 2
SL
O
P
E
i
n
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
f
o
o
t
-
s
HY
D
R
A
U
L
I
C
R
A
D
I
U
S
i
n
f
e
e
t
-
R
VE
L
O
C
I
T
Y
i
n
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
s
e
c
o
n
d
-
V
E X A M P L E
R
=
0.6
V
=
2.9
EQUATION: V = ____ R2/3 s1/21.49
n
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
0.0009
0.001
20
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2
3
4
10
9
8
7
6
5
50
40
30
20
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.2
0.3
0.4
GENERAL SOLUTION
RO
U
G
H
N
E
S
S
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
-
n
Page 626 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.15 54%2.15
4.00
4.00
2.15
50
Page 627 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.35 55%2.35
4.25
4.25
2.35
100
Page 628 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
CHAPTER 2
2.5 – NRCS Unit Hydrograph Hydrologic
Analysis
Page 629 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
2.6 NRCS Unit Hydrograph Hydrologic Analysis
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Unit Hydrograph is necessary
for hydrologic analyses of watershed areas approximately one square mile and
greater in size. The HEC-HMS Version 4.5 program was used to produce
hydrographs using the NRCS Unit Hydrograph method for this study. HEC-HMS,
developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Hydrologic Engineering
Center, simulates the surface runoff response of a watershed to precipitation by
representing the basin as an interconnected system of hydrologic and hydraulic
components.
The NRCS Unit Hydrograph calculations and input parameters follow the guidelines
in Section 4 of the 2003 San Diego County Hydrology Manual (SDCHM). The input
that was required to produce the hydrographs included rainfall depth, rainfall
distribution, drainage basin area, precipitation loss data, and data to determine
overland and channel routing information. Output from the model is presented in the
form of hydrographs, which are curves relating runoff flowrates to elapsed time from
the beginning of rainfall. Thus, the distribution of the entire runoff response is
available for analysis.
Rainfall Distribution, Duration & Volume
Runoff for this analysis was generated using the County of San Diego’s Nested
Storm Hyetograph. The amount of rainfall to be distributed was obtained from the
County of San Diego’s rainfall isopluvial charts, which are located at the end of this
section. This analysis models the 100-year return frequency rainfall event.
Rainfall Loss Criteria
To account for rainfall losses such as infiltration, interception and depression
storage, the NRCS Curve Number method was selected. The NRCS method
calculates the runoff volume and initial loss based on an empirical curve number,
which is determined based on a basin’s soil type and land use. Soils in this analysis
were based on soil groups taken from the NRCS soil website. In most cases
throughout this project, soil type group D was found, which is characterized as soils
with very low infiltration rates and high runoff potential (typically clay soils).
Based on the 2003 San Diego County Hydrology Manual, the project site is
determined to be located in PZN of 1.5. According to Table 4-6 of the SDCHM, an
adjusted PZN of 2.5 was used for 100-year analysis. The following curve numbers
were selected corresponding to ‘weighted’ soil types.
PZN = 2.0 Adjusted PZN = 2.5
87 91
81 86.5
Page 630 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
To determine the curve number for a basin containing more than one of the
preceding land uses, a composite curve number (weighted average) was calculated
using a linear interpolation of the values in Table 4-10 from the SDCHM.
Basin Lag Time
Basin lag times were calculated for both existing and developed conditions based on
relationships developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps
lag time is defined as the elapsed time (in hours) from the beginning of unit effective
rainfall to the instant that runoff hydrograph for a basin reaches 50 percent of the
ultimate discharge volume. Per equation 4-17 from the County’s Hydrology Manual,
the lag time for a basin is calculated using the following empirical relationship.
Lag Time (hours) = 24 * n * [ ( L * Lc)/ ( (S)1/2) ] m
n = basin factor
m = constant (0.38)
L = length of longest watercourse in miles
Lc = length along longest watercourse
measured upstream to point opposite
center of area (miles)
S = overall slope of longest watercourse
(feet per mile)
The basin n factor is the visually estimated mean of the Mannings n values for all the
channels within an area. Basin n factors are chosen according to the following
criteria.
n = 0.100 The drainage area has extensive vegetation and streams that contain a
large amount of brush, grass or other vegetation that slows flow velocity
n = 0.050 Drainage area is rugged, with sharp ridges and steep canyons through
which watercourses meander around sharp bends, large boulders, and
debris obstruction. The ground cover, excluding small areas of rock
outcrops, includes considerable underbrush. No drainage
improvements exist in the area.
n = 0.030 Drainage area is generally rolling, with rounded edges and moderate
side slopes. Watercourses meander in fairly straight, unimproved
channels with some boulders and debris. No drainage improvements
exist in the area.
n = 0.015 Drainage area has fairly uniform, gentle slopes with most watercourses
either improved or along paved streets. Ground cover consists of grass
with appreciable areas developed to the extent that a large percentage
of the area is impervious.
Page 631 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Lower Otay
Lake
Project
Location
PZN = 1.5
Page 632 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2.5
91
86.5
Page 633 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1.5
2.5
Page 634 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 635 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 636 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 637 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 638 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 639 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 640 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
CHAPTER 3
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
3.1 – 100-Year Pre-Developed Condition
AES Model Output
Page 641 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
____________________________________________________________________________
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2015 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 22.0 Release Date: 07/01/2015 License ID 1239
Analysis prepared by:
Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* Otay Ranch, Village 8 TM Hydrology Study *
* 100-year return interval, Existing Condition *
* W.O. 2825-03, DLN 920 *
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: R:\0920\HYD\TM\DR\CALCS\AES\100EX.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:39 07/03/2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.350
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150
2 17.0 10.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
3 20.0 12.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
4 16.0 10.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
5 26.0 18.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
6 44.0 12.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.50 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 330.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 320.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.00
Page 1 Page 642 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.178
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.85
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.85
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 320.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 260.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 790.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0759
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.964
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 12.74
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.60
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.86
Tc(MIN.) = 7.04
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.33 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 23.16
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.502
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 23.84
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.57
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 890.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 260.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 200.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 745.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0805
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.259
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 38.60
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.58
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.41 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.89
Tc(MIN.) = 8.93
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.83 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.45
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.501
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 23.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 49.91
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.48 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.11
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 104.00 = 1635.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.93
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.26
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 23.39
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 49.91
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 76.00 TO NODE 76.00 IS CODE = 7
Page 2 Page 643 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================
USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN) = 21.39 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.42
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 181.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 347.24
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 76.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.425
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7838
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 185.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 352.30
TC(MIN.) = 21.39
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 76.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 21.39
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.42
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 185.37
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 352.30
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 49.91 8.93 4.259 23.39
2 352.30 21.39 2.425 185.37
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 196.99 8.93 4.259
2 380.71 21.39 2.425
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 380.71 Tc(MIN.) = 21.39
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 208.8
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 76.00 = 1635.00 FEET.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 340.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 300.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 40.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.484
Page 3 Page 644 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.90
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 300.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 240.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 763.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0786
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.929
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 14.44
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.82
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.64
Tc(MIN.) = 7.12
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 10.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 26.71
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 27.43
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.89
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 843.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 240.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 202.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 975.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0390
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.906
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 41.93
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.26
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.52 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.09
Tc(MIN.) = 10.21
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 14.81 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 28.92
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 25.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 50.66
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.58 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.49
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00 = 1818.00 FEET.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 581.00
Page 4 Page 645 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 576.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 5.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 6.316
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.325
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 576.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 502.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 725.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1021
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.303
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 11.42
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.89
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.47
Tc(MIN.) = 8.79
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 21.17
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.75
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.94
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 825.00 FEET.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 556.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 550.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.944
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.538
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 550.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1194.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1122
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.022
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 12.75
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.22
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.81
Tc(MIN.) = 9.76
Page 5 Page 646 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 11.93 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 23.99
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.36
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.38
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 402.00 = 1294.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 418.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 408.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 531.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.48
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 24.36
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.84 Tc(MIN.) = 10.60
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 403.00 = 1825.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.813
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.10
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.18
TC(MIN.) = 10.60
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 470.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 460.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.013
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.181
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.56
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.56
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 360.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1196.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0920
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.237
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
Page 6 Page 647 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 14.27
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.00
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.99
Tc(MIN.) = 9.00
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 12.53 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 26.55
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 26.93
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.11
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 502.00 = 1296.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 502.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 360.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 260.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1397.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0716
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.377
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 36.01
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.13
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.41 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.80
Tc(MIN.) = 12.80
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 10.69 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 18.05
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 23.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 39.51
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.43 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.39
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 2693.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.80
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.38
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 23.40
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 39.51
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 505.00 TO NODE 506.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 90.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 609.70
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 607.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.70
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 7.104
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.936
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.22
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.22
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 506.00 TO NODE 507.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
Page 7 Page 648 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 607.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 508.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 719.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1377
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.016
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.83
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.47
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.68
Tc(MIN.) = 9.78
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 6.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.05
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 13.23
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.66
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 505.00 TO NODE 507.00 = 809.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 507.00 TO NODE 508.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 508.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 430.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1122.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0695
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.366
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 34.17
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.07
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.40 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.08
Tc(MIN.) = 12.86
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 24.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 41.74
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 31.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 52.83
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.51 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.89
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 505.00 TO NODE 508.00 = 1931.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 508.00 TO NODE 509.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 430.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 370.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1040.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0577
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.012
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 77.26
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.15
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.65 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.42
Tc(MIN.) = 15.29
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 32.42 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 48.82
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 63.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 96.08
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.73 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.61
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 505.00 TO NODE 509.00 = 2971.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
Page 8 Page 649 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 509.00 TO NODE 510.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 370.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 328.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 900.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0467
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.783
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 124.92
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.55
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.88 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.99
Tc(MIN.) = 17.27
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 41.43 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 57.65
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 105.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 146.45
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.95 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.92
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 505.00 TO NODE 510.00 = 3871.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 510.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 328.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 260.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1540.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0442
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.494
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 164.58
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.02
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 1.02 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.20
Tc(MIN.) = 20.47
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 29.07 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 36.25
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 134.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 167.49
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 1.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.04
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 505.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 5411.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 20.47
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.49
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 134.31
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 167.49
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 39.51 12.80 3.377 23.40
2 167.49 20.47 2.494 134.31
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
Page 9 Page 650 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 144.20 12.80 3.377
2 196.67 20.47 2.494
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 196.67 Tc(MIN.) = 20.47
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 157.7
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 505.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 5411.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 511.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 260.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 210.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1096.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0456
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.341
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 209.90
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.67
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 1.13 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.11
Tc(MIN.) = 22.58
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 22.61 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 26.47
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 180.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 211.11
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 1.14 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.66
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 505.00 TO NODE 511.00 = 6507.00 FEET.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 550.00 TO NODE 551.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 374.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 364.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.178
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.48
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 551.00 TO NODE 552.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 364.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 212.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1442.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1054
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.575
Page 10 Page 651 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 24.03
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.30
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.82
Tc(MIN.) = 7.99
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 19.83 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 45.36
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.501
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 20.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 45.72
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.42 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.61
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 550.00 TO NODE 552.00 = 1542.00 FEET.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 601.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 60.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 609.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 606.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.893
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 601.00 TO NODE 602.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 606.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 551.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1254.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0439
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.541
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.05
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.99
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 7.00
Tc(MIN.) = 11.89
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.97 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.57
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.85
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.62
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 602.00 = 1314.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 602.00 TO NODE 607.00 IS CODE = 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 553.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 541.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 418.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.0 INCHES
Page 11 Page 652 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.10
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.85
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.69 Tc(MIN.) = 12.58
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 607.00 = 1732.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 607.00 TO NODE 607.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.58
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.41
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.13
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.85
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 605.00 TO NODE 606.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 81.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 558.59
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 555.87
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.72
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.786
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.93
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 607.00 IS CODE = 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 555.87 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 546.96
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 44.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 22.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.01
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.83
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.35
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.01
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.72 Tc(MIN.) = 5.50
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.821
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.750
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.95 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.15
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.02
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.99
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.79 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.31
Page 12 Page 653 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 605.00 TO NODE 607.00 = 426.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 607.00 TO NODE 607.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.50
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.82
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.15
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.02
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 10.85 12.58 3.415 6.13
2 5.02 5.50 5.821 1.15
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 9.77 5.50 5.821
2 13.80 12.58 3.415
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 13.80 Tc(MIN.) = 12.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 607.00 = 1732.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 607.00 TO NODE 612.00 IS CODE = 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 541.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 522.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 596.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.20
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 13.80
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.89 Tc(MIN.) = 13.47
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 612.00 = 2328.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 612.00 TO NODE 612.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.47
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.27
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.28
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 13.80
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 610.00 TO NODE 611.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 546.96
Page 13 Page 654 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 544.56
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.40
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.703
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.11
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.11
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 611.00 TO NODE 612.00 IS CODE = 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 544.56 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 527.58
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 526.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 44.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 22.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.16
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.39
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.35
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.54
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.01 Tc(MIN.) = 5.72
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.679
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.750
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.05
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.07
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.51
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.98 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.07
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 610.00 TO NODE 612.00 = 601.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 612.00 TO NODE 612.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.72
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.68
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.60
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 11.07
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 13.80 13.47 3.268 7.28
2 11.07 5.72 5.679 2.60
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
Page 14 Page 655 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
1 19.02 5.72 5.679
2 20.17 13.47 3.268
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.17 Tc(MIN.) = 13.47
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.9
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 612.00 = 2328.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 613.00 TO NODE 612.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.268
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6383
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 28.62
TC(MIN.) = 13.47
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 60.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 609.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 606.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.893
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.71
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.71
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 701.00 TO NODE 702.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 606.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1571.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0866
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.045
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 20.07
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.48
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.78
Tc(MIN.) = 9.67
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 18.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 37.21
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 18.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 37.68
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.40 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.70
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 702.00 = 1631.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 702.00 TO NODE 703.00 IS CODE = 51
Page 15 Page 656 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 423.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1313.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0358
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.226
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 52.37
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.39
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.61 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.06
Tc(MIN.) = 13.74
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 18.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.23
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 36.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 59.28
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.64 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.60
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 703.00 = 2944.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 703.00 TO NODE 704.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 423.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 375.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 862.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0557
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.939
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 64.64
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.74
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.60 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.13
Tc(MIN.) = 15.87
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.29 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.71
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 44.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 64.73
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.60 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.74
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 704.00 = 3806.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 704.00 TO NODE 705.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 375.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 335.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 874.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 18.74
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 64.73
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.78 Tc(MIN.) = 16.65
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 705.00 = 4680.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 704.00 TO NODE 705.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.850
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
Page 16 Page 657 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100EX.OUT
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5146
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.83
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 51.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 75.59
TC(MIN.) = 16.65
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 800.00 TO NODE 801.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 429.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 420.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 9.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.192
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.043
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.48
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 801.00 TO NODE 802.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 420.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 270.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1518.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0988
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.905
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 13.81
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.03
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.03
Tc(MIN.) = 10.22
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 25.61
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.93
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.24
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 800.00 TO NODE 802.00 = 1618.00 FEET.
============================================================================
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.3 TC(MIN.) = 10.22
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.93
============================================================================
============================================================================
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
Page 17 Page 658 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
CHAPTER 3
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
3.2 – 100-Year Developed Condition
AES Model Output
Page 659 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Area If memory
From To Up Down total Base (ft)Z:1 maning Bank #
101 102 2 574.8 574.1 65 1.08%0.13 C/D Dense Residential 0.75
102 103 3 563.1 554.15 1100 0.81%
102 103 8 8.66 C/D Dense Residential 0.75
103 106 3 554.15 551.8 470 0.50%
106 106 1 2:1
104 105 2 572.3 571.2 64 1.72%0.18 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
105 106 6 571.2 560 900 1.24%3.42 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
106 106 1 2:2
106 110 3 551.8 490.17 1110 5.55%
110 110 1 2:1
107 108 2 559.6 557.05 80 3.19%0.14 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
108 110 6 557.05 495 834 7.44%1.59 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
110 110 1 2:2
110 124 3 487 480.8 152 4.08%
124 124 10 1
112 114 2 518 516.5 75 2.00%0.20 D Dense Residential 0.75
114 116 3 505 489 800 2.00%
114 116 8 9.39 D Dense Residential 0.75
113 116 8 1.38 D Slopes 0.60
116 122 3 489 482 560 1.25%
122 122 1 3:1
118 120 2 503.9 503.1 60 1.33%0.24 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
120 122 6 503.1 493 750 1.35%2.01 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
122 122 1 3:2
123 126 2 516 514.5 75 2.00%0.17 D Dense Residential 0.75
126 122 3 503 482 890 2.36%
126 122 8 9.63 D Dense Residential 0.75
125 122 8 1.29 D Slopes 0.60
122 122 1 3:3
122 124 3 482 480.8 120 1.00%
124 124 11 1
124 124 12 1
124 127 3 480.8 468 344 3.72%
127 127 1 2:1
128 130 2 501 490.5 100 10.50%0.22 D Dense Residential 0.75
130 127 3 479.5 468 1068 1.08%
130 127 8 10.06 D Dense Residential 0.75
127 127 1 2:2
127 132 3 468 456 400 3.00%
132 132 1 2:1
134 136 2 493.4 490 84 4.05%0.18 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
136 132 6 490 468 700 3.14%1.67 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
132 132 1 2:2
132 154 3 456 453.8 100 2.20%
154 154 10 1
138 140 2 485 483.5 75 2.00%0.17 D Dense Residential 0.75
140 141 3 482.5 470 600 2.08%
140 141 8 5.56 D Dense Residential 0.75
141 142 3 470 454 580 2.76%
142 142 1 3:1
144 146 2 476.5 475.54 64 1.50%0.18 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
146 142 6 475.54 467.14 560 1.50%1.31 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
142 142 1 3:2
135 137 2 483 481.5 75 2.00%0.11 D Dense Residential 0.75
137 139 3 471.5 457 540 2.69%
137 139 8 4.90 D Dense Residential 0.75
139 142 3 457 454 48 6.25%
142 142 1 3:3
142 154 3 454 451.5 100 2.50%
154 154 2:1
148 150 2 485 483.5 75 2.00%0.18 D Park 0.30
150 152 3 481.5 463 740 2.50%
150 152 8 6.58 D Park 0.30
152 154 3 463 451.5 200 5.75%
154 154 1 2:2
154 154 11 1
154 154 12 1
154 158 3 451.5 395.4 840 6.68%
158 158 1 2:1
154 156 2 465.8 463.8 72 2.78%0.17 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(43% of area)0.75
156 158 6 463.8 407.4 811 6.95%4.16 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(43% of area)0.75
158 158 1 2:2
158 160 3 395.4 394.2 100 1.20%
160 160 1 3:1
161 162 2 470 468.5 75 2.00%0.18 D Dense Residential 0.75
162 163 3 457.5 443 800 1.81%
162 163 8 8.64 D Dense Residential 0.75
163 160 3 443 394.2 360 13.56%
160 160 1 3:2
164 165 2 462 460.5 75 2.00%0.25 D Dense Residential 0.75
165 166 3 449.5 432 800 2.19%
165 166 8 8.77 D Dense Residential 0.75
166 160 3 432 394.2 700 5.40%
160 160 1 3:3
160 172 3 394.2 365 700 4.17%
172 172 1 2:1
168 170 2 413 411.8 65 1.85%0.12 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
170 172 6 411.8 381.8 850 3.53%1.50 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
172 172 1 2:2
172 172 10 1
If Channel
AES INPUT DATA
Node #Soil Type C valueElevationLengthCodeLand coverSlope
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
Page 660 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
200 202 2 506 504.5 75 2.00%0.21 D Dense Residential 0.75
202 204 3 493.5 479 770 1.88%
202 204 8 8.99 D Dense Residential 0.75
201 206 8 1.22 D Slope 0.60
204 206 3 479 470 530 1.70%
206 206 1 3:1
208 210 2 503.5 502 75 2.00%0.17 D Dense Residential 0.75
210 206 3 491 470 760 2.76%
210 206 8 9.40 D Dense Residential 0.75
207 206 8 0.39 D Slope 0.60
206 206 1 3:2
212 214 2 493.4 492.5 60 1.50%0.21 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
214 206 6 492.5 480.9 925 1.25%1.95 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
206 206 1 3:3
206 213 3 470 430 900 4.44%
213 213 1 2:1
211 212 2 481.9 479.4 78 3.21%0.22 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(21% of area)0.80
212 213 6 479.4 440.3 760 5.14%2.34 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(21% of area)0.80
213 213 1 2:2
213 215 3 430 429.3 65 1.08%
215 215 1 3:1
216 218 2 486 484.5 75 2.00%0.18 D School 0.80
218 220 3 473.5 457.5 810 1.98%
218 220 8 9.84 D School 0.80
220 215 3 457.5 429.3 220 12.82%
215 215 1 3:2
222 224 2 465.8 463.2 80 3.25%0.26 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(21% of area)0.80
224 215 6 463.2 440.9 1020 2.19%2.78 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(21% of area)0.80
215 215 1 3:3
215 226 3 429.3 420 774 1.20%
226 226 1 2:1
228 230 2 451 449 75 2.67%0.18 D Dense Residential 0.75
230 226 3 438 420 790 2.28%
230 226 8 9.99 D Dense Residential 0.75
226 226 1 2:2
226 258 3 420 380 180 22.22%
258 258 1 2:1
254 256 2 408.5 407.2 65 2.00%0.18 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(30% of area)0.78
256 258 6 407.2 388.3 1060 1.78%4.88 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(30% of area)0.78
259 258 8 3.22 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(30% of area)0.78
258 258 1 2:2
258 172 3 380 365 1700 0.88%
172 172 11 1
172 172 12 1
172 174 3 365 358 530 1.32%
174 174 1 3:1
176 178 2 390 388.5 75 2.00%0.16 D Dense Residential 0.75
178 180 3 377.5 369 750 1.13%
178 180 8 15.87 D Dense Residential 0.75
180 174 3 369 358 760 1.45%
180 174 8 16.23 D Dense Residential 0.75
174 174 1 3:2
182 184 2 405 387 100 18.00%0.16 D Dense Residential 0.75
184 186 3 376 369 800 0.88%
184 186 8 13.09 D Dense Residential 0.75
186 174 3 369 358 630 1.75%
186 174 8 11.60 D Dense Residential 0.75
174 174 1 3:3
174 188 3 358 355 180 1.67%
188 188 8 1.22 D Park 0.30
188 190 3 355 305 660 7.58%
190 190 10 1
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
Page 661 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
232 234 2 572.3 570.4 70 2.71%0.14 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
234 236 6 570.4 502.9 980 6.89%1.56 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
236 238 3 499 454 930 4.84%
238 238 1 2:1
240 242 2 503.9 502.6 65 2.00%0.24 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
242 238 6 502.6 467.2 1020 3.47%2.05 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
238 238 1 2:2
238 240 3 464 392.5 990 7.22%
240 240 1 2:1
242 244 2 476.5 474.1 75 3.20%0.18 D
Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(18% of area) and
additional lanscape (28%
of area)
0.69
244 240 6 474.1 406.5 1250 5.41%5.02 D
Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(18% of area) and
additional lanscape (28%
of area)
0.69
240 240 1 2:2
240 242 3 392.5 391.5 100 1.00%
242 242 1 3:1
248 250 2 470 468.5 75 2.00%0.18 D Dense Residential 0.75
250 252 3 457 442 740 2.03%
250 252 8 8.11 D Dense Residential 0.75
252 242 3 442 391.5 260 19.42%
242 242 1 3:2
244 246 2 413 412.1 60 1.50%0.18 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(25% of area)0.79
246 242 6 412.1 407 550 0.93%4.77 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(25% of area)0.79
242 242 1 3:3
242 190 3 391.5 305 1620 5.34%
190 190 11 1
190 190 12 1
190 192 3 305 218 1200 7.25%
192 192 1 2:1
194 196 2 338 336 80 2.50%0.34 D Park 0.30
196 192 3 324 218 1415 7.49%
196 192 8 25.38 D Park 0.30
193 192 8 1.36 D Slopes & Access Road 0.60
192 192 8 2.09 A Basin 0.20
192 192 1 2:2
192 198 3 215 205 248 4.03%
198 198 8 1.08 D Slopes 0.60
198 198 1 2:1
512 514 2 370 320 100 50.00%0.29 D Slopes 0.60
514 516 5 320 238 750 10.93%26.24 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
513 516 8 0.9 Normal Residential 0.65
516 198 3 228 205 1000 2.30%
198 198 1 2:2
288.39
300 302 2 559.6 557 80 3.25%0.22 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
302 304 6 557 528 900 3.22%3.73 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
304 305 3 519.36 512.54 113.26 6.02%
306 305 8 3.84 D Existing Road 0.75
7.79
400 402 2 238 236 80 2.50%0.17 D Park 0.30
402 404 3 224 205.2 940 2.00%
402 404 8 13.56 D Park 0.30
404 404 8 0.15 A Basin 0.20
404 405 3 209 206 30 10.00%
405 405 10 1
504 506 2 340 300 100 40.00%0.29 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
506 507 5 300 240 830 7.23%13.13 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
507 513 3 220 212 500 1.60%
513 513 1 2:1
509 511 2 325 318 100 7.00%0.3 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
511 513 5 318 222 930 10.32%13.77 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
513 513 1 2:2
513 405 3 212 207 834 0.60%
405 405 11 1
405 405 12 1
405 406 3 206 180 740 3.51%
406 406 1 2:1
EVENT Q (CFS)A (AC)TC (MIN) EVENT Q (CFS)A (AC)TC (MIN)
406 406 7 100-YR 347.24 181.2 21.39 50-YR 306.14 181.2 21.52 2:2
406 406 1
408 406 8 1.38 D Slopes 0.60 1
518 406 8 0.54 D Slopes 0.60
510 406 8 1.58 D Slopes 0.60
511 406 8 4.35 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
230.42 +181.2
500 501 2 600 590 100 10.00%0.36 D Slopes 0.60
501 502 5 590 375 3530 6.09%12.33 D Slopes-rolling 0.50
502 503 3 375 335 874
503 503 8 4.81 D Slopes-rolling 0.50
17.5
600 601 2 374 340 100 34.00%0.18 D Slopes 0.60
601 602 5 340 305 600 5.83%1.56 D Slopes 0.60
1.74
Total Area 545.84
Nodes with land use labeled as "Roads"are composed by road, median landscape, parkways, and lanscape buffers and have an assumed 88% imperviousnes. This number will be
reconciled during final engineering. Nodes 242-244 have additional lanscape not accounted for by the street cross sections defined in the TM. This series has a lower runoff
coefficient when compared to other similar series due to 1.45 acres of landscape that are not covered as "parkways, or landscape buffers" that drain into the streets.
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
Page 662 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
____________________________________________________________________________
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2015 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 22.0 Release Date: 07/01/2015 License ID 1239
Analysis prepared by:
Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* Otay Ranch Village 8 East *
* 100-Year Developed Condition *
* DLN: 0920, W.O. 2395-0039 *
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: R:\0920\HYD\TM\DR\CALCS\AES\100PR.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:49 09/15/2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.350
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======
1 42.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
2 38.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
3 24.0 12.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
4 25.0 12.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
5 25.0 18.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
6 16.0 9.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
7 12.0 5.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
8 20.0 10.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.50 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AREA TRIBUTARY TO DETENTION BASIN |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 574.80
Page 1 Page 663 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 574.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.70
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.955
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.60
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.60
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 563.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 554.15
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.06
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.60
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.99 Tc(MIN.) = 10.95
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 1165.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.735
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.66 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 24.26
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 24.62
TC(MIN.) = 10.95
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 554.15 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 551.80
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 470.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.34
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 24.62
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.24 Tc(MIN.) = 12.18
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 106.00 = 1635.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.18
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.49
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.79
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 24.62
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
Page 2 Page 664 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 64.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 572.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 571.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.10
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.005
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 571.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 560.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 900.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 42.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.45
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.31
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.67
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.94
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.62 Tc(MIN.) = 8.63
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.355
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.42 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.66
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 13.33
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.41 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.35
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.06 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.26
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 106.00 = 964.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.63
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.35
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.60
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 13.33
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 24.62 12.18 3.486 8.79
2 13.33 8.63 4.355 3.60
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
Page 3 Page 665 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 30.77 8.63 4.355
2 35.29 12.18 3.486
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 35.29 Tc(MIN.) = 12.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 106.00 = 1635.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 551.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 490.17
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1110.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 17.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.79
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 35.29
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.10 Tc(MIN.) = 13.28
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 110.00 = 2745.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.30
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.39
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 35.29
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 108.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 559.60
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 557.05
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.55
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.735
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 4 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 557.05 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 834.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Page 4 Page 666 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.63
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.04
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.80
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.19
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.90 Tc(MIN.) = 5.63
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.735
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.75
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.43
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.10
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.44 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.57
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 110.00 = 914.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.63
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.73
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.73
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.43
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 35.29 13.28 3.297 12.39
2 8.43 5.63 5.735 1.73
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 28.72 5.63 5.735
2 40.14 13.28 3.297
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 40.14 Tc(MIN.) = 13.28
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 110.00 = 2745.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 480.80
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 152.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.67
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 40.14
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 13.45
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 124.00 = 2897.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 10
Page 5 Page 667 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 114.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 518.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 516.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.93
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 114.00 TO NODE 116.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 505.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.78
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.93
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.79 Tc(MIN.) = 7.12
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 116.00 = 875.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 114.00 TO NODE 116.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.928
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.39 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.71
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.6 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.45
TC(MIN.) = 7.12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 113.00 TO NODE 116.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.928
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7311
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.38 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.08
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 39.53
TC(MIN.) = 7.12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 116.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 489.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 560.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
Page 6 Page 668 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.04
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 39.53
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.93 Tc(MIN.) = 8.05
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 122.00 = 1435.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.05
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.55
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.97
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 39.53
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 118.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 60.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.80
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.167
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.26
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.26
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 5 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 750.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 18.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.23
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.57
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.53
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.80
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.94 Tc(MIN.) = 8.11
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.534
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.01 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.75
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.67
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.82
Page 7 Page 669 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.86 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.04
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 118.00 TO NODE 122.00 = 810.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.11
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.53
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.25
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.67
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 123.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 516.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 514.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 503.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 890.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.81
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.79
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.08 Tc(MIN.) = 7.41
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 123.00 TO NODE 122.00 = 965.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.803
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.63 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.69
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.30
TC(MIN.) = 7.41
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.803
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7326
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.29 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.72
Page 8 Page 670 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 39.02
TC(MIN.) = 7.41
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.41
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.80
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 11.09
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 39.02
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 39.53 8.05 4.553 10.97
2 8.67 8.11 4.534 2.25
3 39.02 7.41 4.803 11.09
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 83.34 7.41 4.803
2 85.13 8.05 4.553
3 84.86 8.11 4.534
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 85.13 Tc(MIN.) = 8.05
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 24.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 122.00 = 1435.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 480.80
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 30.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.21
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 85.13
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.18 Tc(MIN.) = 8.23
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 124.00 = 1555.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 85.13 8.23 4.489 24.31
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 124.00 = 1555.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 40.14 13.45 3.271 14.12
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 124.00 = 2897.00 FEET.
Page 9 Page 671 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 109.70 8.23 4.489
2 102.17 13.45 3.271
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 109.70 Tc(MIN.) = 8.23
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.4
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 480.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 468.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 344.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 26.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 19.54
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 109.70
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) = 8.52
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 127.00 = 3241.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 127.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.52
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.39
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 38.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 109.70
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 128.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 501.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.924
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.02
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.02
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 479.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 468.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1068.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.7 INCHES
Page 10 Page 672 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.94
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.02
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.51 Tc(MIN.) = 7.44
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 128.00 TO NODE 127.00 = 1168.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.792
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 10.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 36.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 36.95
TC(MIN.) = 7.44
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 127.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.44
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.79
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.28
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 36.95
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 109.70 8.52 4.389 38.43
2 36.95 7.44 4.792 10.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 132.68 7.44 4.792
2 143.54 8.52 4.389
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 143.54 Tc(MIN.) = 8.52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 48.7
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 127.00 = 3241.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 127.00 TO NODE 132.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 468.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 456.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 400.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 30.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 19.35
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 143.54
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.34 Tc(MIN.) = 8.87
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 132.00 = 3641.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 132.00 TO NODE 132.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
Page 11 Page 673 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.87
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.28
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 48.71
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 143.54
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 134.00 TO NODE 136.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 84.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.40
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.588
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 136.00 TO NODE 132.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 4 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 468.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 700.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.92
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.65
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.49
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.98
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.34 Tc(MIN.) = 5.93
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.548
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.88
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.72
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.90
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.97 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.29
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 134.00 TO NODE 132.00 = 784.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 132.00 TO NODE 132.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
Page 12 Page 674 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.93
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.55
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.72
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 143.54 8.87 4.278 48.71
2 8.72 5.93 5.548 1.85
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 119.41 5.93 5.548
2 150.27 8.87 4.278
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 150.27 Tc(MIN.) = 8.87
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 50.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 132.00 = 3641.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 132.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 456.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 453.80
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 45.0 INCH PIPE IS 32.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 17.39
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 45.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 150.27
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 8.96
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 3741.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 485.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 483.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 141.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
Page 13 Page 675 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.96
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.79
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.69 Tc(MIN.) = 8.02
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 141.00 = 1175.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 141.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.563
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 19.03
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 19.61
TC(MIN.) = 8.02
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 141.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 580.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.49
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 19.61
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.84 Tc(MIN.) = 8.87
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 142.00 = 1755.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.87
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.28
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.73
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 19.61
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 144.00 TO NODE 146.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 64.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 476.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 475.38
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.12
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.987
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 146.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 3 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 14 Page 676 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 475.38 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 466.98
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 560.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 24.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.82
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.10
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.47
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.71
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.78 Tc(MIN.) = 6.77
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.091
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.31 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.67
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.45
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.24
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.77 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.92
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 144.00 TO NODE 142.00 = 624.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.77
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.09
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.49
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.45
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 137.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 483.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 481.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.51
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.51
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 137.00 TO NODE 139.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 471.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 457.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 540.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.2 INCHES
Page 15 Page 677 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.18
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.51
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.15 Tc(MIN.) = 6.49
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 139.00 = 615.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 137.00 TO NODE 139.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.235
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 19.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 19.67
TC(MIN.) = 6.49
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 139.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 457.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 48.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.62
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 19.67
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 6.54
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 142.00 = 663.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.54
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.21
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.01
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 19.67
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 19.61 8.87 4.279 5.73
2 6.45 6.77 5.091 1.49
3 19.67 6.54 5.209 5.01
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 40.35 6.54 5.209
2 40.66 6.77 5.091
3 41.19 8.87 4.279
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 41.19 Tc(MIN.) = 8.87
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 142.00 = 1755.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 31
Page 16 Page 678 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 451.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.20
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 41.19
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 8.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1855.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.99
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.24
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.23
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 41.19
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 148.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 485.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 483.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 9.898
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.986
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.22
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.22
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 152.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 481.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 463.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 740.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.37
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.22
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.66 Tc(MIN.) = 13.55
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 148.00 TO NODE 152.00 = 815.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 152.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.254
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 6.58 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.42
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.60
TC(MIN.) = 13.55
****************************************************************************
Page 17 Page 679 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 152.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 463.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 451.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.56
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.60
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) = 13.84
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 148.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1015.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.84
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.21
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.76
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.60
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 41.19 8.99 4.240 12.23
2 6.60 13.84 3.210 6.76
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 45.48 8.99 4.240
2 37.79 13.84 3.210
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 45.48 Tc(MIN.) = 8.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 19.0
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1855.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 451.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 21.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.32
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 45.48
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.12
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1955.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
Page 18 Page 680 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 45.48 9.12 4.203 18.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1955.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 150.27 8.96 4.249 50.56
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 3741.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 194.98 8.96 4.249
2 194.12 9.12 4.203
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 194.98 Tc(MIN.) = 8.96
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 69.5
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 158.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 451.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 395.40
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 840.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 30.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 27.79
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 194.98
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.50 Tc(MIN.) = 9.47
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 158.00 = 4581.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 158.00 TO NODE 158.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.47
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.10
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 69.55
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 194.98
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 156.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 72.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 465.80
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 463.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.803
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
****************************************************************************
Page 19 Page 681 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 156.00 TO NODE 158.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 4 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 463.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 407.40
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 811.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 9.19
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.55
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.41
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.61
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.50 Tc(MIN.) = 6.30
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.333
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.750
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.64
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.32
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.25
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.26 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.20
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 158.00 = 883.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 158.00 TO NODE 158.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.30
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.33
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.33
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17.32
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 194.98 9.47 4.102 69.55
2 17.32 6.30 5.333 4.33
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 147.09 6.30 5.333
2 208.30 9.47 4.102
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 208.30 Tc(MIN.) = 9.47
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 73.9
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 158.00 = 4581.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
Page 20 Page 682 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 158.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 395.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 394.20
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 57.0 INCH PIPE IS 41.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.04
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 57.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 208.30
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 9.58
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 4681.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.58
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.07
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 73.88
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 208.30
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 161.00 TO NODE 162.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 470.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 468.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.84
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.84
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 162.00 TO NODE 163.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 457.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 443.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.45
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.84
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.99 Tc(MIN.) = 7.32
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 161.00 TO NODE 163.00 = 875.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 162.00 TO NODE 163.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.841
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.64 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 32.02
TC(MIN.) = 7.32
Page 21 Page 683 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 163.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 443.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 394.20
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 360.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 25.02
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 32.02
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.24 Tc(MIN.) = 7.56
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 161.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 1235.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.56
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.74
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.82
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 32.02
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 164.00 TO NODE 165.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 462.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 460.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.25 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.16
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 166.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 449.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 432.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.27
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.16
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.53 Tc(MIN.) = 6.86
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 164.00 TO NODE 166.00 = 875.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 166.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.049
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.77 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 33.21
Page 22 Page 684 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.15
TC(MIN.) = 6.86
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 166.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 432.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 394.20
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 700.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.55
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 34.15
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.70 Tc(MIN.) = 7.57
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 164.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 1575.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.57
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.74
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.02
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 34.15
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 208.30 9.58 4.071 73.88
2 32.02 7.56 4.741 8.82
3 34.15 7.57 4.740 9.02
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 245.03 7.56 4.741
2 245.07 7.57 4.740
3 265.13 9.58 4.071
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 265.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 91.7
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 4681.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 394.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 365.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 700.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 48.0 INCH PIPE IS 37.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 25.21
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 48.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 265.13
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.46 Tc(MIN.) = 10.04
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 5381.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 23 Page 685 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.04
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.95
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 91.72
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 265.13
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 168.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 413.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 411.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.20
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.957
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.63
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.63
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 4 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 411.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 381.80
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 850.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.84
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.58
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.49
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.90
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.06 Tc(MIN.) = 7.02
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.974
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.34
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.85
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.73
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.89 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.17
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 168.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 915.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
Page 24 Page 686 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.02
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.97
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.62
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.85
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 265.13 10.04 3.949 91.72
2 6.85 7.02 4.974 1.62
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 217.36 7.02 4.974
2 270.57 10.04 3.949
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 270.57 Tc(MIN.) = 10.04
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 93.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 5381.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 506.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 504.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.98
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.98
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 493.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 479.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 770.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.74
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.98
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.71 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 845.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.966
Page 25 Page 687 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.99 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 33.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.27
TC(MIN.) = 7.04
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.966
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7324
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.64
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 37.90
TC(MIN.) = 7.04
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 501.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 530.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 18.13
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 37.90
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.49 Tc(MIN.) = 7.53
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 1375.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.53
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.76
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.42
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 37.90
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 208.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 491.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00
Page 26 Page 688 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 760.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.08
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.79
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.49 Tc(MIN.) = 6.82
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 208.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 835.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.066
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.6 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 36.36
TC(MIN.) = 6.82
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 207.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.066
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7441
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.39 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 37.55
TC(MIN.) = 6.82
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.82
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.07
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 37.55
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 214.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 60.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.90
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.045
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.11
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.11
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 214.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 5 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 480.90
Page 27 Page 689 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 925.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 18.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.60
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.14
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.41
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.75
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 6.39 Tc(MIN.) = 9.44
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.110
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.95 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.81
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.55
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.32
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.69 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.95
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 985.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.44
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.11
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.16
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.55
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 37.90 7.53 4.756 10.42
2 37.55 6.82 5.066 9.96
3 7.55 9.44 4.110 2.16
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 77.37 6.82 5.066
2 79.17 7.53 4.756
3 70.76 9.44 4.110
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 79.17 Tc(MIN.) = 7.53
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 22.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 1375.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
Page 28 Page 690 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 430.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 900.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 19.04
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 79.17
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.79 Tc(MIN.) = 8.31
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 213.00 = 2275.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.31
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.46
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 22.54
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 79.17
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 78.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 481.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 479.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.235
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.09
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.09
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 5 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 479.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 440.30
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 760.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 18.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.22
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.60
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.47
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.24
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.83 Tc(MIN.) = 6.07
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.466
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.800
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.23
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.19
Page 29 Page 691 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.92
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.08 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.65
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 213.00 = 838.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.07
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.47
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.56
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 11.19
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 79.17 8.31 4.460 22.54
2 11.19 6.07 5.466 2.56
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 75.80 6.07 5.466
2 88.31 8.31 4.460
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 88.31 Tc(MIN.) = 8.31
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 25.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 213.00 = 2275.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 430.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 429.30
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 30.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.64
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 88.31
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.09 Tc(MIN.) = 8.41
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 215.00 = 2340.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.41
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.43
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 25.10
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 88.31
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 216.00 TO NODE 218.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 30 Page 692 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 484.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.712
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.89
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.89
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 218.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 473.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 457.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 810.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.68
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.89
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.88 Tc(MIN.) = 6.59
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 216.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 885.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 218.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.179
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.8000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 40.77
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 41.52
TC(MIN.) = 6.59
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 457.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 429.30
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 220.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 24.69
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 41.52
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.15 Tc(MIN.) = 6.74
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 216.00 TO NODE 215.00 = 1105.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.74
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.11
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.02
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 41.52
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 224.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 31 Page 693 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 465.80
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 463.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.60
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.261
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.29
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.29
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 224.00 TO NODE 214.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 3 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 463.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 440.90
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1020.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 24.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.27
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.33
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.17
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.99
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.36 Tc(MIN.) = 8.62
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.356
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.800
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.78 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.69
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.59
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.63
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.60 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.29
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 214.00 = 1100.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.62
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.36
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.04
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.59
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 88.31 8.41 4.429 25.10
2 41.52 6.74 5.106 10.02
3 10.59 8.62 4.356 3.04
Page 32 Page 694 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 126.40 6.74 5.106
2 134.64 8.41 4.429
3 132.88 8.62 4.356
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 134.64 Tc(MIN.) = 8.41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 215.00 = 2340.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 429.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 420.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 774.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 48.0 INCH PIPE IS 35.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.45
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 48.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 134.64
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.96 Tc(MIN.) = 9.37
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 226.00 = 3114.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.37
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.13
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 38.16
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 134.64
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 228.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 451.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 449.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.935
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.84
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.84
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 438.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 420.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 790.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.83
Page 33 Page 695 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.84
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.73 Tc(MIN.) = 6.66
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 228.00 TO NODE 226.00 = 865.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.146
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.99 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 38.56
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 39.25
TC(MIN.) = 6.66
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.66
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.15
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.17
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 39.25
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 134.64 9.37 4.131 38.16
2 39.25 6.66 5.146 10.17
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 147.32 6.66 5.146
2 166.15 9.37 4.131
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 166.15 Tc(MIN.) = 9.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 48.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 226.00 = 3114.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 420.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 42.32
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 166.15
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 9.44
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 258.00 = 3294.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 34 Page 696 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.44
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.11
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 48.33
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 166.15
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 254.00 TO NODE 256.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7800
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 408.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 407.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.30
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.686
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 256.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 407.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 392.50
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1060.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 38.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.78
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.84
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.89
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.05
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 6.12 Tc(MIN.) = 9.80
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.010
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7800
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.780
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.88 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.26
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.83
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.00
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.34 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.42
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 254.00 TO NODE 258.00 = 1125.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 259.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.010
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7800
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7800
Page 35 Page 697 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.07
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 25.90
TC(MIN.) = 9.80
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.80
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.01
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.28
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 25.90
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 166.15 9.44 4.111 48.33
2 25.90 9.80 4.010 8.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 191.08 9.44 4.111
2 188.00 9.80 4.010
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 191.08 Tc(MIN.) = 9.44
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 56.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 258.00 = 3294.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 365.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 530.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 45.0 INCH PIPE IS 36.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 19.92
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 45.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 191.08
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.44 Tc(MIN.) = 9.88
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 3824.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 191.08 9.88 3.991 56.61
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 3824.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 270.57 10.04 3.949 93.34
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 5381.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
Page 36 Page 698 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 457.28 9.88 3.991
2 459.65 10.04 3.949
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 459.65 Tc(MIN.) = 10.04
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 150.0
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 365.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 358.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 530.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 72.0 INCH PIPE IS 58.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 18.62
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 72.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 459.65
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.47 Tc(MIN.) = 10.52
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 174.00 = 5911.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 174.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.52
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.83
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 149.95
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 459.65
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 176.00 TO NODE 178.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 390.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 388.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 178.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 377.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 369.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 750.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.66
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
Page 37 Page 699 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.74
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.41 Tc(MIN.) = 7.74
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 176.00 TO NODE 180.00 = 825.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 178.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.669
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 15.87 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 55.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 16.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 56.14
TC(MIN.) = 7.74
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 369.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 358.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 760.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.38
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 56.14
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.02 Tc(MIN.) = 8.77
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 176.00 TO NODE 174.00 = 1585.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.310
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 16.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 52.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 32.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 104.28
TC(MIN.) = 8.77
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 174.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.77
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.31
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 32.26
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 104.28
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 182.00 TO NODE 184.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 405.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 387.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 18.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.924
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
Page 38 Page 700 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 184.00 TO NODE 186.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 376.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 369.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.35
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.74
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.98 Tc(MIN.) = 6.90
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 182.00 TO NODE 186.00 = 900.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 184.00 TO NODE 186.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.028
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 49.36
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 49.97
TC(MIN.) = 6.90
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 186.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 369.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 358.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 630.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.84
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 49.97
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.82 Tc(MIN.) = 7.72
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 182.00 TO NODE 174.00 = 1530.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 186.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.678
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 11.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 40.70
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 24.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 87.18
TC(MIN.) = 7.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 174.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.72
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.68
Page 39 Page 701 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 24.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 87.18
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 459.65 10.52 3.833 149.95
2 104.28 8.77 4.310 32.26
3 87.18 7.72 4.678 24.85
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 516.58 7.72 4.678
2 567.83 8.77 4.310
3 623.83 10.52 3.833
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 623.83 Tc(MIN.) = 10.52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 207.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 174.00 = 5911.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 174.00 TO NODE 188.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 358.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 355.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 78.0 INCH PIPE IS 62.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 22.05
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 78.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 623.83
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.14 Tc(MIN.) = 10.65
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 188.00 = 6091.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 188.00 TO NODE 188.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.801
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7417
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.39
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 208.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 623.83
TC(MIN.) = 10.65
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 188.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 355.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 305.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 660.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 60.0 INCH PIPE IS 45.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 39.28
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 60.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 623.83
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.28 Tc(MIN.) = 10.93
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 190.00 = 6751.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 10
Page 40 Page 702 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 234.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 572.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 570.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.90
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.699
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 234.00 TO NODE 236.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 6 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 570.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.90
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 980.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 9.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.52
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.44
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.45
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.61
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.00 Tc(MIN.) = 5.70
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.691
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.22
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.97
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.22 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.15
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 236.00 = 1050.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 236.00 TO NODE 238.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 499.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 930.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.51
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
Page 41 Page 703 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.22
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.35 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 238.00 = 1980.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 238.00 TO NODE 238.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.04
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.70
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.22
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.60
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.30
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.880
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.26
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.26
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 238.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 6 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 467.20
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1020.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 9.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.76
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.90
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.41
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.52
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.85 Tc(MIN.) = 6.73
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.110
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.95
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.40 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.71
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.98 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 238.00 = 1085.00 FEET.
Page 42 Page 704 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 238.00 TO NODE 238.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.73
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.11
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.29
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.95
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 8.22 7.04 4.964 1.70
2 9.95 6.73 5.110 2.29
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 17.81 6.73 5.110
2 17.89 7.04 4.964
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.89 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.0
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 238.00 = 1980.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 238.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 464.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 392.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 990.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.23
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.89
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.02 Tc(MIN.) = 8.06
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 240.00 = 2970.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.06
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.55
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.99
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17.89
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 244.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6900
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 476.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 474.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.40
Page 43 Page 705 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.337
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 244.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 6 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 474.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 406.50
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1250.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 9.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.85
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.89
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.78
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.10
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.60 Tc(MIN.) = 7.94
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.594
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6900
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.690
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.02 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.91
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.48
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.33
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.68 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.89
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 240.00 = 1325.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.94
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.59
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.20
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 16.48
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 17.89 8.06 4.550 3.99
2 16.48 7.94 4.594 5.20
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 34.20 7.94 4.594
2 34.21 8.06 4.550
Page 44 Page 706 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 34.21 Tc(MIN.) = 8.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 240.00 = 2970.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 392.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 391.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 21.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.94
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 34.21
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.19 Tc(MIN.) = 8.25
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 242.00 = 3070.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.25
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.48
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.19
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 34.21
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 248.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 470.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 468.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.84
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.84
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 252.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 457.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 442.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 740.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.65
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.84
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.65 Tc(MIN.) = 6.98
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 248.00 TO NODE 252.00 = 815.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 252.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 45 Page 707 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.993
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 30.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.04
TC(MIN.) = 6.98
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 252.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 442.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 391.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 260.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 26.95
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 31.04
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 7.14
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 248.00 TO NODE 242.00 = 1075.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.14
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.92
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.29
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 31.04
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 244.00 TO NODE 246.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 60.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 413.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 412.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.90
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.776
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.88
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.88
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 246.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 412.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 407.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 550.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 38.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
Page 46 Page 708 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 10.14
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.40
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.58
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.58
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.03
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.55 Tc(MIN.) = 7.33
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.839
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.790
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.77 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 18.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.92
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.48 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 17.45
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.99 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.42
*NOTE: INITIAL SUBAREA NOMOGRAPH WITH SUBAREA PARAMETERS,
AND L = 550.0 FT WITH ELEVATION-DROP = 5.1 FT, IS 23.3 CFS,
WHICH EXCEEDS THE TOP-OF-CURB STREET CAPACITY AT NODE 242.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 244.00 TO NODE 242.00 = 610.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.33
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.84
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.95
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 18.92
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 34.21 8.25 4.484 9.19
2 31.04 7.14 4.920 8.29
3 18.92 7.33 4.839 4.95
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 80.67 7.14 4.920
2 81.15 7.33 4.839
3 80.03 8.25 4.484
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 81.15 Tc(MIN.) = 7.33
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 22.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 242.00 = 3070.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 391.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 305.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1620.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 20.74
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 81.15
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.30 Tc(MIN.) = 8.63
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 190.00 = 4690.00 FEET.
Page 47 Page 709 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 81.15 8.63 4.355 22.43
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 190.00 = 4690.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 623.83 10.93 3.738 208.28
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 190.00 = 6751.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 573.50 8.63 4.355
2 693.49 10.93 3.738
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 693.49 Tc(MIN.) = 10.93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 230.7
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 305.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 218.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1200.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 63.0 INCH PIPE IS 47.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 39.69
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 63.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 693.49
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.50 Tc(MIN.) = 11.44
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 192.00 = 7951.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 192.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.44
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.63
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 230.71
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 693.49
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 194.00 TO NODE 196.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 338.00
Page 48 Page 710 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 336.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 9.490
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.095
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.42
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.42
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 196.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 324.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 218.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1415.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.99
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.42
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.93 Tc(MIN.) = 13.42
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 194.00 TO NODE 192.00 = 1495.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 196.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.275
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 25.38 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 24.93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 25.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 25.27
TC(MIN.) = 13.42
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 193.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.275
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3151
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.67
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.94
TC(MIN.) = 13.42
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 192.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.275
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .2000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3068
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 29.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.31
TC(MIN.) = 13.42
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 192.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.42
Page 49 Page 711 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.27
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 29.17
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 29.31
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 693.49 11.44 3.631 230.71
2 29.31 13.42 3.275 29.17
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 718.46 11.44 3.631
2 654.69 13.42 3.275
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 718.46 Tc(MIN.) = 11.44
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 259.9
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 192.00 = 7951.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 192.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 215.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 205.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 247.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 69.0 INCH PIPE IS 56.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 31.68
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 69.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 718.46
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 11.57
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 198.00 = 8198.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 198.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.605
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6943
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.34
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 261.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 718.46
TC(MIN.) = 11.57
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 198.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.57
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.60
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 260.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 718.46
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 512.00 TO NODE 514.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
Page 50 Page 712 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 370.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 320.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 50.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.178
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.08
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.08
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 514.00 TO NODE 516.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 320.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 238.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 750.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1093
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.572
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 38.16
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.31
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.71
Tc(MIN.) = 5.89
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 26.24 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 73.11
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.501
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 26.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 74.08
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.54 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.93
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 512.00 TO NODE 516.00 = 850.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 513.00 TO NODE 516.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.572
NORMAL RESIDENTIAL (R1) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5060
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.26
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 77.34
TC(MIN.) = 5.89
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 516.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 228.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 205.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1000.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 24.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.10
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 77.34
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.10 Tc(MIN.) = 6.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 512.00 TO NODE 198.00 = 1850.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 198.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 51 Page 713 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.99
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.99
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 27.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 77.34
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 718.46 11.57 3.605 260.96
2 77.34 6.99 4.988 27.43
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 596.58 6.99 4.988
2 774.35 11.57 3.605
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 774.35 Tc(MIN.) = 11.57
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 288.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 198.00 = 8198.00 FEET.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| MAIN STREET RUNOFF TO VILLAGE 8 WEST |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 559.60
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 557.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.60
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.717
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.16
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 304.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 557.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 528.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 900.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 42.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 9.62
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
Page 52 Page 714 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.27
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.10
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.36
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.66 Tc(MIN.) = 6.37
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.294
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.73 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.78
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.77
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.23
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.76 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.86
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 304.00 = 980.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 304.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 519.36 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 512.54
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 113.26 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.13
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.77
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.12 Tc(MIN.) = 6.50
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 305.00 = 1093.26 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 306.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.228
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.8007
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 32.61
TC(MIN.) = 6.50
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AREA TRIBUTARY TO BIOFILTRATION BASIN |
| AREA FROM BASIN COMMINGLES WITH VILLAGE 8 WEST |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 238.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 236.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 9.490
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.095
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
Page 53 Page 715 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 224.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 205.20
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 940.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.06
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.21
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.11 Tc(MIN.) = 14.60
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 404.00 = 1020.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.101
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.62
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.77
TC(MIN.) = 14.60
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.101
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .2000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.2989
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.09
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.87
TC(MIN.) = 14.60
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 209.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 206.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.93
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.87
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 14.63
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 405.00 = 1050.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 405.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 506.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 340.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 300.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 40.00
Page 54 Page 716 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.013
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.181
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.90
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 506.00 TO NODE 508.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 300.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 240.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 830.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0723
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.633
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 16.35
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.90
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.83
Tc(MIN.) = 7.84
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 30.42
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 31.09
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.96
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 508.00 = 930.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 508.00 TO NODE 513.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 220.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 212.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 500.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.46
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 31.09
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.80 Tc(MIN.) = 8.63
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 513.00 = 1430.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 513.00 TO NODE 513.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.63
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.35
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 13.42
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 31.09
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 509.00 TO NODE 511.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 325.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 318.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 7.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.646
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.725
Page 55 Page 717 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.86
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.86
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 511.00 TO NODE 513.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 318.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 222.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 930.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1032
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.398
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 16.29
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.44
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.85
Tc(MIN.) = 8.50
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.77 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 30.28
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 30.94
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.64
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 509.00 TO NODE 513.00 = 1030.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 513.00 TO NODE 513.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.50
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.40
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 14.07
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 30.94
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 31.09 8.63 4.353 13.42
2 30.94 8.50 4.398 14.07
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 61.53 8.50 4.398
2 61.71 8.63 4.353
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 61.71 Tc(MIN.) = 8.63
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 513.00 = 1430.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 513.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 212.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 207.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 834.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 29.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.60
Page 56 Page 718 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 61.71
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.62 Tc(MIN.) = 10.25
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 405.00 = 2264.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 405.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 61.71 10.25 3.897 27.49
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 405.00 = 2264.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 12.87 14.63 3.097 13.88
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 405.00 = 1050.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 70.72 10.25 3.897
2 61.92 14.63 3.097
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 70.72 Tc(MIN.) = 10.25
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 41.4
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 405.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 405.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 206.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 180.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 740.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.93
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 70.72
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.73 Tc(MIN.) = 10.98
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 406.00 = 3004.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 406.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.98
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.73
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 41.37
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 70.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 406.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 57 Page 719 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN) = 21.39 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.42
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 181.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 347.24
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 406.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 21.39
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.42
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 181.20
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 347.24
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 70.72 10.98 3.728 41.37
2 347.24 21.39 2.425 181.20
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 248.97 10.98 3.728
2 393.24 21.39 2.425
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 393.24 Tc(MIN.) = 21.39
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 222.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 406.00 = 3004.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 408.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.425
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7231
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.38 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.01
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 224.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 393.24
TC(MIN.) = 21.39
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 518.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.425
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7228
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.54 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 224.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 393.42
TC(MIN.) = 21.39
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 510.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.425
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
Page 58 Page 720 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7212
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 226.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 395.34
TC(MIN.) = 21.39
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 511.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.425
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7170
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 230.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 400.61
TC(MIN.) = 21.39
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| SLOPE RUNOFF TO SR125 |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 600.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 590.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.178
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.34
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.34
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 590.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 375.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 3530.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0609
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.611
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 10.51
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.95
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 14.89
Tc(MIN.) = 19.07
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 12.33 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.10
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.503
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.66
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.55
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 502.00 = 3630.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 502.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 59 Page 721 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
100PR.OUT
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 375.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 335.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 874.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.34
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 16.66
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.09 Tc(MIN.) = 20.16
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 4504.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.519
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5021
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.81 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 22.13
TC(MIN.) = 20.16
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 601.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 374.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 340.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 34.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.178
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.192
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.67
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.67
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 601.00 TO NODE 602.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 340.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 305.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 600.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0583
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.440
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.46
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.38
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.19
Tc(MIN.) = 8.37
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.46
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.510
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.94
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.12 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.81
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 602.00 = 700.00 FEET.
============================================================================
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 TC(MIN.) = 8.37
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.94
Page 60 Page 722 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
CHAPTER 3
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
3.3 – 50-Year Developed Condition
AES Model Output
Page 723 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Area If memory
From To Up Down total Base (ft)Z:1 maning Bank #
101 102 2 574.8 574.1 65 1.08%0.13 C/D Dense Residential 0.75
102 103 3 563.1 554.15 1100 0.81%
102 103 8 8.66 C/D Dense Residential 0.75
103 106 3 554.15 551.8 470 0.50%
106 106 1 2:1
104 105 2 572.3 571.2 64 1.72%0.18 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
105 106 6 571.2 560 900 1.24%3.42 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
106 106 1 2:2
106 110 3 551.8 490.17 1110 5.55%
110 110 1 2:1
107 108 2 559.6 557.05 80 3.19%0.14 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
108 110 6 557.05 495 834 7.44%1.59 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
110 110 1 2:2
110 124 3 487 480.8 152 4.08%
124 124 10 1
112 114 2 518 516.5 75 2.00%0.20 D Dense Residential 0.75
114 116 3 505 489 800 2.00%
114 116 8 9.39 D Dense Residential 0.75
113 116 8 1.38 D Slopes 0.60
116 122 3 489 482 560 1.25%
122 122 1 3:1
118 120 2 503.9 503.1 60 1.33%0.24 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
120 122 6 503.1 493 750 1.35%2.01 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
122 122 1 3:2
123 126 2 516 514.5 75 2.00%0.17 D Dense Residential 0.75
126 122 3 503 482 890 2.36%
126 122 8 9.63 D Dense Residential 0.75
125 122 8 1.29 D Slopes 0.60
122 122 1 3:3
122 124 3 482 480.8 120 1.00%
124 124 11 1
124 124 12 1
124 127 3 480.8 468 344 3.72%
127 127 1 2:1
128 130 2 501 490.5 100 10.50%0.22 D Dense Residential 0.75
130 127 3 479.5 468 1068 1.08%
130 127 8 10.06 D Dense Residential 0.75
127 127 1 2:2
127 132 3 468 456 400 3.00%
132 132 1 2:1
134 136 2 493.4 490 84 4.05%0.18 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
136 132 6 490 468 700 3.14%1.67 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
132 132 1 2:2
132 154 3 456 453.8 100 2.20%
154 154 10 1
138 140 2 485 483.5 75 2.00%0.17 D Dense Residential 0.75
140 141 3 482.5 470 600 2.08%
140 141 8 5.56 D Dense Residential 0.75
141 142 3 470 454 580 2.76%
142 142 1 3:1
144 146 2 476.5 475.54 64 1.50%0.18 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
146 142 6 475.54 467.14 560 1.50%1.31 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
142 142 1 3:2
135 137 2 483 481.5 75 2.00%0.11 D Dense Residential 0.75
137 139 3 471.5 457 540 2.69%
137 139 8 4.90 D Dense Residential 0.75
139 142 3 457 454 48 6.25%
142 142 1 3:3
142 154 3 454 451.5 100 2.50%
154 154 2:1
148 150 2 485 483.5 75 2.00%0.18 D Park 0.30
150 152 3 481.5 463 740 2.50%
150 152 8 6.58 D Park 0.30
152 154 3 463 451.5 200 5.75%
154 154 1 2:2
154 154 11 1
154 154 12 1
154 158 3 451.5 395.4 840 6.68%
158 158 1 2:1
154 156 2 465.8 463.8 72 2.78%0.17 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(43% of area)0.75
156 158 6 463.8 407.4 811 6.95%4.16 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(43% of area)0.75
158 158 1 2:2
158 160 3 395.4 394.2 100 1.20%
160 160 1 3:1
161 162 2 470 468.5 75 2.00%0.18 D Dense Residential 0.75
162 163 3 457.5 443 800 1.81%
162 163 8 8.64 D Dense Residential 0.75
163 160 3 443 394.2 360 13.56%
160 160 1 3:2
164 165 2 462 460.5 75 2.00%0.25 D Dense Residential 0.75
165 166 3 449.5 432 800 2.19%
165 166 8 8.77 D Dense Residential 0.75
166 160 3 432 394.2 700 5.40%
160 160 1 3:3
160 172 3 394.2 365 700 4.17%
172 172 1 2:1
168 170 2 413 411.8 65 1.85%0.12 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
170 172 6 411.8 381.8 850 3.53%1.50 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
172 172 1 2:2
172 172 10 1
If Channel
AES INPUT DATA
Node #Soil Type C valueElevationLengthCodeLand coverSlope
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
Page 724 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
200 202 2 506 504.5 75 2.00%0.21 D Dense Residential 0.75
202 204 3 493.5 479 770 1.88%
202 204 8 8.99 D Dense Residential 0.75
201 206 8 1.22 D Slope 0.60
204 206 3 479 470 530 1.70%
206 206 1 3:1
208 210 2 503.5 502 75 2.00%0.17 D Dense Residential 0.75
210 206 3 491 470 760 2.76%
210 206 8 9.40 D Dense Residential 0.75
207 206 8 0.39 D Slope 0.60
206 206 1 3:2
212 214 2 493.4 492.5 60 1.50%0.21 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
214 206 6 492.5 480.9 925 1.25%1.95 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
206 206 1 3:3
206 213 3 470 430 900 4.44%
213 213 1 2:1
211 212 2 481.9 479.4 78 3.21%0.22 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(21% of area)0.80
212 213 6 479.4 440.3 760 5.14%2.34 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(21% of area)0.80
213 213 1 2:2
213 215 3 430 429.3 65 1.08%
215 215 1 3:1
216 218 2 486 484.5 75 2.00%0.18 D School 0.80
218 220 3 473.5 457.5 810 1.98%
218 220 8 9.84 D School 0.80
220 215 3 457.5 429.3 220 12.82%
215 215 1 3:2
222 224 2 465.8 463.2 80 3.25%0.26 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(21% of area)0.80
224 215 6 463.2 440.9 1020 2.19%2.78 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(21% of area)0.80
215 215 1 3:3
215 226 3 429.3 420 774 1.20%
226 226 1 2:1
228 230 2 451 449 75 2.67%0.18 D Dense Residential 0.75
230 226 3 438 420 790 2.28%
230 226 8 9.99 D Dense Residential 0.75
226 226 1 2:2
226 258 3 420 380 180 22.22%
258 258 1 2:1
254 256 2 408.5 407.2 65 2.00%0.18 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(30% of area)0.78
256 258 6 407.2 388.3 1060 1.78%4.88 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(30% of area)0.78
259 258 8 3.22 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(30% of area)0.78
258 258 1 2:2
258 172 3 380 365 1700 0.88%
172 172 11 1
172 172 12 1
172 174 3 365 358 530 1.32%
174 174 1 3:1
176 178 2 390 388.5 75 2.00%0.16 D Dense Residential 0.75
178 180 3 377.5 369 750 1.13%
178 180 8 15.87 D Dense Residential 0.75
180 174 3 369 358 760 1.45%
180 174 8 16.23 D Dense Residential 0.75
174 174 1 3:2
182 184 2 405 387 100 18.00%0.16 D Dense Residential 0.75
184 186 3 376 369 800 0.88%
184 186 8 13.09 D Dense Residential 0.75
186 174 3 369 358 630 1.75%
186 174 8 11.60 D Dense Residential 0.75
174 174 1 3:3
174 188 3 358 355 180 1.67%
188 188 8 1.22 D Park 0.30
188 190 3 355 305 660 7.58%
190 190 10 1
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
Page 725 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
232 234 2 572.3 570.4 70 2.71%0.14 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
234 236 6 570.4 502.9 980 6.89%1.56 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
236 238 3 499 454 930 4.84%
238 238 1 2:1
240 242 2 503.9 502.6 65 2.00%0.24 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
242 238 6 502.6 467.2 1020 3.47%2.05 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
238 238 1 2:2
238 240 3 464 392.5 990 7.22%
240 240 1 2:1
242 244 2 476.5 474.1 75 3.20%0.18 D
Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(18% of area) and
additional lanscape (28%
of area)
0.69
244 240 6 474.1 406.5 1250 5.41%5.02 D
Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(18% of area) and
additional lanscape (28%
of area)
0.69
240 240 1 2:2
240 242 3 392.5 391.5 100 1.00%
242 242 1 3:1
248 250 2 470 468.5 75 2.00%0.18 D Dense Residential 0.75
250 252 3 457 442 740 2.03%
250 252 8 8.11 D Dense Residential 0.75
252 242 3 442 391.5 260 19.42%
242 242 1 3:2
244 246 2 413 412.1 60 1.50%0.18 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(25% of area)0.79
246 242 6 412.1 407 550 0.93%4.77 D Road (88% imp) w/ Slope
(25% of area)0.79
242 242 1 3:3
242 190 3 391.5 305 1620 5.34%
190 190 11 1
190 190 12 1
190 192 3 305 218 1200 7.25%
192 192 1 2:1
194 196 2 338 336 80 2.50%0.34 D Park 0.30
196 192 3 324 218 1415 7.49%
196 192 8 25.38 D Park 0.30
193 192 8 1.36 D Slopes & Access Road 0.60
192 192 8 2.09 A Basin 0.20
192 192 1 2:2
192 198 3 215 205 248 4.03%
198 198 8 1.08 D Slopes 0.60
198 198 1 2:1
512 514 2 370 320 100 50.00%0.29 D Slopes 0.60
514 516 5 320 238 750 10.93%26.24 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
513 516 8 0.9 Normal Residential 0.65
516 198 3 228 205 1000 2.30%
198 198 1 2:2
288.39
300 302 2 559.6 557 80 3.25%0.22 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
302 304 6 557 528 900 3.22%3.73 D Roads (88% imp)0.85
304 305 3 519.36 512.54 113.26 6.02%
306 305 8 3.84 D Existing Road 0.75
7.79
400 402 2 238 236 80 2.50%0.17 D Park 0.30
402 404 3 224 205.2 940 2.00%
402 404 8 13.56 D Park 0.30
404 404 8 0.15 A Basin 0.20
404 405 3 209 206 30 10.00%
405 405 10 1
504 506 2 340 300 100 40.00%0.29 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
506 507 5 300 240 830 7.23%13.13 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
507 513 3 220 212 500 1.60%
513 513 1 2:1
509 511 2 325 318 100 7.00%0.3 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
511 513 5 318 222 930 10.32%13.77 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
513 513 1 2:2
513 405 3 212 207 834 0.60%
405 405 11 1
405 405 12 1
405 406 3 206 180 740 3.51%
406 406 1 2:1
EVENT Q (CFS)A (AC)TC (MIN) EVENT Q (CFS)A (AC)TC (MIN)
406 406 7 100-YR 347.24 181.2 21.39 50-YR 306.14 181.2 21.52 2:2
406 406 1
408 406 8 1.38 D Slopes 0.60 1
518 406 8 0.54 D Slopes 0.60
510 406 8 1.58 D Slopes 0.60
511 406 8 4.35 D Slopes-Rolling 0.50
230.42 +181.2
500 501 2 600 590 100 10.00%0.36 D Slopes 0.60
501 502 5 590 375 3530 6.09%12.33 D Slopes-rolling 0.50
502 503 3 375 335 874
503 503 8 4.81 D Slopes-rolling 0.50
17.5
600 601 2 374 340 100 34.00%0.18 D Slopes 0.60
601 602 5 340 305 600 5.83%1.56 D Slopes 0.60
1.74
Total Area 545.84
Nodes with land use labeled as "Roads"are composed by road, median landscape, parkways, and lanscape buffers and have an assumed 88% imperviousnes. This number will be
reconciled during final engineering. Nodes 242-244 have additional lanscape not accounted for by the street cross sections defined in the TM. This series has a lower runoff
coefficient when compared to other similar series due to 1.45 acres of landscape that are not covered as "parkways, or landscape buffers" that drain into the streets.
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
C=0.45 for landscape, 0.60 for slope
Page 726 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
____________________________________________________________________________
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2015 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 22.0 Release Date: 07/01/2015 License ID 1239
Analysis prepared by:
Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* Otay Ranch Village 8 East *
* 50-Year Developed Condition *
* DLN: 0920, W.O. 2395-0039 *
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: R:\0920\HYD\TM\DR\CALCS\AES\50PR.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:50 09/15/2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 50.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.150
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======
1 42.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
2 38.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
3 24.0 12.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
4 25.0 12.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
5 25.0 18.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
6 16.0 9.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
7 12.0 5.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
8 20.0 10.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.50 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AREA TRIBUTARY TO DETENTION BASIN |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 574.80
Page 1 Page 727 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 574.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.70
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.955
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.55
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 563.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 554.15
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.99
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.55
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 6.14 Tc(MIN.) = 11.09
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 1165.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.388
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.66 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 22.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 22.33
TC(MIN.) = 11.09
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 554.15 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 551.80
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 470.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.24
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 22.33
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.25 Tc(MIN.) = 12.35
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 106.00 = 1635.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.35
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.16
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.79
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 22.33
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
Page 2 Page 728 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 64.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 572.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 571.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.10
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.005
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 571.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 560.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 900.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 42.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.78
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.83
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.63
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.90
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.71 Tc(MIN.) = 8.72
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.957
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.42 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.11
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.40 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.79
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.00 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.21
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 106.00 = 964.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.72
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.60
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 12.11
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 22.33 12.35 3.162 8.79
2 12.11 8.72 3.957 3.60
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
Page 3 Page 729 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 27.88 8.72 3.957
2 32.01 12.35 3.162
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 32.01 Tc(MIN.) = 12.35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 106.00 = 1635.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 551.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 490.17
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1110.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.67
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 32.01
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.11 Tc(MIN.) = 13.46
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 110.00 = 2745.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.46
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.99
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.39
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 32.01
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 108.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 559.60
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 557.05
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.55
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.735
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.67
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.67
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 4 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 557.05 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 834.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Page 4 Page 730 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.21
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.68
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.78
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.15
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.91 Tc(MIN.) = 5.64
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.240
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.08
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.71
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.74
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.37 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.51
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 110.00 = 914.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.64
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.24
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.73
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.71
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 32.01 13.46 2.991 12.39
2 7.71 5.64 5.240 1.73
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 25.98 5.64 5.240
2 36.41 13.46 2.991
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 36.41 Tc(MIN.) = 13.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 110.00 = 2745.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 480.80
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 152.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.46
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 36.41
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 13.62
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 124.00 = 2897.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 10
Page 5 Page 731 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 114.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 518.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 516.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.85
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.85
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 114.00 TO NODE 116.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 505.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.66
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.85
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.86 Tc(MIN.) = 7.19
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 116.00 = 875.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 114.00 TO NODE 116.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.481
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.39 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.56
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.6 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 32.23
TC(MIN.) = 7.19
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 113.00 TO NODE 116.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.481
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7311
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.38 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.71
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.94
TC(MIN.) = 7.19
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 116.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 489.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 560.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
Page 6 Page 732 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.90
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 35.94
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.94 Tc(MIN.) = 8.13
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 122.00 = 1435.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.13
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.14
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.97
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 35.94
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 118.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 60.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.80
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.167
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.16
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 5 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 750.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 18.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.75
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.14
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.49
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.77
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.03 Tc(MIN.) = 8.19
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.119
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.01 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.04
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.88
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.39
Page 7 Page 733 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.78 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.98
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 118.00 TO NODE 122.00 = 810.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.19
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.12
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.25
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.88
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 123.00 TO NODE 126.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 516.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 514.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 503.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 890.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.68
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.72
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.17 Tc(MIN.) = 7.50
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 123.00 TO NODE 122.00 = 965.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.362
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.63 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.51
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 32.06
TC(MIN.) = 7.50
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.362
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7326
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.29 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.38
Page 8 Page 734 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.44
TC(MIN.) = 7.50
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.50
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.36
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 11.09
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 35.44
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 35.94 8.13 4.139 10.97
2 7.88 8.19 4.119 2.25
3 35.44 7.50 4.362 11.09
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 75.78 7.50 4.362
2 77.39 8.13 4.139
3 77.12 8.19 4.119
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 77.39 Tc(MIN.) = 8.13
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 24.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 122.00 = 1435.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 480.80
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 31.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.76
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 77.39
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.19 Tc(MIN.) = 8.32
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 124.00 = 1555.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 77.39 8.32 4.079 24.31
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 124.00 = 1555.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 36.41 13.62 2.968 14.12
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 124.00 = 2897.00 FEET.
Page 9 Page 735 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 99.62 8.32 4.079
2 92.71 13.62 2.968
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 99.62 Tc(MIN.) = 8.32
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.4
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 480.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 468.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 344.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 24.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 19.25
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 99.62
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.30 Tc(MIN.) = 8.62
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 127.00 = 3241.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 127.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.62
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.99
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 38.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 99.62
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 128.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 501.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.924
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.93
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 479.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 468.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1068.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.5 INCHES
Page 10 Page 736 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.84
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.93
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.63 Tc(MIN.) = 7.56
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 128.00 TO NODE 127.00 = 1168.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.340
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 10.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 32.75
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 33.46
TC(MIN.) = 7.56
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 127.00 TO NODE 127.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.56
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.34
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.28
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 33.46
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 99.62 8.62 3.988 38.43
2 33.46 7.56 4.340 10.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 120.82 7.56 4.340
2 130.37 8.62 3.988
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 130.37 Tc(MIN.) = 8.62
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 48.7
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 127.00 = 3241.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 127.00 TO NODE 132.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 468.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 456.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 400.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 30.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 18.63
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 130.37
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.36 Tc(MIN.) = 8.97
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 132.00 = 3641.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 132.00 TO NODE 132.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
Page 11 Page 737 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.97
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.88
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 48.71
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 130.37
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 134.00 TO NODE 136.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 84.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.40
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.588
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 136.00 TO NODE 132.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 4 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 468.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 700.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.46
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.29
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.43
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.93
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.40 Tc(MIN.) = 5.99
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.042
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.93
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.54
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.85 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.22
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 134.00 TO NODE 132.00 = 784.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 132.00 TO NODE 132.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
Page 12 Page 738 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.99
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.04
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.93
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 130.37 8.97 3.884 48.71
2 7.93 5.99 5.042 1.85
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 108.37 5.99 5.042
2 136.48 8.97 3.884
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 136.48 Tc(MIN.) = 8.97
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 50.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 132.00 = 3641.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 132.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 456.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 453.80
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 33.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.76
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 136.48
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 9.07
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 3741.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 485.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 483.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 141.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
Page 13 Page 739 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.84
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.72
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.79 Tc(MIN.) = 8.12
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 141.00 = 1175.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 141.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.143
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.28
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.80
TC(MIN.) = 8.12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 141.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 580.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.27
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.80
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.86 Tc(MIN.) = 8.98
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 142.00 = 1755.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.98
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.88
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.73
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17.80
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 144.00 TO NODE 146.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 64.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 476.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 475.38
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.12
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.987
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 146.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 3 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 14 Page 740 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 475.38 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 466.98
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 560.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 24.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.48
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.78
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.40
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.68
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.88 Tc(MIN.) = 6.87
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.615
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.31 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.14
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.85
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.74
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.74 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.88
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 144.00 TO NODE 142.00 = 624.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.87
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.62
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.49
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.85
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 137.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 483.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 481.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 137.00 TO NODE 139.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 471.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 457.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 540.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.1 INCHES
Page 15 Page 741 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.10
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.47
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.19 Tc(MIN.) = 6.53
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 139.00 = 615.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 137.00 TO NODE 139.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.771
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.53
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.93
TC(MIN.) = 6.53
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 139.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 457.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 48.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.34
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.93
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 6.58
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 142.00 = 663.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 142.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.58
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.75
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.01
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17.93
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 17.80 8.98 3.883 5.73
2 5.85 6.87 4.615 1.49
3 17.93 6.58 4.746 5.01
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 36.57 6.58 4.746
2 36.90 6.87 4.615
3 37.39 8.98 3.883
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 37.39 Tc(MIN.) = 8.98
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 142.00 = 1755.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 31
Page 16 Page 742 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 451.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.99
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 37.39
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.11
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1855.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.11
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.23
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 37.39
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 148.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 485.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 483.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 9.898
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.646
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 152.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 481.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 463.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 740.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.23
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.20
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.82 Tc(MIN.) = 13.72
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 148.00 TO NODE 152.00 = 815.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 152.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.954
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 6.58 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.83
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.99
TC(MIN.) = 13.72
****************************************************************************
Page 17 Page 743 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 152.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 463.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 451.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.25
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.99
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.30 Tc(MIN.) = 14.01
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 148.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1015.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.01
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.91
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.76
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.99
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 37.39 9.11 3.848 12.23
2 5.99 14.01 2.914 6.76
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 41.28 9.11 3.848
2 34.31 14.01 2.914
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 41.28 Tc(MIN.) = 9.11
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 19.0
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1855.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 142.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 451.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.20
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 41.28
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.23
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1955.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
Page 18 Page 744 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 41.28 9.23 3.814 18.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 138.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 1955.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 136.48 9.07 3.857 50.56
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 154.00 = 3741.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 177.04 9.07 3.857
2 176.23 9.23 3.814
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 177.04 Tc(MIN.) = 9.07
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 69.5
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 154.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 158.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 451.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 395.40
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 840.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 28.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 27.51
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 177.04
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.51 Tc(MIN.) = 9.58
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 158.00 = 4581.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 158.00 TO NODE 158.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.58
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.72
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 69.55
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 177.04
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 156.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 72.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 465.80
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 463.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.803
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
****************************************************************************
Page 19 Page 745 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 156.00 TO NODE 158.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 4 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 463.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 407.40
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 811.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.38
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.19
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.30
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.54
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.55 Tc(MIN.) = 6.35
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.855
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.750
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.15
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.77
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.80
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.14 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.10
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 154.00 TO NODE 158.00 = 883.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 158.00 TO NODE 158.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.35
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.33
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 15.77
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 177.04 9.58 3.724 69.55
2 15.77 6.35 4.855 4.33
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 133.11 6.35 4.855
2 189.13 9.58 3.724
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 189.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 73.9
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 158.00 = 4581.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
Page 20 Page 746 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 158.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 395.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 394.20
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 54.0 INCH PIPE IS 41.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.59
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 54.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 189.13
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 9.70
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 4681.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.70
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.70
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 73.88
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 189.13
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 161.00 TO NODE 162.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 470.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 468.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 162.00 TO NODE 163.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 457.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 443.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.35
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.76
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.06 Tc(MIN.) = 7.39
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 161.00 TO NODE 163.00 = 875.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 162.00 TO NODE 163.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.402
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.64 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 28.52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.12
TC(MIN.) = 7.39
Page 21 Page 747 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 163.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 443.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 394.20
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 360.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 24.56
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 29.12
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.24 Tc(MIN.) = 7.64
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 161.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 1235.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.64
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.31
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.82
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 29.12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 164.00 TO NODE 165.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 462.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 460.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.25 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.06
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 166.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 449.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 432.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.13
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.06
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.60 Tc(MIN.) = 6.93
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 164.00 TO NODE 166.00 = 875.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 166.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.589
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.77 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 30.18
Page 22 Page 748 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.04
TC(MIN.) = 6.93
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 166.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 432.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 394.20
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 700.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.41
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 31.04
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.71 Tc(MIN.) = 7.64
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 164.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 1575.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.64
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.31
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.02
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 31.04
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 189.13 9.70 3.695 73.88
2 29.12 7.64 4.311 8.82
3 31.04 7.64 4.309 9.02
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 222.27 7.64 4.311
2 222.36 7.64 4.309
3 240.72 9.70 3.695
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 240.72 Tc(MIN.) = 9.70
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 91.7
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 4681.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 394.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 365.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 700.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 48.0 INCH PIPE IS 34.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 24.93
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 48.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 240.72
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.47 Tc(MIN.) = 10.16
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 5381.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 23 Page 749 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.16
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.58
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 91.72
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 240.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 168.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 413.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 411.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.20
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.957
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.58
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 4 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 411.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 381.80
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 850.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.48
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.31
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.37
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.85
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.20 Tc(MIN.) = 7.16
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.495
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.73
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.19
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.28
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.85 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.12
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 168.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 915.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
Page 24 Page 750 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.16
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.50
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.62
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.19
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 240.72 10.16 3.585 91.72
2 6.19 7.16 4.495 1.62
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 198.13 7.16 4.495
2 245.65 10.16 3.585
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 245.65 Tc(MIN.) = 10.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 93.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 5381.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 506.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 504.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.89
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.89
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 493.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 479.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 770.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.62
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.89
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.78 Tc(MIN.) = 7.11
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 845.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.515
Page 25 Page 751 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.99 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 30.44
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.15
TC(MIN.) = 7.11
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.515
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7324
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.30
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.46
TC(MIN.) = 7.11
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 501.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 530.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 17.30
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 34.46
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.51 Tc(MIN.) = 7.62
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 1375.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.62
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.32
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.42
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 34.46
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 208.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 491.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00
Page 26 Page 752 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 760.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.95
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.72
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.56 Tc(MIN.) = 6.89
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 208.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 835.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.607
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 32.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.6 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 33.07
TC(MIN.) = 6.89
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 207.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.607
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7441
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.39 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.08
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.15
TC(MIN.) = 6.89
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.89
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.61
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 34.15
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 214.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 60.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.90
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.045
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.01
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.01
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 214.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 5 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 480.90
Page 27 Page 753 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 925.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 18.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.19
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.79
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.35
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.71
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 6.56 Tc(MIN.) = 9.60
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.718
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.95 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.83
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.83
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.64 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.91
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 985.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.60
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.72
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.16
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.83
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 34.46 7.62 4.317 10.42
2 34.15 6.89 4.607 9.96
3 6.83 9.60 3.718 2.16
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 70.19 6.89 4.607
2 71.87 7.62 4.317
3 64.06 9.60 3.718
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 71.87 Tc(MIN.) = 7.62
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 22.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 1375.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
Page 28 Page 754 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 470.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 430.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 900.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 21.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 18.84
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 71.87
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.80 Tc(MIN.) = 8.41
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 213.00 = 2275.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.41
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.05
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 22.54
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 71.87
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 78.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 481.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 479.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.235
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.00
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 5 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 479.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 440.30
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 760.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 18.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.67
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.32
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.34
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.18
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.92 Tc(MIN.) = 6.15
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.955
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.800
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.28
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.15
Page 29 Page 755 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.50
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.98 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.57
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 213.00 = 838.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.15
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.56
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.15
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 71.87 8.41 4.049 22.54
2 10.15 6.15 4.955 2.56
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 68.87 6.15 4.955
2 80.16 8.41 4.049
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 80.16 Tc(MIN.) = 8.41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 25.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 213.00 = 2275.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 430.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 429.30
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 31.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.17
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 80.16
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 8.51
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 215.00 = 2340.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.51
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.02
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 25.10
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 80.16
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 216.00 TO NODE 218.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 30 Page 756 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 484.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.712
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 218.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 473.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 457.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 810.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.58
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.82
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.95 Tc(MIN.) = 6.66
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 216.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 885.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 218.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.707
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.8000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 37.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 37.73
TC(MIN.) = 6.66
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 457.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 429.30
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 220.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 24.21
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 37.73
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.15 Tc(MIN.) = 6.81
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 216.00 TO NODE 215.00 = 1105.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.81
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.64
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.02
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 37.73
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 224.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 31 Page 757 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 465.80
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 463.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.60
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.261
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.18
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 224.00 TO NODE 214.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 3 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 463.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 440.90
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1020.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 24.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 12.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.68
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.92
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.11
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.95
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.47 Tc(MIN.) = 8.73
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.953
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.800
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.78 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.61
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.14
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.54 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.23
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 214.00 = 1100.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.73
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.95
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.04
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.61
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 80.16 8.51 4.019 25.10
2 37.73 6.81 4.640 10.02
3 9.61 8.73 3.953 3.04
Page 32 Page 758 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 114.68 6.81 4.640
2 122.22 8.51 4.019
3 120.61 8.73 3.953
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 122.22 Tc(MIN.) = 8.51
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 215.00 = 2340.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 429.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 420.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 774.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 45.0 INCH PIPE IS 35.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.98
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 45.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 122.22
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.99 Tc(MIN.) = 9.51
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 226.00 = 3114.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.51
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.74
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 38.16
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 122.22
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 228.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 451.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 449.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.935
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 438.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 420.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 790.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.73
Page 33 Page 759 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.76
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.78 Tc(MIN.) = 6.72
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 228.00 TO NODE 226.00 = 865.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.683
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.99 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.09
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.72
TC(MIN.) = 6.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.72
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.68
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.17
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 35.72
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 122.22 9.51 3.743 38.16
2 35.72 6.72 4.683 10.17
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 133.40 6.72 4.683
2 150.77 9.51 3.743
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 150.77 Tc(MIN.) = 9.51
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 48.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 226.00 = 3114.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 420.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 41.71
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 150.77
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 9.58
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 258.00 = 3294.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 34 Page 760 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.58
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.72
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 48.33
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 150.77
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 254.00 TO NODE 256.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7800
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 408.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 407.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.30
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.686
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.80
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.80
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 256.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 407.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 392.50
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1060.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 38.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.96
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.33
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.84
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.00
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 6.22 Tc(MIN.) = 9.91
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.645
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7800
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.780
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.88 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.87
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.39
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.41 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.42
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.27 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.36
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 254.00 TO NODE 258.00 = 1125.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 259.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.645
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7800
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7800
Page 35 Page 761 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.15
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 23.54
TC(MIN.) = 9.91
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.91
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.64
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.28
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 23.54
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 150.77 9.58 3.725 48.33
2 23.54 9.91 3.645 8.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 173.53 9.58 3.725
2 171.08 9.91 3.645
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 173.53 Tc(MIN.) = 9.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 56.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 258.00 = 3294.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 365.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 530.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 45.0 INCH PIPE IS 33.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 19.77
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 45.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 173.53
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.45 Tc(MIN.) = 10.02
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 3824.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 173.53 10.02 3.617 56.61
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 3824.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 245.65 10.16 3.585 93.34
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 172.00 = 5381.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
Page 36 Page 762 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 415.80 10.02 3.617
2 417.64 10.16 3.585
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 417.64 Tc(MIN.) = 10.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 150.0
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 172.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 172.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 365.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 358.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 530.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 72.0 INCH PIPE IS 53.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 18.49
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 72.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 417.64
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.48 Tc(MIN.) = 10.64
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 174.00 = 5911.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 174.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.64
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.48
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 149.95
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 417.64
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 176.00 TO NODE 178.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 390.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 388.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 178.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 377.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 369.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 750.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.57
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
Page 37 Page 763 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.68
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.50 Tc(MIN.) = 7.83
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 176.00 TO NODE 180.00 = 825.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 178.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.241
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 15.87 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 50.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 16.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 50.99
TC(MIN.) = 7.83
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 369.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 358.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 760.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 21.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.17
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 50.99
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.04 Tc(MIN.) = 8.87
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 176.00 TO NODE 174.00 = 1585.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.913
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 16.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 47.64
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 32.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 94.68
TC(MIN.) = 8.87
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 174.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.87
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.91
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 32.26
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 94.68
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 182.00 TO NODE 184.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 405.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 387.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 18.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.924
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
Page 38 Page 764 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 184.00 TO NODE 186.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 376.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 369.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.24
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.68
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.12 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 182.00 TO NODE 186.00 = 900.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 184.00 TO NODE 186.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.541
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 44.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 45.12
TC(MIN.) = 7.04
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 186.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 369.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 358.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 630.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.64
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 45.12
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.83 Tc(MIN.) = 7.88
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 182.00 TO NODE 174.00 = 1530.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 186.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.226
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 11.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 36.76
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 24.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 78.76
TC(MIN.) = 7.88
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 174.00 TO NODE 174.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.88
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.23
Page 39 Page 765 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 24.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 78.76
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 417.64 10.64 3.480 149.95
2 94.68 8.87 3.913 32.26
3 78.76 7.88 4.226 24.85
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 471.87 7.88 4.226
2 515.76 8.87 3.913
3 566.69 10.64 3.480
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 566.69 Tc(MIN.) = 10.64
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 207.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 174.00 = 5911.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 174.00 TO NODE 188.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 358.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 355.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 75.0 INCH PIPE IS 60.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 21.49
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 75.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 566.69
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.14 Tc(MIN.) = 10.78
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 188.00 = 6091.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 188.00 TO NODE 188.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.451
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7417
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.26
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 208.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 566.69
TC(MIN.) = 10.78
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 188.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 355.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 305.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 660.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 57.0 INCH PIPE IS 44.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 38.10
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 57.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 566.69
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) = 11.07
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 190.00 = 6751.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 10
Page 40 Page 766 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 234.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 572.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 570.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.90
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.699
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.67
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.67
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 234.00 TO NODE 236.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 6 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 570.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.90
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 980.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 9.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.12
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.09
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.33
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.54
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.06 Tc(MIN.) = 5.76
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.169
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.85
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.47
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.55
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.07 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.05
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 236.00 = 1050.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 236.00 TO NODE 238.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 499.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 454.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 930.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.22
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
Page 41 Page 767 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.47
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.38 Tc(MIN.) = 7.14
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 238.00 = 1980.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 238.00 TO NODE 238.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.14
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.50
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.70
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.47
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 503.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.60
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.30
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.880
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.16
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 238.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 6 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 467.20
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1020.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 9.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.24
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.48
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.31
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.45
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.95 Tc(MIN.) = 6.83
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.635
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.08
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.02
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.15
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.88 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.90
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 238.00 = 1085.00 FEET.
Page 42 Page 768 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 238.00 TO NODE 238.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.83
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.63
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.29
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.02
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 7.47 7.14 4.500 1.70
2 9.02 6.83 4.635 2.29
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 16.16 6.83 4.635
2 16.23 7.14 4.500
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.23 Tc(MIN.) = 7.14
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.0
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 238.00 = 1980.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 238.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 464.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 392.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 990.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.88
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 16.23
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.04 Tc(MIN.) = 8.18
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 240.00 = 2970.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.18
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.12
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.99
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 16.23
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 244.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6900
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 476.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 474.10
Page 43 Page 769 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.40
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.337
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.70
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.70
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 244.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 6 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 474.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 406.50
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1250.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 9.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.06
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.46
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.62
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.00
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.70 Tc(MIN.) = 8.04
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.169
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6900
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.690
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.02 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 14.44
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.96
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.77
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.51 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.74
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 240.00 = 1325.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.04
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.17
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.20
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 14.96
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 16.23 8.18 4.123 3.99
2 14.96 8.04 4.169 5.20
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 31.01 8.04 4.169
Page 44 Page 770 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
2 31.02 8.18 4.123
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 31.02 Tc(MIN.) = 8.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 240.00 = 2970.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 392.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 391.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.80
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 31.02
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.19 Tc(MIN.) = 8.37
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 242.00 = 3070.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.37
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.06
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.19
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 31.02
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 248.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 470.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 468.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.330
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 252.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 457.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 442.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 740.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.52
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.76
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.73 Tc(MIN.) = 7.06
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 248.00 TO NODE 252.00 = 815.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 252.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
Page 45 Page 771 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.535
DENSE RESIDENTIAL (R2,R3) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 28.20
TC(MIN.) = 7.06
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 252.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 442.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 391.50
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 260.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 26.38
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.20
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 7.22
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 248.00 TO NODE 242.00 = 1075.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.22
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.47
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.29
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 28.20
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 244.00 TO NODE 246.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 60.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 413.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 412.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.90
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.776
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.81
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.81
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 246.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 412.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 407.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 550.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 38.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
Page 46 Page 772 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 9.22
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.07
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.52
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.98
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.63 Tc(MIN.) = 7.41
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.396
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.790
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.77 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.57
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.19
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.46 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.81
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.92 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.35
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 244.00 TO NODE 242.00 = 610.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.41
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.40
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.95
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17.19
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 31.02 8.37 4.062 9.19
2 28.20 7.22 4.468 8.29
3 17.19 7.41 4.396 4.95
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 73.16 7.22 4.468
2 73.60 7.41 4.396
3 72.54 8.37 4.062
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 73.60 Tc(MIN.) = 7.41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 22.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 242.00 = 3070.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 391.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 305.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1620.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 20.43
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 73.60
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.32 Tc(MIN.) = 8.73
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 190.00 = 4690.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
Page 47 Page 773 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 73.60 8.73 3.955 22.43
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 190.00 = 4690.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 566.69 11.07 3.392 208.28
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 190.00 = 6751.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 520.38 8.73 3.955
2 629.83 11.07 3.392
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 629.83 Tc(MIN.) = 11.07
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 230.7
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 305.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 218.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1200.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 60.0 INCH PIPE IS 46.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 38.55
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 60.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 629.83
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.52 Tc(MIN.) = 11.59
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 192.00 = 7951.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 192.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.59
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.29
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 230.71
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 629.83
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 194.00 TO NODE 196.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 338.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 336.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00
Page 48 Page 774 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 9.490
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.747
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 196.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 324.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 218.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1415.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.79
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.38
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.07 Tc(MIN.) = 13.56
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 194.00 TO NODE 192.00 = 1495.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 196.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.976
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 25.38 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 22.66
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 25.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 22.97
TC(MIN.) = 13.56
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 193.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.976
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3151
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.43
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 25.39
TC(MIN.) = 13.56
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 192.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.976
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .2000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3068
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 29.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 26.64
TC(MIN.) = 13.56
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 192.00 TO NODE 192.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.56
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.98
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 29.17
Page 49 Page 775 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 26.64
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 629.83 11.59 3.294 230.71
2 26.64 13.56 2.976 29.17
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 652.59 11.59 3.294
2 595.78 13.56 2.976
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 652.59 Tc(MIN.) = 11.59
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 259.9
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 192.00 = 7951.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 192.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 215.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 205.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 247.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 69.0 INCH PIPE IS 51.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 31.47
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 69.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 652.59
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 11.72
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 198.00 = 8198.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 198.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.270
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6943
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 261.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 652.59
TC(MIN.) = 11.72
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 198.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.72
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.27
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 260.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 652.59
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 512.00 TO NODE 514.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
Page 50 Page 776 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 370.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 320.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 50.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.178
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.99
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 514.00 TO NODE 516.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 320.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 238.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 750.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1093
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.065
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 34.76
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.06
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.77
Tc(MIN.) = 5.95
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 26.24 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 66.45
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.501
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 26.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 67.33
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.51 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.65
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 512.00 TO NODE 516.00 = 850.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 513.00 TO NODE 516.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.065
NORMAL RESIDENTIAL (R1) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5060
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.96
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 70.30
TC(MIN.) = 5.95
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 516.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 228.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 205.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1000.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.54
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 70.30
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.15 Tc(MIN.) = 7.09
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 512.00 TO NODE 198.00 = 1850.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 198.00 TO NODE 198.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
Page 51 Page 777 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.09
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.52
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 27.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 70.30
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 652.59 11.72 3.270 260.96
2 70.30 7.09 4.521 27.43
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 542.32 7.09 4.521
2 703.44 11.72 3.270
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 703.44 Tc(MIN.) = 11.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 288.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 198.00 = 8198.00 FEET.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| MAIN STREET RUNOFF TO VILLAGE 8 WEST |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 559.60
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 557.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.60
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.717
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.06
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 304.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 557.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 528.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 900.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 42.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150
**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.74
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.87
Page 52 Page 778 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.00
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.30
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.75 Tc(MIN.) = 6.47
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.799
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.850
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.73 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.22
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.11
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.75
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.62 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.76
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 304.00 = 980.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 304.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 519.36 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 512.54
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 113.26 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.73
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 16.11
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 6.59
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 305.00 = 1093.26 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 306.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.739
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7500
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.8007
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.65
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.56
TC(MIN.) = 6.59
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AREA TRIBUTARY TO BIOFILTRATION BASIN |
| AREA FROM BASIN COMMINGLES WITH VILLAGE 8 WEST |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 238.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 236.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 9.490
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.747
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
Page 53 Page 779 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 224.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 205.20
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 940.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.00
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.19
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.23 Tc(MIN.) = 14.72
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 404.00 = 1020.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.823
PARKS, GOLF COURSES RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.63
TC(MIN.) = 14.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.823
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .2000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.2989
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.08
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.71
TC(MIN.) = 14.72
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 209.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 206.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.51
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.71
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 14.75
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 405.00 = 1050.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 405.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 506.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 340.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 300.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 40.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.013
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
Page 54 Page 780 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.655
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 506.00 TO NODE 508.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 300.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 240.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 830.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0723
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.189
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 14.88
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.66
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.97
Tc(MIN.) = 7.98
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.50
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 28.11
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.71
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 508.00 = 930.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 508.00 TO NODE 513.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 220.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 212.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 500.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 17.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.27
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.11
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.81 Tc(MIN.) = 8.79
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 513.00 = 1430.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 513.00 TO NODE 513.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.79
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.94
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 13.42
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 28.11
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 509.00 TO NODE 511.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 325.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 318.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 7.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.646
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.238
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
Page 55 Page 781 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 511.00 TO NODE 513.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 318.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 222.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 930.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1032
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.006
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 14.77
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.33
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.91
Tc(MIN.) = 8.55
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 13.77 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.58
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 28.18
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.54
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 509.00 TO NODE 513.00 = 1030.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 513.00 TO NODE 513.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.55
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.01
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 14.07
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 28.18
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 28.11 8.79 3.935 13.42
2 28.18 8.55 4.006 14.07
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 55.52 8.55 4.006
2 55.79 8.79 3.935
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 55.79 Tc(MIN.) = 8.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 27.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 513.00 = 1430.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 513.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 212.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 207.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 834.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 29.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.29
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 55.79
Page 56 Page 782 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.68 Tc(MIN.) = 10.47
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 405.00 = 2264.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 405.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
============================================================================
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 55.79 10.47 3.517 27.49
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 405.00 = 2264.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 11.71 14.75 2.819 13.88
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 405.00 = 1050.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 64.11 10.47 3.517
2 56.44 14.75 2.819
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 64.11 Tc(MIN.) = 10.47
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 41.4
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 405.00 TO NODE 405.00 IS CODE = 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<
============================================================================
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 405.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 206.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 180.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 740.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 21.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.76
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 64.11
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.74 Tc(MIN.) = 11.21
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 406.00 = 3004.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 406.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.21
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.37
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 41.37
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 64.11
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 406.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================
USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN) = 21.52 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.21
Page 57 Page 783 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 181.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 306.14
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 406.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
============================================================================
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 21.52
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.21
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 181.20
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 306.14
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 64.11 11.21 3.366 41.37
2 306.14 21.52 2.210 181.20
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 223.53 11.21 3.366
2 348.22 21.52 2.210
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 348.22 Tc(MIN.) = 21.52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 222.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 504.00 TO NODE 406.00 = 3004.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 408.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.210
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7022
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.38 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.83
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 224.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 348.22
TC(MIN.) = 21.52
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 518.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.210
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7020
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.54 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 224.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 348.23
TC(MIN.) = 21.52
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 510.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.210
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7006
Page 58 Page 784 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.75
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 226.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 349.97
TC(MIN.) = 21.52
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 511.00 TO NODE 406.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.210
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6968
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.81
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 230.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 354.78
TC(MIN.) = 21.52
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| SLOPE RUNOFF TO SR125 |
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 600.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 590.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.178
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.22
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.22
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 590.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 375.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 3530.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0609
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.371
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 9.52
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.89
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 15.11
Tc(MIN.) = 19.29
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 12.33 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 14.62
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.503
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.13
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.42
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 502.00 = 3630.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 502.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
Page 59 Page 785 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
50PR.OUT
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 375.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 335.00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 874.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.09
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 15.13
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.11 Tc(MIN.) = 20.40
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 4504.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.287
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5021
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.81 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.10
TC(MIN.) = 20.40
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 601.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================
VEGETATED SLOPES (STEEP) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 374.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 340.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 34.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.178
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.665
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.61
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.61
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 601.00 TO NODE 602.00 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 340.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 305.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 600.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0583
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.030
VEGETATED SLOPES (ROLLING) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.25
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.33
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.30
Tc(MIN.) = 8.48
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.14
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.510
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.58
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.12 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.68
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 602.00 = 700.00 FEET.
============================================================================
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 TC(MIN.) = 8.48
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.58
============================================================================
============================================================================
Page 60 Page 786 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
CHAPTER 4
EXHIBIT 1
PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION
HYDROLOGY MAP
EXHIBIT 2
DEVELOPED CONDITION
HYDROLOGY MAP
EXHIBIT 3
OVERLAY OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
EXHIBIT 4
HYDROLOGIC SOIL TYPE LIMITS
Page 787 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
MSCP
FLOODPLAIN
FLOODWAY
MSCP
MSCP
FLOODWAY
FLOODPLAIN
MSCP
Magdalena Avenue
CALLE ESCUELA
AV
E
N
I
D
A
C
A
P
R
I
S
E
AVENIDA CAPRISE
L
A
M
E
D
I
A
P
K
W
Y
LA MEDIA PKWY NORTH
LA MEDIA PKWY SOUTH
MAIN ST. EAST
MAIN ST. WEST
M A I N S T .
OTAY RIVER X- SECTION
LOCATION FOR HEC-RAS
ANALYSISOTAY RIVER X- SECTION
LOCATION FOR HEC-RAS
ANALYSIS
OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 8, WEST
SOUTHWEST
WATERSHED :
EXISTING RUNOFF
AT OTAY RIVER
Q100 = 380.71 CFS
A = 208.76 AC
Tc = 21.39 MIN
SOUTH WATERSHED:
EXISTING RUNOFF
AT OTAY RIVER
Q100 = 50.66 CFS
A = 25.94 AC
Tc = 10.21 MIN
EAST-CENTRAL
WATERSHED:
EXISTING RUNOFF
AT OTAY RIVER
Q100 = 211.11 CFS
A = 180.32 AC
Tc = 22.58 MIN
EAST WATERSHED:
EXISTING RUNOFF
AT OTAY RIVER
Q100 = 45.72 CFS
A = 19.96 AC
Tc = 7.99 MIN
NORTHWEST
WATERSHED:
RUNOFF TO
EXIST. STORM DRAIN
Q100 = 21.75 CFS
A = 10.11 AC
Tc = 9.84 MIN
RUNOFF TO EXIST.
STORM DRAIN:
Q100 = 10.55 CFS
A = 6.1 AC
Tc = 12.02 MIN
NORTHEAST
WATERSHED:
EXISTING RUNOFF
Q100 = 75.59 CFS
A = 51.54 AC
Tc = 16.65 MIN
WEST WATERSHED:
RUNOFF TO
EXIST. BROW DITCH
Q100 = 27.18 CFS
A = 14.26 AC
Tc = 10.60 MIN
OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 9
SR125
NORTH WATERSHED
Q100 = 28.62 CFS
A = 13.72 AC
Tc = 13.47 MIN
SOUTHEAST
WATERSHED:
EXISTING RUNOFF
AT OTAY RIVER
Q100 = 25.93 CFS
A = 13.28 AC
Tc = 10.22 MIN
OLYMPIAN
HIGH SCHOOL
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
INITIAL SUBAREA
FLOW DIRECTION
AREA
HYDROLOGIC SOIL TYPE
NODE NUMBER
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
OF
2
1
MAPPREPARED BY:
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
EXISTING
HYDROLOGY MAP
NOTES: EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5'
Page 788 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 789 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
STREE T "L "
STREET "J"
R-1 R-2
S-1
P-1
VC-4
R-5 R-6
OS-1
R-3
R-4
R-7 R-8
OS-4
LOT B
R-10R-9
VC-3
MHMH
MHMHMH
MH
MHMH
MH MH
L OT 25
LOT 16
LOT 17
LOT 30
SR-125
OL YM PIAN H IGH S CHOOL
N.A.P.
CPF-2
OS-1 SR-125
OS-7
OS-8
OS-9 OS-10
OS-11 OS-12
OS-13
O S-2 OS-2
OS-3
OS-2
LO
T A
OS-5
OS-6
OS-13
VC-1
VC-2
(UNDERL Y INGDESIGNATION)
P-2A
COMMUNITY PARK
P-2B
COMMUNITY PARK
VC-5
VC-6
VC-7
G 8
A
8
B8
C8
D
8
E
8
F8
8
H
8 I
LOT 19
LOT 22
LOT D
CPF-1
M A I N S T R E E T E A S T
MAIN STREET WEST
CALLE ESCUELA
A
VENIDA
CAPRISE
LAMEDIAPKWY.
PASEO ARCHER
PASEO LIMONITE
CALLE GRANDON
CALLE MAYFAIR
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
OS-1
O S-2
OS-2
OS-5 P-2A
COMMUNITY PARK
P-2B
8 I
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
OS-1
N.A.P.
SR-125
(UNDERLYINGDESIGNATION)
G 8
SR-125
OS-2
OS-3
OS-6
8
H
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
OF
1
1
SHEETPREPARED BY:
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OTAY RANCH
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT 1.3
OVERLAY OF FLOOD INSURANCE MAP
VILLAGE 8 EAST
NOS. 06073C2177, 06073C2178, & 06073C2179
NOTE: FLOOD PLAIN
ELEVATIONS ADJUSTED
FROM NGVD29 TO
NAVD28 (+2.1')
Page 790 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
R-1 R-2
S-1
P-1
VC-4
R-5 R-6
OS-1
R-3
R-4
R-7 R-8
OS-4
LOT B
R-10R-9
VC-3MHMH
MHMHMH
MH
MHMH
MH MH
LOT 25
LOT 16
LOT 17
LOT 30
VILLAGE 9
SR-125
OLYMPIAN HIGH SCHOOL
N.A.P.
CPF-2
OS-1 SR-125
OS-7
OS-8
OS-9 OS-10
OS-11 OS-12
P-2ACOMMUNITY PARK
OS-13
OS-2
OS-2
OS-3
OS-2
LOT A
OS-5
OS-6
OS-13
VC-1
VC-2
(UNDERLYINGDESIGNATION)
P-2A
COMMUNITY PARK
P-2B
COMMUNITY PARK
VC-5
VC-6
VC-7
LOT 19
LOT 22
LOT D
CPF-1
CALLE ESCUELA
AV
E
N
I
D
A
C
A
P
R
I
S
E
AVENIDA CAPRISE
L
A
M
E
D
I
A
P
K
W
Y
LA MEDIA PKWY NORTH
LA MEDIA PKWY SOUTH
MAIN ST. EAST
MAIN ST. WEST
M A I N S T .
SA
N
T
A
M
A
R
I
S
O
L
ST. D ST. D
CALLE ESCUELA
SA
N
T
A
M
A
R
I
S
O
L
ST
.
A
ST. E
ST. F
OTAY VALLET RD
MSCP
FLOODPLAIN
FLOODWAY
MSCP
MSCP
FLOODWAY
FLOODPLAIN
MSCP
Magdalena Avenue
SOIL NOT RATED OR NOT AVAILABLE
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
AREA
HYDROLOGIC SOIL TYPE
SOIL TYPE BOUNDARY
OF
1
1
MAPPREPARED BY:
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
HYDROLOGIC SOIL TYPE LIMITS
EXHIBIT
Page 791 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
APPENDIX A
HEC-HMS STUDY FOR OTAY RIVER
WATERSHED FOR TIME TO PEAK
DETERMINATION FOR 100-YEAR,
24-HOUR STORM EVENT
Page 792 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay River Valley Existing Condition HEC HMS Analysis
Outfall #1
Outfall #2
Page 793 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 62024.0 acres
AREA 96.913 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 1024 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 61000 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =81.1 PZN=2.0
86.6 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 13.51 miles 71333 feet
Lc 6.755 miles 35666 feet
U/S Elev.3060 feet
D/S Elev.486.4 feet
S 190 ft/mile 0.036 ft/ft
LAG TIME =1.722 hours
103.3 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
Otay Lake Subbasin & Reach
Adjusted CN =
R:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-HMS\HEC-HMS-EX\0920 HEC-HMS-Existing-Lag Time.xls 9/23/2022
Page 794 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 795 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 0.0 acres
AREA 0.000 mi2
CN = 98 0 acres (Major Arterials)
CN = 92 0 acres (Commercial Development)
CN = 91 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
CN = 90 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
CN = 87 0 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
CN = 81 0 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =81.0 AMC=2.0
86.5 AMC=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 2.07 miles 10930 ft
Lc 1.035 miles 5465 ft
U/S Elev.486 feet
D/S Elev.240 feet
S 119 ft/mile 0.023 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.453 hours
27.2 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 9 Otay River Analysis
Savage Dam Spillway Reach
Page 796 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 797 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 798 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 4822.0 acres
AREA 7.534 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 0 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 4822 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =81.0 PZN=2.0
86.5 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 6.58 miles 34742 feet
Lc 3.29 miles 17371 feet
U/S Elev.3000 feet
D/S Elev.240 feet
S 419 ft/mile 0.079 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.858 hours
51.5 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
O'Neal Canyon Subbasin & Reach
Adjusted CN =
R:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-HMS\HEC-HMS-EX\0920 HEC-HMS-Existing-Lag Time.xls 9/23/2022
Page 799 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 800 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 3338.0 acres
AREA 5.216 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 2237 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 1101 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =85.0 PZN=2.0
89.5 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 5.98 miles 31574 feet
Lc 2.99 miles 15787 feet
U/S Elev.1600 feet
D/S Elev.240 feet
S 227 ft/mile 0.043 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.896 hours
53.8 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
Salt Creek Subbasin & Reach
Adjusted CN =
Page 801 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 802 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 803 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 4028.0 acres
AREA 6.294 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 996 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 3032 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =82.5 PZN=2.0
87.6 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 4.81 miles 25397 feet
Lc 2.405 miles 12698 feet
U/S Elev.940 feet
D/S Elev.190 feet
S 156 ft/mile 0.030 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.816 hours
49.0 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
Otay River Valley Central Subbasin
Adjusted CN =
Page 804 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 805 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 806 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 3143.0 acres
AREA 4.911 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 1237 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 1906 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =83.4 PZN=2.0
88.3 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 4.16 miles 21965 feet
Lc 2.08 miles 10982 feet
U/S Elev.600 feet
D/S Elev.140 feet
S 111 ft/mile 0.021 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.780 hours
46.8 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
Otay River Valley West Reach
Adjusted CN =
Page 807 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 808 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 809 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay River Valley Proposed Condition HEC HMS Analysis
Outfall #1
Outfall #2
Page 810 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 62024.0 acres
AREA 96.913 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 1024 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 61000 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =81.1 PZN=2.0
86.6 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 13.51 miles 71333 ft
Lc 6.755 miles 35666 ft
U/S Elev.3060 feet
D/S Elev.486.4 feet
S 190 ft/mile 0.036 ft/ft
LAG TIME =1.722 hours
103.3 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
Otay Lake Subbasin & Reach
Adjusted CN =
R:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-HMS\HEC-HMS-PR\0920 HEC-HMS-Proposed-Lag Time.xls 9/23/2022
Page 811 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 812 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 0.0 acres
AREA 0.000 mi2
CN = 98 0 acres (Major Arterials)
CN = 92 0 acres (Commercial Development)
CN = 91 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
CN = 90 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
CN = 87 0 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
CN = 81 0 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =81.0 AMC=2.0
86.5 AMC=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 2.07 miles 10930 ft
Lc 1.035 miles 5465 ft
U/S Elev.486 feet
D/S Elev.240 feet
S 119 ft/mile 0.023 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.453 hours
27.2 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 9 Otay River Analysis
Savage Dam Spillway Reach
Page 813 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 814 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 815 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 4822.0 acres
AREA 7.534 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 0 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 4822 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =81.0 PZN=2.0
86.5 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 6.58 miles 34742 ft
Lc 3.29 miles 17371 ft
U/S Elev.3000 feet
D/S Elev.240 feet
S 419 ft/mile 0.079 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.858 hours
51.5 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
O'Neal Canyon Subbasin & Reach
Adjusted CN =
R:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-HMS\HEC-HMS-PR\0920 HEC-HMS-Proposed-Lag Time.xls 9/23/2022
Page 816 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 817 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 3338.0 acres
AREA 5.216 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 2237 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 1101 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =85.0 PZN=2.0
89.5 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 5.98 miles 31574 ft
Lc 2.99 miles 15787 ft
U/S Elev.1600 feet
D/S Elev.240 feet
S 227 ft/mile 0.043 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.896 hours
53.8 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
Salt Creek Subbasin & Reach
Adjusted CN =
Page 818 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 819 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 820 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 4028.0 acres
AREA 6.294 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 1256 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 2772 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =82.9 PZN=2.0
87.9 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 4.81 miles 25397 ft
Lc 2.405 miles 12698 ft
U/S Elev.940 feet
D/S Elev.190 feet
S 156 ft/mile 0.030 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.816 hours
49.0 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
Otay River Valley Central Subbasin
Adjusted CN =
Page 821 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 822 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 823 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Existing Conditions
DRAINAGE 3143.0 acres
AREA 4.911 mi2
PZN=2.0 PZN=2.5
98 98.5 0 acres (Major Arterials)
92 94.5 0 acres (Commercial Development)
91 94 0 acres (Mixed Use - Schools, Hospital)
90 93 0 acres (High Density Residential Development)
87 91 1237 acres (Single-Family Residential Development)
81 86.5 1906 acres (Open Space)
CURVE NUMBER =83.4 PZN=2.0
88.3 PZN=2.5
Average n 0.035
m 0.38
L 4.16 miles 21965 ft
Lc 2.08 miles 10982 ft
U/S Elev.600 feet
D/S Elev.140 feet
S 111 ft/mile 0.021 ft/ft
LAG TIME =0.780 hours
46.8 min
SOIL GROUP D ASSUMED
OTAY RANCH University Villages-Otay River Analysis
Otay River Valley West Reach
Adjusted CN =
Page 824 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 825 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 826 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ELEV=
140'
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
WEST SUBBASIN
OTAY RIVER
ELEV=
240'
OTAY RIVER
JUNCTIONOTAY RIVER
VALLEY CENTRAL
SUBBASIN
SALT CREEK
REACH
LENGTH=31,590'
ELEV=
486'
SAVAGE
DAM
SALT CREEK
SUBBASIN
LOWER
OTAY
LAKE
OTAY LAKE
REACH
LENGTH=18,720'
ELEV=
486'
ELEV=
486'
ELEV=
1,600'
OTAY LAKE
NORTH SUBBASIN
ELEV=
3060'
OTAY LAKE
EAST SUBBASIN
OTAY LAKE
REACH
LENGTH=71,310'
ELEV=
3,360'
ELEV=
3,000'
OTAY LAKE
CENTRAL SUBBASIN
SAVAGE DAM
SPILLWAY REACH
LENGTH=10,920'
O'NEAL CANYON
REACH
LENGTH=34,770'
ELEV=
940'
O'NEAL CANYON
SUBBASIN
ELEV=
190'
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
WEST REACH
LENGTH=10,940'
VILLAGE 8
OUTFALL
WOLF CANYON
REACH
LENGTH=18,370'
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
CENTRAL REACH
LENGTH=10,520'
JOHNSON CANYON
REACH
LENGTH=25,380'
ELEV=
600'
POGGI CANYON
REACH
EXISTING OTAY
VALLEY ROAD
OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 8 WEST
OF
1
1
SHEETPREPARED BY:
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGY EXHIBIT
OTAY RIVER VALLEY HEC-HMS STUDY FOR
Page 827 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ELEV=
486'
SAVAGE
DAM
SALT CREEK
REACH
LENGTH=31,590'
SALT CREEK
SUBBASIN
ELEV=
486'
LOWER
OTAY
LAKE
OTAY LAKE
REACH
LENGTH=18,720'
ELEV=
486'
OTAY LAKE
CENTRAL SUBBASIN
SAVAGE DAM
SPILLWAY REACH
LENGTH=10,920'
O'NEAL CANYON
REACH
LENGTH=34,770'
O'NEAL CANYON
SUBBASIN
OTAY RIVER
VALLEY CENTRAL
SUBBASIN
OTAY RIVER
VALLEY
CENTRAL
REACH*
LENGTH
=9,320'
ELEV=
140'
OTAY RIVER
OTAY LAKE
REACH
LENGTH=71,310'
OTAY LAKE
NORTH SUBBASIN
ELEV=
1,600'
OTAY LAKE
EAST SUBBASIN
ELEV=
3060'
ELEV=
3,360'
ELEV=
3,000'
OTAY RIVER
JUNCTION
ELEV=
240'
ELEV=
940'
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
WEST SUBBASIN
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
WEST REACH
LENGTH=10,940'
ELEV=
190'
VILLAGE 8
OUTFALL
OTAY RIVER VALLEY
CENTRAL REACH
LENGTH=10,520'
JOHNSON CANYON
REACH
LENGTH=25,380'
ELEV=
600'
WOLF CANYON
REACH
LENGTH=18,370'
POGGI CANYON
REACH
OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 8 WEST
EXISTING OTAY
VALLEY ROAD
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
OF
1
1
SHEETPREPARED BY:DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGY EXHIBIT
OTAY RIVER VALLEY HEC-HMS STUDY FORHUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES
Page 828 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
APPENDIX B
HEC-RAS STUDY FOR 100-YEAR, 24-HOUR
STORM EVENT WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
AT THE VILLAGE 8 EAST OUTLET
CALCULATION OF VELOCITY AT OUTLET OF
PROPOSED CONCRETE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
(PRIOR TO RIP RAP DISSIPATION)
CALCULATION OF VELOCITY
DOWNSTREAM OF RIP RAP
Page 829 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TOPOGRAPHY WAS COMILED USING PHOTOGRAMMETRIC
METHOD
DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: 12/22/2021
CONTOUR INTERVAL: 1-ft
Southwestern Outfall.
Eastern Outfall.
Page 830 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER
CARLSBAD, CITY OF 060285 NATIONAL CITY, CITY OF 060293
CHULA VISTA, CITY OF 065021 OCEANSIDE, CITY OF 060294
CORONADO, CITY OF 060287 POWAY, CITY OF 060702
DEL MAR, CITY OF 060288 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF 060295
EL CAJON, CITY OF 060289 SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
UNINCORPORATED AREAS 060284
ENCINITAS, CITY OF 060726 SAN MARCOS, CITY OF 060296
ESCONDIDO, CITY OF 060290 SANTEE, CITY OF 060703
IMPERIAL BEACH, CITY OF 060291 SOLANA BEACH, CITY OF 060725
LA MESA, CITY OF 060292 VISTA, CITY OF 060297
LEMON GROVE, CITY OF 060723
VOLUME 2 OF 12
REVISED: March 22, 2022
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER
06073CV002F
Version Number 2.4.3.0
Justification for the Manning’s N values in the pre- and post-
condition analysis.
Page 831 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
136
Table 13: Roughness Coefficients, continued
Flooding Source Channel “n” Overbank “n”
Loma Alta Creek 0.018-0.070 0.035-0.045
Los Penasquitos Creek 0.030-0.060 0.020-0.080
Lusardi Creek * *
Mexican Canyon Creek 0.025-0.040 0.030-0.050
Moosa Creek (North Branch) * *
Moosa Creek (South Branch) * *
Murphy Canyon Creek 0.015-0.035 0.030-0.040
Murray Canyon Creek 0.020-0.050 0.080
Nestor Creek 0.030-0.045 0.030-0.100
North Branch Poway Creek 0.014-0.035 0.018-0.035
North Tributary to Santa Maria
Creek 0.015-0.090 0.015-0.060
Olive Creek * *
Otay River 0.040 0.040
Pala Mesa Golf Course * *
Paradise Creek 0.016-0.030 0.018
Poggi Canyon Creek 0.013-0.050 0.050-0.040
Poway Creek 0.014-0.050 0.018-0.040
Rainbow Creek (Main Branch) * *
Rainbow Creek (West Branch) * *
Rattlesnake Creek 0.014-0.040 0.010-0.060
Rattlesnake Creek Split Flow
at Heritage Hills 0.014-0.040 0.010-0.060
Rattlesnake Creek Split Flow
at Midland Road 0.014-0.040 0.010-0.060
Reidy Creek 0.014-0.040 0.010-0.060
Rice Canyon Creek 0.013 0.013
Rose Canyon Creek 0.040 0.035-0.040
Samagutuma Creek 0.035-0.040 0.030-0.040
San Clemente Canyon Creek 0.035-0.040 0.015-0.040
San Diego River 0.025-0.125 0.030-0.125
San Dieguito River 0.030-0.035 0.030-0.045
San Elijo Creek * *
Page 832 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8exist.rep
HEC-RAS HEC-RAS 5.0.7 March 2019
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center
609 Second Street
Davis, California
X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX
X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX
X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X
X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX
PROJECT DATA
Project Title: Otay River at Village 8 Outlet
Project File : village8exist.prj
Run Date and Time: 9/15/2023 2:39:10 PM
Project in English units
Project Description:
OR Village 8 HEC RAS Analysis at storm drain outlet.
Existing Conditions
PLAN DATA
Plan Title: Plan 03
Plan File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Exist\village8exist.p03
Geometry Title: Geom 01
Geometry File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Exist\village8exist.g01
Flow Title : Flow 01
Flow File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Exist\village8exist.f01
Plan Summary Information:
Number of: Cross Sections = 4 Multiple Openings = 0
Culverts = 0 Inline Structures = 0
Bridges = 0 Lateral Structures = 0
Computational Information
Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01
Critical depth calculation tolerance = 0.01
Maximum number of iterations = 20
Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3
Flow tolerance factor = 0.001
Computation Options
Critical depth computed only where necessary
Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only
Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance
Computational Flow Regime: Mixed Flow
FLOW DATA
Flow Title: Flow 01
Flow File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Exist\village8exist.f01
Page 1
Page 833 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8exist.rep
Flow Data (cfs)
River Reach RS PF 1
Otay River 1 4330 19619.13
Boundary Conditions
River Reach Profile Upstream Downstream
Otay River 1 PF 1 Normal S = 0.006 Normal S = 0.006
GEOMETRY DATA
Geometry Title: Geom 01
Geometry File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Exist\village8exist.g01
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Otay River
REACH: 1 RS: 4330
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 52
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 220 32 219 58.23 218 86.27 217 122.1 216
152.96 215 180.6 214 184.7 213 192 212.5 198.1 212.9
204.397 211 210 210 235.9 206 253.4 205 263.9 200
274.17 197 283.556 196 305.487 195 321.351 195 392 196
447.2 197 486.2 197 505.396 195 507.2 194.11 537.16 194.11
541.859 195 541.859 197 548.33 197 592.166 196.22 642.274 198
693.024 198 727.022 198 801.938 197 826.53 196 838.17 195
853.36 194 867.24 193 982.19 193 1094.44 198 1103 199
1130 199 1164.67 196 1166.67 195.2 1236 195.2 1238.45 196
1395 196 1444 197 1449 200 1469.52 205 1492.3 206
1601 219.384 1606 220
Manning's n Values num= 3
Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val
0 .04 180.6 .04 1601 .04
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
180.6 1601 62.36 60 67 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft) 199.42 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft) 0.50 Wt. n-Val. 0.040
W.S. Elev (ft) 198.92 Reach Len. (ft) 62.36 60.00 67.00
Crit W.S. (ft) 197.94 Flow Area (sq ft) 3444.03
E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.005479 Area (sq ft) 3444.03
Q Total (cfs) 19619.13 Flow (cfs) 19619.13
Top Width (ft) 1150.99 Top Width (ft) 1150.99
Vel Total (ft/s) 5.70 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 5.70
Max Chl Dpth (ft) 5.92 Hydr. Depth (ft) 2.99
Conv. Total (cfs) 265041.4 Conv. (cfs) 265041.4
Length Wtd. (ft) 60.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1155.05
Min Ch El (ft) 193.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 1.02
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 5.81
Frctn Loss (ft) 0.38 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 259.00
C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) 84.52
Page 2
Page 834 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8exist.rep
Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Otay River
REACH: 1 RS: 4270
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 38
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 220 137.77 215 180.25 210 208 205 222.3 203
232 200 258.07 195 296.54 195 360.96 196 462.9 196
469.2 195 472.32 194.11 484.7 194.11 486.2 195 490 196
496.23 197 521.3 197 569 197 678 195 680 194.5
916 194.5 918.4 195 947.3 196 1021 196 1034 194.5
1046 196 1100.7 196 1154 196 1273.83 196.6 1322.56 197
1339.326 197 1355.9 196 1382.5 196 1418.27 197 1429 200
1439 205 1552 219.584 1552.9 219.7
Manning's n Values num= 3
Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val
0 .04 0 .04 1552 .04
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
0 1552 2887 3220 3475 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft) 199.03 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft) 0.60 Wt. n-Val. 0.040
W.S. Elev (ft) 198.43 Reach Len. (ft) 2887.00 3220.00 3475.00
Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 3162.92
E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.007529 Area (sq ft) 3162.92
Q Total (cfs) 19619.13 Flow (cfs) 19619.13
Top Width (ft) 1183.23 Top Width (ft) 1183.23
Vel Total (ft/s) 6.20 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 6.20
Max Chl Dpth (ft) 4.32 Hydr. Depth (ft) 2.67
Conv. Total (cfs) 226110.4 Conv. (cfs) 226110.4
Length Wtd. (ft) 3220.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1184.80
Min Ch El (ft) 194.11 Shear (lb/sq ft) 1.25
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 7.78
Frctn Loss (ft) 17.23 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 254.45
C & E Loss (ft) 0.04 Cum SA (acres) 82.91
Warning: The energy loss was greater than 1.0 ft (0.3 m). between the current and previous cross section. This may
indicate
the need for additional cross sections.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Otay River
REACH: 1 RS: 1050
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 41
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 200 11.8 195 20.5 190 27.03 188 33.83 187.5
40 188 41.65 188 44.25 187 48.8 185 53.61 183
58.55 182 81.1 182 130.14 182 140.12 180 152.16 178
200.25 178 349.8 178 362.4 177.9 385.4 178 411 178
461 178 500.5 177 540.6 177 728.8 177 820.83 178
834.9 178 884.9 178 996 178 1064.6 177.14 1087.15 177.14
1101.7 180 1131.77 180 1140.3 178 1142.2 177.17 1159.2 180
1171.72 186 1215 189.492 1221.3 190 1240.3 195 1251 199.115
Page 3
Page 835 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8exist.rep
1252 199.5
Manning's n Values num= 3
Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val
0 .04 0 .04 1251 .04
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
0 1251 51 50 50 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft) 181.76 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft) 0.46 Wt. n-Val. 0.040
W.S. Elev (ft) 181.30 Reach Len. (ft) 51.00 50.00 50.00
Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 3615.68
E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.003998 Area (sq ft) 3615.68
Q Total (cfs) 19619.13 Flow (cfs) 19619.13
Top Width (ft) 1028.28 Top Width (ft) 1028.28
Vel Total (ft/s) 5.43 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 5.43
Max Chl Dpth (ft) 4.30 Hydr. Depth (ft) 3.52
Conv. Total (cfs) 310275.2 Conv. (cfs) 310275.2
Length Wtd. (ft) 50.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1029.81
Min Ch El (ft) 177.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.88
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 4.76
Frctn Loss (ft) 0.24 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 3.90
C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) 1.18
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Otay River
REACH: 1 RS: 1000
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 32
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 200 12 195 22.12 190 25 188 31.63 187.4
37.72 188 48.04 185 55.26 183 59.1 182 79.1 182
131.37 182 139.2 180 151.2 178 339.85 178 357.4 177.9
378.38 178 442.45 178 474.5 177 520.55 176.6 564.2 177
596.61 177 751.79 178 832.87 178 844.87 178 877 179
951 180 970 177.14 1146.18 177.14 1159.41 183 1174.2 185
1208 186.7 1262 200
Manning's n Values num= 3
Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val
0 .04 0 .04 1262 .04
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
0 1262 0 0 0 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft) 181.50 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft) 0.59 Wt. n-Val. 0.040
W.S. Elev (ft) 180.91 Reach Len. (ft)
Crit W.S. (ft) 180.03 Flow Area (sq ft) 3188.01
E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.006009 Area (sq ft) 3188.01
Q Total (cfs) 19619.13 Flow (cfs) 19619.13
Top Width (ft) 1019.07 Top Width (ft) 1019.07
Vel Total (ft/s) 6.15 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 6.15
Max Chl Dpth (ft) 4.31 Hydr. Depth (ft) 3.13
Conv. Total (cfs) 253095.6 Conv. (cfs) 253095.6
Length Wtd. (ft) Wetted Per. (ft) 1020.41
Min Ch El (ft) 176.60 Shear (lb/sq ft) 1.17
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 7.21
Frctn Loss (ft) Cum Volume (acre-ft)
Page 4
Page 836 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8exist.rep
C & E Loss (ft) Cum SA (acres)
SUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES
River:Otay River
Reach River Sta. n1 n2 n3
1 4330 .04 .04 .04
1 4270 .04 .04 .04
1 1050 .04 .04 .04
1 1000 .04 .04 .04
SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHS
River: Otay River
Reach River Sta. Left Channel Right
1 4330 62.36 60 67
1 4270 2887 3220 3475
1 1050 51 50 50
1 1000 0 0 0
SUMMARY OF CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS
River: Otay River
Reach River Sta. Contr. Expan.
1 4330 .1 .3
1 4270 .1 .3
1 1050 .1 .3
1 1000 .1 .3
Page 5
Page 837 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 03 River: Otay River Reach: 1 Profile: PF 1
Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S.E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft/ft)(ft/s)(sq ft)(ft)
1 1000 PF 1 19619.13 176.60 180.91 180.03 181.50 0.006009 6.15 3188.01 1019.07 0.61
1 1050 PF 1 19619.13 177.00 181.30 181.76 0.003998 5.43 3615.68 1028.28 0.51
1 4270 PF 1 19619.13 194.11 198.43 199.03 0.007529 6.20 3162.92 1183.23 0.67
1 4330 PF 1 19619.13 193.00 198.92 197.94 199.42 0.005479 5.70 3444.03 1150.99 0.58
VILLAGE 8 EAST EXISTING CONDITIONS
Page 838 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 4330 Profile: PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft)199.42 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft)0.50 Wt. n-Val.0.040
W.S. Elev (ft)198.92 Reach Len. (ft)62.36 60.00 67.00
Crit W.S. (ft)197.94 Flow Area (sq ft)3444.03
E.G. Slope (ft/ft)0.005479 Area (sq ft)3444.03
Q Total (cfs)19619.13 Flow (cfs)19619.13
Top Width (ft)1150.99 Top Width (ft)1150.99
Vel Total (ft/s)5.70 Avg. Vel. (ft/s)5.70
Max Chl Dpth (ft)5.92 Hydr. Depth (ft)2.99
Conv. Total (cfs)265041.4 Conv. (cfs)265041.4
Length Wtd. (ft)60.00 Wetted Per. (ft)1155.05
Min Ch El (ft)193.00 Shear (lb/sq ft)1.02
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s)5.81
Frctn Loss (ft)0.38 Cum Volume (acre-ft)259.00
C & E Loss (ft)0.01 Cum SA (acres)84.52
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 4270 Profile: PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft)199.03 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft)0.60 Wt. n-Val.0.040
W.S. Elev (ft)198.43 Reach Len. (ft)2887.00 3220.00 3475.00
Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft)3162.92
E.G. Slope (ft/ft)0.007529 Area (sq ft)3162.92
Q Total (cfs)19619.13 Flow (cfs)19619.13
Top Width (ft)1183.23 Top Width (ft)1183.23
Vel Total (ft/s)6.20 Avg. Vel. (ft/s)6.20
Max Chl Dpth (ft)4.32 Hydr. Depth (ft)2.67
Conv. Total (cfs)226110.4 Conv. (cfs)226110.4
Length Wtd. (ft)3220.00 Wetted Per. (ft)1184.80
Min Ch El (ft)194.11 Shear (lb/sq ft)1.25
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s)7.78
Frctn Loss (ft)17.23 Cum Volume (acre-ft)254.45
C & E Loss (ft)0.04 Cum SA (acres)82.91
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 1050 Profile: PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft)181.76 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft)0.46 Wt. n-Val.0.040
W.S. Elev (ft)181.30 Reach Len. (ft)51.00 50.00 50.00
Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft)3615.68
Page 839 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 1050 Profile: PF 1 (Continued)
E.G. Slope (ft/ft)0.003998 Area (sq ft)3615.68
Q Total (cfs)19619.13 Flow (cfs)19619.13
Top Width (ft)1028.28 Top Width (ft)1028.28
Vel Total (ft/s)5.43 Avg. Vel. (ft/s)5.43
Max Chl Dpth (ft)4.30 Hydr. Depth (ft)3.52
Conv. Total (cfs)310275.2 Conv. (cfs)310275.2
Length Wtd. (ft)50.00 Wetted Per. (ft)1029.81
Min Ch El (ft)177.00 Shear (lb/sq ft)0.88
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s)4.76
Frctn Loss (ft)0.24 Cum Volume (acre-ft)3.90
C & E Loss (ft)0.01 Cum SA (acres)1.18
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 1000 Profile: PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft)181.50 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft)0.59 Wt. n-Val.0.040
W.S. Elev (ft)180.91 Reach Len. (ft)
Crit W.S. (ft)180.03 Flow Area (sq ft)3188.01
E.G. Slope (ft/ft)0.006009 Area (sq ft)3188.01
Q Total (cfs)19619.13 Flow (cfs)19619.13
Top Width (ft)1019.07 Top Width (ft)1019.07
Vel Total (ft/s)6.15 Avg. Vel. (ft/s)6.15
Max Chl Dpth (ft)4.31 Hydr. Depth (ft)3.13
Conv. Total (cfs)253095.6 Conv. (cfs)253095.6
Length Wtd. (ft) Wetted Per. (ft)1020.41
Min Ch El (ft)176.60 Shear (lb/sq ft)1.17
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s)7.21
Frctn Loss (ft) Cum Volume (acre-ft)
C & E Loss (ft) Cum SA (acres)
Page 840 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
175
180
185
190
195
200
Otay River at Village 8 Outlet Plan: Plan 03 9/15/2023
Geom: Geom 01
RS = 1000
Station (ft)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.04
Page 841 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
Otay River at Village 8 Outlet Plan: Plan 03 9/15/2023
Geom: Geom 01
RS = 4330
Station (ft)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.04 .04 .
0
4
Page 842 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
Otay River at Village 8 Outlet Plan: Plan 03 9/15/2023
Geom: Geom 01
RS = 4270
Station (ft)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.04 .
0
4
Page 843 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
175
180
185
190
195
200
Otay River at Village 8 Outlet Plan: Plan 03 9/15/2023
Geom: Geom 01
RS = 1050
Station (ft)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.04 .
0
4
Page 844 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8PR (1).rep
HEC-RAS HEC-RAS 5.0.7 March 2019
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center
609 Second Street
Davis, California
X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX
X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX
X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X
X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX
PROJECT DATA
Project Title: Otay River at Village 8 Outlet
Project File : village8PR (1).prj
Run Date and Time: 9/15/2023 2:19:47 PM
Project in English units
Project Description:
OR Village 8 HEC RAS Analysis at storm drain outlet.
Proposed Conditions
PLAN DATA
Plan Title: Plan 03
Plan File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Proposed\village8PR (1).p03
Geometry Title: Geom 01
Geometry File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Proposed\village8PR (1).g01
Flow Title : Flow 01
Flow File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Proposed\village8PR (1).f01
Plan Summary Information:
Number of: Cross Sections = 4 Multiple Openings = 0
Culverts = 0 Inline Structures = 0
Bridges = 0 Lateral Structures = 0
Computational Information
Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01
Critical depth calculation tolerance = 0.01
Maximum number of iterations = 20
Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3
Flow tolerance factor = 0.001
Computation Options
Critical depth computed only where necessary
Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only
Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance
Computational Flow Regime: Mixed Flow
FLOW DATA
Flow Title: Flow 01
Flow File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Proposed\village8PR (1).f01
Page 1
Page 845 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8PR (1).rep
Flow Data (cfs)
River Reach RS PF 1
Otay River 1 4330 19625.37
Boundary Conditions
River Reach Profile Upstream Downstream
Otay River 1 PF 1 Normal S = 0.006 Normal S = 0.006
GEOMETRY DATA
Geometry Title: Geom 01
Geometry File : r:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\HEC-RAS\V8 Proposed\village8PR (1).g01
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Otay River
REACH: 1 RS: 4330
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 52
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 220 32 219 58.23 218 86.27 217 122.1 216
152.96 215 180.6 214 184.7 213 192 212.5 198.1 212.9
204.397 211 210 210 235.9 206 253.4 205 263.9 200
274.17 197 283.556 196 305.487 195 321.351 195 392 196
447.2 197 486.2 197 505.396 195 507.2 194.11 537.16 194.11
541.859 195 541.859 197 548.33 197 592.166 196.22 642.274 198
693.024 198 727.022 198 801.938 197 826.53 196 838.17 195
853.36 194 867.24 193 982.19 193 1094.44 198 1103 199
1130 199 1164.67 196 1166.67 195.2 1236 195.2 1238.45 196
1395 196 1444 197 1449 200 1469.52 205 1492.3 206
1601 219.384 1606 220
Manning's n Values num= 3
Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val
0 .04 180.6 .04 1601 .04
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
180.6 1601 62.36 60 67 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft) 199.43 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft) 0.50 Wt. n-Val. 0.040
W.S. Elev (ft) 198.92 Reach Len. (ft) 62.36 60.00 67.00
Crit W.S. (ft) 197.94 Flow Area (sq ft) 3444.66
E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.005480 Area (sq ft) 3444.66
Q Total (cfs) 19625.37 Flow (cfs) 19625.37
Top Width (ft) 1151.01 Top Width (ft) 1151.01
Vel Total (ft/s) 5.70 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 5.70
Max Chl Dpth (ft) 5.92 Hydr. Depth (ft) 2.99
Conv. Total (cfs) 265120.3 Conv. (cfs) 265120.3
Length Wtd. (ft) 60.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1155.06
Min Ch El (ft) 193.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 1.02
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 5.81
Frctn Loss (ft) 0.38 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 259.05
C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) 84.52
Page 2
Page 846 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8PR (1).rep
Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Otay River
REACH: 1 RS: 4270
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 38
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 220 137.77 215 180.25 210 208 205 222.3 203
232 200 258.07 195 296.54 195 360.96 196 462.9 196
469.2 195 472.32 194.11 484.7 194.11 486.2 195 490 196
496.23 197 521.3 197 569 197 678 195 680 194.5
916 194.5 918.4 195 947.3 196 1021 196 1034 194.5
1046 196 1100.7 196 1154 196 1273.83 196.6 1322.56 197
1339.326 197 1355.9 196 1382.5 196 1418.27 197 1429 200
1439 205 1552 219.584 1552.9 219.7
Manning's n Values num= 3
Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val
0 .04 0 .04 1552 .04
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
0 1552 2887 3220 3475 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft) 199.03 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft) 0.60 Wt. n-Val. 0.040
W.S. Elev (ft) 198.43 Reach Len. (ft) 2887.00 3220.00 3475.00
Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 3163.57
E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.007528 Area (sq ft) 3163.57
Q Total (cfs) 19625.37 Flow (cfs) 19625.37
Top Width (ft) 1183.24 Top Width (ft) 1183.24
Vel Total (ft/s) 6.20 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 6.20
Max Chl Dpth (ft) 4.32 Hydr. Depth (ft) 2.67
Conv. Total (cfs) 226187.1 Conv. (cfs) 226187.1
Length Wtd. (ft) 3220.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1184.80
Min Ch El (ft) 194.11 Shear (lb/sq ft) 1.25
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 7.79
Frctn Loss (ft) 17.23 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 254.49
C & E Loss (ft) 0.04 Cum SA (acres) 82.91
Warning: The energy loss was greater than 1.0 ft (0.3 m). between the current and previous cross section. This may
indicate
the need for additional cross sections.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Otay River
REACH: 1 RS: 1050
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 41
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 200 11.8 195 20.5 190 27.03 188 33.83 187.5
40 188 41.65 188 44.25 187 48.8 185 53.61 183
58.55 182 81.1 182 130.14 182 140.12 180 152.16 178
200.25 178 349.8 178 362.4 177.9 385.4 178 411 178
461 178 500.5 177 540.6 177 728.8 177 820.83 178
834.9 178 884.9 178 996 178 1064.6 177.14 1087.15 177.14
1101.7 180 1131.77 180 1140.3 178 1142.2 177.17 1159.2 180
1171.72 186 1215 189.492 1221.3 190 1240.3 195 1251 199.115
Page 3
Page 847 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8PR (1).rep
1252 199.5
Manning's n Values num= 3
Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val
0 .04 0 .04 1251 .04
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
0 1251 51 50 50 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft) 181.76 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft) 0.46 Wt. n-Val. 0.040
W.S. Elev (ft) 181.30 Reach Len. (ft) 51.00 50.00 50.00
Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 3616.34
E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.003998 Area (sq ft) 3616.34
Q Total (cfs) 19625.37 Flow (cfs) 19625.37
Top Width (ft) 1028.29 Top Width (ft) 1028.29
Vel Total (ft/s) 5.43 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 5.43
Max Chl Dpth (ft) 4.30 Hydr. Depth (ft) 3.52
Conv. Total (cfs) 310368.4 Conv. (cfs) 310368.4
Length Wtd. (ft) 50.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1029.82
Min Ch El (ft) 177.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.88
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 4.76
Frctn Loss (ft) 0.24 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 3.91
C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) 1.18
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Otay River
REACH: 1 RS: 1000
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 32
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 200 12 195 22.12 190 25 188 31.63 187.4
37.72 188 48.04 185 55.26 183 59.1 182 79.1 182
131.37 182 139.2 180 151.2 178 339.85 178 357.4 177.9
378.38 178 442.45 178 474.5 177 520.55 176.6 564.2 177
596.61 177 751.79 178 832.87 178 844.87 178 877 179
951 180 970 177.14 1146.18 177.14 1159.41 183 1174.2 185
1208 186.7 1262 200
Manning's n Values num= 3
Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val
0 .04 0 .04 1262 .04
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
0 1262 0 0 0 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft) 181.50 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft) 0.59 Wt. n-Val. 0.040
W.S. Elev (ft) 180.91 Reach Len. (ft)
Crit W.S. (ft) 180.04 Flow Area (sq ft) 3188.63
E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.006009 Area (sq ft) 3188.63
Q Total (cfs) 19625.37 Flow (cfs) 19625.37
Top Width (ft) 1019.08 Top Width (ft) 1019.08
Vel Total (ft/s) 6.15 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 6.15
Max Chl Dpth (ft) 4.31 Hydr. Depth (ft) 3.13
Conv. Total (cfs) 253177.3 Conv. (cfs) 253177.3
Length Wtd. (ft) Wetted Per. (ft) 1020.41
Min Ch El (ft) 176.60 Shear (lb/sq ft) 1.17
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 7.21
Frctn Loss (ft) Cum Volume (acre-ft)
Page 4
Page 848 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
village8PR (1).rep
C & E Loss (ft) Cum SA (acres)
SUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES
River:Otay River
Reach River Sta. n1 n2 n3
1 4330 .04 .04 .04
1 4270 .04 .04 .04
1 1050 .04 .04 .04
1 1000 .04 .04 .04
SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHS
River: Otay River
Reach River Sta. Left Channel Right
1 4330 62.36 60 67
1 4270 2887 3220 3475
1 1050 51 50 50
1 1000 0 0 0
SUMMARY OF CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS
River: Otay River
Reach River Sta. Contr. Expan.
1 4330 .1 .3
1 4270 .1 .3
1 1050 .1 .3
1 1000 .1 .3
Page 5
Page 849 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 03 River: Otay River Reach: 1 Profile: PF 1
Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S.E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft/ft)(ft/s)(sq ft)(ft)
1 1000 PF 1 19625.37 176.60 180.91 180.04 181.50 0.006009 6.15 3188.63 1019.08 0.61
1 1050 PF 1 19625.37 177.00 181.30 181.76 0.003998 5.43 3616.34 1028.29 0.51
1 4270 PF 1 19625.37 194.11 198.43 199.03 0.007528 6.20 3163.57 1183.24 0.67
1 4330 PF 1 19625.37 193.00 198.92 197.94 199.43 0.005480 5.70 3444.66 1151.01 0.58
VILLAGE 8 EAST PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Page 850 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 4330 Profile: PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft)199.43 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft)0.50 Wt. n-Val.0.040
W.S. Elev (ft)198.92 Reach Len. (ft)62.36 60.00 67.00
Crit W.S. (ft)197.94 Flow Area (sq ft)3444.66
E.G. Slope (ft/ft)0.005480 Area (sq ft)3444.66
Q Total (cfs)19625.37 Flow (cfs)19625.37
Top Width (ft)1151.01 Top Width (ft)1151.01
Vel Total (ft/s)5.70 Avg. Vel. (ft/s)5.70
Max Chl Dpth (ft)5.92 Hydr. Depth (ft)2.99
Conv. Total (cfs)265120.3 Conv. (cfs)265120.3
Length Wtd. (ft)60.00 Wetted Per. (ft)1155.06
Min Ch El (ft)193.00 Shear (lb/sq ft)1.02
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s)5.81
Frctn Loss (ft)0.38 Cum Volume (acre-ft)259.05
C & E Loss (ft)0.01 Cum SA (acres)84.52
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 4270 Profile: PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft)199.03 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft)0.60 Wt. n-Val.0.040
W.S. Elev (ft)198.43 Reach Len. (ft)2887.00 3220.00 3475.00
Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft)3163.57
E.G. Slope (ft/ft)0.007528 Area (sq ft)3163.57
Q Total (cfs)19625.37 Flow (cfs)19625.37
Top Width (ft)1183.24 Top Width (ft)1183.24
Vel Total (ft/s)6.20 Avg. Vel. (ft/s)6.20
Max Chl Dpth (ft)4.32 Hydr. Depth (ft)2.67
Conv. Total (cfs)226187.1 Conv. (cfs)226187.1
Length Wtd. (ft)3220.00 Wetted Per. (ft)1184.80
Min Ch El (ft)194.11 Shear (lb/sq ft)1.25
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s)7.79
Frctn Loss (ft)17.23 Cum Volume (acre-ft)254.49
C & E Loss (ft)0.04 Cum SA (acres)82.91
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 1050 Profile: PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft)181.76 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft)0.46 Wt. n-Val.0.040
W.S. Elev (ft)181.30 Reach Len. (ft)51.00 50.00 50.00
Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft)3616.34
Page 851 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 1050 Profile: PF 1 (Continued)
E.G. Slope (ft/ft)0.003998 Area (sq ft)3616.34
Q Total (cfs)19625.37 Flow (cfs)19625.37
Top Width (ft)1028.29 Top Width (ft)1028.29
Vel Total (ft/s)5.43 Avg. Vel. (ft/s)5.43
Max Chl Dpth (ft)4.30 Hydr. Depth (ft)3.52
Conv. Total (cfs)310368.4 Conv. (cfs)310368.4
Length Wtd. (ft)50.00 Wetted Per. (ft)1029.82
Min Ch El (ft)177.00 Shear (lb/sq ft)0.88
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s)4.76
Frctn Loss (ft)0.24 Cum Volume (acre-ft)3.91
C & E Loss (ft)0.01 Cum SA (acres)1.18
Plan: Plan 03 Otay River 1 RS: 1000 Profile: PF 1
E.G. Elev (ft)181.50 Element Left OB Channel Right OB
Vel Head (ft)0.59 Wt. n-Val.0.040
W.S. Elev (ft)180.91 Reach Len. (ft)
Crit W.S. (ft)180.04 Flow Area (sq ft)3188.63
E.G. Slope (ft/ft)0.006009 Area (sq ft)3188.63
Q Total (cfs)19625.37 Flow (cfs)19625.37
Top Width (ft)1019.08 Top Width (ft)1019.08
Vel Total (ft/s)6.15 Avg. Vel. (ft/s)6.15
Max Chl Dpth (ft)4.31 Hydr. Depth (ft)3.13
Conv. Total (cfs)253177.3 Conv. (cfs)253177.3
Length Wtd. (ft) Wetted Per. (ft)1020.41
Min Ch El (ft)176.60 Shear (lb/sq ft)1.17
Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s)7.21
Frctn Loss (ft) Cum Volume (acre-ft)
C & E Loss (ft) Cum SA (acres)
Page 852 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
175
180
185
190
195
200
Otay River at Village 8 Outlet Plan: Plan 03 9/15/2023
Geom: Geom 01
RS = 1000
Station (ft)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.04
Page 853 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
Otay River at Village 8 Outlet Plan: Plan 03 9/15/2023
Geom: Geom 01
RS = 4330
Station (ft)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.04 .04 .
0
4
Page 854 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
Otay River at Village 8 Outlet Plan: Plan 03 9/15/2023
Geom: Geom 01
RS = 4270
Station (ft)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.04 .
0
4
Page 855 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
175
180
185
190
195
200
Otay River at Village 8 Outlet Plan: Plan 03 9/15/2023
Geom: Geom 01
RS = 1050
Station (ft)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.04 .
0
4
Page 856 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
APPENDIX C
GEOLOGIC MAPS AND SUBDRAIN OUTLET
HEADWALL DETAIL
Page 857 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8
IMPACT BASIN AT OTAY RIVER - EAST OUTLET (78" RCP)
ENERGY DISSIPATOR - IMPACT BASIN CALCULATIONS
(APWA Standard Plan 384-1)
Given :
Q =774.35 cfs
d =78 " RCP
W w =62.4 pcf
Hv = v2/(2g)
Then :
A =33.18 sq. ft.
v =23.34 fps for full pipe flow
Hv =8.456 ft.
IMPACT =Hv x Ww
=527.6 psf <600 psf for W=14 feet; OK
Therefore:
Use basin width, W =14 feet
length of riprap = 4 x d =26.0 feet
Size riprap based on velocity over end sill:
weir eqn:Q = CLH1.5; C = 3.3 per Table 5-3 of King's Handbook
H =(Q/CL)2/3
H =6.549 feet
Then :
A =92 sq. ft.
v =8.445 fps
See riprap sizing spreadsheet for sizing based upon this velocity.
9/15/2023 R:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\Excel\Impact Basin.xls
Page 858 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8
IMPACT BASIN AT OTAY RIVER - WEST OUTLET (60" RCP)
ENERGY DISSIPATOR - IMPACT BASIN CALCULATIONS
(APWA Standard Plan 384-1)
Given :
Q = 401 cfs
d = 60 " RCP
W w = 62.4 pcf
Hv = v2/(2g)
Then :
A = 19.6 sq. ft.
v = 20.4 fps for full pipe flow
Hv = 6.46 ft.
IMPACT = Hv x W w
= 403 psf < psf for W= 10 feet; OK
Therefore:
Use basin width, W =10 feet
length of riprap = 4 x d =20.00 feet
Size riprap based on velocity over end sill:
weir eqn:Q = CLH1.5; C = 3.3 per Table 5-3 of King's Handbook
H =(Q/CL)2/3
H =5.28 feet
Then :
A =53 sq. ft.
v =7.58 fps
See riprap sizing spreadsheet for sizing based upon this velocity.
7/3/2023 R:\0920\Hyd\TM\DR\Calcs\Excel\Impact Basin.xls
these values are preliminary
estimates. Design of this out -
let location is begin designed
with Village 8 West by others.
450
Page 859 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 860 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 861 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 862 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
East
Outfall
Page 863 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 01 River: Village 8 Rip ra Reach: Outlet Profile: PF 1
Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S.E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft/ft)(ft/s)(sq ft)(ft)
Outlet 100 PF 1 774.35 100.00 104.30 102.95 104.77 0.007319 5.49 140.92 42.55 0.53
Outlet 114 PF 1 774.35 100.07 104.28 104.95 0.011271 6.56 118.07 37.62 0.65
Outlet 128 PF 1 774.35 100.14 104.21 105.25 0.019606 8.19 94.49 32.48 0.85
Non Erosive velocity
at the discharge point
Preliminary Rip Rap
determination at 78" RCP
outlet into Otay River.
Page 864 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Outlet
128
114
100
Some schematic data outside default extents (see View/Set Schematic Plot Extents...)
Page 865 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
APPENDIX C
GEOLOGIC MAPS AND SUBDRAIN OUTLET
HEADWALL DETAIL
Page 866 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 867 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 868 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 869 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 870 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 871 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8-East
TM Drainage Study
APPENDIX D
VILLAGE 8 WEST REFERENCE DRAINAGE
REPORT
Page 872 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 873 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Otay River – Q50
97
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 197.96 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 185.16
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 93.42 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 29.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 42.30
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 306.14
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 21.46
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 581.00 = 6889.35 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 581.00 TO NODE 582.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 184.16 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 181.43
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 53.82 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 48.0 INCH PIPE IS 38.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 28.59
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 48.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 306.14
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 21.50
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 582.00 = 6943.17 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 582.00 TO NODE 583.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 181.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 179.66
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 37.18 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 51.0 INCH PIPE IS 39.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 25.97
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 51.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 306.14
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 21.52
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 583.00 = 6980.35 FEET.
============================================================================
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 181.2 TC(MIN.) = 21.52
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 306.14
============================================================================
============================================================================
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
TOTAL TO OTAY RIVER
Q50 = 306.14 CFS
Page 874 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Otay River – Q100
97
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 93.42 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 32.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 42.95
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 347.24
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 21.34
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 581.00 = 6889.35 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 581.00 TO NODE 582.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 184.16 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 181.43
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 53.82 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 51.0 INCH PIPE IS 39.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 29.70
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 51.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 347.24
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 21.37
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 582.00 = 6943.17 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 582.00 TO NODE 583.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
============================================================================
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 181.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 179.66
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 37.18 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 54.0 INCH PIPE IS 40.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 26.91
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 54.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 347.24
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 21.39
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 583.00 = 6980.35 FEET.
============================================================================
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 181.2 TC(MIN.) = 21.39
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 347.24
============================================================================
============================================================================
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
TOTAL TO OTAY RIVER
Q = 347.24 CFS
Page 875 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 876 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 877 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 878 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 879 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 880 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 2
The proposed land use changes would reconfigure the Village Core mixed-use area to
accommodate multi-family residential uses, retail/commercial uses, an elementary school,
and a neighborhood park. The revised plan would remain consistent with the previously
authorized residential unit count total of 3,276 units for Village 8 East.
The October 2014 Overview of Sewer Service for Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, a Portion of
4, 8 East, and 10 (October 2014 Sewer Study) was prepared as a supporting document to the
EIR. The October 2014 Sewer Study was not revised for the 2020 Village 8 East project
amendment. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the impact of the proposed land
use changes for Village 8 East on the findings and infrastructure requirements from the
October 2014 Sewer Study.
Village 8 East SPA Amendment Summary
A summary of proposed changes to the Village 8 East land use plan is provided as follows:
•Provide 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses.
•Distribute 1,348 multi-family homes across eight (8) Village Core parcels.
•Distribute 1,664 multi-family residential units across ten (10) parcels designated
Medium-High Residential.
Proposed Land Use Plan
As described in greater detail in the proposed project description, site utilization plan, and
land use summary table included in Attachment 1, the proposed project includes changes to
the backbone streets, land uses, and residential unit types and distribution throughout the
village.
Page 881 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 3
Sewer Flow Projections – October 2014 Sewer Study
Table 1 summarizes the projected average sewer flows for Village 8 East based on the
approved land use plan as presented in the October 2014 Sewer Study. The October 2014
Sewer Study analysis used the sewer generation factors from the 2012 City of Chula Vista
Subdivision Manual.
TABLE 1
VILLAGE 8 EAST APPROVED LAND USE PLAN
PROJECTED SEWER FLOWS (OCTOBER 2014 SEWER STUDY)
Land Use1 Quantity Flow
Factor
Average Flow,
gpd
Single Family Residential 943 units 265 gpd/unit 249,895
Multi-Family Residential 2,617 units 198.75 gpd/unit 520,129
Commercial 9.5 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 23,750
School 1,061 students 15 gpd/student 15,915
CPF 4.5 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 11,250
Park 58.8 ac 500 gpd/ac 29,400
TOTAL 850,339
1.Internal and external circulation, open space, open space preserve, private open space, freeway lots,
future development areas, and AR-11 are not calculated either because no sewer flow is projected, or
these areas are not proposed for development at this time.
Sewer Flow Projection – Proposed Plan (2023 SPA Amendment)
Table 2 summarizes the projected average sewer flows for Village 8 East based on the
currently proposed 2023 SPA Amendment. This projection uses current sewage generation
factors from the City of Chula Vista. The decrease in sewer generation factors compared to
the October 2104 Sewer Study is due to water conservation efforts in recent years and the
proposed changes in residential densities.
Page 882 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 4
TABLE 2
VILLAGE 8 EAST PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
PROJECTED SEWER FLOWS (2023 SPA AMENDMENT)
Land Use1 Quantity Flow
Factor
Average Flow,
gpd
Multi-Family Residential 3,012 units 182 gpd/unit 548,184
Commercial 51.5 ac 1,401 gpd/ac 72,152
Multi-Family Residential Alternative
for Elementary School Site2 264 units 182 gpd/unit 48,048
CPF 1.2 ac 1,401 gpd/ac 1,681
Park/Active Recreation 73.2 ac 410 gpd/ac 30,012
TOTAL 700,077
1.Internal and external circulation, open space, open space preserve, and future development areas are
not calculated because either no sewer flow is projected, or these areas are not proposed for development
at this time.
2. The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. Average flow of 48,048
gpd is conservatively calculated based on multi-family land use. Average flow would decrease to
11,810 gpd (10.0 net-acre school site x 1,181 gpd/acre = 11,810 gpd) if the site is utilized as a school site.
In comparing the projections from Tables 1 and 2 the proposed SPA Amendment will reduce
previous sewer flow projections by approximately 17.7 percent relative to the October 2014
Sewer Study. This decrease in sewer flow is a result of reduced sewer generation factors
since the time of the October 2014 Sewer Study, and the shift away from single family units
for multi-family units within Village 8 East.
Regional Sewer System Analysis
All sewage flows from Village 8 East will be conveyed to the Salt Creek Interceptor. The Salt
Creek Interceptor was analyzed as part of the approved EIR for the project based on the
sewer flows from the October 2014 Sewer Study which are approximately 17.7 percent higher
than the current projected flows. Based on the reduction in sewage generation for Village 8
East, the Salt Creek Interceptor has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Village 8 East
SPA Amendment.
Page 883 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 5
Conclusion
The proposed SPA Amendment for Village 8 East will reduce sewer flows from the land uses
and projections presented in the October 2014 Sewer Study by approximately 17.7 percent.
From a regional planning standpoint, all flows from the project will go to the Salt Creek
Interceptor and based on the results of this analysis, the proposed SPA Amendment will not
create any new impacts. Attachment 2 presents the preliminary sewer plan for Village 8
East. Backbone public sewer line sizing and alignments within Village 8 East shall be
confirmed during final engineering.
FF:ah
Attachments
Page 884 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 1
VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
AND
LAND USE SUMMARY
Page 885 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 1
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST REPLANNING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT: HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley,
east of Village 8 West and west of SR-125. This urban village was originally approved by the
Chula Vista City Council in 2014 and subsequently amended in 2020. Current entitlements
accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached
homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting, 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial
uses, an elementary school site, a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and La
Media Parkway with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a
utility corridor in the southeast portion of Village 8 East. Primary access to the community park is
via existing Avenida Caprise within Village 8 West.
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC, (Applicant), proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to
reflect current market conditions and housing needs and to ensure the community relates more
closely to the adjacent Village 8 West community and future Village 9 planned east of SR -125.
The replanning effort also addresses the redesign of the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and
La Media Parkway.
Village 8 East Proposed Land Use: The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include
a Village Core area that would accommodate a mix of uses including multi-family residential and
retail/commercial uses along with an elementary school site and a centrally located neighborhood
park. A future multi-modal bridge, planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
(NEV), bicycles and pedestrians is also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and
future Village 9.
The proposed project would include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and 1,348 multi-
family homes distributed across eight Village Core parcels. Other residential land uses include
1,664 multi-family residential units in 10 parcels designated Medium-High Residential. The
elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. The project also
includes an alternative elementary school site/neighborhood park site configuration which would
increase the size of the elementary school site and correspondingly reduce the neighborhood park
site. This alternative configuration would be implemented based on the needs of the Chula Vista
Elementary School District.
The project also includes 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 16.4 acres of manufactured
slopes/basins and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located east of SR-125.
Approximately 15.3 acres comprising perimeter slope areas are included in the gross acres of
development parcels. The Village 8 East Final Map(s) will include open space easements over
perimeter slope areas based on final engineering designs. The 43.3-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South is located south of Village 8 East. An existing water quality basin that
serves Village 8 West is located in the western portion of the community park and the proposed
project includes an additional water quality basin in the eastern portion of the community park to
serve Village 8 East.
Page 886 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 2
Village 8 East SPA Site Utilization Table (Revised)
Parcel
Permitted
Density Range
Estimated
Units1
Gross
Acres2
Estimated
Density3
Medium High Multi-Family Residential
R-1 11-18 du/ac.154 9.9 15.6
R-2 11-18 du/ac.163 10.7 15.2
R-3 11-18 du/ac.162 11.4 14.2
R-4 11-18 du/ac.147 10.9 13.5
R-5 11-18 du/ac.155 11.0 14.1
R-6 11-18 du/ac.143 10.3 13.9
R-7 11-18 du/ac.226 15.8 14.3
R-8 11-18 du/ac.176 14.0 12.6
R-9 11-18 du/ac.196 15.4 12.7
R-10 11-18 du/ac.142 11.5 12.3
Total MH 1,664 120.9 13.8
Village Core 3
VC-1 18-45 du/ac.275 7.6 36.2
VC-2 18-45 du/ac.430 11.3 38.1
VC-3A 18-45 du/ac.161 5.5 29.3
VC-3B5 18-45 du/ac.0 5.6 0.0
VC-4 18-45 du/ac.192 4.5 42.7
VC-55 18-45 du/ac.0 5.7 0.0
VC-6 18-45 du/ac.142 5.3 26.8
VC-7 18-45 du/ac.148 6.0 24.7
Total VC 1,348 51.5 26.2
Subtotal Residential 3,012 172.4
Other
Community Purpose Facility6
CPF-1 1.2
Subtotal CPF 1.2
Parks
P-17 7.3
P-2A 15.2
P-2B 28.1
AR-11 22.6
Total Parks 73.2
School
S-17 8 264 11.3
Page 887 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 3
Parcel
Permitted
Density Range
Estimated
Units1
Gross
Acres2
Estimated
Density3
Open Space
MSCP Preserve OS (Lots 1-4) 253.6
Manufactured/Basin OS (Lots 5-7) 16.4
Total Open Space 270.0
Circulation
Internal 22.5
External 9.2
Total Circulation 31.7
Caltrans Lots (to be dedicated)
CT-1 1.7
CT-2 0.1
CT-3 1.9
Total Caltrans Lots 3.7
Future Development
Lot A 1.0
Lot B 8.4
Total Future Development 9.4
Subtotal Other 400.5
OVERALL SPA TOTAL9 3,276 572.9
Page 888 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 4
NOTES:
1 Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not represent the final unit allocation for
each parcel and shall not be used to limit or restrict the final units allocated to any parcel.; The final unit
allocation must remain consistent with the permitted density range applicable to the parcel. The final
unit allocation shall be determined during Design Review and shall be documented in the Unit Tracking
Table (Village 8 East SPA Plan, Attachment 1). Revisions to the Site Utilization Table s hall not be
required based on changes to the Estimated Units presented herein.
2 Final acreage information to be determined during final engineering. Acreage may vary due to
rounding. Residential and Village Core gross acreage includes approximately 15.3 of perimeter open
space areas. The future Village 8 East Final Map(s) to include open space easements over perimeter
open space slopes as determined during final design.
3 Estimated Density calculated based on gross parcel acreage. Final density to be determined during
Design Review.
4 20,000 SF of commercial uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial SF may be developed
within a single parcel designated VC or distributed among any parcel designated VC (VC-1 through
VC-7). The final distribution of commercial SF to be determ ined during Design Review. The “Permitted
Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no residential units.
5 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent with the
Village Core zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no
residential units.
6 Per the Land Offer Agreement (7/8/2014), the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall designate 4.0 acres of
CPF land. The Applicant is proposing to meet a portion of the Village 8 East CPF obligation by
designating the 1.2-acre CPF-1 site as a private recreation facility. Pursuant to the Development
Agreement Amendment, the remaining 2.8 acre CPF obligation shall be satisfied within Otay Ranch
Planning Area 20 South.
7 Both the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map include the "Proposed” and “Alternative”
configuration and acreage for the S-1 School Site and P-1 Neighborhood Park. Either the Proposed or
Alternative may be implemented without the need for an amendment to the SPA Plan or TM. The final
neighborhood park acreage shall be addressed in the future Village 8 East Parks Construction
Agreement.
8 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If the site is
not developed as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if the site is developed
as an elementary school, then the 264 units may be reallocated to another Village 8 East parcel or
transferred to another village, as permitted in the Village 8 East PC District Regulations, Chapter 10,
Implementation.
9 Village 8 East acreage adjusted from approved 2014 development area to reflect changes in SR -125
ROW and to facilitate the future SR-125 ROW Decertification process.
Circulation: Main Street, between the Village 8 West couplet and the future SR-125 Interchange,
would be implemented as a 6-lane prime arterial roadway and includes a grade-separated expanded
Regional Trail designed to accommodate a 5-foot bike lane and 10-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail
on the south side. Local bus stops are provided on both sides of Main Street. Transit access would
be provided in shared flow travel lanes.
La Media Parkway, from its eastern terminus in Village 8 West, would continue through Village
8 East as a four-lane major road with a 17-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail comprised of a 5-foot
sidewalk and 12-foot-wide, two-way NEV/Bike Route on the south side. On the north side of La
Media Parkway, an 11-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail is provided west of La Palmita Drive and
5-foot sidewalk is provided east of La Palmita Drive. Transit access is planned in shared flow
travel lanes.
Page 889 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 5
SR-125: Concurrent with the replanning effort in Village 8 East, CALTRANS has initiated a
Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) to evaluate alternatives that
provide new local street connections, increase capacity, improve mobility, and relieve congestion
on State Route 125 (SR-125) between the Otay River and Birch Road. The PSR-PDS includes
four preliminary designs for the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and Otay Valley Road. The
Village 8 East land use plan reflects Alternative B. The TM will be revised to reflect the ultimate
SR-125 ROW and design.
Alternative B: Couplet/Parallel Street System Interchange Alternative B consists of a
couplet/parallel street system interchange with ramps at Main Street and Otay Valley Road acting
as a single freeway access point via connected one-way frontage roads (Type L-5 per Caltrans
Highway Design Manual (HDM) Section 502.2(C)). For this alternative, vehicles traveling
northbound on SR-125 would exit at Otay Valley Road and enter SR-125 at Main Street. Similarly,
southbound vehicles would exit SR-125 at Main Street and enter SR-125 at La Media Parkway.
The on/off ramps at La Media Parkway and Main Street will be connected by two-lane, one-way
frontage roads. This alternative will include three La Media Parkway Valley Road (approximately
94’-4” wide), and a new multi-modal bridge (22’ wide).
Discretionary Actions: Discretionary actions which require City Council and Planning
Commission consideration and/or approval. The Proposed Project includes an Addendum to Otay
Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) (EIR 13-01; SCH No. 2013071077); approved December 2014,
amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan,
the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area Plan, and Appendices, a Rezone and
approval of Village 8 East Tentative Map CVT No. 22-0005. A Development Agreement
amendment is also proposed as part of the Proposed Project.
Technical Reports and Memos: The following technical reports and memos would be prepared
for the proposed project:
•Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
•Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
•Health Risk Assessment Screening Letter (Ldn Consulting, Inc.)
•Noise Assessment Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
•Comprehensive Project Information Form/Trip Generation Analysis Update (Chen Ryan)
•Archaeological Evaluation of Cultural Resources Letter (Dudek)
•Master Drainage Study (Hunsaker)
•PDP SWQMP (Hunsaker)
•Overview of Sewer Service Update (Wilson Engineering)
•Overview of Water Service Update (Wilson Engineering)
•Geotechnical Investigation Letter (GEOCON)
•Fiscal Impact Analysis Update (Development Planning & Financing Group)
Page 890 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 891 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 2
VILLAGE 8 EAST
PRELIMINARY SEWER PLAN
Page 892 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 893 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 894 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 2
The proposed land use changes would reconfigure the Village Core mixed-use area to
accommodate multi-family residential uses, retail/commercial uses, an elementary school,
and a neighborhood park. The revised plan would remain consistent with the previously
authorized residential unit count total of 3,276 units for Village 8 East.
The October 2014 Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Villages 3 North, a Portion of
4, 8 East, and 10 (October 2014 Water Study) was prepared as a supporting document to the
EIR. The October 2014 Water Study was not revised for the 2020 Village 8 East project
amendment. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the impact of the proposed land
use changes for Village 8 East on the findings and infrastructure requirements from the
October 2014 Water Study.
Village 8 East SPA Amendment Summary
A summary of proposed changes to the Village 8 East land use plan is provided as follows:
• Provide 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses.
• Distribute 1,348 multi-family homes across eight (8) Village Core parcels.
• Distribute 1,664 multi-family residential units across ten (10) parcels designated
Medium-High Residential.
Proposed Land Use Plan
As described in greater detail in the proposed project description, site utilization plan, and
land use summary table included in Attachment 1, the proposed project includes changes to
the backbone streets, land uses, and residential unit types and distribution throughout the
village.
Page 895 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 3
Water Demand Projection – October 2014 Water Study
Table 1 summarizes the projected average water demands for Village 8 East based on the
approved land use plan as presented in the October 2014 Water Study. The October 2014
Water Study analysis used the water demand factors from the April 2013 revision of the 2008
Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan.
TABLE 1
VILLAGE 8 EAST APPROVED LAND USE PLAN
PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS (OCTOBER 2014 WATER STUDY)
Land Use1 Quantity Demand
Factor
Average Demand,
gpd
Single Family Residential (3-8 Du/Ac) 303 units 500 gpd/unit 151,500
Single Family Residential (>8 Du/Ac) 640 units 300 gpd/unit 192,000
Multi-Family Residential 2,617 units 255 gpd/unit 667,335
Commercial 8.6 ac 1,607 gpd/ac 13,820
School 10.8 ac 1,428 gpd/ac 15,422
CPF 2.9 ac 714 gpd/ac 2,071
Park2 58.8 ac 0 gpd/ac 6,891
TOTAL 1,049,039
1. Open space preserve, freeway lots and AR-11 are not calculated because either no water demand is
projected from these areas or they are not currently proposed for development.
2. To be irrigated with recycled water. Nominal potable water use has been estimated for standard fixtures
(lavatories, drinking fountains, etc.).
Water Demand Projection – Proposed Plan (2023 SPA Amendment)
Table 2 summarizes the projected average water demands for Village 8 East based on the
currently proposed 2023 SPA Amendment. This projection uses current water demand
factors from the 2015 Otay Water District Water Master Plan. The decrease in water demand
factors compared to the October 2014 Water Study is due to water conservation efforts in
recent years and the proposed changes in residential densities.
Page 896 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 4
TABLE 2
VILLAGE 8 EAST PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS (2023 SPA AMENDMENT)
Land Use1 Quantity Demand
Factor
Average Demand,
gpd
Multi-Family Residential 3,012 units 170 gpd/unit 512,040
Commercial 51.5 ac 1,607 gpd/ac 82,761
Multi-Family Residential Alternative
for Elementary School Site2 264 units 170 gpd/unit 44,880
CPF 1.2 ac 714 gpd/ac 857
Park/Active Recreation3 73.2 ac 0 gpd/ac 9,051
TOTAL 649,589
1. Internal and external circulation, open space, open space preserve, and future development areas are
not calculated because either no water demand is projected, or these areas are not proposed for
development at this time.
2. The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. Average demand of 44,880
gpd is conservatively calculated based on multi-family land use. Average demand would decrease to
14,280 gpd (10.0 net-acre school site x 1,428 gpd/acre = 14,280 gpd) if the site is utilized as a school site.
3. Parks and the AR-11 site will be irrigated with recycled water, but nominal potable water use has been
estimated for standard fixtures (lavatories, drinking fountains, etc.).
In comparing the projections from Tables 1 and 2, the proposed 2023 SPA Amendment will
decrease previous water demand projections by approximately 38.1 percent compared to the
October 2014 Water Study. This decrease in water demand is a result of applying the Otay
Water District’s reduced water demand factors since the time of the October 2014 Water
Study, and the shift away from single family units for multi-family units within Village 8
East. This decrease in demand is not expected to change backbone water line sizing for the
project as onsite water lines will be sized based primarily on fire flow requirements.
A Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) will be prepared for review and approval by the Otay Water
District prior to final engineering plan approvals for the project. The SAMP will contain
detailed hydraulic modeling to determine final backbone water system sizing and project
phasing information.
Page 897 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 5
Conclusion
The proposed 2023 SPA Amendment for Village 8 East will decrease demand by
approximately 38.1 percent from the projections in the October 2014 Water Study. This
decrease in local demands is not expected to change backbone water line sizing for the project.
From a water supply planning standpoint, the 2023 SPA Amendment results in a water
demand of 728 acre-feet per year for Village 8 East. In comparison to the 2013 Water Supply
Assessment and Verification report that was prepared for Villages 3 North, a Portion of 4, 8
East, and 10 (2014) that estimated a total water demand of 2,393 acre-feet per year (1,179
acre-feet per year for Village 8 East), the current proposed SPA Amendment would decrease
the previous projections by 451 acre-feet per year. Thus, there will be no impact on either
the proposed water line sizing for the project or water supply for the area as a result of the
proposed SPA Amendment. Attachment 2 presents the preliminary potable water plan for
Village 8 East. Backbone public water line sizing and alignments within Village 8 East shall
be confirmed during final engineering.
FF:ah
Attachments
Page 898 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 1
VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
AND
LAND USE SUMMARY
Page 899 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 1
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST REPLANNING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT: HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley,
east of Village 8 West and west of SR-125. This urban village was originally approved by the
Chula Vista City Council in 2014 and subsequently amended in 2020. Current entitlements
accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached
homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting, 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial
uses, an elementary school site, a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and La
Media Parkway with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a
utility corridor in the southeast portion of Village 8 East. Primary access to the community park is
via existing Avenida Caprise within Village 8 West.
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC, (Applicant), proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to
reflect current market conditions and housing needs and to ensure the community relates more
closely to the adjacent Village 8 West community and future Village 9 planned east of SR -125.
The replanning effort also addresses the redesign of the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and
La Media Parkway.
Village 8 East Proposed Land Use: The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include
a Village Core area that would accommodate a mix of uses including multi-family residential and
retail/commercial uses along with an elementary school site and a centrally located neighborhood
park. A future multi-modal bridge, planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
(NEV), bicycles and pedestrians is also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and
future Village 9.
The proposed project would include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and 1,348 multi-
family homes distributed across eight Village Core parcels. Other residential land uses include
1,664 multi-family residential units in 10 parcels designated Medium-High Residential. The
elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. The project also
includes an alternative elementary school site/neighborhood park site configuration which would
increase the size of the elementary school site and correspondingly reduce the neighborhood park
site. This alternative configuration would be implemented based on the needs of the Chula Vista
Elementary School District.
The project also includes 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 16.4 acres of manufactured
slopes/basins and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located east of SR-125.
Approximately 15.3 acres comprising perimeter slope areas are included in the gross acres of
development parcels. The Village 8 East Final Map(s) will include open space easements over
perimeter slope areas based on final engineering designs. The 43.3-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South is located south of Village 8 East. An existing water quality basin that
serves Village 8 West is located in the western portion of the community park and the proposed
project includes an additional water quality basin in the eastern portion of the community park to
serve Village 8 East.
Page 900 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 2
Village 8 East SPA Site Utilization Table (Revised)
Parcel
Permitted
Density Range
Estimated
Units1
Gross
Acres2
Estimated
Density3
Medium High Multi-Family Residential
R-1 11-18 du/ac. 154 9.9 15.6
R-2 11-18 du/ac. 163 10.7 15.2
R-3 11-18 du/ac. 162 11.4 14.2
R-4 11-18 du/ac. 147 10.9 13.5
R-5 11-18 du/ac. 155 11.0 14.1
R-6 11-18 du/ac. 143 10.3 13.9
R-7 11-18 du/ac. 226 15.8 14.3
R-8 11-18 du/ac. 176 14.0 12.6
R-9 11-18 du/ac. 196 15.4 12.7
R-10 11-18 du/ac. 142 11.5 12.3
Total MH 1,664 120.9 13.8
Village Core 3
VC-1 18-45 du/ac. 275 7.6 36.2
VC-2 18-45 du/ac. 430 11.3 38.1
VC-3A 18-45 du/ac. 161 5.5 29.3
VC-3B5 18-45 du/ac. 0 5.6 0.0
VC-4 18-45 du/ac. 192 4.5 42.7
VC-55 18-45 du/ac. 0 5.7 0.0
VC-6 18-45 du/ac. 142 5.3 26.8
VC-7 18-45 du/ac. 148 6.0 24.7
Total VC 1,348 51.5 26.2
Subtotal Residential 3,012 172.4
Other
Community Purpose Facility6
CPF-1 1.2
Subtotal CPF 1.2
Parks
P-17 7.3
P-2A 15.2
P-2B 28.1
AR-11 22.6
Total Parks 73.2
School
S-17 8 264 11.3
Page 901 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 3
Parcel
Permitted
Density Range
Estimated
Units1
Gross
Acres2
Estimated
Density3
Open Space
MSCP Preserve OS (Lots 1-4) 253.6
Manufactured/Basin OS (Lots 5-7) 16.4
Total Open Space 270.0
Circulation
Internal 22.5
External 9.2
Total Circulation 31.7
Caltrans Lots (to be dedicated)
CT-1 1.7
CT-2 0.1
CT-3 1.9
Total Caltrans Lots 3.7
Future Development
Lot A 1.0
Lot B 8.4
Total Future Development 9.4
Subtotal Other 400.5
OVERALL SPA TOTAL9 3,276 572.9
Page 902 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 4
NOTES:
1 Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not represent the final unit allocation for
each parcel and shall not be used to limit or restrict the final units allocated to any parcel.; The final unit
allocation must remain consistent with the permitted density range applicable to the parcel. The final
unit allocation shall be determined during Design Review and shall be documented in the Unit Tracking
Table (Village 8 East SPA Plan, Attachment 1). Revisions to the Site Utilization Table s hall not be
required based on changes to the Estimated Units presented herein.
2 Final acreage information to be determined during final engineering. Acreage may vary due to
rounding. Residential and Village Core gross acreage includes approximately 15.3 of perimeter open
space areas. The future Village 8 East Final Map(s) to include open space easements over perimeter
open space slopes as determined during final design.
3 Estimated Density calculated based on gross parcel acreage. Final density to be determined during
Design Review.
4 20,000 SF of commercial uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial SF may be developed
within a single parcel designated VC or distributed among any parcel designated VC (VC-1 through
VC-7). The final distribution of commercial SF to be determ ined during Design Review. The “Permitted
Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no residential units.
5 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent with the
Village Core zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no
residential units.
6 Per the Land Offer Agreement (7/8/2014), the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall designate 4.0 acres of
CPF land. The Applicant is proposing to meet a portion of the Village 8 East CPF obligation by
designating the 1.2-acre CPF-1 site as a private recreation facility. Pursuant to the Development
Agreement Amendment, the remaining 2.8 acre CPF obligation shall be satisfied within Otay Ranch
Planning Area 20 South.
7 Both the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map include the "Proposed” and “Alternative”
configuration and acreage for the S-1 School Site and P-1 Neighborhood Park. Either the Proposed or
Alternative may be implemented without the need for an amendment to the SPA Plan or TM. The final
neighborhood park acreage shall be addressed in the future Village 8 East Parks Construction
Agreement.
8 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If the site is
not developed as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if the site is developed
as an elementary school, then the 264 units may be reallocated to another Village 8 East parcel or
transferred to another village, as permitted in the Village 8 East PC District Regulations, Chapter 10,
Implementation.
9 Village 8 East acreage adjusted from approved 2014 development area to reflect changes in SR -125
ROW and to facilitate the future SR-125 ROW Decertification process.
Circulation: Main Street, between the Village 8 West couplet and the future SR-125 Interchange,
would be implemented as a 6-lane prime arterial roadway and includes a grade-separated expanded
Regional Trail designed to accommodate a 5-foot bike lane and 10-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail
on the south side. Local bus stops are provided on both sides of Main Street. Transit access would
be provided in shared flow travel lanes.
La Media Parkway, from its eastern terminus in Village 8 West, would continue through Village
8 East as a four-lane major road with a 17-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail comprised of a 5-foot
sidewalk and 12-foot-wide, two-way NEV/Bike Route on the south side. On the north side of La
Media Parkway, an 11-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail is provided west of La Palmita Drive and
5-foot sidewalk is provided east of La Palmita Drive. Transit access is planned in shared flow
travel lanes.
Page 903 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 5
SR-125: Concurrent with the replanning effort in Village 8 East, CALTRANS has initiated a
Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) to evaluate alternatives that
provide new local street connections, increase capacity, improve mobility, and relieve congestion
on State Route 125 (SR-125) between the Otay River and Birch Road. The PSR-PDS includes
four preliminary designs for the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and Otay Valley Road. The
Village 8 East land use plan reflects Alternative B. The TM will be revised to reflect the ultimate
SR-125 ROW and design.
Alternative B: Couplet/Parallel Street System Interchange Alternative B consists of a
couplet/parallel street system interchange with ramps at Main Street and Otay Valley Road acting
as a single freeway access point via connected one-way frontage roads (Type L-5 per Caltrans
Highway Design Manual (HDM) Section 502.2(C)). For this alternative, vehicles traveling
northbound on SR-125 would exit at Otay Valley Road and enter SR-125 at Main Street. Similarly,
southbound vehicles would exit SR-125 at Main Street and enter SR-125 at La Media Parkway.
The on/off ramps at La Media Parkway and Main Street will be connected by two-lane, one-way
frontage roads. This alternative will include three La Media Parkway Valley Road (approximately
94’-4” wide), and a new multi-modal bridge (22’ wide).
Discretionary Actions: Discretionary actions which require City Council and Planning
Commission consideration and/or approval. The Proposed Project includes an Addendum to Otay
Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) (EIR 13-01; SCH No. 2013071077); approved December 2014,
amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan,
the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area Plan, and Appendices, a Rezone and
approval of Village 8 East Tentative Map CVT No. 22-0005. A Development Agreement
amendment is also proposed as part of the Proposed Project.
Technical Reports and Memos: The following technical reports and memos would be prepared
for the proposed project:
• Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
• Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
• Health Risk Assessment Screening Letter (Ldn Consulting, Inc.)
• Noise Assessment Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
• Comprehensive Project Information Form/Trip Generation Analysis Update (Chen Ryan)
• Archaeological Evaluation of Cultural Resources Letter (Dudek)
• Master Drainage Study (Hunsaker)
• PDP SWQMP (Hunsaker)
• Overview of Sewer Service Update (Wilson Engineering)
• Overview of Water Service Update (Wilson Engineering)
• Geotechnical Investigation Letter (GEOCON)
• Fiscal Impact Analysis Update (Development Planning & Financing Group)
Page 904 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Utilization Plan
Village Core (VC)
Medium-High Residential (MH)
Open Space (OS)
Open Space Preserve (OSP)
Park (P) / Active Recreation (AR)
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
School (H)
Future Development (FD)
CalTrans (CT)
Legend - Land Use
10005000
Page 905 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 2
VILLAGE 8 EAST
PRELIMINARY POTABLE WATER PLAN
Page 906 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 907 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333, Murrieta CA 92562 phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA 1
September 15, 2023
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Otay Village 8 East Development Health Risk Screening Letter - City of Chula
Vista CA
The purpose of this Air Quality Heath Risk screening letter is to identify potential health risks at
the proposed project site from Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) originating from State Route 125
(SR-125). Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay
River Valley, east of Village 8 West and west of SR-125. This urban village was originally
approved in 2014 and subsequently amended in 2020. Current entitlements accommodate a
total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440
multi-family units in a mixed-use setting.
The current Village 8 East Plan would include a Village Core area that would accommodate a
mix of uses including multi-family residential and retail/commercial uses along with an
elementary school site and a centrally located 7.3-acre neighborhood park. A future multi-modal
bridge, planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), bicycles and pedestrians
is also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and future Village 9.
The proposed project would include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and 1,348
multi-family homes distributed across eight Village Core parcels. Other residential land uses
include 1,664 multi-family residential units in 10 parcels designated Medium-High Residential.
The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. The project also
includes an alternative elementary school site/neighborhood park site configuration which would
increase the size of the elementary school site and correspondingly reduce the neighborhood
park site. This alternative configuration would be implemented based on the needs of the Chula
Vista Elementary School District.
The project also includes 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 31.4 acres of manufactured
slopes/basins and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located east of SR-125. The 43.3-
acre (gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South is located south of Village 8 East.
Page 908 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA
2
The original health risk analysis was completed in 2014 (SRA, 2014). The findings of that letter
indicated that health risks would exceed 10 per million exposed for a 70 year exposure duration
though since this duration would not be practical, the 9 or 30 year durations would be more
appropriate. Based on that assessment, the project would have less than significant impacts for
residential receptors near SR-125.
Similar to the original HR analysis, this health risk analysis uses the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) methodologies (Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment, 2015) as outlined by the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA, July 2009). Type A projects are projects which have the potential to emit
toxic emissions and have the potential to impact nearby receptors. Type B projects: place
receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources like freeways, high traffic roads or rail yards.
Based on this information the proposed project is classified as Type B.
Projects within the San Diego County air basin are generally regulated by San Diego Air Pollution
Control District (SDAPCD). For Type A projects, significance thresholds have been established
under the SDAPCD’s “Hot Spots” and permitting program (SDAPCD Rule 1200 and 1210). Under
this program, excess cancer risk significance threshold is set at 10 in a million and, for acute
and chronic, non-carcinogenic health effects, a hazard index of one must not be exceeded.
For Type B projects, there are no clear significance thresholds. California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) statutes encourage an air district or any lead agency to establish Type B significance
thresholds under CEQA for any pollutant. While there are considerations that support the
establishment of thresholds, there is no obligation to do so. Significance thresholds for Type B
projects within the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego have also not been defined.
According to CAPCOA, air districts have historically recommended CEQA thresholds for air
pollutants in the context of the air district’s clean air attainment plan, or (in the case of toxic air
pollutants) within the framework of a rule or policy that manages risks and exposures due to
toxic pollutants such as SDAPCDs Rule 1200 and 1210 for Type A projects above. For the
purposes of this analysis, the significance thresholds will be assumed to be those of the “Hot
Spot” program discussed above.
Cancer risk calculations are often presented on a 9, 30 or 70 year lifetime exposure duration.
The 9 year exposure scenario is based on exposure to children during the first 9 years of life.
Some districts use the 9 year exposure scenario to model short term projects. (CAPCOA, July
2009). For purposes of this analysis, it is reasonable to assume a 30 year duration but a 70 year
duration is also presented and captures exposure from the 3rd trimester of life through
adulthood. The duration is generally accepted for the time residential units are occupied for a
specific resident and would not be expected for longer than 30 years. For purposes of modeling,
AERMOD was used for air quality dispersion modeling and is the preferred/recommended U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) model for roadway modeling. The software has the
Page 909 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA
3
ability to incorporate meteorological inputs as well as multiple source and receptor locations and
is now used throughout the world. The model input/output is shown in Attachment A to this
letter.
SR-125 is adjacent to the overall project site which is located between the Otay River Bridge
and the on/off ramp of Olympic Parkway. According to Caltrans, the annual average daily trips
are 15,500 AADT (CALTRANS, 2022) along this section of SR-125 today. San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG’s) activity base model ABM2+/2021 RP forecast for 2035 indicates
that this section of roadway would have 37,800 AADT (SANDAG, 2022). An analysis completed
for Otay Village 8 however estimated that trips could be as high as 94,000 which would be
beyond 2030. For consistency, this analysis also utilizes the 94,000 AADT in 2030. Emission
rates were obtained from the California Air Resource Boards EMFAC 2021 web database model
for the 2030 calendar scenario.
AERMOD was used to calculate roadway emission concentrations in micrograms per meter cubed
(μg/m3) at nearby sensitive receptors. A graphical representation of the roadway, discreet receptors
and grided receptors modeling are shown on the site map/aerial image below in Figure 1.
The emission rates assumptions incorporate projected mixed vehicle categories, aggregated
vehicle model years, a 65 mile per hour (MPH) speed and the running emissions from all diesel
sources which best matches SR-125. The emission rates for each vehicle type were then
categorized in terms of categorized Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) divided by Total fleet VMT.
The data is further broken down into only Diesel particulates which are then used as inputs to
AERMOD. The EMFAC Model and Normalization calculations are shown for SR-125 in
Attachments B to this letter.
Based on discussions with the project applicant, all residential homes constructed as part of this
project will have mechanical ventilation filtration systems consistent with the latest building
codes such as California’s Title 24. Typical indoor air filtration systems used within todays
heating and ventilation systems within California and consistent with Title 24 have a Minimum
Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) rating of 13 (California Energy Commission, 2019).
The US Environmental Protection Agency indicates that MERV 13 filtration systems reduce
particulates between 1 and 3 microns by 85% and particles less than 10 microns (PM10) by 90%
relative to outdoor ambient air (EPA, 2021).
Page 910 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA
4
Figure 1: Modeling Graphical Layout
3
2
1
9
5
6
7
8
4
AERMOD Volume Sources for Roadway
AERMOD Receptor Grid used for Discreet
Emission Calculations and Emission Contours
Residential Façade Receptor Locations
Page 911 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA
5
The annual diesel particulate concentrations in micrograms per meter cubed (μg/m3) at the
modeled receptors are summarized below in Table 1 and include the expected reductions within
the interior of all residential structures which would have a minimum air filtration system of
MERV 13. The modeled output plot from AERMOD is shown in Figure 2 of this report.
Table 1: Annual DPM Concentrations at each Receptor
Discreet Receptor AERMOD Name Concentration (μg/m3)
R1 0.0130
R2 0.0147
R3 0.0138
R4 0.0132
R5 0.0128
R6 0.0098
R7 0.0141
R8 0.0144
R9 0.0105
Once the dispersed concentrations of diesel particulates are estimated in the surrounding air,
they are used to evaluate estimated exposure to people. Cancer Risk Exposure is evaluated by
calculating the dose in milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/d). For residential
exposure, the breathing rates are determined for specific age groups, so inhalation dose (Dose-
air) is calculated for each of these age groups, 3rd trimester, 0<2, 2<9, 2<16, 16<30 and 16-
70 years. The following algorithms calculate this dose for exposure through the inhalation
pathways. The worst-case cancer risk dose calculation is defined in Equation 1 below (OEHHA,
2015):
Equation 1: Doseair=Cair*(BR/BW)*A*EF*(1x10-6)
Doseair = Dose through inhalation (mg/kg/d)
Cair = Concentration in air (μg/m3) Annual average DPM concentration in µg/m3 –
AERMOD
BR/BW = Daily average breathing rates normalized to body weight (L/kg BW-day).
A = Inhalation absorption factor (assumed to be 1)
EF = Exposure frequency (unitless, days/365 days)
1x10-6 = Milligrams to micrograms conversion (10-3 mg/ μg), cubic meters to
liters conversion (10-3 m3/l)
Page 912 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA
6
Figure 2: Modeling Graphical DPM Concentration Output
AERMOD Volume Sources for Roadway
Each point on each color contour within
this figure represents locations having
emission concentrations equal to the
corresponding scale.
3
2
1
7
4
5
6
8
9
Page 913 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA
7
Once the dose is determined then you must calculate the cancer risk. The average daily
inhalation dose (mg/kg-day) multiplied by the cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 will give the
inhalation cancer risk (unitless), which is an expression of the chemical’s cancer risk during a
70-year lifespan of exposure. For example, an inhalation cancer risk of 5 x 10-6 is the same as
stating that an individual has an estimated probability of developing cancer from their exposure
of 5 chances per million people exposed.
Cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the daily inhalation or oral dose, by a cancer potency
factor, the age sensitivity factor, the frequency of time spent at home and the exposure duration
divided by averaging time, to yield the excess cancer risk. As described below, the excess cancer
risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk for any
given location. The worst-case cancer risk calculation is defined in Equation 2 below (OEHHA,
2015).
Equation 2: RISKinh-res=DOSEair × CPF × ASF × ED/AT × FAH
RISKinh-res = Residential inhalation cancer risk
DOSEair = Daily inhalation dose (mg/kg-day)
CPF = Inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day-1)
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless)
ED = Exposure duration (in years) for a specified age group
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
The results of the cancer risk calculations are shown in Table 2 below. The detailed model
input/output is also provided as Attachment C to this report. Based on these calculations,
cancer risks from DPM generated from SR-125 would not exceed the 10 per one million exposed
thresholds within any units constructed within the Otay Village 8 East specific plan. It should be
noted that these risks incorporate the required MERV 13 filtration required by building codes
under Title 24.
DPM has a chronic non-cancer risk Reference Exposure Level (REL) of 5 μg/m3 (OEHHA, 2023).
A chronic health risk would exist when the exposure for any sensitive receptor is greater than
the REL. The largest annual exposure is 0.0069 μg/m3 as noted in Table 2 and since this
exposure is less than the REL a less than significant non-cancer risk is expected.
Page 914 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA
8
Table 2: Cancer Risk at Worst-Case Indoor Receptors (MERV 13 Design Feature)
Receptor Ci
Unmitigated Cancer Risk
30 Years = Risk/million
people Exposed
Unmitigated Cancer Risk
70 Years = Risk/million
people Exposed
Potential Impact
R1 0.0130 5.37 6.91 No
R2 0.0147 6.09 7.92 No
R3 0.0138 5.70 7.42 No
R4 0.0132 5.48 7.13 No
R5 0.0128 5.29 6.87 No
R6 0.0098 4.06 5.28 No
R7 0.0141 5.83 7.58 No
R8 0.0144 5.99 7.79 No
R9 0.0105 4.35 5.66 No
Ci annual inputs from AERMOD within prospective building.
Cancer Risk = DOSEair × CPF × ASF × ED/AT × FAH
It is important to note that this assessment serves simply as a disclosure document to provide
characterization of the background emissions that occupants of the proposed project may be
exposed to. If you should have any questions regarding this assessment, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (760) 473-1253.
Sincerely,
Ldn Consulting, Inc.
Jeremy Louden
Attachments:
A: AERMOD
B: EMFAC 2021 Emission Factors
C: Cancer Risk Calculations
Page 915 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O'Connor
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Ste. 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
9/15/2023 22-125 Otay Village 8 East HRA
9
References:
California Energy Commission. (2019). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards - What’s
New for Residential. Retrieved from
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
03/Title_24_2019_Residential_WhatsNew_ada.pdf
CALTRANS. (2022). 2020ADT EXCEL Download. Retrieved 2021, from
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census
CAPCOA. (July 2009). Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects. California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association .
EPA. (2021). What is a MERV rating? United States. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating
OEHHA. (2015). Risk Assessment Guidelines - Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. OEHHHA. Retrieved from
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2015). Hot Spot Guidlines. Retrieved April
16, 2015, from http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html
SANDAG. (2022). ABM2+/2021/RP - SR 125 NB and SB links. Retrieved from
https://tfic.sandag.org/
SRA. (2014). Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment - Otay Ranch Village 8 East.
Page 916 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1 AERMOD PRIME ‐ (DATED 19191)
AERMODPrMSPx VERSION
(C) COPYRIGHT 1998‐2017, Trinity Consultants
Run Began on 9/14/2023 at 17:07:05
** BREEZE AERMOD
** Trinity Consultants
** VERSION 10.0
CO STARTING
CO TITLEONE PM10 Exhaust I 125
CO MODELOPT DFAULT CONC NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT
CO RUNORNOT RUN
CO AVERTIME ANNUAL
CO POLLUTID PM10
CO FINISHED
SO STARTING
SO ELEVUNIT METERS
SO LOCATION SGKOY002 VOLUME 502732.6 3608589.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY003 VOLUME 502736.9 3608570.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY004 VOLUME 502741.1 3608550.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY005 VOLUME 502745.4 3608531.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY006 VOLUME 502750.4 3608511.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY007 VOLUME 502756.5 3608492.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY008 VOLUME 502762.5 3608473.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY009 VOLUME 502768.5 3608454.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00A VOLUME 502774.3 3608435.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00B VOLUME 502780.1 3608416.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00C VOLUME 502786.0 3608397.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00D VOLUME 502791.8 3608378.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00E VOLUME 502799.4 3608359.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00F VOLUME 502807.2 3608341.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00G VOLUME 502814.9 3608322.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00H VOLUME 502822.6 3608304.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00I VOLUME 502830.4 3608285.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00J VOLUME 502838.5 3608267.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00K VOLUME 502848.1 3608250.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00L VOLUME 502857.8 3608232.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00M VOLUME 502867.5 3608215.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00N VOLUME 502877.1 3608197.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00O VOLUME 502886.8 3608180.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00P VOLUME 502896.4 3608162.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
Attachment A
Page 917 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SO LOCATION SGKOY00Q VOLUME 502906.1 3608145.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00R VOLUME 502915.8 3608127.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00S VOLUME 502925.4 3608110.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00T VOLUME 502935.1 3608092.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00U VOLUME 502944.7 3608075.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00V VOLUME 502955.3 3608058.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00W VOLUME 502966.0 3608041.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00X VOLUME 502976.6 3608024.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00Y VOLUME 502987.3 3608007.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY00Z VOLUME 502998.0 3607990.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY010 VOLUME 503008.7 3607973.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY011 VOLUME 503019.4 3607956.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY012 VOLUME 503030.0 3607939.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY013 VOLUME 503040.3 3607922.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY014 VOLUME 503050.7 3607905.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY015 VOLUME 503061.0 3607888.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY016 VOLUME 503071.3 3607871.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY017 VOLUME 503081.7 3607854.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY018 VOLUME 503092.0 3607836.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY019 VOLUME 503102.4 3607819.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01A VOLUME 503112.7 3607802.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01B VOLUME 503123.0 3607785.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01C VOLUME 503132.9 3607768.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01D VOLUME 503142.3 3607750.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01E VOLUME 503151.8 3607732.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01F VOLUME 503161.2 3607715.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01G VOLUME 503170.7 3607697.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01H VOLUME 503180.1 3607680.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01I VOLUME 503189.6 3607662.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01J VOLUME 503199.0 3607644.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01K VOLUME 503207.3 3607626.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01L VOLUME 503214.9 3607608.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01M VOLUME 503222.4 3607589.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01N VOLUME 503230.0 3607571.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01O VOLUME 503237.6 3607552.5 0
Attachment A
Page 918 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01P VOLUME 503245.2 3607534.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01Q VOLUME 503252.8 3607515.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01R VOLUME 503260.6 3607497.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01S VOLUME 503268.3 3607478.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01T VOLUME 503276.0 3607460.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01U VOLUME 503283.3 3607441.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01V VOLUME 503289.3 3607422.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01W VOLUME 503295.3 3607403.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01X VOLUME 503301.3 3607384.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01Y VOLUME 503307.3 3607365.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY01Z VOLUME 503312.2 3607345.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY020 VOLUME 503316.3 3607326.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY021 VOLUME 503320.4 3607306.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY022 VOLUME 503324.5 3607287.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY023 VOLUME 503328.6 3607267.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY024 VOLUME 503332.7 3607248.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY025 VOLUME 503336.5 3607228.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY026 VOLUME 503340.4 3607208.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY027 VOLUME 503344.3 3607189.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY028 VOLUME 503348.1 3607169.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY029 VOLUME 503352.0 3607149.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02A VOLUME 503355.8 3607130.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02B VOLUME 503359.7 3607110.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02C VOLUME 503362.1 3607090.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02D VOLUME 503363.8 3607070.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02E VOLUME 503365.5 3607050.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02F VOLUME 503367.3 3607031.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02G VOLUME 503369.0 3607011.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02H VOLUME 503370.7 3606991.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02I VOLUME 503371.4 3606971.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02J VOLUME 503371.8 3606951.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02K VOLUME 503372.2 3606931.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02L VOLUME 503372.6 3606911.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02M VOLUME 503372.9 3606891.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
Attachment A
Page 919 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SO LOCATION SGKOY02N VOLUME 503373.3 3606871.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02O VOLUME 503373.7 3606851.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02P VOLUME 503373.0 3606831.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02Q VOLUME 503372.3 3606811.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02R VOLUME 503371.6 3606791.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02S VOLUME 503370.8 3606771.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02T VOLUME 503370.1 3606751.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02U VOLUME 503369.4 3606731.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02V VOLUME 503366.1 3606711.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02W VOLUME 503362.7 3606691.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02X VOLUME 503359.2 3606672.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02Y VOLUME 503355.8 3606652.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY02Z VOLUME 503352.3 3606632.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY030 VOLUME 503348.9 3606613.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY031 VOLUME 503345.5 3606593.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY032 VOLUME 503342.0 3606573.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY033 VOLUME 503337.5 3606554.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY034 VOLUME 503332.6 3606534.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY035 VOLUME 503327.6 3606515.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY036 VOLUME 503322.6 3606496.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY037 VOLUME 503317.6 3606476.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY038 VOLUME 503312.6 3606457.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY039 VOLUME 503307.7 3606437.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03A VOLUME 503302.7 3606418.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03B VOLUME 503297.7 3606399.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03C VOLUME 503292.8 3606379.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03D VOLUME 503288.2 3606360.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03E VOLUME 503283.6 3606340.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03F VOLUME 503279.0 3606321.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03G VOLUME 503274.3 3606302.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03H VOLUME 503269.7 3606282.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03I VOLUME 503265.1 3606263.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03J VOLUME 503260.5 3606243.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03K VOLUME 503255.4 3606224.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03L VOLUME 503249.6 3606205.1 0
Attachment A
Page 920 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03M VOLUME 503243.8 3606186.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03N VOLUME 503238.0 3606166.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03O VOLUME 503232.2 3606147.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03P VOLUME 503228.5 3606128.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03Q VOLUME 503225.0 3606108.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03R VOLUME 503221.4 3606088.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03S VOLUME 503217.8 3606069.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03T VOLUME 503214.2 3606049.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03U VOLUME 503210.7 3606029.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03V VOLUME 503207.1 3606010.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03W VOLUME 503203.5 3605990.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03X VOLUME 503200.3 3605970.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03Y VOLUME 503198.3 3605950.7 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY03Z VOLUME 503196.3 3605930.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY040 VOLUME 503194.2 3605910.9 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY041 VOLUME 503192.2 3605891.0 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY042 VOLUME 503190.6 3605871.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY043 VOLUME 503191.2 3605851.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY044 VOLUME 503191.8 3605831.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY045 VOLUME 503192.3 3605811.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY046 VOLUME 503192.9 3605791.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY047 VOLUME 503193.5 3605771.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY048 VOLUME 503194.0 3605751.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY049 VOLUME 503194.6 3605731.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04A VOLUME 503195.2 3605711.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04B VOLUME 503195.9 3605691.1 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04C VOLUME 503197.7 3605671.2 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04D VOLUME 503199.4 3605651.3 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04E VOLUME 503201.2 3605631.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04F VOLUME 503202.7 3605611.4 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04G VOLUME 503203.7 3605591.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04H VOLUME 503204.8 3605571.5 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04I VOLUME 503206.8 3605551.6 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
SO LOCATION SGKOY04J VOLUME 503209.2 3605531.8 0
** SRCDESCR 125 adjacent to Otay8E
Attachment A
Page 921 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY002 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY003 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY004 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY005 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY006 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY007 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY008 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY009 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00A 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00B 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00C 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00D 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00E 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00F 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00G 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00H 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00I 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00J 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00K 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00L 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00M 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00N 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00O 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00P 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00Q 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00R 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00S 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00T 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00U 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00V 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00W 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00X 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00Y 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY00Z 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY010 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY011 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY012 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY013 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY014 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY015 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY016 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY017 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY018 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY019 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01A 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01B 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01C 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01D 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01E 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01F 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01G 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01H 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01I 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01J 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01K 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01L 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01M 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01N 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01O 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01P 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01Q 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01R 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01S 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01T 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01U 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01V 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01W 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01X 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01Y 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
Attachment A
Page 922 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY01Z 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY020 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY021 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY022 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY023 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY024 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY025 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY026 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY027 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY028 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY029 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02A 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02B 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02C 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02D 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02E 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02F 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02G 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02H 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02I 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02J 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02K 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02L 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02M 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02N 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02O 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02P 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02Q 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02R 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02S 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02T 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02U 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02V 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02W 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02X 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02Y 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY02Z 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY030 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY031 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY032 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY033 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY034 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY035 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY036 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY037 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY038 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY039 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03A 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03B 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03C 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03D 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03E 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03F 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03G 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03H 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03I 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03J 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03K 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03L 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03M 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03N 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03O 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03P 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03Q 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03R 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03S 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03T 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03U 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03V 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
Attachment A
Page 923 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03W 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03X 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03Y 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY03Z 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY040 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY041 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY042 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY043 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY044 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY045 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY046 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY047 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY048 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY049 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04A 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04B 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04C 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04D 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04E 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04F 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04G 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04H 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04I 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCPARAM SGKOY04J 2.345525E‐06 3 9.302325 2.790698
SO SRCGROUP ALL
SO FINISHED
RE STARTING
RE ELEVUNIT METERS
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 STA
** GRDDESCR Gridded Receptor
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 XYINC 502155.1 21 97.1 3608335 21 ‐114.5
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 ELEV 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Attachment A
Page 924 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 HILL 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RE GRIDCART O19UC003 END
RE DISCCART 502856 3608100 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R1
RE DISCCART 503128.7 3607654.7 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R2
RE DISCCART 503178.8 3607524 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R3
RE DISCCART 503218.2 3607407.6 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R4
RE DISCCART 503248.7 3607276.9 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R5
RE DISCCART 503232.6 3607103.2 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R6
RE DISCCART 503311.3 3606823.8 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R7
RE DISCCART 503297 3606648.3 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R8
RE DISCCART 503000.1 3607783.9 0 0
** SENSITIV
** RCPDESCR R9
RE FINISHED
ME STARTING
ME SURFFILE "C:\Users\ryan\OneDrive\LDNONE~1\CI2617~1\22‐62O~1\AERMOD\KMA2012V15181.SFC"
** SURFFILE "C:\Users\ryan\OneDrive\LDNONE~1\CI2617~1\22‐62O~1\AERMOD\KMA2012V15181.SFC"
ME PROFFILE "C:\Users\ryan\OneDrive\LDNONE~1\CI2617~1\22‐62O~1\AERMOD\KMA2012V15181.PFL"
** PROFFILE "C:\Users\ryan\OneDrive\LDNONE~1\CI2617~1\22‐62O~1\AERMOD\KMA2012V15181.PFL"
ME SURFDATA 93107 2012 OVERLANDSURFACESTATION
ME UAIRDATA 3190 2012 OVERLANDUPPERSTATION
ME SITEDATA 00001016 2012
ME PROFBASE 116 METERS
ME FINISHED
OU STARTING
OU FILEFORM FIX
OU PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL ALL`ANNUAL.plt 10000
OU FINISHED
** *****************************************************************************
** It is recommended that the user not edit any data below this line
** *****************************************************************************
** TAG NAM SGKOY001
** TAG PRM 0 2 F F 1 255,0,0,0
** TAG CRD
502730.5,3608599.6,0,502747.6,3608520.9,0,502768.1,3608455.9,0,502792.1,3608377.1,0,502836.6,3608271.0,0,502946.1,3
608072.5,0,503028.3,3607942.4,0,503127.5,3607778.1,0,503202.5,3607638.2,0,503248.5,3607525.8,0,503281.7,3607446.6,0
,503309.8,3607357.2,0,503332.8,3607247.4,0,503360.9,3607104.4,0,503371.1,3606986.9,0,503373.7,3606851.5,0,503369.4,
3606730.5,0,503340.9,3606567.2,0,503294.2,3606385.6,0,503257.9,3606232.7,0,503232.0,3606147.1,0,503200.9,3605976.0,
0,503190.5,3605874.8,0,503195.7,360
** TERRFILE C:\USERS\RYAN_000\ONEDRIVE\LDNWOR~1\17‐903~1\AERMOD\NEDU17~1\NEDU17991156.TIF 2 0 WGS84 11 0
486620.4 3617040.8 486627.8 3622511.1 491372.6 3622505.8 491367.9 3617035.5
** AMPTYPE NED
** AMPDATUM 3
Attachment A
Page 925 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
** AMPZONE 11
** AMPHEMISPHERE N
** PROJECTIONWKT
PROJCS["UTM_6326_Zone11",GEOGCS["WGS_84",DATUM["World_Geodetic_System_1984",SPHEROID["WGS_1984",6378137,298.2572235
63],TOWGS84[0,0,0,0,0,0,0]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Universal_Transver
se_Mercator"],PARAMETER["Zone",11],UNIT["Meter",1,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9001"]]]
** PROJECTION UTM
** DATUM WGE
** UNITS METER
** ZONE 11
** HEMISPHERE N
** ORIGINLON 0
** ORIGINLAT 0
** PARALLEL1 0
** PARALLEL2 0
** AZIMUTH 0
** SCALEFACT 0
** FALSEEAST 0
** FALSENORTH 0
** POSTFMT UNFORM
** TEMPLATE USERDEFINED
** AERMODEXE AERMOD_BREEZE_19191_64.EXE
** AERMAPEXE AERMAP_EPA_11103.EXE
*** Message Summary For AERMOD Model Setup ***
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 1 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 0 Informational Message(s)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
MX W403 597 PFLCNV: Turbulence data is being used w/o ADJ_U* option SigA Data
***********************************
*** SETUP Finishes Successfully ***
***********************************
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 1
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY ***
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
**Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values.
‐‐ DEPOSITION LOGIC ‐‐
**NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DRYDPLT = F
**Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WETDPLT = F
**Model Uses RURAL Dispersion Only.
Attachment A
Page 926 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
**Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Stack‐tip Downwash.
2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects.
3. Use Calms Processing Routine.
4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
5. No Exponential Decay.
**Other Options Specified:
TEMP_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions
**Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
**The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: PM10
**Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only
**This Run Includes: 162 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 450 Receptor(s)
with: 0 POINT(s), including
0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s)
and: 162 VOLUME source(s)
and: 0 AREA type source(s)
and: 0 LINE source(s)
and: 0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s)
and: 0 OPENPIT source(s)
and: 0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with 0 line(s)
**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
**The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 15181
**Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
**NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
**Misc. Inputs: Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) = 116.00 ; Decay Coef. = 0.000 ; Rot. Angle
= 0.0
Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor =
0.10000E+07
Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3
**Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 3.6 MB of RAM.
**Input Runstream File: aermod.inp
**Output Print File: aermod.out
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 2
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Attachment A
Page 927 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SGKOY002 0 0.23455E‐05 502732.6 3608589.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY003 0 0.23455E‐05 502736.9 3608570.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY004 0 0.23455E‐05 502741.1 3608550.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY005 0 0.23455E‐05 502745.4 3608531.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY006 0 0.23455E‐05 502750.4 3608511.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY007 0 0.23455E‐05 502756.5 3608492.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY008 0 0.23455E‐05 502762.5 3608473.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY009 0 0.23455E‐05 502768.5 3608454.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00A 0 0.23455E‐05 502774.3 3608435.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00B 0 0.23455E‐05 502780.1 3608416.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00C 0 0.23455E‐05 502786.0 3608397.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00D 0 0.23455E‐05 502791.8 3608378.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00E 0 0.23455E‐05 502799.4 3608359.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00F 0 0.23455E‐05 502807.2 3608341.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00G 0 0.23455E‐05 502814.9 3608322.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00H 0 0.23455E‐05 502822.6 3608304.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00I 0 0.23455E‐05 502830.4 3608285.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00J 0 0.23455E‐05 502838.5 3608267.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00K 0 0.23455E‐05 502848.1 3608250.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00L 0 0.23455E‐05 502857.8 3608232.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00M 0 0.23455E‐05 502867.5 3608215.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00N 0 0.23455E‐05 502877.1 3608197.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00O 0 0.23455E‐05 502886.8 3608180.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00P 0 0.23455E‐05 502896.4 3608162.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00Q 0 0.23455E‐05 502906.1 3608145.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00R 0 0.23455E‐05 502915.8 3608127.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00S 0 0.23455E‐05 502925.4 3608110.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00T 0 0.23455E‐05 502935.1 3608092.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00U 0 0.23455E‐05 502944.7 3608075.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00V 0 0.23455E‐05 502955.3 3608058.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00W 0 0.23455E‐05 502966.0 3608041.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00X 0 0.23455E‐05 502976.6 3608024.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00Y 0 0.23455E‐05 502987.3 3608007.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY00Z 0 0.23455E‐05 502998.0 3607990.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY010 0 0.23455E‐05 503008.7 3607973.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY011 0 0.23455E‐05 503019.4 3607956.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY012 0 0.23455E‐05 503030.0 3607939.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY013 0 0.23455E‐05 503040.3 3607922.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY014 0 0.23455E‐05 503050.7 3607905.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY015 0 0.23455E‐05 503061.0 3607888.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** ******
17:07:05
PAGE 3
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS.(METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SGKOY016 0 0.23455E‐05 503071.3 3607871.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY017 0 0.23455E‐05 503081.7 3607854.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY018 0 0.23455E‐05 503092.0 3607836.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY019 0 0.23455E‐05 503102.4 3607819.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01A 0 0.23455E‐05 503112.7 3607802.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01B 0 0.23455E‐05 503123.0 3607785.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01C 0 0.23455E‐05 503132.9 3607768.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01D 0 0.23455E‐05 503142.3 3607750.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01E 0 0.23455E‐05 503151.8 3607732.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01F 0 0.23455E‐05 503161.2 3607715.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
Attachment A
Page 928 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SGKOY01G 0 0.23455E‐05 503170.7 3607697.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01H 0 0.23455E‐05 503180.1 3607680.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01I 0 0.23455E‐05 503189.6 3607662.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01J 0 0.23455E‐05 503199.0 3607644.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01K 0 0.23455E‐05 503207.3 3607626.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01L 0 0.23455E‐05 503214.9 3607608.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01M 0 0.23455E‐05 503222.4 3607589.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01N 0 0.23455E‐05 503230.0 3607571.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01O 0 0.23455E‐05 503237.6 3607552.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01P 0 0.23455E‐05 503245.2 3607534.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01Q 0 0.23455E‐05 503252.8 3607515.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01R 0 0.23455E‐05 503260.6 3607497.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01S 0 0.23455E‐05 503268.3 3607478.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01T 0 0.23455E‐05 503276.0 3607460.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01U 0 0.23455E‐05 503283.3 3607441.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01V 0 0.23455E‐05 503289.3 3607422.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01W 0 0.23455E‐05 503295.3 3607403.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01X 0 0.23455E‐05 503301.3 3607384.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01Y 0 0.23455E‐05 503307.3 3607365.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY01Z 0 0.23455E‐05 503312.2 3607345.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY020 0 0.23455E‐05 503316.3 3607326.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY021 0 0.23455E‐05 503320.4 3607306.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY022 0 0.23455E‐05 503324.5 3607287.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY023 0 0.23455E‐05 503328.6 3607267.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY024 0 0.23455E‐05 503332.7 3607248.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY025 0 0.23455E‐05 503336.5 3607228.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY026 0 0.23455E‐05 503340.4 3607208.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY027 0 0.23455E‐05 503344.3 3607189.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY028 0 0.23455E‐05 503348.1 3607169.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY029 0 0.23455E‐05 503352.0 3607149.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 4
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SGKOY02A 0 0.23455E‐05 503355.8 3607130.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02B 0 0.23455E‐05 503359.7 3607110.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02C 0 0.23455E‐05 503362.1 3607090.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02D 0 0.23455E‐05 503363.8 3607070.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02E 0 0.23455E‐05 503365.5 3607050.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02F 0 0.23455E‐05 503367.3 3607031.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02G 0 0.23455E‐05 503369.0 3607011.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02H 0 0.23455E‐05 503370.7 3606991.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02I 0 0.23455E‐05 503371.4 3606971.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02J 0 0.23455E‐05 503371.8 3606951.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02K 0 0.23455E‐05 503372.2 3606931.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02L 0 0.23455E‐05 503372.6 3606911.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02M 0 0.23455E‐05 503372.9 3606891.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02N 0 0.23455E‐05 503373.3 3606871.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02O 0 0.23455E‐05 503373.7 3606851.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02P 0 0.23455E‐05 503373.0 3606831.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02Q 0 0.23455E‐05 503372.3 3606811.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02R 0 0.23455E‐05 503371.6 3606791.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02S 0 0.23455E‐05 503370.8 3606771.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02T 0 0.23455E‐05 503370.1 3606751.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02U 0 0.23455E‐05 503369.4 3606731.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02V 0 0.23455E‐05 503366.1 3606711.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
Attachment A
Page 929 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SGKOY02W 0 0.23455E‐05 503362.7 3606691.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02X 0 0.23455E‐05 503359.2 3606672.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02Y 0 0.23455E‐05 503355.8 3606652.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY02Z 0 0.23455E‐05 503352.3 3606632.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY030 0 0.23455E‐05 503348.9 3606613.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY031 0 0.23455E‐05 503345.5 3606593.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY032 0 0.23455E‐05 503342.0 3606573.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY033 0 0.23455E‐05 503337.5 3606554.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY034 0 0.23455E‐05 503332.6 3606534.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY035 0 0.23455E‐05 503327.6 3606515.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY036 0 0.23455E‐05 503322.6 3606496.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY037 0 0.23455E‐05 503317.6 3606476.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY038 0 0.23455E‐05 503312.6 3606457.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY039 0 0.23455E‐05 503307.7 3606437.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03A 0 0.23455E‐05 503302.7 3606418.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03B 0 0.23455E‐05 503297.7 3606399.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03C 0 0.23455E‐05 503292.8 3606379.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03D 0 0.23455E‐05 503288.2 3606360.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 5
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SGKOY03E 0 0.23455E‐05 503283.6 3606340.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03F 0 0.23455E‐05 503279.0 3606321.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03G 0 0.23455E‐05 503274.3 3606302.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03H 0 0.23455E‐05 503269.7 3606282.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03I 0 0.23455E‐05 503265.1 3606263.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03J 0 0.23455E‐05 503260.5 3606243.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03K 0 0.23455E‐05 503255.4 3606224.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03L 0 0.23455E‐05 503249.6 3606205.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03M 0 0.23455E‐05 503243.8 3606186.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03N 0 0.23455E‐05 503238.0 3606166.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03O 0 0.23455E‐05 503232.2 3606147.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03P 0 0.23455E‐05 503228.5 3606128.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03Q 0 0.23455E‐05 503225.0 3606108.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03R 0 0.23455E‐05 503221.4 3606088.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03S 0 0.23455E‐05 503217.8 3606069.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03T 0 0.23455E‐05 503214.2 3606049.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03U 0 0.23455E‐05 503210.7 3606029.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03V 0 0.23455E‐05 503207.1 3606010.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03W 0 0.23455E‐05 503203.5 3605990.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03X 0 0.23455E‐05 503200.3 3605970.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03Y 0 0.23455E‐05 503198.3 3605950.7 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY03Z 0 0.23455E‐05 503196.3 3605930.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY040 0 0.23455E‐05 503194.2 3605910.9 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY041 0 0.23455E‐05 503192.2 3605891.0 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY042 0 0.23455E‐05 503190.6 3605871.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY043 0 0.23455E‐05 503191.2 3605851.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY044 0 0.23455E‐05 503191.8 3605831.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY045 0 0.23455E‐05 503192.3 3605811.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY046 0 0.23455E‐05 503192.9 3605791.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY047 0 0.23455E‐05 503193.5 3605771.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY048 0 0.23455E‐05 503194.0 3605751.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY049 0 0.23455E‐05 503194.6 3605731.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY04A 0 0.23455E‐05 503195.2 3605711.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY04B 0 0.23455E‐05 503195.9 3605691.1 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
Attachment A
Page 930 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SGKOY04C 0 0.23455E‐05 503197.7 3605671.2 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY04D 0 0.23455E‐05 503199.4 3605651.3 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY04E 0 0.23455E‐05 503201.2 3605631.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY04F 0 0.23455E‐05 503202.7 3605611.4 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY04G 0 0.23455E‐05 503203.7 3605591.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY04H 0 0.23455E‐05 503204.8 3605571.5 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 6
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SGKOY04I 0 0.23455E‐05 503206.8 3605551.6 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
SGKOY04J 0 0.23455E‐05 503209.2 3605531.8 0.0 3.00 9.30 2.79 NO
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 7
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
ALL SGKOY002 , SGKOY003 , SGKOY004 , SGKOY005 , SGKOY006 , SGKOY007 , SGKOY008 ,
SGKOY009 ,
SGKOY00A , SGKOY00B , SGKOY00C , SGKOY00D , SGKOY00E , SGKOY00F , SGKOY00G ,
SGKOY00H ,
SGKOY00I , SGKOY00J , SGKOY00K , SGKOY00L , SGKOY00M , SGKOY00N , SGKOY00O ,
SGKOY00P ,
SGKOY00Q , SGKOY00R , SGKOY00S , SGKOY00T , SGKOY00U , SGKOY00V , SGKOY00W ,
SGKOY00X ,
SGKOY00Y , SGKOY00Z , SGKOY010 , SGKOY011 , SGKOY012 , SGKOY013 , SGKOY014 ,
SGKOY015 ,
SGKOY016 , SGKOY017 , SGKOY018 , SGKOY019 , SGKOY01A , SGKOY01B , SGKOY01C ,
SGKOY01D ,
SGKOY01E , SGKOY01F , SGKOY01G , SGKOY01H , SGKOY01I , SGKOY01J , SGKOY01K ,
SGKOY01L ,
SGKOY01M , SGKOY01N , SGKOY01O , SGKOY01P , SGKOY01Q , SGKOY01R , SGKOY01S ,
SGKOY01T ,
SGKOY01U , SGKOY01V , SGKOY01W , SGKOY01X , SGKOY01Y , SGKOY01Z , SGKOY020 ,
SGKOY021 ,
SGKOY022 , SGKOY023 , SGKOY024 , SGKOY025 , SGKOY026 , SGKOY027 , SGKOY028 ,
SGKOY029 ,
Attachment A
Page 931 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SGKOY02A , SGKOY02B , SGKOY02C , SGKOY02D , SGKOY02E , SGKOY02F , SGKOY02G ,
SGKOY02H ,
SGKOY02I , SGKOY02J , SGKOY02K , SGKOY02L , SGKOY02M , SGKOY02N , SGKOY02O ,
SGKOY02P ,
SGKOY02Q , SGKOY02R , SGKOY02S , SGKOY02T , SGKOY02U , SGKOY02V , SGKOY02W ,
SGKOY02X ,
SGKOY02Y , SGKOY02Z , SGKOY030 , SGKOY031 , SGKOY032 , SGKOY033 , SGKOY034 ,
SGKOY035 ,
SGKOY036 , SGKOY037 , SGKOY038 , SGKOY039 , SGKOY03A , SGKOY03B , SGKOY03C ,
SGKOY03D ,
SGKOY03E , SGKOY03F , SGKOY03G , SGKOY03H , SGKOY03I , SGKOY03J , SGKOY03K ,
SGKOY03L ,
SGKOY03M , SGKOY03N , SGKOY03O , SGKOY03P , SGKOY03Q , SGKOY03R , SGKOY03S ,
SGKOY03T ,
SGKOY03U , SGKOY03V , SGKOY03W , SGKOY03X , SGKOY03Y , SGKOY03Z , SGKOY040 ,
SGKOY041 ,
SGKOY042 , SGKOY043 , SGKOY044 , SGKOY045 , SGKOY046 , SGKOY047 , SGKOY048 ,
SGKOY049 ,
SGKOY04A , SGKOY04B , SGKOY04C , SGKOY04D , SGKOY04E , SGKOY04F , SGKOY04G ,
SGKOY04H ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 8
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
SGKOY04I , SGKOY04J ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 9
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** GRIDDED RECEPTOR NETWORK SUMMARY ***
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
*** X‐COORDINATES OF GRID ***
(METERS)
502155.1, 502252.2, 502349.3, 502446.4, 502543.5, 502640.6, 502737.7, 502834.8, 502931.9, 503029.0,
503126.1, 503223.2, 503320.3, 503417.4, 503514.5, 503611.6, 503708.7, 503805.8, 503902.9, 504000.0,
504097.1,
*** Y‐COORDINATES OF GRID ***
(METERS)
3608335.0, 3608220.5, 3608106.0, 3607991.5, 3607877.0, 3607762.5, 3607648.0, 3607533.5, 3607419.0, 3607304.5,
Attachment A
Page 932 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3607190.0, 3607075.5, 3606961.0, 3606846.5, 3606732.0, 3606617.5, 3606503.0, 3606388.5, 3606274.0, 3606159.5,
3606045.0,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 10
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
* ELEVATION HEIGHTS IN METERS *
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 502155.10 502252.20 502349.30 502446.40 502543.50 502640.60 502737.70
502834.80 502931.90
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3606045.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606159.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606274.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606388.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606503.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606617.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606732.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606846.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606961.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607075.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607190.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607304.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607419.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607533.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607648.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607762.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607877.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607991.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608106.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608220.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608335.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 11
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
Attachment A
Page 933 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
* ELEVATION HEIGHTS IN METERS *
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 503029.00 503126.10 503223.20 503320.30 503417.40 503514.50 503611.60
503708.70 503805.80
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3606045.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606159.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606274.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606388.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606503.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606617.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606732.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606846.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606961.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607075.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607190.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607304.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607419.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607533.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607648.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607762.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607877.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607991.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608106.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608220.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608335.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 12
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
* ELEVATION HEIGHTS IN METERS *
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 503902.90 504000.00 504097.10
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Attachment A
Page 934 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3606045.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606159.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606274.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606388.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606503.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606617.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606732.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606846.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606961.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607075.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607190.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607304.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607419.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607533.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607648.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607762.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607877.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607991.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3608106.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3608220.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3608335.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 13
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
* HILL HEIGHT SCALES IN METERS *
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 502155.10 502252.20 502349.30 502446.40 502543.50 502640.60 502737.70
502834.80 502931.90
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3606045.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606159.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606274.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606388.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606503.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606617.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606732.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606846.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606961.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607075.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607190.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607304.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607419.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607533.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607648.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Attachment A
Page 935 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
0.00 0.00
3607762.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607877.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607991.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608106.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608220.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608335.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 14
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
* HILL HEIGHT SCALES IN METERS *
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 503029.00 503126.10 503223.20 503320.30 503417.40 503514.50 503611.60
503708.70 503805.80
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3606045.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606159.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606274.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606388.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606503.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606617.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606732.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606846.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3606961.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607075.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607190.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607304.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607419.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607533.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607648.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607762.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607877.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3607991.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608106.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Attachment A
Page 936 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3608220.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3608335.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 15
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
* HILL HEIGHT SCALES IN METERS *
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 503902.90 504000.00 504097.10
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3606045.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606159.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606274.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606388.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606503.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606617.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606732.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606846.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3606961.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607075.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607190.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607304.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607419.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607533.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607648.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607762.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607877.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3607991.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3608106.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3608220.50 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
3608335.00 | 0.00 0.00 0.00
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 16
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
* SOURCE‐RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS FOR WHICH CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED *
LESS THAN 1.0 METER; WITHIN OPENPIT; OR BEYOND 80KM FOR FASTAREA/FASTALL
SOURCE ‐ ‐ RECEPTOR LOCATION ‐ ‐ DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SGKOY00S 502931.9 3608106.0 ‐12.37
SGKOY00T 502931.9 3608106.0 ‐6.13
SGKOY01C 503126.1 3607762.5 ‐11.19
SGKOY01D 503126.1 3607762.5 0.16
SGKOY021 503320.3 3607304.5 ‐17.80
SGKOY022 503320.3 3607304.5 ‐2.10
SGKOY035 503320.3 3606503.0 ‐5.61
SGKOY036 503320.3 3606503.0 ‐12.73
SGKOY03N 503223.2 3606159.5 ‐3.50
SGKOY03O 503223.2 3606159.5 ‐5.16
SGKOY03T 503223.2 3606045.0 ‐10.03
Attachment A
Page 937 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SGKOY03U 503223.2 3606045.0 ‐0.24
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 17
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING ***
(1=YES; 0=NO)
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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA
FILE.
*** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES ***
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 18
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA ***
Surface file: C:\Users\ryan\OneDrive\LDNONE~1\CI2617~1\22‐62O~1\AERMOD\KMA2012V15181.SFC Met Version:
15181
Profile file: C:\Users\ryan\OneDrive\LDNONE~1\CI2617~1\22‐62O~1\AERMOD\KMA2012V15181.PFL
Surface format: FREE
Profile format: FREE
Surface station no.: 93107 Upper air station no.: 3190
Name: OVERLANDSURFACESTATION Name: OVERLANDUPPERSTATION
Year: 2012 Year: 2012
First 24 hours of scalar data
YR MO DY JDY HR H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS WD HT REF TA
HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐
12 01 01 1 01 ‐0.5 0.025 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 9. 2.6 0.26 1.32 1.00 0.45 125. 10.0 283.8
10.0
12 01 01 1 02 ‐2.3 0.053 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 29. 5.8 0.34 1.32 1.00 0.89 334. 10.0 283.8
10.0
12 01 01 1 03 ‐0.6 0.027 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 11. 3.0 0.38 1.32 1.00 0.45 5. 10.0 285.9
10.0
Attachment A
Page 938 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
12 01 01 1 04 ‐0.5 0.025 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 9. 2.6 0.26 1.32 1.00 0.45 77. 10.0 284.9
10.0
12 01 01 1 05 ‐0.6 0.027 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 10. 2.9 0.34 1.32 1.00 0.45 336. 10.0 285.4
10.0
12 01 01 1 06 ‐0.5 0.025 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 10. 2.7 0.29 1.32 1.00 0.45 233. 10.0 284.2
10.0
12 01 01 1 07 ‐0.5 0.025 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 10. 2.7 0.29 1.32 1.00 0.45 175. 10.0 283.1
10.0
12 01 01 1 08 27.3 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. ‐999. ‐99999.0 0.31 1.32 0.49 0.00 0. 10.0 283.1
10.0
12 01 01 1 09 55.2 0.108 0.487 0.014 75. 85. ‐2.0 0.37 1.32 0.29 0.45 329. 10.0 286.4
10.0
12 01 01 1 10 123.3 0.120 0.896 0.007 208. 100. ‐1.3 0.37 1.32 0.22 0.45 321. 10.0 291.4
10.0
12 01 01 1 11 169.2 0.295 1.303 0.005 468. 384. ‐13.6 0.37 1.32 0.20 1.79 320. 10.0 295.4
10.0
12 01 01 1 12 191.0 0.299 1.625 0.005 805. 392. ‐12.5 0.37 1.32 0.19 1.79 310. 10.0 297.0
10.0
12 01 01 1 13 186.3 0.298 1.865 0.005 1245. 391. ‐12.7 0.37 1.32 0.19 1.79 307. 10.0 298.8
10.0
12 01 01 1 14 160.2 0.293 1.884 0.005 1493. 381. ‐14.1 0.37 1.32 0.20 1.79 305. 10.0 299.9
10.0
12 01 01 1 15 107.4 0.331 1.688 0.005 1601. 456. ‐30.0 0.37 1.32 0.23 2.24 305. 10.0 299.2
10.0
12 01 01 1 16 36.1 0.304 1.180 0.005 1627. 403. ‐69.5 0.37 1.32 0.32 2.24 300. 10.0 296.4
10.0
12 01 01 1 17 ‐4.7 0.079 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 139. 9.2 0.33 1.32 0.60 1.34 299. 10.0 294.2
10.0
12 01 01 1 18 ‐2.2 0.052 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 36. 5.8 0.33 1.32 1.00 0.89 279. 10.0 292.0
10.0
12 01 01 1 19 ‐0.5 0.025 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 10. 2.6 0.26 1.32 1.00 0.45 63. 10.0 289.9
10.0
12 01 01 1 20 ‐0.6 0.027 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 11. 3.1 0.38 1.32 1.00 0.45 19. 10.0 288.1
10.0
12 01 01 1 21 ‐2.2 0.052 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 29. 5.7 0.33 1.32 1.00 0.89 290. 10.0 287.0
10.0
12 01 01 1 22 ‐2.4 0.054 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 30. 6.0 0.37 1.32 1.00 0.89 329. 10.0 285.4
10.0
12 01 01 1 23 ‐2.3 0.053 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 29. 5.8 0.34 1.32 1.00 0.89 330. 10.0 284.9
10.0
12 01 01 1 24 ‐0.6 0.026 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 10. 2.9 0.33 1.32 1.00 0.45 291. 10.0 284.9
10.0
First hour of profile data
YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV
12 01 01 01 10.0 1 125. 0.45 283.8 48.0 ‐99.00 0.27
F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 19
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 1 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): SGKOY002 , SGKOY003 , SGKOY004 , SGKOY005 ,
SGKOY006 ,
SGKOY007 , SGKOY008 , SGKOY009 , SGKOY00A , SGKOY00B , SGKOY00C , SGKOY00D ,
SGKOY00E ,
SGKOY00F , SGKOY00G , SGKOY00H , SGKOY00I , SGKOY00J , SGKOY00K , SGKOY00L ,
SGKOY00M ,
SGKOY00N , SGKOY00O , SGKOY00P , SGKOY00Q , SGKOY00R , SGKOY00S , SGKOY00T ,
. . . ,
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
Attachment A
Page 939 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
** CONC OF PM10 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 502155.10 502252.20 502349.30 502446.40 502543.50 502640.60 502737.70
502834.80 502931.90
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3606045.00 | 0.00144 0.00159 0.00177 0.00200 0.00228 0.00265 0.00315
0.00386 0.00495
3606159.50 | 0.00148 0.00163 0.00182 0.00204 0.00233 0.00269 0.00318
0.00385 0.00485
3606274.00 | 0.00151 0.00166 0.00185 0.00207 0.00235 0.00271 0.00317
0.00380 0.00470
3606388.50 | 0.00153 0.00169 0.00187 0.00210 0.00237 0.00271 0.00315
0.00373 0.00454
3606503.00 | 0.00156 0.00171 0.00190 0.00212 0.00238 0.00271 0.00312
0.00366 0.00440
3606617.50 | 0.00158 0.00174 0.00192 0.00214 0.00239 0.00271 0.00310
0.00361 0.00429
3606732.00 | 0.00160 0.00176 0.00194 0.00216 0.00241 0.00272 0.00310
0.00358 0.00423
3606846.50 | 0.00163 0.00178 0.00197 0.00218 0.00243 0.00274 0.00311
0.00359 0.00422
3606961.00 | 0.00165 0.00181 0.00200 0.00221 0.00247 0.00277 0.00315
0.00363 0.00426
3607075.50 | 0.00168 0.00184 0.00203 0.00225 0.00251 0.00283 0.00322
0.00371 0.00436
3607190.00 | 0.00171 0.00188 0.00207 0.00230 0.00258 0.00291 0.00331
0.00383 0.00453
3607304.50 | 0.00174 0.00192 0.00213 0.00237 0.00266 0.00301 0.00345
0.00401 0.00477
3607419.00 | 0.00178 0.00197 0.00219 0.00245 0.00276 0.00314 0.00363
0.00426 0.00513
3607533.50 | 0.00182 0.00202 0.00226 0.00254 0.00289 0.00332 0.00387
0.00461 0.00565
3607648.00 | 0.00186 0.00208 0.00234 0.00265 0.00304 0.00354 0.00419
0.00509 0.00643
3607762.50 | 0.00190 0.00214 0.00243 0.00278 0.00323 0.00382 0.00463
0.00578 0.00765
3607877.00 | 0.00193 0.00219 0.00252 0.00293 0.00346 0.00418 0.00521
0.00682 0.00977
3607991.50 | 0.00196 0.00224 0.00261 0.00308 0.00372 0.00463 0.00603
0.00848 0.01445
3608106.00 | 0.00196 0.00227 0.00268 0.00323 0.00401 0.00519 0.00719
0.01148 0.01766
3608220.50 | 0.00193 0.00226 0.00271 0.00334 0.00430 0.00587 0.00897
0.01956 0.01400
3608335.00 | 0.00184 0.00219 0.00267 0.00337 0.00450 0.00659 0.01176
0.02144 0.00928
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 20
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 1 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): SGKOY002 , SGKOY003 , SGKOY004 , SGKOY005 ,
SGKOY006 ,
SGKOY007 , SGKOY008 , SGKOY009 , SGKOY00A , SGKOY00B , SGKOY00C , SGKOY00D ,
SGKOY00E ,
SGKOY00F , SGKOY00G , SGKOY00H , SGKOY00I , SGKOY00J , SGKOY00K , SGKOY00L ,
SGKOY00M ,
SGKOY00N , SGKOY00O , SGKOY00P , SGKOY00Q , SGKOY00R , SGKOY00S , SGKOY00T ,
. . . ,
Attachment A
Page 940 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
** CONC OF PM10 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 503029.00 503126.10 503223.20 503320.30 503417.40 503514.50 503611.60
503708.70 503805.80
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3606045.00 | 0.00683 0.01103 0.01610 0.01038 0.00680 0.00508 0.00404
0.00334 0.00283
3606159.50 | 0.00650 0.00986 0.01523 0.01224 0.00759 0.00554 0.00436
0.00357 0.00301
3606274.00 | 0.00612 0.00873 0.01609 0.01554 0.00859 0.00607 0.00469
0.00380 0.00318
3606388.50 | 0.00577 0.00789 0.01288 0.02150 0.00987 0.00667 0.00505
0.00404 0.00334
3606503.00 | 0.00548 0.00724 0.01088 0.01603 0.01161 0.00735 0.00541
0.00426 0.00349
3606617.50 | 0.00526 0.00678 0.00966 0.01925 0.01373 0.00803 0.00574
0.00445 0.00361
3606732.00 | 0.00513 0.00651 0.00900 0.01580 0.01605 0.00858 0.00598
0.00458 0.00369
3606846.50 | 0.00509 0.00642 0.00878 0.01506 0.01696 0.00882 0.00609
0.00464 0.00373
3606961.00 | 0.00514 0.00647 0.00886 0.01532 0.01673 0.00878 0.00606
0.00462 0.00371
3607075.50 | 0.00527 0.00668 0.00924 0.01664 0.01547 0.00845 0.00590
0.00453 0.00365
3607190.00 | 0.00551 0.00706 0.01006 0.02113 0.01332 0.00787 0.00563
0.00437 0.00355
3607304.50 | 0.00587 0.00767 0.01140 0.01788 0.01139 0.00721 0.00529
0.00416 0.00340
3607419.00 | 0.00643 0.00868 0.01405 0.02082 0.00963 0.00649 0.00489
0.00390 0.00323
3607533.50 | 0.00729 0.01046 0.02245 0.01354 0.00804 0.00576 0.00447
0.00362 0.00302
3607648.00 | 0.00871 0.01407 0.02252 0.01006 0.00674 0.00507 0.00403
0.00332 0.00281
3607762.50 | 0.01138 0.01790 0.01263 0.00782 0.00568 0.00444 0.00362
0.00303 0.00258
3607877.00 | 0.01856 0.01590 0.00892 0.00628 0.00482 0.00389 0.00323
0.00274 0.00236
3607991.50 | 0.02114 0.01006 0.00683 0.00516 0.00412 0.00340 0.00287
0.00247 0.00215
3608106.00 | 0.01146 0.00739 0.00547 0.00431 0.00353 0.00297 0.00255
0.00221 0.00195
3608220.50 | 0.00810 0.00578 0.00448 0.00363 0.00303 0.00259 0.00225
0.00198 0.00176
3608335.00 | 0.00616 0.00462 0.00369 0.00305 0.00260 0.00225 0.00198
0.00176 0.00158
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 21
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 1 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): SGKOY002 , SGKOY003 , SGKOY004 , SGKOY005 ,
SGKOY006 ,
SGKOY007 , SGKOY008 , SGKOY009 , SGKOY00A , SGKOY00B , SGKOY00C , SGKOY00D ,
SGKOY00E ,
SGKOY00F , SGKOY00G , SGKOY00H , SGKOY00I , SGKOY00J , SGKOY00K , SGKOY00L ,
SGKOY00M ,
Attachment A
Page 941 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SGKOY00N , SGKOY00O , SGKOY00P , SGKOY00Q , SGKOY00R , SGKOY00S , SGKOY00T ,
. . . ,
*** NETWORK ID: O19UC003 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART ***
** CONC OF PM10 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
Y‐COORD | X‐COORD (METERS)
(METERS) | 503902.90 504000.00 504097.10
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3606045.00 | 0.00244 0.00214 0.00189
3606159.50 | 0.00258 0.00225 0.00198
3606274.00 | 0.00271 0.00235 0.00206
3606388.50 | 0.00283 0.00244 0.00213
3606503.00 | 0.00293 0.00252 0.00219
3606617.50 | 0.00302 0.00258 0.00224
3606732.00 | 0.00307 0.00262 0.00227
3606846.50 | 0.00309 0.00263 0.00228
3606961.00 | 0.00308 0.00262 0.00227
3607075.50 | 0.00304 0.00259 0.00225
3607190.00 | 0.00297 0.00254 0.00220
3607304.50 | 0.00286 0.00245 0.00214
3607419.00 | 0.00273 0.00235 0.00205
3607533.50 | 0.00258 0.00223 0.00196
3607648.00 | 0.00241 0.00210 0.00185
3607762.50 | 0.00224 0.00196 0.00174
3607877.00 | 0.00206 0.00182 0.00162
3607991.50 | 0.00189 0.00168 0.00151
3608106.00 | 0.00173 0.00155 0.00139
3608220.50 | 0.00157 0.00142 0.00129
3608335.00 | 0.00143 0.00130 0.00119
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 22
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 1 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): SGKOY002 , SGKOY003 , SGKOY004 , SGKOY005 ,
SGKOY006 ,
SGKOY007 , SGKOY008 , SGKOY009 , SGKOY00A , SGKOY00B , SGKOY00C , SGKOY00D ,
SGKOY00E ,
SGKOY00F , SGKOY00G , SGKOY00H , SGKOY00I , SGKOY00J , SGKOY00K , SGKOY00L ,
SGKOY00M ,
SGKOY00N , SGKOY00O , SGKOY00P , SGKOY00Q , SGKOY00R , SGKOY00S , SGKOY00T ,
. . . ,
*** SENSITIVE DISCRETE RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF PM10 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
502856.00 3608100.00 0.01296 503128.70 3607654.70 0.01469
503178.80 3607524.00 0.01376 503218.20 3607407.60 0.01322
503248.70 3607276.90 0.01275 503232.60 3607103.20 0.00979
503311.30 3606823.80 0.01406 503297.00 3606648.30 0.01444
503000.10 3607783.90 0.01047
Attachment A
Page 942 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 23
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 1 YEARS ***
** CONC OF PM10 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE
GRID‐ID
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐
ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02252 AT ( 503223.20, 3607648.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02245 AT ( 503223.20, 3607533.50, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02150 AT ( 503320.30, 3606388.50, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02144 AT ( 502834.80, 3608335.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02114 AT ( 503029.00, 3607991.50, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02113 AT ( 503320.30, 3607190.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02082 AT ( 503320.30, 3607419.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.01956 AT ( 502834.80, 3608220.50, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.01925 AT ( 503320.30, 3606617.50, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.01856 AT ( 503029.00, 3607877.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC
O19UC003
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 19191 *** *** PM10 Exhaust I 125 ***
09/14/23
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 15181 *** *** ***
17:07:05
PAGE 24
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV NODRYDPLT NOWETDPLT RURAL SigA Data
*** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 1 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 178 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 8784 Hours Were Processed
A Total of 101 Calm Hours Identified
A Total of 77 Missing Hours Identified ( 0.88 Percent)
Attachment A
Page 943 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
MX W403 597 PFLCNV: Turbulence data is being used w/o ADJ_U* option SigA Data
************************************
*** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***
************************************
Attachment A
Page 944 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission Rates
Region Type: Sub‐Area RoadwayADT 94000 Trips/Day
Region: San Diego (SD)
RoadwaySegmentAERMOD_V
olumeSourceDistance 2 Miles/Trip
Calendar Year: 2030 SegmentVMT 188000 Miles/Day
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, mph for Speed, kWh/mile for Energy Consumption, gallon/mile for Fuel Consumption. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.
Region CalYr VehClass MdlYr Speed Fuel VMT %ofTotalVMT
VMT on Roadway
Segment PM10_RUNEX Total Grams
Grams from DSL
Only
San Diego (SD) 2030 HHDT Aggregate 65 Gasoline 102.0680246 0.00099%1.869603437 0.001056787 0.001975773 000
San Diego (SD) 2030 HHDT Aggregate 65 Diesel 476977.1165 4.64729%8736.899337 0.033846245 295.7112323 295.7112323 8736.899 0.046473
San Diego (SD) 2030 HHDT Aggregate 65 Electricity 22097.10059 0.21530%404.7576641 00 0 00
San Diego (SD) 2030 HHDT Aggregate 65 Natural Gas 10896.65897 0.10617%199.5966038 0.001482321 0.295866255 000
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDA Aggregate 65 Gasoline 5017668.698 48.88819%91909.7894 0.000900929 82.80421422 000
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDA Aggregate 65 Diesel 8968.585376 0.08738%164.2796372 0.006234403 1.024185463 1.024185463 164.2796 0.000874
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDA Aggregate 65 Electricity 3816.252679 0.03718%69.90317638 00 0 00
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDA Aggregate 65 Plug‐in Hybrid 98369.0975 0.95843%1801.84934 0.000890811 1.605106679 000
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDT1 Aggregate 65 Gasoline 407262.5409 3.96804%7459.921452 0.001361701 10.15818327 000
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDT1 Aggregate 65 Diesel 6.603308945 0.00006%0.120954326 0.144209248 0.017442732 0.017442732 0.120954 6.43E‐07
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDT1 Aggregate 65 Electricity 29.17317531 0.00028%0.534371749 00 0 00
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDT1 Aggregate 65 Plug‐in Hybrid 1328.402116 0.01294%24.33264651 0.000586885 0.014280453 000
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDT2 Aggregate 65 Gasoline 2512628.305 24.48106%46024.38946 0.000954869 43.94725535 000
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDT2 Aggregate 65 Diesel 9778.961743 0.09528%179.1234871 0.003497765 0.626531864 0.626531864 179.1235 0.000953
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDT2 Aggregate 65 Electricity 259.1944394 0.00253%4.747724046 00 0 00
San Diego (SD) 2030 LDT2 Aggregate 65 Plug‐in Hybrid 18585.65391 0.18108%340.4376893 0.000714008 0.243075299 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 MCY Aggregate 65 Gasoline 44428.96277 0.43288%813.8155102 0.001874979 1.525886885 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 MDV Aggregate 65 Gasoline 1448074.615 14.10889%26524.71514 0.000922424 24.46704282 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 MDV Aggregate 65 Diesel 21030.87111 0.20491%385.2272939 0.003712056 1.429985432 1.429985432
San Diego (SD) 2030 MDV Aggregate 65 Electricity 256.9376507 0.00250%4.70638593 00 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 MDV Aggregate 65 Plug‐in Hybrid 11878.44654 0.11573%217.5802321 0.000761543 0.165696787 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 MH Aggregate 65 Gasoline 13670.14107 0.13319%250.399112 0.000976384 0.244485804 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 MH Aggregate 65 Diesel 7071.198369 0.06890%129.5247638 0.107658219 13.94440542 13.94440542
San Diego (SD) 2030 MHDT Aggregate 65 Gasoline 36398.93029 0.35464%666.7275618 0.000974139 0.64948534 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 MHDT Aggregate 65 Diesel 60143.23597 0.58599%1101.65746 0.009932077 10.94174691 10.94174691
San Diego (SD) 2030 MHDT Aggregate 65 Electricity 10563.7863 0.10293%193.4992986 00 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 MHDT Aggregate 65 Natural Gas 1086.373481 0.01058%19.89935243 0.000801984 0.015958962 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 OBUS Aggregate 65 Gasoline 7090.016097 0.06908%129.8694524 0.000919174 0.11937262 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 OBUS Aggregate 65 Diesel 6246.439275 0.06086%114.4174621 0.033238952 3.803116502 3.803116502
San Diego (SD) 2030 OBUS Aggregate 65 Electricity 763.6387483 0.00744%13.98774625 00 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 OBUS Aggregate 65 Natural Gas 0.002009905 0.00000%3.68159E‐05 0.000690239 2.54118E‐08 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 SBUS Aggregate 65 Gasoline 760.8554656 0.00741%13.93676422 0.000837329 0.011669653 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 SBUS Aggregate 65 Diesel 1840.24565 0.01793%33.70820202 0.023734949 0.800062441 0.800062441
San Diego (SD) 2030 SBUS Aggregate 65 Electricity 211.9943789 0.00207%3.883149703 00 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 SBUS Aggregate 65 Natural Gas 27.01749634 0.00026%0.494885683 0.002120519 0.001049414 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 UBUS Aggregate 65 Gasoline 13.78906496 0.00013%0.252577468 0.001023295 0.000258461 0
San Diego (SD) 2030 UBUS Aggregate 65 Electricity 929.907208 0.00906%17.0333238 00 0 00
San Diego (SD) 2030 UBUS Aggregate 65 Natural Gas 2299.023967 0.02240%42.11174977 0.000155955 0.006567527 000
Total VMT 10263560.84 100.00000%188000
Total Grams from DSL Only
PM10 per Day 328.2987091
Total Grams from DSL
PM10 per Second (g/s)0.003799754
MERV 13 %Passing from
Roadway (g/s)0.000379975
Attachment B
Page 945 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
REC: R1 (Indoor Area)
Age (Years)3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.01296 0.01296 0.01296 0.01296 0.01296 0.01296
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1)111111
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000280 0.00000819 0.00000666 0.00000562 0.00000261 0.00000230
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 9.34786E‐08 2.18698E‐06 1.58153E‐06 2.67234E‐06 4.19605E‐07 1.95315E‐06
0.093478629 2.186984448 1.581526426 2.672336241 0.419605402 1.953153463
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 5.37
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 6.91
REC: R2 (Indoor Area)
Age (Years) 3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.01469 0.01469 0.01469 0.01469 0.01469 0.01469
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000317 0.00000928 0.00000754 0.00000637 0.00000296 0.00000272
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 1.05957E‐07 2.47892E‐06 1.79264E‐06 3.02906E‐06 4.75618E‐07 2.30612E‐06
0.105956871 2.478919872 1.792640678 3.029060137 0.475617542 2.306120143
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 6.09
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 7.92
REC: R3 (Indoor Area)
Age (Years) 3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.01376 0.01376 0.01376 0.01376 0.01376 0.01376
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000297 0.00000869 0.00000707 0.00000597 0.00000277 0.00000255
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 9.92489E‐08 2.32198E‐06 1.67915E‐06 2.8373E‐06 4.45507E‐07 2.16012E‐06
0.099248914 2.321983488 1.679151514 2.837295268 0.44550697 2.160123429
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 5.70
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 7.42
REC: R4 (Indoor Area)
Age (Years) 3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.01322 0.01322 0.01322 0.01322 0.01322 0.01322
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000286 0.00000835 0.00000679 0.00000574 0.00000267 0.00000245
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 9.5354E‐08 2.23086E‐06 1.61325E‐06 2.72595E‐06 4.28023E‐07 2.07535E‐06
0.095353971 2.230859136 1.613254579 2.725947924 0.428023411 2.075351143
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 5.48
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 7.13
Cancer Risk Calculations
Attachment C
Page 946 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
REC: R5 (Indoor Area)
Age (Years) 3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.01275 0.01275 0.01275 0.01275 0.01275 0.01275
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000275 0.00000805 0.00000655 0.00000553 0.00000257 0.00000236
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 9.19639E‐08 2.15155E‐06 1.5559E‐06 2.62903E‐06 4.12806E‐07 2.00157E‐06
0.091963929 2.1515472 1.55589984 2.629034496 0.41280624 2.001567857
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 5.29
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 6.87
REC: R6 (Indoor Area)
Age (Years) 3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.00979 0.00979 0.00979 0.00979 0.00979 0.00979
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000211 0.00000618 0.00000503 0.00000425 0.00000197 0.00000181
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 7.06139E‐08 1.65205E‐06 1.19469E‐06 2.01869E‐06 3.1697E‐07 1.53689E‐06
0.070613871 1.652050752 1.194687014 2.018686095 0.316970438 1.536890143
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 4.06
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 5.28
REC: R7 (Indoor Area)
Age (Years) 3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.01406 0.01406 0.01406 0.01406 0.01406 0.01406
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000304 0.00000888 0.00000722 0.00000610 0.00000283 0.00000260
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 1.01413E‐07 2.37261E‐06 1.71576E‐06 2.89915E‐06 4.5522E‐07 2.20722E‐06
0.101412771 2.372608128 1.715760922 2.899154903 0.455220058 2.207219143
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 5.83
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 7.58
REC: R8 (Outdoor Façade)
Age (Years) 3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.01444 0.01444 0.01444 0.01444 0.01444 0.01444
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000312 0.00000912 0.00000742 0.00000627 0.00000291 0.00000267
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 1.04154E‐07 2.43673E‐06 1.76213E‐06 2.97751E‐06 4.67523E‐07 2.26687E‐06
0.104153657 2.436732672 1.762132838 2.977510441 0.467523302 2.266873714
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 5.99
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 7.79
Cancer Risk Calculations
Attachment C
Page 947 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
REC: R9 (Outdoor Façade)
Age (Years) 3rd Trimester (0.25) 0‐2 2‐9 2‐16 16‐30 16‐70
Cair (annual) ‐ From AERMOD 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105
Average Breathing Rate per agegroup BR/BW 225 658 535 452 210 185
A (Default is 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exposure Frequency = EF (days/365days) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1
10^‐6 Microgram to Milligram / liters to m3 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
Dose‐inh 0.00000227 0.00000663 0.00000539 0.00000456 0.00000212 0.00000194
Potency factor for Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1 1
ED (Residents live onsite for 30 years)0.25 2 7 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70 70 70
FAH 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.73 1
Risk for Each Age Group 7.5735E‐08 1.77186E‐06 1.28133E‐06 2.16509E‐06 3.39958E‐07 1.64835E‐06
0.075735 1.7718624 1.28132928 2.165087232 0.33995808 1.64835
Cancer Risk Per Million 30‐years 4.35
Cancer Risk Per Million 70‐years 5.66
Attachment C
Page 948 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment
Justification Report
GPA22-0002
December 2023
PREPARED FOR:
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Adopted ______________
By Resolution No. ______________
PREPARED BY:
RH Consulting Group, LLC
Contact: Ranie Hunter
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
619-823-1494
Page 949 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 950 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction & Background ........................................................................................................... 1
II. Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................................ 1
III. Village 8 East Project Proposal.................................................................................................. 3
A. Development Schedule .............................................................................................................. 4
B. Other Village 8 East Entitlements.............................................................................................. 4
IV. Land Use Considerations ........................................................................................................... 5
V. Economic Considerations .......................................................................................................... 5
VI. Environmental Considerations ................................................................................................... 6
VII. Housing Development Considerations ...................................................................................... 6
VIII. Infrastructure Considerations ..................................................................................................... 6
IX. Public Benefit Consideration ..................................................................................................... 6
X. Annexation ................................................................................................................................. 6
XI. List of Proposed General Plan Amendments ............................................................................. 6
XII. General Plan Element Objective/Policy: ................................................................................... 1
Page 951 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 952 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 1
I. Introduction & Background
The Village 8 (Village 8 West and Village 8 East) portion of Otay Ranch was originally entitled
when the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)/Otay Subregional Plan (SRP) was
adopted by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors in 1993.
The GDP designated Village 8 an Urban Village with a mix of land uses.
In 2014, the Chula Vista City Council approved the Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 2014-235), Tentative Map (CVT No. 13-03) (Resolution No.
2014-238) and associated amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan (CVGP) and GDP. On
February 18, 2020, an amendment to the Village 8 East SPA Plan (Resolution No. 2020-236)
and Tentative Map (Resolution No. 2020-237) were approved by the Chula Vista City Council.
This amendment transferred 284 multi-familly units from Village 8 East to Village 8 West,
reducing the authorized units in Village 8 East from 3,590 to 3,276. HomeFed Otay Land II,
LLC (HomeFed) is proposing amendments to the Village 8 East land uses and other associated
changes which necessitate amendments to the CVGP, including the following:
• Modify the areas designated “Mixed Use Residential”
• Change the land use designation of areas designated “Medium Residential” to
“Medium High Residential”
• Designate a “High Residential” area with an “ES” designation overlaid
• Shift the school and neighborhood park symbols to the western portion of Villag 8 East
• Rename Otay Valley Road to La Media Parkway
• Update the alignment of La Media Parkway and the proposed SR-125 interchange
location
• Update the CVGP Tables and exhibits to reflect the Proposed Project
Amendments to the CVGP are necessary to implement the proposed land use changes
described in more detail below and reflected in the amended Village 8 East SPA Plan and the
revised Village 8 East Tentative Map (CVT NO. 22-0005).
II. Existing Site Conditions
The Project Area is comprised of approximately 569 acres designated Village 8 East in the
Otay Ranch GDP. The Project Area is located in the central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel
of Otay Ranch – within the CVGP, Otay Ranch Subarea – Western District. The SPA Project
Area is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Chula Vista. The current CVGP
designates Village 8 East an urban village containing Residential Medium, an elementary
school site, Mixed Use Residential, up to 20,000 SF of retail and a neighborhood park. The
Project Area is governed by the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations approved with
the SPA Plan.
The Project Area was historically utilized for dry farming activities, is currently vacant, with
a portion of Project Area authorized as an off-site borrow/fill site as part of the adjacent Village
8 West grading operation.
Surrounding land uses include Village 7 to the north, Village 8 West to the west, the Otay
River Valley to the south and SR-125 to the east. The Project Area landform consists of large
mesas north of the Otay River Valley. The southern edge of Village 8 East consist of
undulating slopes and the Otay River Valley.
Page 953 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 2
Future access to the Project Area is provided via the extension of La Media Parkway from its
existing terminus in Village 8 West and the easterly extension of Main Street. Regional access
is provided via I-805 to the west and SR-125 to the east. (See Vicinity Map below) Access,
surrounding land use designations and adopted and proposed Village 8 East land use
designations are depicted on the “General Plan Land Use Diagram” provided below.
GENERAL PLAN VICINITY MAP
Page 954 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 3
III. Village 8 East Project Proposal
The proposed Village 8 East SPA Plan includes a total of 3,276 dwelling units. At the General
Plan level, the proposed allocation of dwelling units between Mixed Use Residential and High
and Medium High Residential is different than the 2014 Village 8 East approved entitlements.
This residential unit redistribution maintains the existing entitlement and enables
implementation of innovative and new residential product types across multiple parcels. The
Mixed Use Residential land use category permits a mix of higher density residential and
commercial uses in either verticle or horizontal configurations within the Village Core. Other
land uses within Village 8 East include an elementary school site, a neighborhood park,
Community Purpose Facility sites, manufactured open space and Preserve open space.
A variety of residential product types are proposed within Village 8 East, including detached
homes and attached multi-family product types including row townhomes, custer homes,
triplex homes and apartment homes, many in a mixed use setting. Non-residential land uses
include up to 20,000 SF commercial uses within the Mixed Use Residential area.
The Otay Ranch Community Park South is also within the Village 8 East SPA boundary and
is designated active recreation as part of the CVGP Otay Valley District. In 2014, a portion of
this site located south of Village 8 East and west of SR-125 was designated a community park
(Otay Ranch Community Park South) as part of the City’s park system. The remaining active
recreation area designated AR-11 in the Otay Ranch GDP is also within the SPA boundary and
is available for future development by the City of Chula Vista (property owner).
A comparison between the Village 8 East land uses approved in the 2014 Plan and the Proposed
Plan is depicted in the table provided below.
Page 955 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 4
Land Use Comparison Table – 2014 vs Proposed Land Uses
2014 SPA Plan
Land Uses
Proposed 2023 SPA Plan
Land Uses
2014 vs. Proposed Land
Uses
Land Use Acres Units1 Acres Units Acres2 Units
Medium Residential 124.9 918 0 0 -124.9 -918
Medium High Residential 2.1 25 120.1 1,664 +118.0 +1,639
High Residential/School Site 10.8 11.3 264 -0.6 +264
Mixed Use Residential 65.2 2,333 59.0 1,348 -6.2 -985
Neighborhood Park 7.3 0 7.3 0 0 0
Community Park 51.5 43.3 -8.2
Active Recreation (AR-11) 22.6 22.6 0
Manufactured Open Space 11.2 0 31.4 0 +20.2 0
Open Space Preserve 253.6 253.6 0
Community Purpose Facility 4.5 0 2.0 0 -2.5 0
Other3 21.6 18.5 -3.1
TOTAL 575.3 3,276 569.1 3,276 -7.3 0
*The Proposed Project includes a 284 unit reduction in the Residential High General Plan Land Use Designation within Village 8 East.
A. Development Schedule
The Village 8 East development schedule assumes entitlements are approved in late 2023.
Initial grading activities would be initiated in 2023, with build out anticipated over a 3-5 year
period.
B. Other Village 8 East Entitlements
Along with this proposed CVGP Amendment, HomeFed is concurrently processing the
following entitlements and agreements:
• Otay Ranch GDP Amendment (GDP22-0005);
• Village 8 East SPA Plan Amendment (including SPA Appendices) (SPA22-
0006);
• Village 8 East Tentative Map (CVT No. 22-0005);
• Rezone (ZC22-0003); and
• Development Agreement Amendment
1 The 2014 Land Uses reflects the 284 -unit reduction in the Residential High General Plan Land Use Designation within
Village 8 East.
2 The Proposed Project includes 7.3 acres less than the 2014 SPA Plan due to changes in SR -125 ROW.
3 Other category includes Future Development Lots A and B, external circulation and SR-125 Lots 1-3 for 2014 plan and
Future Development Lots A and B and external circulation for Proposed Plan.
Page 956 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 5
IV. Land Use Considerations
Village 8 West and Village 8 East were originally envisioned as one village in the Otay Ranch
GDP; however, the villages were split along ownership lines during the SPA-level planning
and entitlement process. Since these areas were entitled in 2013/2014, HomeFed acquir ed
Village 8 East and has a vision for creating one village with strong linkages and design
elements. HomeFed is proposing land use changes to Village 8 East that would create a
cohesive village (Village 8 West and Village 8 East) and provide residents with access to
shared recreational amenities and a seamless design. In addition, proposed land use
amendments address changes in the real estate market since the original entitlements were
approved in 2014. The revised land use plan enables delivery of the full residential
entitlements and provides for a variety of product types, creating an opportunity for first time
home buyers, move-up home buyers and renters. The amended Village 8 East land use plan
creates an enhanced pedestrian, bicycle and Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) network
that features the future Multi-Modal bridge between Village 8 East and Village 9, the Chula
Vista Regional Trail, the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail and an internal trail network featuring
Village Pathway connections and linkages between neighborhoods to an extensive trail
network.
The proposed Village 8 East land use plan enhances compatible with the adjacent Village 8
West, while creating a unique theme and experience for Village 8 East residents and visitors.
The architectural theme for Village 8 East is inspired by Eastern European influences and the
historical agrarian Otay Ranch property. The landscape concept is reflective of Village 8 West
further to implement this cohesive theme.
Because the proposed project intensity is consistent with the current CVGP and revisions to
the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map remain consistent with the CVGP, no impacts
on adjacent development are anticipated.
V. Economic Considerations
Pursuant to the requirements in CVMC 19.09.040, Threshold Standards for City Facilities, H.
Fiscal, the Applicant prepared an updated fiscal analysis for the Proposed Project (Village 8
East – Fiscal Impact Analysis, DPFG, September 2023). The fiscal update model assumed
full build out of 3,276 residential units and no commercial square footage, which represents
the most conservative land use scenario. However, the Proposed Project includes
development of up to 20,000 SF of commercial uses; therefore, the anticipated fiscal outcome
is likely to be more positive than the following estimates. The results generated from the
residential only fiscal model meet the requirements of CVMC 19.09.040 and demonstrate that
the Proposed Project will generate a fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($452,114 - $3,573,827)
representing cumulative revenue of $48,014,928 through year 20.
The full fiscal analysis model and assumptions are provided in the Village 8 East SPA
Amendment Fiscal Summary Report dated May 2023. This report demonstrates that the
proposed project would comply with City requirements for new development.
Page 957 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 6
VI. Environmental Considerations
Technical analyses and updates to 2014 technical reports were prepared to determine if the
Proposed Project resulted in any potential impacts on air quality, green house gas, noise,
cultural resources, biological resources, traffic and geology. The analyses support a
determination that approval and implementation of the proposed modifications to Village 8
East would not result in any additional significant environmental effects beyond those
previously analyzed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2014 project.
VII. Housing Development Considerations
The Village 8 East project is subject to the City of Chula Vista inclusionary affordable housing
requirements. This obligation to be addressed in the Balanced Communities Affordable
Housing Agreement [Otay Ranch Village 8 East].
VIII. Infrastructure Considerations
The 2014 Village 8 East SPA Plan includes a Public Facility Finance Plan (PFFP) that outlines
the infrastructure, services and facilities needed to serve Village 8 East, consistent with the
City’s Growth Management Ordinance (GMO). The City repealed the GMO in November
2022. A Supplemental PFFP (2023) was prepared for the project to address traffic, police,
fire and emergency medical services, schools, libraries, parks, trails and open space, water,
sewer, drainage, air quality, civic center corporation and other public facilities to ensure the
proposed Village 8 East Plan provides the infrastructure necessary to serve the Project Area
and complies with City requirements.
IX. Public Benefit Consideration
The community focus on wellness and outdoor activities will enhance the quality of life for
future residents. The creation of a vibrant “main street” village core containing village-serving
commercial/retail uses and market-rate for-sale and rental and affordable housing rental
homes, creates a synergy and balance of land uses and a dynamic environment where residents
may live, recreate and work. The proposed Village 8 East changes will positively impact
community character by creating a unique architectural and aesthetic theme that complement
Village 8 West, establishes a sense of place and help meet the need for housing within the City
of Chula Vista.
X. Annexation
No annexations actions are planned for Village 8 East.
XI. List of Proposed General Plan Amendments
With the proposed amendments, Village 8 East will remain consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan land use, transportation, economic development, housing, public facilities and
services and environmental objectives and policies. This section provides a list of proposed
amendments by CVGP page number. Proposed revisions to CVGP diagrams, exhibits and
tables are provided below.
Chapter 5 – Land Use and Transportation Element
• General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 5-12, Page LUT-47)
Page 958 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 7
o Modify the General Plan residential and mixed use land use designations by
eliminating Medium Residential and implementing Mixed Use Residential within the
Village Core area and High and Medium High Residential surrounding the Village
Core.
o Shift the elementary and neighborhood park symbol to the western portion of Village
8 East
o Realign La Media Parkway and shift the proposed SR-125 interchange to the north
• General Plan Land Use Distribution in 2030 (Acreages), (Table 5-6, Page LUT-56)
o Modify the land use acreages to reflect the proposed project
• General Plan Land Use in 2030 (Table 5-7, Page LUT-57)
o Modify the residential dwelling units within the Residential Medium, Residential
Medium High, High and Mixed Use Residential land use designations to reflect the
proposed project
• Otay Ranch Subarea – Central District (Figure 5-44, Page LUT-262)
o Modify the General Plan residential and mixed use land use designations by
eliminating Medium Residential and implementing Mixed Use Residential within the
Village Core area and High and Medium High Residential surrounding the Village
Core.
o Shift the elementary and neighborhood park symbol to the west
o Realign La Media Parkway and shift the proposed SR-125 interchange to the north
Page 959 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 8
PROPOSED - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, FIGURE 5-12 (PAGE LUT-47)
Page 960 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 9
PROPOSED REVISION TO - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, FIGURE 5-12
(PAGE LUT-47)
Page 961 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 10
PROPOSED TABLE 5-6
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION IN 2030 (ACREAGES)
(PAGE LUT-59)
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION IN 2030 (ACREAGES)
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Total
General
Plan Area
Bayfront Northwest Southwest
East
East Chula
Vista
Subareas
Unincorporated
Sweetwater
Subareas
Unincorporated
Otay Ranch
Subareas
Residential
Low 6,977 - 64 - 1,560 2,453 2,900
Low Medium 8,010 - 1,354 1,401 4,737 307 211
Medium 1,474 - 187 288 895 32 72
Medium High 794 - 143 113 441 - 97
High 533 - 124 253 156 - -
Urban Core 84 - 84 - - - -
Bayfront High 14 14 - - - - -
Commercial
Retail 826 - 115 202 477 32 -
Visitor 148 135 11 2 - - -
Professional & Admin. 152 13 61 7 59 12 -
Mixed Use
Mixed Use Residential 927 - 174 98 605 - 50
Mixed Use Commercial 135 25 37 58 15 - -
Mixed Use Transit
Focus Area 122 - 83 39 - - -
Industrial
Limited Industrial 1,875 62 116 384 1,096 - 216
Regional Technology
Park 85 - - - 85 - -
General Industrial 175 175 - - - - -
Public, Quasi Public
and Open Space
Public, Quasi Public 2,901 55 225 321 1,880 381 39
Parks and Recreation 970 74 73 106 598 88 31
Open Space 7,327 100 215 617 3,600 1,101 1,694
Open Space Preserve 16,926 362 18 97 4,582 1,997 9,870
Open Space - Active
Recreation 375 8 44 - 323 - -
Water 2,672 1,498 - - - 9 1,165
Special Planning Area
Eastern Urban Center 266 - - - 266 -
Resort 230 - - - - 230
Town Center 85 - - - 85 -
Other² 4,609 99 866 829 2,346 408 61
Total Acres 58,692 2,620 3,994 4,815 23,806 6,820 16,636
1- The unincorporated portion of the Northwest Planning Area (87 acres of Residential Low) is included in the Unincorporated Sweetwater Subarea
column only.
2- Streets, freeways, utility right-of-ways
Page 962 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 11
PROPOSED TABLE 5-7
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE IN 2030
General Plan Land Use Designation 2030 Acres 2030 Dwelling
Units
RESIDENTIAL
Low 6,977 8,232
Low Medium 8,010 41,286
Medium 1,474 15,008
Medium High 794 12,009
High 533 15,870
Urban Core 84 3,830
Bayfront High 14 1,500
COMMERCIAL
Retail 826
Visitor 148
Professional & Office 160
MIXED USE
Mixed Use Residential 927 16,648
Mixed Use Commercial 135
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area 122 3,782
INDUSTRIAL
Limited Industrial
1,875
Regional Technology Park 85
General Industrial 175
PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC AND OPEN
SPACE
Public/Quasi-Public 2,901
Parks and Recreation 970
Open Space 7,327
Open Space Preserve 16,926
Open Space - Active Recreation 375
Water 2,672
SPECIAL PLANNING AREA
Eastern Urban Center 266 4,864
Resort 230
Town Center 85 1,929
OTHER* 4,609
TOTAL 58,700 124,958
* Streets, freeways, utility right-of-ways
*Streets, freeways, utility right-of-ways
Page 963 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Page 12
PROPOSED – OTAY RANCH SUBAREA – CENTRAL DISTRICT
FIGURE 5-44, PAGE LUT-262
Page 964 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT A
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Page 965 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 966 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1
Village 8 East SPA Amendment – Chula Vista General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION
Objective/
Policy #
Objective/Policy Text:
Objective –
LUT 1
Provide a balance of residential
and non-residential development
throughout the City that achieves a
vibrant development pattern,
enhances the character of the City,
and meets the present and future
needs of all residents and
businesses.
LUT 1.1 Ensure that land uses develop in
accordance with the Land Use
Diagram and Zoning Code in an
effort to attain land use
compatibility.
The Chula Vista General Plan currently
designates portions of Village 8 East Residential
Medium, Medium High and Mixed Use
Residential. Upon approval of proposed
amendments to the Village 8 East SPA Plan and
PC District Regulations the project land uses
would be in accordance with the amended
General Plan Land Use Diagram.
The current proposal would eliminate the
Medium Residential land use designation from
Village 8 East, which permits traditional single
family homes and designate those areas for
Medium High Residential uses, allowing a variety
of detached and attached homes and other land
uses compatible with the Village 8 West
development to the west and future Village 9 to
the east.
LUT 1.2 Coordinate planning and
redevelopment activities and
resources to balance land uses,
amenities, and civic facilities in
order to sustain or improve the
quality of life.
Village 8 East provides a balance of land uses,
amenities and civic land uses, including 20,000
square feet of neighborhood-serving
commercial/retail uses, a public elementary
school site, a public neighborhood park, an
extensive trail system, a private recreation
facility, and over 253 acres of MSCP Preserve
Open Space. Otay Ranch Community Park South
is also within the Village 8 East SPA boundary,
providing additional recreational uses for Village
8 East residents
Page 967 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 2
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LUT 1.4 Seek to achieve an improved
balance between jobs and housing
in Chula Vista.
The project provides housing in close proximity
to the major employment centers in Chula Vista,
Otay Mesa and downtown San Diego. In
addition, Village 8 East includes 20,000 square
feet of commercial/retail space and a public
elementary school, designed to serve the 3,276
homes within Village 8 East and to support
surrounding commercial uses in the Village 8
West Town Center and other village commercial
uses.
LUT 1.5 Endeavor to create a mixture of
employment opportunities for
citizens’ at all economic levels.
Village 8 East complements the City’s efforts to
create high quality job along the SR-125 corridor
by advancing the vision of the University
Innovation District Master Plan which will create
high value jobs for all income levels. In addition,
Village 8 East includes 20,000 square feet of
commercial/retail space, and a public elementary
school which will create job opportunities for
Chula Vista residents.
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 facilities.
Pursuant to the requirements in CVMC
19.09.040, Threshold Standards for City
Facilities, H. Fiscal, the Applicant prepared an
updated fiscal analysis for the Proposed Project
(Village 8 East – Fiscal Impact Analysis, DPFG,
September 2023). The fiscal update model
assumed full build out of 3,276 residential units
and no commercial square footage, which
represents the most conservative land use
scenario. However, the Proposed Project
includes development of up to 20,000 SF of
commercial uses; therefore, the anticipated fiscal
outcome is likely to be more positive than the
following estimates. The results generated from
the residential only fiscal model meet the
requirements of CVMC 19.09.040 and
demonstrate that the Proposed Project will
generate a fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($452,114
- $3,573,827) representing cumulative revenue of
$48,014,928 through year 20.
The full fiscal analysis model and
assumptions are provided in the Village 8
East SPA Amendment Fiscal Summary
Report dated May 2023. This report
demonstrates that the proposed project
Page 968 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 3
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
would comply with City requirements for
new development.
Along with providing 3,276 homes which create
temporary construction-related employment
opportunties, the project provides job producing
land uses including commercial, a public school
and the preservation of 253.6 acres of land
designated as part of the City’s MSCP Preserve.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
LUT 1.7 Provide high-quality public
facilities, services, and other
amenities within close proximity to
residents.
Village 8 East provides high quality public
facilities and services close to residents, including
a public neighborhood park, public elementary
school, private recreation facility, trails and open
space areas. Village 8 East includes a network of
pedestrian facilities including the Chula Vista
Regional Trail, the future Multi-Modal bridge
between Village 8 East and Village 9, the Chula
Vista Greenbelt Trail, the Village Pathway the
village trail and the edge trail. Village 8 East
includes over 6.6 miles of trails.
In, the project includes the Otay Ranch South
Community Park South, intended to serve Village
8 East residents and other villages in Otay Ranch.
LUT 1.8 Pursue higher density residential
categories and retail demand that
are not being met within the City.
The Project’s residential land uses are in the
‘High” and “Medium-High” residential category
consistent with this objective. Consistent with the
Chula Vista General Plan, Village 8 East includes
20,000 square foot retail/commercial center as
part of the Village Core. The highest density
residential uses are planned in and around the
Village Core, including a site planned for an
affordable income rental community.
LUT 1.9 Provide opportunities for
development of housing that
respond to diverse community
needs in terms of density, size,
location, and cost.
The Project provides for-sale and rental housing
opportunities to meet the needs of a diverse
community. Densities range from 11 to 60.0 units
per acre and products provide a range of
floorplans appropriate for singles, couples, and
families. Some homes may have private rear
yards, while the highest density are planned as
rental apartments with on-site amenities. Product
types are focused on providing attainable housing
as well as meeting the need for move-up home
Page 969 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 4
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
buyers. The Project will include on-site
affordable housing in conformance with the
City’s Balanced Community Affordable Housing
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.
The Project supports the creation of new housing
as articulated in the Housing Element. The Project
will provide a total of 3,276 housing units for the
current and future residents of Chula Vista which
enhances the jobs/housing balance in the City of
Chula Vista.
LUT 1.13 Maintain neighborhood and
community shopping centers of
sizes and at locations that offer
both choice and convenience for
shoppers and residents, while
sustaining a strong retail base for
the City.
Village 8 East includes 20,000 square feet of
commercial/retail space designed to serve Village
8 East and adjacent villages. In addition the
residents in Village 8 East will support
commercial/retail uses in the surrounding
communities as the increased population resulting
from the Project will increase use of the existing
and future commercial/retail uses, thereby
enhancing the viability neighborhood shopping
centers in the City.
LUT 1.15 Allow office uses that are
associated with complementary
commercial service businesses in
commercial service areas.
The Village 8 East PC District Regulations allows
office uses within the Village Core Zoning
District.
LUT 1.17 Encourage the development of
cultural and performing arts nodes
in different areas throughout the
City, each with a specific non-
competing focus, such as viewing
performances or works of art, and
learning about, creating, or
purchasing art.
Dedication of the Otay Ranch Community Park
South will provide opportunities for the City to
support programming within the City’s public
park system to encourage a diversity of uses,
which may include art shows and cultural
festivals. In addition, public art may be provided
within the Village Core area.
Objective –
LUT 3
Direct the urban design and form
of new development and
redevelopment in a manner that
blends with and enhances Chula
Vista’s character and qualities,
both physical and social.
LUT 3.1 Adopt urban design guidelines
and/or other development
regulations for all Districts or
Focused Areas of Change as
presented in Sections LUT 8.0 -
10.0 of the Land Use and
The Village 8 East SPA Plan Amendment
includes PC District Regulations and the Village
Design Plan which includes Landscape and
Design Guidelines to ensure new development
recognizes and enhances the character and
identity of adjacent areas. The design plans create
Page 970 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 5
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
Transportation Element, as
necessary, to ensure that new
development or redevelopment
recognizes and enhances the
character and identity of adjacent
areas, consistent with this General
Plan’s Vision.
one cohesive Village 8 community (Village 8
West and Village 8 East), as originally envisioned
in the Otay Ranch GDP.
The architectural theme for the Project
complements the agrarian architectural theme in
Village 8 West. In addition, the proposed PC
District Regulations and design guidelines and
will be appropriately implemented to ensure the
proposed residential neighborhoods establish a
unique sense of place, while connecting to the
larger Village 8 developed community.
LUT 3.2 Any such urban design guidelines
and/or other development
regulations shall be consistent with
other, related policies and
provisions in this General Plan,
including Sections 7.3 through 7.6.
The Village 8 East SPA Plan Amendment
includes PC District Regulations as well as the
Village Design Plan Landscape and Design
Guidelines consistent with the policies and
provisions of the General Plan.
Objective –
LUT 5
Designate opportunities for mixed
use areas with higher density
housing that is near shopping, jobs,
and transit in appropriate locations
throughout the City.
LUT 5.1 Promote mixed use development,
where appropriate, to ensure a
pedestrian-friendly environment
that has opportunities for housing;
jobs; childcare; shopping;
entertainment; parks; and
recreation in close proximity to one
another.
Consistent with General Plan Policy LUT 5.1,
Village 8 East contains a Village Core with a mix
of uses, including 1,348 for-sale and rental multi-
family homes and 20,000 square feet of
commercial retail space, providing opportunities
for shopping, entertainment, jobs, childcare and
entertainment. In addition, the village core
includes an elementary school site and a public
park, providing recreational opportunties within
¼ mile of most Village 8 East residents. Access
to Village 8 East amentities is planned along an
extensive system of trails. Village 8 East includes
over 6.6 miles of trails.
LUT 5.2 Encourage new development that is
organized around compact,
walkable, mixed use
neighborhoods and districts in
order to conserve open space
resources, minimize infrastructure
Consistent with the General Plan and Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan, the project includes 253.6
acres of land designated for preservation as part
of the MSCP Plan. The development area is
clustered within Village 8 East, surrounding a
compact, walkable, village core. Consistent with
the Otay Ranch GDP and the Village 8 East SPA
Page 971 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 6
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
costs, and reduce reliance on the
automobile.
Plan, infrastructure impacts have been reduced to
the greatest extent possible to minimize impacts
to adjacent open space resources. The project will
be served from existing and planned extensions of
Chula Vista circulation element roadways and
infrastructure.
The project is served by planned local bus stops
along Main Street, adjacent to the Village Core
area and a future Bus Rapid Transit stop is
planned in the adjacent Village 8 West Town
Center. Pedestrian access to the planned transit
facilities is provided via the Chula Vista Regional
Trail along Main Street and La Media Parkway.
The mixed use arrangement of Village 8 East land
uses and the integrated system of pedestrian paths
and trails connects the residential neighborhoods
to the Village Core along the Village Pathway
planned along La Palmita Drive.
LUT 5.3 Authorize and encourage mixed
use development in focus areas,
including high-density residential
housing, neighborhood-serving
commercial, and office uses.
Consistent with General Plan Policy LUT 5.3,
Village 8 East contains a Village Core planned
with a mix of uses, including 1,348 mult-family
homes and 20,000 square feet of commercial
retail space, providing opportunities for shopping,
entertainment, jobs, childcare and entertainment.
In addition, the village core includes an
elementary school site and a public park
providing recreational opportunties within ¼ mile
of most residents. Access to Village 8 East
amentities is provided via the Chula Vista
Regional Trail along Main Street and La Media
Parkway, and the Village Pathway along La
Palmita Drive.
LUT 5.4 Develop the following areas as
mixed use centers: Urban Core;
Palomar Trolley Station; EUC;
and Otay Ranch Village Cores and
Town Centers.
Village 8 East is not identified as a mixed-use
center in the General Plan. See response to LUT
5.3 above.
LUT 5.11 Endeavor to reduce the number of
peak hour automobile trips by
supporting increased services near
workplaces.
See response to LUT 5.3 above.
LUT 5.13 Higher density residential and
mixed use residential/commercial
See response to LUT 5.3 above.
Page 972 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 7
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
development should be designed to:
create a pleasant walking
environment to encourage
pedestrian activity; maximize
transit usage; provide
opportunities for residents to
conduct routine errands close to
their residence; integrate with
surrounding uses to become a part
of the neighborhood rather than an
isolated project; use architectural
elements or themes from the
surrounding neighborhood; and
provide appropriate transition
between land use designations to
minimize neighbor compatibility
conflicts
Objective-
LUT 6
Ensure adjacent land uses are
compatible with one another.
LUT 6.1 Ensure, through adherence to
design guidelines and zoning
standards, that the design review
process guarantees excellence in
design and that new construction
and alterations to existing
buildings are compatible with the
best character elements of the area.
The Village 8 East SPA Plan Amendment
includes PC District Regulations and the Village
Design Plan which includes Landscape and
Residential Design Guidelines to ensure new
development recognizes and enhances the
character and identity of adjacent areas. All
residential development is subject to the
Development Review process established in the
Village 8 East PC District Regulations.
LUT 6.2 Require that proposed
development plans and projects
consider and minimize project
impacts upon surrounding
neighborhoods.
The project includes PC District Regulations and
Landscape and Residential Design Guidelines are
provided in the Village Design Plan. These
regulations and guidelines ensure the project is
compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed residential neighborhoods along the
southern perimeter are setback from the adjacent
MSCP Preserve area, as the 100’ Preserve Edge
provides a buffer between residential and
preserve uses.
LUT 6.3 Require that the design of new
residential, commercial, or public
developments is sensitive to the
character of existing
neighborhoods through
consideration of access, compatible
building design and massing, and
Consistent with the original vision in the GDP,
Village 8 East has been design to seamlessly
integrate and complement the adjacent Village 8
West community. Access to the project is
provided via existing and planned extensions of
City of Chula Vista circulation roadways and
infrastructure. The project includes PC District
Page 973 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 8
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
building height transitions, while
maintaining the goals and values
set forth in the General Plan.
Within transit focus areas, design
provisions should include
requirements for a minimum
building step back of 15 feet for
every 35 feet in height, for edges
abutting residential uses.
Regulations and Landscape and Residential
Design Guidelines to ensure the project is
compatible with adjacent development. The PC
District Regulations establishes building setbacks
based on adjacent street designs and frontages.
Objective-
LUT 7
Appropriate transitions should be
provided between land uses.
LUT 7.2 Require new or expanded uses to
provide mitigation or buffers
between existing uses where
significant adverse impacts could
occur.
Development along the eastern edge of Village 8
East is buffered from SR-125 with slopes, berms,
the one-way frontage road and potential sound
attentuation walls. See Response to LUT 6.2
above.
LUT 7.4 Require landscape and/or open
space buffers to maintain a
naturalized or softer edge for
proposed private development
directly adjacent to natural and
public open space areas.
The project includes a 100’ Preserve Edge within
the development area to buffer development from
the adjacent MSCP Preserve areas, while
maintaining a softer edge between the land uses.
Objective –
LUT 8
Strengthen and sustain Chula
Vista's image as a unique place by
maintaining, enhancing, and
creating physical features that
distinguish Chula Vista's
neighborhoods, communities, and
public spaces, and enhance its
image as a pedestrian-oriented and
livable community.
LUT 8.1 Develop a program to enhance the
identity of special districts and
neighborhoods to create variety
and interest in the built
environment, including such items
as signage, monuments,
landscaping, and street
improvements.
The project will comply with Village 8 East SPA
Plan, PC District Regulations as well as
Landscape and Residential Design Guidelines in
the Village Design Plan which provide guidance
for the development of high-quality architecture,
landscape and street improvements. The project
will also comply with the future Village 8 East
Planned Sign Program, where applicable.
LUT 8.2 Emphasize certain land uses and
activities, such as cultural arts;
entertainment; specialty retail; or
commercial recreation, to enhance
or create the identity of specialized
districts or Focus Areas in the City.
Village 8 east includes a mix of commercial and
public amenities that create opportunities for a
diversity of uses, which may include art shows
and cultural festivals as well as commercial
recreation opportunities.
Page 974 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 9
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LUT 8.3 Ensure that buildings are
appropriate to their context and
designed to be compatible with
surrounding uses and enhance the
desired character of their District.
The Village 8 East SPA Amendment includes
residential guidelines. The project will be
designed consistent with the established theme
within Village 8 West to create a cohesive,
complementary design. All residential
development within the project is subject to the
Development Review Process established in the
Village 8 East PC District Regulations.
LUT 8.4 Encourage and require, where
feasible, the incorporation of
publicly accessible urban open
spaces, including: parks;
courtyards; water features;
gardens; passageways; paseos; and
plazas, into public improvements
and private projects.
Village 8 East includes a public park, private
recreation facility and open space system that will
provide Village residents with a variety of
recreation opportunities. The Village Design Plan
encourages the creation of gathering spaces and
the use of water features, paseos, plazas and other
public spaces. The Village Core landscape is
enhanced by a 20-wide landscaped median that
provides an opportunity for a robust street tree
program through the core. In addition, the project
includes the Otay Ranch Community Park South
which will provide opportunities for publicly
accessible open space, recreation and gathering
spaces.
LUT 8.5 Prepare urban design guidelines
that help to create pedestrian-
oriented development by
providing:
• Varied and articulated building
facades;
• Visual (first floor clear glass
windows) and physical access
for pedestrians;
• Pedestrian circulation among
parcels; uses; transit stops; and
public or publicly accessible
spaces;
• Human scale design elements;
• Ground floor residential and
commercial entries that face
and engage the street; and
• Pedestrian-oriented streetscape
amenities.
Village 8 East is designed as a pedestrian oriented
community and meets the guidelines provided in
LUT 8.5. Development within the village core
area is subject to Village Design Plan which
guides the preparation of site plans and
architectural and landscape plans. The VDP
encourages the creation of pedestrian-oriented
buildings and site plans as depicted in the
“Pedestrian Oriented Streets” and “Village Site
Plan Concept” exhibits. In addition, the SPA
Plan amendment includes landscape guidelines
and establishes a theme to be implemented within
the project.
The Village 8 East Village Core will be designed
and constructed consistent with the guidelines in
LUT 8.5.
LUT 8.6 Develop a master plan for artwork
in public places that would identify
the types of art desired and
LUT 8.6 is a City-wide objective; however, by
constructing and developing the neighborhood
park within Village 8 East and providing public
Page 975 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 10
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
establish appropriate settings for
the display of art, including within
public rights-of-way and landscape
medians.
gathering space within the Village Core area,
Village 8 East supports programming and
activities which may include public art displays.
LUT 8.7 Ensure that vacant parcels and
parcels with unsightly storage uses,
such as auto salvage yards, are
appropriately screened from the
street to reduce their negative
visual effects.
There are no unslightly storage uses close to
Village 8 East.
Objective –
LUT 10
Create attractive street
environments that complement
private and public properties,
create attractive public rights-of-
way, and provide visual interest for
residents and visitors.
LUT 10.2 Landscape designs and standards
shall include a coordinated street
furniture palette, including waste
containers and benches, to be
implemented throughout the
community at appropriate
locations.
The Village Design Plan provides landscape
design standards, which includes the conceptual
design of street furnishings and fixtures to be
implemented the Village Core area. Development
within the Village Core will also comply with the
future Master Precise Plan.
LUT 10.3 Provide well-designed, comfortable
bus stops throughout the City.
Per City standard conditions of approval, the
Applicant will provide the City with funding for
planned bus and transit stops and shelters which
will be constructed by the City when local bus
service is available along established and planned
routes.
LUT 10.4 Prior to the approval of projects
that include walls that back onto
roadways, the city shall require
that the design achieves a uniform
appearance from the street. The
walls shall be uniform in height, use
of materials, and color, but also
incorporate elements, such as
pilasters, that add visual interest.
The Village Design Plan provides fence and wall
designs and materials. The required Landscape
Master Plan will include a Fence and Wall Plan
prepared consistent with City policies.
LUT 10.5 Require under grounding of
utilities on private property and
develop a priority based program
of utility under grounding along
public rights-of-way.
All new utilities will be undergrounded,
consistent with this objective, except as required
by utility providers. However, the Applicant will
coordinate with the City and utility providers to
place above-ground appurtenances in the least
intrusive locations.
Page 976 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 11
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LUT 10.6 Study the locational requirements
of utility, traffic control, and other
cabinets and hardware located in
the public rights-of-way to
determine alternative locations for
these items in less obtrusive areas
of the street environment.
The location of utility facilities in the public realm
is designed to minimize intrusion into the street
environment and avoid conflicts with entry
monuments and landscaping, to the greatest
extent feasible. Entry monuments proposed for
the project would be subject to the Village 8 East
Planned Sign Program. See response to LUT 10.5
regarding coordinating utility appurtenance
locations.
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.
LUT 11.1 Promote development that creates
and enhances positive spatial
attributes of major public streets,
open spaces, cityscape, mountain
and bay sight lines, and important
gateways into the City.
The project maintains and is sensitive to the
design elements of Main Street through the
provision of 20-foot landscape buffers adjacent to
the development areas. In addition, the 100-foot
Preserve Edge is provided adjacent to MSCP
Preserve areas to buffer development from the
adjacent Preserve.
LUT 11.2 Promote and place a high priority
on quality architecture, landscape,
and site design to enhance the
image of Chula Vista, and create a
vital and attractive environment
for businesses, residents, and
visitors.
The Village 8 East SPA Plan Amendment and PC
District Regulations as well as Landscape and
Residential Design Guidelines in the Village
Design Plan provide guidance for the
development of high-quality architecture,
landscape, and street improvements.
LUT 11.4 Actively promote architectural and
design excellence in buildings, open
space, and urban design.
Architecture will be complementary to the
existing Village 8 West design theme and will
include a variety of distinct and unique
combinations of elevations and colors designed
by respected and creative architects and design
professionals.
LUT 11.5 Require a design review process for
all public and private discretionary
projects (which includes
architectural, site plan, landscape
and signage design) to review and
evaluate projects prior to issuance
of building permits to determine
their compliance with the
objectives and specific
requirements of the City's Design
The project is subject to the Development Review
Process established in the Village 8 East PC
District Regulations.
Page 977 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 12
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
Manual, General Plan, and
appropriate zone or Area
Development Plans.
Objective –
LUT 16
Integrate land use and
transportation planning and
related facilities.
LUT 16.1 Promote the development of well-
planned communities that will tend
to be self-supportive and, thus,
reduce the length of vehicular trips,
reduce dependency on the
automobile, and encourage the use
of other modes of travel.
Consistent with General Plan Policy LUT 16.1,
Village 8 East contains a Village Core with a mix
of uses including 1,348 for sale and rental homes
and 20,000 square feet of commercial retail space,
providing opportunities for shopping,
entertainment, jobs, childcare and entertainment
to residents. In addition, the village core includes
an elementary school site and a public park,
providing recreational opportunties within ¼ mile
of most residents. Access to amentities is
provided via the Chula Vista Regional Trail along
Main Street and La Media Parkway and the
Village Pathway along La Palmita Drive.
Transit stops are planned adjacent to the Village
Core area at the intersection of Main Street and
La Palmita Drive, providing residents and
employees access to public transportation.
LUT 16.2 Ensure that new development and
community activity centers have
adequate transportation and
pedestrian facilities.
See response to LUT 16.1
LUT 16.3 Provide direct and convenient
access to public transit stops within
residential, commercial, and
industrial areas.
The project includes the Chula Vista Regional
Trail planned to accommodate off-street bike
lanes along Main Street and La Media Parkway.
Local bus service is planned along Main Street,
with stops planned at the intersection of Main
Strreet and La Palmita Drive. A BRT station is
planned in the adjacent Village 8 West Town
Center.
Objective –
LUT 17
Plan and coordinate development
to be compatible and supportive of
planned transit.
LUT 17.1 Designate sufficient land at
appropriate densities to support
planned transit and require that
development be transit-oriented, as
appropriate to its proximity to
transit facilities.
The project is not a transit-oriented development.
However, the Metropolitan Transit System has
planned local bus stops and bus rapid transit stops
serving Village 8 East.
Page 978 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 13
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LUT 17.4 Require developers to consult and
coordinate with SANDAG and the
City to ensure that development is
compatible with and supports the
planned implementation of public
transit.
The Applicant coordinated with SANDAG and
the City to provide for planned future local bus
stops within Village 8 East.
Objective –
LUT 18
Reduce traffic demand through
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies,
increased use of transit, bicycles,
walking, and other trip reduction
measures.
LUT 18.1 Support and encourage the use of
public transit.
See response to LUT 17.1 and LUT 17.4 above.
The project also provides direct connections to
the Chula Vista Regional Trail and bike lanes
along Main Street.
LUT 18.2 Provide an efficient and effective
paratransit service for elderly and
handicapped persons unable to use
conventional transit service.
This is the responsibility of MTS, the public
transit service provider.
LUT 18.3 Provide and enhance all feasible
alternatives to the automobile, such
as bicycling and walking, and
encourage public transit ridership
on existing and future transit
routes.
The project is located to take advantage of transit,
walking, cycling and Neighborhood Electric
Vehicle use to reduce vehicular trips. The internal
public streets are designed to provide an enhanced
pedestrian experience where landscape parkways
separate the pedestrian from the parking/travel
lanes. In addition, the project provides direct
connections to the Chula Vista Regional Trail and
bike lanes along Main Street and La Media
Parkway.
The MTS local bus stop is planned adjacent to the
village core on Main Street and a BRT station is
planned in the adjacent Village 8 West Town
Center.
LUT 18.4 Use master planning techniques in
new development and
redevelopment projects to enable
effective use of public transit.
The project provides direct connections to the
Chula Vista Regional Trail and bike lanes along
Main Street. Fully signalized intersections are
located along Main Street and La Media Parkway
to enable safe pedestrian crossings.
Also see response to LUT 18.3 above.
Page 979 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 14
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LUT 18.5 Implement TDM strategies, such as
carpooling, vanpooling, and
flexible work hours that encourage
alternatives to driving alone during
peak periods.
The University Villages Traffic Impact Analysis
prepared in conjunction with the Final EIR
included a Transportation Demand Management
Program that included the folowing measures:
• Implement pedestrian circulation
improvements to improve the internal
pedestrian circulation and encourage the
usage of public transportation (concurrent
with the approval of improvement plans for
each village).
• Implement bicycle circulation improvements
to improve internal bicycle circulation and
encourage the use of bicycles (concurrent
with the approval of improvement plans for
each village).
• Participate in car sharing and bike sharing
programs through HOA noticing, should
such programs become available.
• Promote Carpool/Vanpool programs by
providing preferential parking for carpools
and vanpools (concurrent with the approval
os site plans for each village core).
• Promote available websites proving
transportation options for residents and
businesses (concurrent with issuance of
certificate of occupancy).
• Create and distribute “new resident”
information packet addressing alternative
modes of transportation (concurrent with
issuance of certificate of occupancy).
• Promote programs to encourage workplace
peak hour trip reduction, including staggered
work hours, regional ride-matching services,
and telecommuting (concurrent with issuance
of certificate of occupancy).
• Orient buildings to the main street or activity
area, such that they are not separated from the
street by bast parking areas or fences, thereby
encouragning pedestrian traffic (concurrent
with approval of site plans for each village
core).
• Where transit is available on-site, participate
in providing the necessary transit facilities,
such as bus pads, shelters, signs, lighting and
Page 980 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 15
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
trash receptacles (concurrent with the
approval of improvement plans for each
village).
• Coordinate with MTS as to the future siting
of transit stops/stations within the project site
(concurrent with the approval of approval
plans and/or site plans for each village).
Implementation of the TDM measures is
consistent with LUT 18.5.
LUT 18.6 Encourage employer-based TDM
strategies, such as: employee
transportation allowances;
preferential parking for rideshare
vehicles; workplace-based carpool
programs; and shuttle services.
See response to LUT 18.5 above.
LUT 18.7 Support the location of private
“telework” centers.
See response to LUT 18.5 above.
LUT 18.8 Encourage establishment of park-
and-ride facilities near or at transit
stations, as appropriate to the
area's character and surrounding
land uses.
See response to LUT 18.5 above
Objective –
LUT 20
Make transit-friendly roads a top
consideration in land use and
development design.
LUT 20.1 Incorporate transit-friendly and
pedestrian-friendly elements into
roadway design standards, such as
signal priority for transit and
adequate sidewalk widths for
pedestrians.
MTS has planned local bus and BRT routes along
Main Street. The roadways are designed
consistent with City of Chula Vista standards and
can accommodate local transit service. In
addition, the project includes a network of
internal sidewalks, pathways and a trails that
connect to the Chula Vista Regional Trail and
bike lanes located adjacent to Main Street and La
Media Parkway.
Objective –
LUT 23
Promote the use of non-polluting
and renewable alternatives for
mobility through a system of
bicycle and pedestrian paths and
trails that are safe, attractive and
convenient forms of
transportation.
See response to LUT-18.3 above.
LUT 23.1 Encourage the use of bicycles and
walking as alternatives to driving
The project provides a pedestrian network that
provides multiple connections to Chula Vista
Page 981 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 16
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
Regional Trail and bike lanes along La Media
Parkway and Main Street. The future Multi-
Modal bridge will cross SR-125 providing an
additional bike connection between Village East
and Village 9.
LUT 23.2 Foster the development of a system
of inter-connecting bicycle routes
throughout the City and region.
The project provides a well connected bicyle
system connecting to the Chula Vista Regional
Trail and bike lanes along La Media Parkway and
Main Street, which connects to the City’s network
of bike lanes.
LUT 23.3 Preserve, restore, or provide the
opportunity for a cyclist to ride a
bicycle to virtually any chosen
destination, in order to make the
bicycle a viable transportation
alternative.
See reponse to LUT 23.2 above
LUT 23.4 Link major residential areas with
principal trip destinations, such as
schools; parks; community
centers; and shopping centers.
Village 8 East incorporates an internal network of
streets, walkways, pathways and trails which
provide multiple routes to the Village Core area
where residential can access the elementary
school, public park, as well as the
commercial/retail uses. In addition, the internal
network connects to the Chula Vista Regional
Trail along La Media Parkway and Main Street,
providing linkages to other residential and public
uses surrounding the project. The Community
Park Trail and a segment of the Regional Trail
planned along Avenida Caprise provides
pedestrian access to the future Otay Ranch
Community Park South and the City Greenbelt
Trail located in the Otay River Valley.
LUT 23.5 Provide linkages between bicycle
facilities that utilize circulation
element alignments and open space
corridors.
The project provides off-street bike lanes along
La Media Parkway and Main Street. The project
also includes portions of the Chula Vista
Greenbelt Trail located in the Otay River Valley.
Linkages from Village 8 East to the Greenbelt
Trail are also planned along the Chula Vista
Regional Trail and Community Park Trail.
LUT 23.6 In addition to using open space
corridors, off-street bicycle trails
should use flood control and utility
easements. The trails shall be
designed to minimize interaction
with automobile cross traffic.
The Project does not include any of the features
described in LUT 23.6. However, the Project
provides access to the bike lanes along La Media
Parkway and Main Street.
Page 982 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 17
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LUT 23.7 Provide bicycle support facilities at
all major bicycle usage locations.
The Project does not include a “major bicycle
usage location;” however, the Project will include
bicycle storage at commercial/retail uses,
consistent with CalGreen requirements. All for-
sale homes within the Project will include a
garage which could also be utilized by
homeowners for bicycle storage.
LUT 23.10 Promote the system of trails
envisioned within the Chula Vista
Greenbelt.
The project includes a portion of the Chula Vista
Greenbelt Trail system located within the Otay
River Valley.
LUT 23.11 Implement recommendations of
the City's Bikeway Master Plan
and Greenbelt Master Plan.
See response to LUT 23.6 above regarding the
City’s Active Transportation Plan. The Project
includes connections to the existing Chula Vista
Regional Trail, as recommended by the City’s
Greenbelt Master Plan and includes portions of
the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail within the Otay
River Valley. These facilities link the Project to
the City-wide system of trails and bike facilities.
LUT 23.12 Provide opportunities for use of
personal mobility devices.
The walkways, paths and trails planned within the
Project are adequately sized to accommodate
personal mobility devices.
LUT 23.13 New overpasses and interchanges
should be designed to
accommodate bicycles and
pedestrians.
The future Multi-Modal bridge planned to span
SR-125 and connect Village 8 East and Village 9
is 17-feet wide. This facility is planned to
accommodate pedestrian, bicyclist and NEV
users. The project will contribute its fair share
toward construction of the future bridge.
LUT 23.14 Require new development projects
to provide internal bikeway
systems with connections to the
citywide bicycle networks.
Bicycles share the travel lanes with automobiles
on the internal streets (Class 3 Bike Routes),
which have very low traffic volumes. Off-street
Bike Lanes are provided along La Media Parkway
and Main Street, which are included in the City’s
Planned Bicycle Network as depicted in the Chula
Vista Active Transportation Plan.
Objective
LUT 61
Create balanced communities that
can provide a high quality of life for
residents.
LUT 61.1 Adhere to the regulations
established in existing GDPs and
SPAs.
The project includes a proposal to amend both the
Otay Ranch GDP and the Village 8 East SPA Plan
to address the proposed land use changes.
Therefore, the project is not currently consistent
with the regulations established in the existing
GDP or SPA. Upon project approval by the City
Council, the project would adhere to the amended
GDP and SPA and meet the intent of LUT 61.1.
Page 983 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 18
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LUT 61.2 Future SPAs shall focus on creating
a vibrant sense of community, a
vigorous economy, and a healthy
environment.
Village 8 East is designed to create a vibrant sense
of community and healthy environment. The
community includes a village core comprised of
multi-family homes, 20,000 square feet of
neighborhood-serving commercial/retail uses, a
neighborhood park and elementary school.
Village 8 East includes an integrated system of
trails and pathways that will connect to the City’s
trail network and the community is located
adjacent to hundreds of acres of preserved open
space.
Pursuant to the requirements in CVMC
19.09.040, Threshold Standards for City
Facilities, H. Fiscal, the Applicant prepared an
updated fiscal analysis for the Proposed Project
(Village 8 East – Fiscal Impact Analysis, DPFG,
September 2023. The fiscal update model
assumed full build out of 3,276 residential units
and no commercial square footage which
represents the most conservative land use
scenario. However, the Proposed Project
includes development of a up to 20,000 SF of
commercial uses; therefore, the anticipated fiscal
outcome is likely to be more positive than the
following estimates. The results generated from
the residential only fiscal model meet the
requirements of CVMC 19.09.040 and
demonstrate that the Proposed Project will
generate a fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20
($452,114 - $3,573,827) representing
cumulative revenue of $48,014,928 through year
20.
The full fiscal analysis model and assumptions
are provided in the Village 8 East SPA
Amendment Fiscal Summary Report dated May
2023. This report demonstrates that the
proposed project would comply with City
requirements for new development.
This fiscal surplus supports ongoing funding for
municipal services, ensuring a safe and healthy
community. The additional residents generated
Page 984 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 19
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
from the Project will support local business and
invigorate the local economy.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
LUT 61.3 Require all future community
identification signs and
monuments to recognize
communities as part of the City of
Chula Vista.
All signs and monuments within the project will
comply with the future Village 8 East Planned
Sign Program and Signage Regulations in the PC
District Regulations.
Objective –
LUT 62
Require development to consider
and plan for careful use of natural
and man-made resources and
services, and maximize
opportunities for conservation
while minimizing waste.
LUT 62.1 Require developments within the
East Planning Area to provide
resource management plans for
water; air quality; recycling; solid
waste management; and energy.
The Project includes approximately 253.6 acres
designated MSCP Open Space Preserve in the
City’s MSCP Plan. The Village 8 East
development area is consistent with the Chula
Vista General Plan, Otay Ranch General
Development and Resource Management Plan.
The project is required to comply with the
requirements included the the air quality
improvement plan, water conservation plan and
energy conservation plan prepared for the project.
In addition, the project will comply with all City
of Chula Vista conservation recycling and waste
management requirements.
Objective –
LUT 63
Provide efficient multi-modal
access and connections to and
between activity centers.
LUT 63.1 Provide roads, transit service, bike
routes, and pedestrian pathways
that connect activity centers to
their surrounding neighborhoods,
adjacent villages, and each other,
such that access is safe and
convenient for residents and
visitors.
The project is consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP policies, as it
provides connections to existing roads, bike lanes
and trails.
Objective -
LUT 69
Create and maintain unique,
stable, and well-designed
communities that are master
Page 985 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 20
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
planned to guide development
activities
LUT 69.1 The policies and regulations within
GDP and SPA Plans that are
specific to each community shall
continue to guide the completion of
development activities
Village 8 East PC Regulations and design
guidelines will guide development quality and
character.
Objective –
LUT 73
Promote alternative modes of
transportation, which are intended
to encourage a healthy lifestyle and
reduce reliance on the automobile,
and support the viability of transit
through land use distribution and
design.
LUT 73.1 Provide for walking and biking on
streets designed to link
neighborhoods, activity centers,
and community destinations.
The project provides an internal network of
pedestrian paths, walkways and trails and also
connects to the existing Chula Vista Regional
Trail and bike lanes along La Media Parkway and
Main Street.
Objective –
LUT 74
Accommodate land uses that
diversify the economic base within
Otay Ranch and the surrounding
south San Diego County region.
LUT 74.1 Provide sufficient land and
infrastructure to accommodate
commercial and industrial uses.
LUT 74.2 Promote additional business and
higher paid employment
opportunities for residents of
Chula Vista.
Village 8 East includes 20,000 square feet of
commercial uses which will provide opportunities
for local business to employ Chula Vista residents
The City will promote the creation of additional
and higher paid employment opportunities within
the City’s University Innovation District for
residents of Chula Vista consistent with General
Plan Policy LUT 74.2
Objective -
LUT 79
Establish appropriate land uses
adjacent to the Otay Landfill and
Wolf Canyon that reflect the
unique land use and landform
characteristics of these areas.
Page 986 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 21
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
LUT 79.5 Limit land uses adjacent to Otay
Landfill to open space and limited
industrial uses or business parks.
Village 8 East is not located near the Otay
Landfill.
Objective –
LUT 92
Establish a high-quality business
park that is oriented to
accommodates high technology
businesses conducting research
and light industrial/manufacturing
activities that provide job
opportunities for residents of Otay
Ranch, Chula Vista, and the
greater south San Diego County
region.
LUT 92.1 Promote research and
development uses associated with
light manufacturing businesses by
adopting GDP and SPA level
policies and Planned Community
District regulations that provide
regulations and standards that
encourage the locating of high
technology uses and industries.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74.1 above.
LUT 92.3 Allow ancillary professional office
and limited service businesses as
secondary uses where such uses are
necessary to support the primary
research and development and
light manufacturing uses. These
secondary uses should not compete
with the EUC and adjoining areas
that are intended as the preferred
location for these support uses.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74.1 above.
Objective –
LUT 93
Provide opportunities to develop
new research institutions,
industries, and businesses that
capitalize upon the intellectual
capital and research activities of
the university.
LUT 93.1 Proactively attract the
development of incubator
industries and research institutions
that may be induced by the
presence of a university campus.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74 above.
Page 987 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 22
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
GP
Element
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Objective/
Policy #
Objective/Policy Text
Objective –
ED 1
Provide a diverse economic base
for the City of Chula Vista.
ED 1.2 Provide sufficient tracts of land at
a variety of sizes available for
industrial and commercial uses in
order to provide a stable economic
base.
Village 8 East includes 20,000 square feet of
commercial uses which will provide opportunities
for local business to employ Chula Vista residents
The University Innovation District/Regional
Technology Park SPA Plan provides for
development of approximately 10.1M square feet
of university and regional technologies uses,
while the Eastern Urban Center SPA Plan
provides for development of approximately 3.8M
sf of commercial/mixed use development on 75.9
acres.
The City is promoting the creation of high-quality
jobs and economic growth within the City by
providing opportunities that target and attract
industries and businesses that contribute to
diversification and stabilization of the local
economy. Facilitating such economic growth by
encouraging the development of spaces that can
be used by high technology and manufacturing
businesses within the SR-125 corridor or
academic, institutional, and innovation-related
businesses within the University Innovation
District is a potential solution. The construction
of such spaces would provide a catalyst for
development that could generate high-quality
jobs in locations currently suitable for
construction.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
ED 1.3 Encourage the preservation and
expansion of existing industrial
uses in areas designated as
industrial.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and ED 1.2 above.
ED 1.4 Increase the supply of land for non-
retail employment through the
designation of land to
accommodate a regional
See Response to LUT 1.1 and ED 1.2 above.
Page 988 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 23
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
technology park; a future business
park; industrial or business park
space; and development of a
university campus.
ED 1.5 Consider fiscal impact implications
of General Plan amendments that
propose changes to industrial and
commercial lands.
A fiscal impact analysis prepared for the project
demonstrates that the project results in net
positive revenue to the City’s General Fund. See
Responses to LUT 1.1 and ED 1.2 above.
Objective –
ED 2
Maintain a variety of job and
housing opportunities to improve
Chula Vista's jobs/housing
balance.
ED 2.2 Facilitate increased employment
densities near transit stations and
routes.
Employment generating land uses are provided
within the Village 8 East Village Core which is
designed to accommodate 20,000 square feet of
commercial uses. MTS has a planned local bus
stop adjacent to the Village Core on Main Street.
In addition, a BRT station is planned in the
adjacent Village 8 West Town Center. Also see
Response to LUT 1.1 above.
ED 2.3 Pursue a diverse supply of housing
types and costs, as well as a diverse
supply of jobs with varying income
potential, to balance local job and
housing opportunities
The project provides for-sale and rental multi-
family housing in a range of square footages and
floorplans for singles, couples and families. The
VC-1 site is planned to accommodate an
affordable housing community.
Objective
ED 4
Become a center for applied
technology innovation
ED 4.1 Publicize the economic and social
benefits of industry, emphasizing
the health of the Chula Vista
economy, the “high-tech”
dimensions of industry, and the
community value of well-paying,
high-benefit industrial
employment.
The responsibility to meet the intent of ED 4.1 lies
with the City of Chula Vista.
ED 4.2 Maintain land sufficient for the
long-term location of an
approximately 85-acre Regional
Technology Park in eastern Chula
Vista.
The project does not impact the City’s ability to
maintain the land designated in the University
Innovation District/Regional Technology Park
(UID/RTP) SPA Plan.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
Page 989 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 24
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
ED 4.4 Continue to recruit and promote
the establishment of a university
campus, as well as research and
development facilities that promote
technology.
As the owner of the site identified for a future
University, the City may continue to recruit and
promote the establishment of a university campus
and regional technology park.
Objective –
ED 7
Develop a strong land use and
transportation link between the
downtown urban core, bayfront,
southwestern, and eastern areas of
the City to support economic
development throughout.
ED 7.4 Develop activities in eastern Chula
Vista that will attract residents
citywide.
Through the payment of PAD fees, construction
of the neighborhood park in Village 8 East and
dedication of parkland within the community
park, the project creates active public areas and
improvements that will attract citywide residents.
GP
Element
ENVIRONMENTAL
Objective/
Policy #
Objective/Policy Text
Objective –
E 1
Conserve Chula Vista’s sensitive
biological resources.
The Village 8 East PA Plan designates 253.6
acres of Preserve open space containing sensitive
biological resources within the project site.
E 1.1 Implement the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan.
The Village 8 East SPA Plan designates 253.6
acres of MSCP open space within the project site
which will be conveyed to the Otay Ranch
Preserve Owner/Manager for permanent
preservation and management, consistent with the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Objective –
E2
Protect and improve water quality
within surface water bodies and
groundwater resources within and
downstream of Chula Vista.
E 2.4 Ensure compliance with current
federal and state water quality
regulations, including the
implementation of applicable
NPDES requirements and the
City's Pollution Prevention Policy.
Water quality studies prepared for the project
comply with the respective City, federal and state
regulations.
E 2.5 Encourage and facilitate
construction and land development
techniques that minimize water
The project is designed with water quality/hydro-
modification basins and Modular Wetlands
Page 990 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 25
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
quality impacts from urban
development.
Systems that mitigation impacts to water quality
to be less than significant.
Objective –
E 3
Minimize the impacts of growth
and development on water supply
resources through the efficient use
and conservation of water by
residents, businesses, and City
government.
E 3.2 Promote the use of low water
demand landscaping and drought
tolerant plant materials in both
existing and new development.
The project utilizes water conserving fixtures and
low water/drought tolerant landscaping.
E 3.3 Where safe and feasible, promote
and facilitate the continued use of
recycled water in new
developments, and explore
opportunities for the use of
recycled water in redevelopment
projects.
The Overview of Water Service prepared for the
Project analyzed the facilities required and the
demand for recycled water needed to serve the
Project. The report estimated that Village 8 East
would utilize approximately 348,530 gallon of
recycled water per day to irrigate open space,
open space slope, parks, the school, the CPF site
and multi-family neighborhoods. The Project
design incorporates the infrastructure to serve the
Project with recycled water
Objective –
E 6
Improve local air quality by
minimizing the production and
emission of air pollutants and toxic
air contaminants and limit the
exposure of people to such
pollutants.
E 6.1 Encourage compact development
featuring a mix of uses that locate
residential areas within reasonable
walking distance to jobs, services,
and transit.
The Project is designed to cluster residential land
uses within the development area identified in the
adopted Otay Ranch GDP, meeting the intent of
implementing compact development. The
Village Core area includes land uses that provide
both jobs and services within walking distance of
local residents.
E 6.2 Promote and facilitate transit
system improvements in order to
increase transit use and reduce
dependency on the automobile.
The Project is served by planned local bus stops
adjacent to the village core area along Main
Street. In addition, a BRT station is planned in
the adjacent Village 8 West Town Center Road.
The Project includes the TDM measures
described in the response to LUT 18.5 above.
These TDM measures are designed to increase
transit use and reduce dependency on the
automobile
Page 991 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 26
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
E 6.10 The siting of new sensitive
receptors within 500 feet of
highways resulting from
development or redevelopment
projects shall require the
preparation of a health risk
assessment as part of the CEQA
review of the project. Attendant
health risks identified in the Health
Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be
feasibly mitigated to the maximum
extent practicable, in accordance
with CEQA, in order to help ensure
that applicable federal and state
standards are not exceeded.
The Project is within 500 feet of a highway (SR-
125); therefore, a health risk assessment was
prepared in conjunction with the 2014 EIR to
assess impacts associated with a highway. A
Health Risk Screening Letter (Ldn Consulting
May 2023) was prepared to evaluate the proposed
land uses which demonstrated that applicable
state and federal standards are not exceeded.
Objective –
E 7
Promote energy conservation
through the efficient use of energy
and through the development of
local, non-fossil fuel-based
renewable sources of energy.
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.
The project will comply with the latest Title 24
Energy requirements.
Objective E
8
Minimize the amount of solid waste
generated within the General Plan
area that requires landfill disposal.
E 8.1 Promote efforts to reduce waste,
minimize the need for additional
landfills, and provide economically
and environmentally sound
resource recovery, management,
and disposal facilities.
The Project will comply with all City of Chula
Recycling requirements and recycling will be
incorporated into all components of the project.
E 8.3 Implement source reduction
strategies, including curbside
recycling, use of small collection
facilities for recycling, and
composting
Recycling will be incorporated into all
components of the project.
Objective –
E 10
Protect important paleontological
resources and support and
Page 992 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 27
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
encourage public education and
awareness of such resources.
E 10.1 Continue to assess and mitigate the
potential impacts of private
development and public facilities
and infrastructure to
paleontological resources in
accordance with the CEQA.
A Cultural/Paleontological Technical
Memorandum was prepared for the project. The
Project must comply with mitigation measures
related to paleontological resources in the 2014
FEIR, in accordance with the CEQA.
Objective –
E 14
Minimize the risk of injury, loss of
life, and property damage
associated with geologic hazards.
E 14.1 To the maximum extent
practicable, protect against injury,
loss of life, and major property
damage through engineering
analyses of potential seismic
hazards, appropriate engineering
design, and the stringent
enforcement of all applicable
regulations and standards.
A Geotechnical Update Report were prepared for
the project. The project will be designed in
compliance with the latest subdivision and
building codes.
E 14.2 Prohibit the subdivision, grading,
or development of lands subject to
potential geologic hazards in the
absence of adequate evidence
demonstrating that such
development would not be
adversely affected by such hazards
and would not adversely affect
surrounding properties.
A Geotechnical Update Report were prepared by
GEOCON, Inc. for the Project and determined
that the Project is not located in an area of
geological hazards and is suitable for
development.
E 14.3 Require site-specific geotechnical
investigations for proposals within
areas subject to potential geologic
hazards; and ensure
implementation of all measures
deemed necessary by the City
Engineer and/or Building Official
to avoid or adequately mitigate
such hazards.
A Geotechnical Update Report were prepared by
GEOCON, Inc. for the Project and determined
that the Project is not located in an area of
geological hazards and is suitable for
development.
Objective –
E 15
Minimize the risk of injury and
property damage associated with
flood hazards.
Page 993 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 28
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
E 15.1 Prohibit proposals to subdivide,
grade, or develop lands that are
subject to potential flood hazards,
unless adequate evidence is
provided that demonstrates that
such proposals would not be
adversely affected by potential
flood hazards and that such
proposals would not adversely
affect surrounding properties.
Require site-specific hydrological
investigations for proposals within
areas subject to potential flood
hazards; and implement all
measures deemed necessary by the
City Engineer to avoid or
adequately mitigate potential flood
hazards.
The Drainage Study for Otay Ranch Village 8
East was prepared by Hunsaker &
Associates. The study analyzed the pre- and post-
development flows within the Otay River
watershed at the major downstream outlet points
of the Village 8 East development, and
demonstrates that the Village 8 East development
will not increase the river flows, velocities or
depths in the river at the outlet locations or
downstream of the development.
Runoff velocities will be reduced by energy
dissipating impact basins along with rip rap.at
storm drain outfalls. The Project has been
designed to honor pre-project watershed basins
and outfall locations. Considering the limitations
which result from Subdivision layout and design,
minor exchanges in watershed areas occur but are
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Since the project site is located outside any
FEMA floodplain zones, there is no requirement
for a Letter of Map Revision. The Study shows
there is no adverse impact from the proposed
development after the attenuation because there is
reduction in flows.
Objective –
E19
Maintain the ability to establish
hazardous waste storage,
collection, treatment, disposal, and
transfer facilities to serve the needs
of Chula Vista industry and
businesses within appropriate
locations of the City, while
ensuring adequate protection of the
community.
E19.1 • A Health Risk Assessment as
described in the Chula Vista
Zoning Code
• All facilities shall be a
minimum 1,000 feet from any
residential zone; residence;
school; hospital; hotel; motel;
or other similar land use.
See response to LUT 79.5 above.
Page 994 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 29
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
Objective –
E 21
Protect people from excessive noise
through careful land use planning
and the incorporation of
appropriate mitigation techniques.
E 21.1 Apply the exterior land use-noise
compatibility guidelines listed in
Table 9-2 of this Environmental
Element to new development,
where applicable, and in light of
project-specific considerations.
The Otay Ranch Village 8 East – Noise Update
analysis was prepared by Dudek. The Project will
implement the 2014 FEIR mitigation measures to
ensure compliance with E 21.1.
E 21.2 Where applicable, the assessment
and mitigation of interior noise
levels shall adhere to the applicable
requirements of the California
Building Code with local
amendments and other applicable
established City standards.
The Project will comply with the requirements of
the building code to reduce interior noise levels to
45db or lower.
E 21.3 Promote the use of available
technologies in building
construction to improve noise
attenuation capacities.
The Project will comply with the requirements of
the building code to reduce interior noise levels to
45db or lower.
Objective –
E 22
Protect the community from the
effects of transportation noise.
E 22.3 Employ traffic calming measures,
where appropriate, such as narrow
roadways and on-street parking, in
commercial and mixed use
districts.
Village 8 East includes traffic calming measures
such as narrowed roadways, roundabouts, raised
crosswalks, on-street parking in the Village Core
and throughout the village core, in compliance
with E 22.3.
E 22.4 Encourage walking; biking;
carpooling; use of public transit;
and other alternative modes of
transportation to minimize
vehicular use and associated traffic
noise.
Village 8 East includes an internal pedestrian
network along internals streets which provide
connectivity between the residential
neighborhoods and the Village Core. The Village
Pathway connects to the Chula Vista Regional
Trail located along La Media Parkway and Main
Street. Local bus stops are planned adjacent to
the Village Core at the intersection of Main Street
and La Palmita Drive. See LUT 18.5 for TDM
measures. In addition, NEVs are permitted on lo-
speed internal streets and on off-street facilities
along La Media Parkway and the future Multi-
Modal bridge.
E 22.5 Require projects to construct
appropriate mitigation measures in
order to attenuate existing and
The Otay Ranch Village 8 East – Noise Update
analysis was prepared by Dudek. The Project will
Page 995 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 30
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
projected traffic noise levels, in
accordance with applicable
standards, including the exterior
land use/noise compatibility
guidelines listed in Table 9-2 of this
Environmental Element.
implement the 2014 FEIR mitigation measures to
ensure compliance with E 22.5.
Objective -
23
Provide fair treatment for people of
all races, cultures, and income
levels with respect to development,
adoption, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies.
E23.3 Do not site industrial facilities/uses
that pose a significant hazard to
human health & safety in
proximity to schools or residential
dwellings
There are no industrial facilities or uses permitted
within Village 8 East.
E23.4 Build new schools and residential
dwellings with sufficient separation
and buffering from industrial
facilities and uses that pose a
significant hazard to human health
and safety.
A Health Risk Screen Letter was prepared for the
project to address potential impacts from SR-125.
GP
Element
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Objective/
Policy #
Objective/Policy Text
Objective –
GM 1
Concurrent public facilities and
services.
GM 1.9 Require that all major
development projects prepare a
PFFP that articulates
infrastructure and public facilities
requirements and costs and
funding mechanisms.
The Village 8 East Supplemental PFFP has been
prepared for the project.
Objective –
GM 2
Provide adequate and sustainable
fiscal base.
GM 2.1 Achieve and maintain a balance of
land uses within the City that
assures residential development is
complemented by expanded local
employment opportunities, retail
A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared
which demonstrates a net positive benefit to the
City’s General Fund. See response to ED 1.
Page 996 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 31
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
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.
GM 2.2 Require a fiscal impact analysis to
be conducted for major
development projects that
documents the project’s effects
upon the City operating budget
over time.
A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared
which demonstrates a net positive benefit to the
City’s General Fund. See response to ED 1.2.
Objective –
GM 3
Create and preserve vital
neighborhoods.
GM 3.3 Assure that all new and infill
development within existing urban
areas pays its proportional share of
the cost for urban infrastructure
and public facilities required to
maintain the Threshold Standards,
as adopted for its area of impact.
The project is subject to the City’s Development
Impact Fee Program and State requirements to
fund educational facilities.
GM 3.8 Encourage the creation of vibrant
and varied neighborhoods and a
diversity of housing types,
including, housing affordable to a
range of income groups, consistent
with housing element objectives.
The project provides for additional for-sale multi-
family and rental apartment homes with Village 8
East. Village 8 East provides a mix of housing
types including market rate and moderate income
rental apartments, triplex and townhomes,
courtyard homes and detached multi-famil
homes, providing housing opportunities for a
range of income groups, consistent with GM 3.8
and the City Housing Element objectives.
GP
Element
HOUSING ELEMENT
Objective/
Policy #
Objective/Policy Text
Objective –
H 2
Promote efficient use of water and
energy through adopted standards
and incentive-based policies to
conserve limited resources and
reduce long-term operational costs
of housing.
H 2.1 Encourage the efficient use and
conservation of water by residents.
The Project will be subject to the water
conservation requirements of the California
Page 997 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 32
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
Building Code and City of Chula Vista
ordinances.
H 2.2 Promote the efficient use of energy.
The Project will be subject to the energy
conservation requirements of the California
Building Code and City of Chula Vista
ordinances.
Objective –
H 4
Minimize impacts on housing
choice within each of the four
geographic planning areas,
especially to very low-and low-
income residents, that result from
conversion or demolition of rental
housing units.
H 4.1 Promote an equitable distribution
of housing types (e.g., multi-family
rental and owner occupied
housing) based upon identified
needs within the Northwest,
Southwest, and East Planning
Areas to provide a range of housing
opportunities for all income levels.
See GM 3.8 above.
Objective –
H 5
Encourage the provision of a wide
range of housing choices by
location, type of unit, and price
level, in particular the
establishment of permanent
affordable housing for low-and
moderate-income households.
H 5.1 Balanced Communities-Affordable
Housing: Require newly
constructed residential
developments to provide a portion
of their development affordable to
low-and moderate-income
households.
The project will comply with the City’s Balanced
Communities Affordable Housing Policy. The
Applicant will enter into a Balanced Community
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City
which will address how the Project will meet its
affordable housing obligation.
H 5.2 Encourage the development of
sufficient and suitable new rental
housing opportunities within each
of the City’s four geographic
Planning Areas, particularly for
very low-and low-income
households.
The project will comply with the City’s Balanced
Communities Affordable Housing Policy. The
Applicant will enter into Balanced Community
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City
which will address how the Project will meet its
affordable housing obligation.
Objective –
H 7
Facilitate the creation,
maintenance, preservation and
conservation of affordable housing
Page 998 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 33
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
for lower and moderate-income
households through comprehensive
planning documents and processes,
and the provision of financial
assistance and other incentives.
H 7.1 Ensure Chula Vista’s plans and
policies addressing housing, such
as the Zoning Ordinance, Sectional
Planning Area Plans, and Specific
Plans, encourage a variety of
housing product that responds to
variations in income level, the
changing live/work patterns of
residents and the needs of the
City’s diverse population.
The Village 8 East SPA, PC District Regulations
and Village Design plan provides for a variety of
housing types, both for sale and rental housing in
a range of floorplans for singles, couples and
families. The Project will comply with the City’s
Balanced Communities Affordable Housing
Policy. The Applicant will enter into a Balanced
Community Affordable Housing Agreement with
the City which will address how the Project will
meet its affordable housing obligation.
Objective –
H 8
Ensure the availability of housing
opportunities to persons regardless
of race, color, ancestry, national
origin, religion, sex, disability,
marital status, and familial status,
source of income or sexual
orientation.
H 8.1 Ensure equal housing
opportunities to prevent housing
discrimination in the local housing
market.
The Project is committed to equal opportunity in
housing.
GP
Element
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES
Objective/
Policy #
Objective/Policy Text
Objective –
PFS 1
Ensure adequate and reliable
water, sewer, and drainage service
and facilities.
PFS 1.4 For new development, require on-
site detention of storm water flows
such that, where practical, existing
downstream structures will not be
overloaded. Slow runoff and
maximize on-site infiltration of
runoff.
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and
will implement the recommendations of the
analysis to protect downstream structures and
properties.
Objective –
PFS 2
Increase efficiencies in water use,
wastewater generation and its re-
Page 999 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 34
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
use, and handling of storm water
runoff throughout the City through
use of alternative technologies.
PFS 2.2 As part of project construction and
design, assure that drainage
facilities in new development
incorporate storm water runoff
and sediment control, including
state-of-the-art technologies, where
appropriate.
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and
will implement the recommendations of the
analysis to control sediment and runoff.
PFS 2.3 In designing water, wastewater,
and drainage facilities, limit the
disruption of natural landforms
and water bodies. Encourage the
use of natural channels that
simulate natural drainage ways
while protecting property.
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and
will implement the recommendations of the
analysis to control sediment and runoff from the
project.
Objective –
PFS 5
Maintain sufficient levels of fire
protection, emergency medical
service and police services to
protect public safety and property.
PFS 5.1 Continue to adequately equip and
staff the Fire Department to ensure
that established service standards
for emergency calls are met.
The Project will contribute its fair share to the
City Development Impact Fee Program.
PFS 5.6 Encourage crime watch programs
in all neighborhoods.
The Project will coordinate with the Chula Vista
Police Department to encourage residents to
establish a crime watch program.
PFS 5.7 Prior to approval of any
discretionary projects, ensure that
construction is phased with
provision of police and fire
protection services such that
services are provided prior to or
concurrent with need.
The Project must comply with all City
requirements to ensure adequate City services are
available to serve the development. The
Applicant prepared an addendum to the Village 8
East Fire Protection Plan to evaluate fire
protection services needed to serve the Project.
Objective –
PFS 6
Provide adequate fire and police
protection services to newly
developing and redeveloping areas
of the City.
PFS 6.1 Continue to require new
development and redevelopment
projects to demonstrate adequate
access for fire and police vehicles.
The Project has been reviewed and complies with
the access requirements for police and fire
services.
Page 1000 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 35
General Plan Element Objective/Policy SPA Amendment Consistency Response
PFS 6.2 Require new development and
redevelopment projects to
demonstrate adequate water
pressure to new buildings.
A water supply study has been reviewed and
approved for adequate supply and pressure for the
proposed uses.
PFS 6.3 Encourage CPTED techniques in
new development and
redevelopment projects.
The Project includes physical design to for
adequate lighting, signage, and defensible space.
Objective –
PFS 15
Provide new park and recreation
facilities for residents of new
development, City-wide.
PFS 15.1 Continue to pursue a City-wide
standard for the provision of
developed parkland for new
development projects of three acres
per estimated one thousand new
residents.
The project-related park requirements are met
through construction and dedication of the
neighborhood park and dedication of a portion of
the Otay Ranch Community Park South, in
compliance with PFS 15.1.
Objective –
PFS 19
Provide art and culture programs,
childcare facilities and health and
human services that enhance the
quality of life in Chula Vista.
PFS 19.10 Continue to require community
purpose facility acreage, in
accordance with the Municipal
Code, for the provision of childcare
and other social service facilities.
The Village 8 East SPA Plan has an obligation to
provide 4.0 acres of land designated CPF. This
obligation will be satisfied by designating a 1.2
acres site (CPF-2) planned as an active recreation
facility, consistent with CVMC requirements.
The remaining obligation will be satisfied
consistent with the CPF Agreement between the
Applicant and the City.
Objective –
PFS 20
Develop a cultural arts center in
Chula Vista.
PFS 20.3 Encourage the installation of art
pieces in publicly owned spaces and
require developers to pay fees or
provide art pieces that serve to
enhance an individual project and
contribute to the appearance and
vitality of the development.
The City does not have a current fee to support
the installation of public art; however, there are
public and private spaces that could provide
opportunities for the installation and/or display of
art within Village 8 East.
Page 1001 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
General Development Plan Amendment Report
GDP22-0002
December 2023
PREPARED FOR:
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Adopted ______________
By Resolution No. ______________
PREPARED BY:
RH Consulting Group, LLC
Contact: Ranie Hunter
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
619-823-1494
Page 1002 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Page 1003 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT REPORT
Page 2
I. Introduction & Background
The Village 8 (Village 8 West and Village 8 East) portion of Otay Ranch (“Project Area”) was
originally entitled when the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)/Otay Subregional
Plan (SRP) was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of
Supervisors in 1993. The GDP designated Village 8 an Urban Village.
In 2014, the Chula Vista City Council approved the Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 2014-235), Tentative Map (CVT No. 13-03) (Resolution No.
2014-238) and associated amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan (CVGP) and GDP. On
February 18, 2020, an amendment to the Village 8 East SPA Plan (Resolution No. 2020-236)
and Tentative Map (Resolution No. 2020-237) were approved by the Chula Vista City Council.
This amendment transferred 284 multi-familly units from Village 8 East to Village 8 West,
reducing the authorized units in Village 8 East from 3,590 to 3,276. HomeFed Otay Land II,
LLC (Applicant) is proposing amendments to the Village 8 East land uses and other associated
changes which necessitate amendments to the GDP, including the following:
• Modify the limits of the area south of Main Street designated Mixed Use “MU”
• Eliminate Medium Residential land uses
• Designate Medium High Residential” land uses
• Shift school and neighborhood park locations to the west
• Rename Otay Valley Road to La Media Parkway and reflect revised alignment
• Change “Pedestrian Bridge” to “Multi-Modal Bridge” to accommodate neighborhood
electric vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians
• Update GDP-level statistics to reflect residential density changes
Amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP, Part II The Plan, are necessary to implement the
proposed land use changes described in more detail below and reflected in the amended Village
8 East SPA Plan and the Village 8 East Tentative Map (CVT No. 22-0005). In addition to
proposed text changes to GDP pages II-107-110, the following list represents proposed GDP
Revisions to Tables and Exhibits:
The following GDP Tables revised to reflect updated land use statistics for the eastern portion
of Village 8Exhibit 18a: Overall Project Summary
Exhibit 19: Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Table
Exhibit 52: Village 8 Land Use Table
The following GDP Exhibits revised to reflect updated land uses within the eastern portion of
Village 8:
Exhibit 18b: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Land Use
Exhibit 20: Otay Valley Land Use Map
Page 1004 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Exhibit 25: Otay Ranch Villages Types and Rural Estate
Exhibit 26: Commercial, Industrial and Business Sites
Exhibit 53: Village 8 Land Use Plan
Exhibit 96: Otay Valley Parcel Park and Trail Map
Page 1005 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PROPOSED OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
(SHOWN IN REDLINE TEXT)
Page 1006 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 5
Page 1007 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 6
Page 1008 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 7
Exhibit 18a - Overall Project Summary Table (Proposed) GDP Part II, Page II-14
Page 1009 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 8
Page 1010 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 9
Page 1011 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 10
Page 1012 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 11
Page 1013 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 12
Page 1014 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 13
\
Page 1015 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 14
Exhibit 18b Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Land Use Map (Adopted 2020)
Page 1016 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 15
Exhibit 18b Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Land Use Map (Proposed)
Page 1017 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 16
Exhibit 20 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Map (Adopted 2020)
Page 1018 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 17
Exhibit 20 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Map (Proposed)
Page 1019 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 18
Exhibit 25 Otay Ranch Villages Types (Adopted 2020)
Page 1020 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 19
Exhibit 25 Otay Ranch Villages Types (Propos
ed)
Page 1021 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 20
Exhibit 25 Otay Ranch Commercial, Industrial, Business (Adopted 2020)
Page 1022 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 21
Exhibit 25 Otay Ranch Commercial, Industrial, Business (Proposed)
Page 1023 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 22
Exhibit 53 Village 8 East Land Use Map (Adopted 2020)
Page 1024 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 23
Exhibit 53 Village 8 East Land Use Map (Proposed)
Page 1025 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 24
Exhibit 96 Otay Valley Parks Park and Trail Map (Adopted 2020)
Page 1026 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 25
Exhibit 96 Otay Valley Parks Park and Trails Map (Proposed)
Page 1027 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Sectional Planning Area Plan
April 2024
PREPARED FOR:
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Adopted on December 2, 2014
By Resolution No. 2014-235
Amended February 18, 2020
By Resolution No. 2020-036
Amended XX
By Resolution No. _______
Page 1028 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
CONTRIBUTING CONSULTANTS:
Hunsaker & Associates
Planning, Engineering, Surveying
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
Contact: Chuck Cater
(858) 558-4500
RH Consulting Group, LLC
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
(619) 823-1494
Tributary Landscape Architecture
2725 Jefferson Street #14
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Contact: Tom Picard
(760) 438-3304
WHA, Inc.
2950 Redhill Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92705-5543
Contact: Julia Malisos
(949) 250-0607
Page 1029 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
A. Background ..................................................................................................1
B. Scope and Purpose .......................................................................................2
C. Document Organization ...............................................................................4
1. SPA Plan ........................................................................................................ 4
2. Planned Community (“PC”) District Regulations .................................. 4
3. Village Design Plan (“VDP”) .................................................................... 5
4. Public Facilities Finance Plans ................................................................. 5
5. Affordable Housing Program ..................................................................... 6
6. Air Quality Improvement Plan (“AQIP”) ................................................. 6
7. Water Conservation Plan (“WCP”) .......................................................... 6
8. Energy Conservation Plan .......................................................................... 6
9. Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan ....................................... 6
10. Community Purpose Facility Master Plan ............................................. 7
11. Agriculture Plan ......................................................................................... 7
12. Preserve Edge Plan ................................................................................... 7
13. Fire Protection Plan .................................................................................. 7
14. Technical Studies and Plans ..................................................................... 7
D. Legal Significance and CEQA ...................................................................10
E. Related Documents ....................................................................................10
F. Land Offer Agreement ...............................................................................11
II. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ...................................................................................15
A. Location and Regional Setting ...................................................................15
B. Design Influence ........................................................................................17
1. Site Characteristics and Visual Context.................................................. 17
2. Circulation .................................................................................................. 17
3. Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................. 19
C. Site Utilization ...........................................................................................19
D. Community Structure .................................................................................20
D. Mapping Refinements and Density Transfers ...........................................28
E. Density Transfers Between Villages ..........................................................28
F. Secondary Designation for Elementary School Site ..................................29
III. CIRCULATION PLAN – A MULTI-MODAL APPROACH .........................................33
A. Introduction ................................................................................................33
B. Regional Circulation Network ...................................................................34
C. Vehicular Circulation Network ..................................................................35
D. Street Standards .........................................................................................38
E. Traffic Calming Plan ..................................................................................53
F. Alternative Modes ......................................................................................57
1. Public Transportation ................................................................................ 57
2. Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Circulation Network ........................... 60
3. Bicycle Circulation Network ..................................................................... 62
Page 1030 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ii
4. Pedestrian Circulation .............................................................................. 64
IV. GRADING ..........................................................................................................81
A. Introduction ................................................................................................81
B. Grading Requirements ...............................................................................81
C. Steep Slopes ...............................................................................................83
D. Grading Concept ........................................................................................86
E. Grading Review ..........................................................................................87
V. PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS MASTER PLAN ............................91
A. Purpose .......................................................................................................91
B. Regulatory Framework ..............................................................................91
C. Park Requirements .....................................................................................95
D. Village Park and Recreation Program .......................................................96
1. Recreation ................................................................................................... 96
2. Parks ............................................................................................................ 99
3. Trails and Bicycle Routes ........................................................................ 106
4. Community Gardens ................................................................................ 106
5. Open Space................................................................................................ 107
6. Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance ......................................................... 107
7. Manufactured Slopes ............................................................................... 108
8. Ownership, Funding and Maintenance ................................................. 108
D. Ownership and Maintenance Options ......................................................108
1. Community Facilities District and Homeowners Association ........... 109
2. Public Agency Maintenance ................................................................... 109
3. City of Chula Vista General Services .................................................... 109
E. Phasing .....................................................................................................109
1. Parks .......................................................................................................... 109
2. Open Space................................................................................................ 109
3. Trails .......................................................................................................... 109
VI. COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY MASTER PLAN..............................................113
A. Introduction ..............................................................................................113
B. Community Purpose Facility Requirement ..............................................114
C. Community Purpose Facility Implementation .........................................114
1. CPF-1 ......................................................................................................... 116
VII. DEVELOPMENT PHASING ...............................................................................119
A. Introduction ..............................................................................................119
VIII. PUBLIC FACILITIES .......................................................................................123
A. Introduction ..............................................................................................123
B. Water Supply and Master Plan .................................................................123
1. Water Supply ............................................................................................. 123
2. Potable Water Demand ........................................................................... 124
3. Recycled Water Supply and Master Plan .............................................. 125
4. Water Conservation ................................................................................. 125
C. Sewer Service ...........................................................................................129
D. Storm Drain & Water Quality ..................................................................131
1. Drainage .................................................................................................... 131
Page 1031 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
iii
2. Water Quality ............................................................................................ 132
E. Roads ........................................................................................................134
F. Schools .....................................................................................................134
1. Elementary Schools .................................................................................. 134
2. Middle Schools & High Schools ............................................................. 134
3. Adult Schools ............................................................................................ 135
G. Child Care Facilities ................................................................................135
1. Family Day Care Homes ......................................................................... 136
2. Facility-Based Child Care ...................................................................... 136
H. Police, Fire and Emergency Services ......................................................136
1. Police Protection ...................................................................................... 136
2. Fire Protection ......................................................................................... 136
3. Brush Management .................................................................................. 137
4. Emergency Medical Services .................................................................. 137
5. Emergency Disaster Plan ........................................................................ 137
I. Library Services ........................................................................................138
J. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Facilities .................................138
K. Civic Facilities .........................................................................................138
L. Animal Control Facilities .........................................................................139
M. Regional Facilities ...................................................................................139
1. Integrated Solid Waste Management ..................................................... 139
2. Arts and Cultural ...................................................................................... 139
3. Health and Medical .................................................................................. 139
4. Community and Regional Purpose Facilities ....................................... 140
5. Social and Senior Services ...................................................................... 140
6. Correctional .............................................................................................. 140
7. Transit ........................................................................................................ 140
VIII. OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE .......................143
A. GDP Land Use .........................................................................................143
II.2.8.1 Land Use ..........................................................................................146
II.2.8.2 Mobility ............................................................................................149
II.2.8.3 Housing ............................................................................................151
II.2.8.4 Parks, Recreation, Open Space ........................................................151
II.2.8.5 Capital Facilities ..............................................................................152
II.2.8.6 Air Quality .......................................................................................161
II.2.8.7 Noise ................................................................................................164
II.2.8.8 Safety ...............................................................................................165
II.2.8.9 Growth Management ........................................................................166
II.2.8.10 Resource Protection, Conservation & Management ......................167
Page 1032 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
iv
APPENDICES
Village Design Plan
Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan
Affordable Housing Program
Air Quality Improvement Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Energy Conservation Plan
Agriculture Plan
Preserve Edge Plan
Fire Protection Plan
EXHIBITS PAGE
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ...................................................................... 16
Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map ............................................................................18
Exhibit 3: Aerial Context Map ..................................................................21
Exhibit 4: Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan..........................................23
Exhibit 5: Village 8 East Zoning District Map .........................................27
Exhibit 6: Vehicular Circulation Plan .......................................................36
Exhibit 7: SR-125 Couplet Interchange Concept Plan .............................37
Exhibit 8: Six Lane Prime Arterial ...........................................................39
Exhibit 9: 4- Lane Major Road ................................................................40
Exhibit 10: 4- Lane Major Road (continued) .............................................41
Exhibit 11: Modified Residential Collector ..............................................42
Exhibit 12: Modified Secondary Village Entry with Median ...................43
Exhibit 13: Modified Secondary Village Entry with Median ...................44
Exhibit 14: Modified Residential Collector ..............................................45
Exhibit 15: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street ..............................46
Exhibit 16: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street with Diagonal
Parking ..................................................................................47
Exhibit 17: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street ..............................48
Exhibit 18: One Way Frontage Road (Southbound) .................................49
Exhibit 19: Modified Residential Collector ..............................................50
Exhibit 20: Community Park Entry Drive ................................................51
Exhibit 21: Private Access Road...............................................................52
Exhibit 22: Conceptual Traffic Calming Plan ..........................................54
Exhibit 23: Conceptual Roundabouts .......................................................56
Exhibit 24: Conceptual Public Transportation Plan..................................59
Exhibit 25: Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Circulation Plan...................61
Exhibit 26: Conceptual Bicycle Circulation Plan .....................................63
Exhibit 27: Conceptual Pedestrian Circulation Plan .................................65
Exhibit 28: Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail ...................................................66
Exhibit 29: Chula Vista Regional Trail ....................................................67
Exhibit 30: Conceptual Multi-Modal Bridge ............................................71
Page 1033 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
v
Exhibit 31: Village Pathway ......................................................................72
Exhibit 32: Promenade Trail .....................................................................73
Exhibit 33: Community Park Trail and Emergency/Maintenance Access
Road ........................................................................................74
Exhibit 34: Community Park Access Trail ...............................................75
Exhibit 35: Edge Trail ...............................................................................76
Exhibit 36: Edge Trail ...............................................................................77
Exhibit 37: Neighborhood Trail ................................................................78
Exhibit 38: Village 8 East Steep Slope Impacts .......................................85
Exhibit 39: Conceptual Grading Plan .......................................................88
Exhibit 40: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan ...................101
Exhibit 41: Neighborhood Park (P-1) Concept Plan................................103
Exhibit 42: Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-2) Concept Plan .....105
Exhibit 43: Community Purpose Facility Master Plan ............................115
Exhibit 44: CPF-1 Concept Plan .............................................................116
Exhibit 45: Conceptual Phasing Plan ......................................................120
Exhibit 46: Conceptual Potable Water Plan............................................127
Exhibit 47: Conceptual Recycled Water Plan .........................................128
Exhibit 48: Conceptual Sewer Plan ........................................................130
Exhibit 49: Conceptual Basin and Drainage Plan ...................................133
Exhibit 50: Otay Ranch GDP Village 8 East Land Use Plan (Proposed)145
TABLES PAGE
1 Village 8 East Site Utilization Summary 24
2 Traffic Calming Measures 55
3 Otay Ranch Steep Slopes 80
4 Estimated Parkland Dedication 91
5 Estimated Preserve Conveyance Requirement 104
6 GDP Exhibit 58a Village 8 East Land Use
Table
140
ATTACHMENTS
1 Unit Tracking Matrix
2 Public Park Facility and Community Purpose Facility Capacity Studies
Page 1034 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
vi
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1035 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
I. Introduction
Page 1036 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1037 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 1 December 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (“GDP”) was adopted by the Chula
Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28,
1993, following an extensive planning process spanning over five years. The plan
governs the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch properties. The Otay Ranch GDP is based
upon, and directly implements the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The Otay
Ranch GDP includes plans for urban villages, a resort community, the Eastern
Urban Center, industrial areas, rural estate planning areas, an 11,375-acre open
space preserve and a university. The Otay Ranch open space system, consisting of
13,000+ acres, facilitates completion of the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail System and
the Chula Vista Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“MSCP”) Subarea Plan.
Since its original adoption in 1993, the GDP has been amended several times to
address village-specific planning issues. In 2005, the Chula Vista City Council
adopted an update to the Chula Vista General Plan (“CVGP”); however, the
Council deferred their land use decision on the southern portions of the Otay Valley
Parcel, including Village 8 East. The CVGP was amended in 2013 to implement
land use changes in Village 8 West and Village 9 and again in 2014 to address
Village 3 North and a Portion of Village 4, Village 8 East and Village 10.
In addition, the Chula Vista Council entered into a Land Offer Agreement (“LOA”)
with the prior Village 8 East Applicant in 2008. The LOA was subsequently
amended in 2010 and again in 2014. The LOA established a framework for
planning the southern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, including the creation of a
future University and Regional Technology Park. The Chula Vista City Council
approved the Village 8 East SPA Plan on December 2, 2014, by Resolution No.
2014-235, consistent with the provisions in the approved LOA.
The Chula Vista City Council subsequently approved an amendment to the Village
8 East Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan and Tentative Map No. 13-03 on
February 18, 2020, by Resolutions Nos. 2020-036 and 2020-037 respectively,
which permitted the transfer of 284 multi-family units from Village 8 East to
Village 8 West, reducing the total number of units authorized in Village 8 East to
3,276.
On ___________, the Chula Vista City Council approved an amendment to the
Village 8 East SPA Plan and approved Tentative Map No. 22-0005 by Resolutions
No. _________ and _______ respectively. This amendment addressed changes to
the residential product mix, minor changes to the alignment of internal streets and
accommodated the SR-125 Interchange Design. The Community Purpose Facility
(“CPF”), Neighborhood Park (P-1) and School (S-1) site configurations have also
been revised. The overall units authorized in Village 8 East remain at 3,276.
Page 1038 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 2 December 2023
This Village Eight East SPA Plan fully supersedes and replaces any and all earlier
versions or iterations of the Village 8 East SPA Plan adopted and approved by the
City on December 2, 2014, February 18, 2020, or at any other time.
B. SCOPE AND PURPOSE
The Otay Ranch GDP permits urban levels of development implemented through
the Otay Ranch “village” planning concept. The village concept was developed
with input from the City of Chula Vista (“City”), County of San Diego (“County”)
and the Metropolitan Transit System (“MTS”). These agencies also participated in
planning for subsequent “village” SPA Plans in Otay Ranch.
In general, the concept provides for urban villages that are approximately one
square mile, with distinct features that are defined by an open space system and
major arterial streets. The village planning concept is intended to promote
pedestrian-oriented development and reduce reliance on automobiles. The concept
provides for essential facilities and services: elementary schools, shops, civic
facilities, childcare centers, and parks to be located in a village core. The highest
density residential uses are located in the core and densities decrease toward the
village perimeter. Otay Ranch villages that are served by regional transit are
intended to have the highest residential densities and commercial uses to enhance
transit ridership.
The SPA Plan is the implementation tool of the Otay Ranch GDP. It establishes
design criteria for the villages and defines the type and maximum amount of
development permitted. It also establishes the City’s standards for each
development including open space provisions and major improvements to be
constructed by the developer.
This SPA Plan for Village 8 East refines and implements the land use goals,
objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP and CVGP. This project includes
Otay Ranch GDP and CVGP amendments necessary to implement the proposed
vision for Village 8 East. The most recent SPA amendments modified the
residential housing type mix to eliminate traditional single-family homes from
Village 8 East and introduced new, innovative attached and detached residential
products to address current and anticipated market conditions. Additional changes
incorporated enhanced multi-modal transportation features, accommodated the
modified SR-125 – Main Street/La Media Parkway Interchange design and
incorporated design elements to complement and connect Village 8 East to Village
8 West. The CPF, Neighborhood Park (P-1) and School (S-1) site configurations
have also been revised.
This SPA Plan defines the development parameters for Village 8 East, including
the land uses, design criteria, multi-modal transportation patterns, open space and
recreation concepts, and infrastructure requirements. Additionally, the character
and form of the developments will be implemented through a series of guidelines
Page 1039 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 3 December 2023
and development standards prescribed in Planned Community District Regulations,
Village Design Plan and other supporting documents.
The objectives of the SPA Plan are to:
• Establish an urban pedestrian-oriented village with a village core designed
to reduce reliance on the automobile and promote multi-modal
transportation, including walking and the use of neighborhood electric
vehicles (“NEV”), bicycles, local buses and regional transit.
• Promote synergistic uses between Village 8 East and Village 8 West, to
create a cohesive community while balancing activities, services and
facilities with employment, housing, transit and commercial opportunities.
• Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Chula Vista General
Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the MSCP Subarea Plan,
the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, the Otay
Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan
and the Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
• Ensure public facilities are provided in a timely manner and financed by the
parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from, the improvements.
• Foster development patterns which promote orderly growth and prevent
urban sprawl.
• Develop, maintain and enhance a sense of community identity which
complements the Village 8 West Town Center and surrounding land uses.
• Accentuate the relationship of the land use plan with its natural setting and
the physical character of the region and promote effective management of
natural resources by concentrating development into less sensitive areas
while preserving large contiguous open space areas with sensitive
resources.
• Add to the creation of a unique image and identity which differentiates Otay
Ranch from other communities.
• Wisely manage limited natural resources.
• Establish a land use and infrastructure plan that assures the viability of the
SPA Plan Area in consideration of existing and anticipated economic
conditions.
• Establish multi-use trail linkages to the Chula Vista Greenbelt, consistent
with the Greenbelt Master Plan.
Page 1040 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 4 December 2023
• Implement the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan within the SPA
boundary through the planning and provision of portions of the City’s
Greenbelt trail network and active recreation area.
• Include the Otay Ranch Community Park South within the Village 8 East
SPA Plan with amenities consistent with the Chula Vista Park and
Recreation Master Plan (“PRMP”) such as soccer/multi-purpose fields,
open green areas, lighted ball fields, lighted sports courts, picnic shelters,
play areas, a community center building, lighted parking areas, and
restroom and maintenance buildings and an Otay Valley Regional Park
(“OVRP”) trail staging area.
• Provide a variety of housing options, including affordable housing, for City
residents and future Otay Ranch residents.
This SPA Plan land use policy and supporting PC District Regulations supplement
other City regulations. The PC District Regulations function as the zoning
ordinance for Village 8 East. Wherever in conflict with other City land use policy
documents for Village 8 East, this SPA Plan shall apply. Where a topic is not
addressed by this Village 8 East SPA Plan, appropriate City regulations shall apply.
C. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This SPA Plan is divided into several components: the SPA Plan; PC District
Regulations; Village Design Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plans; Affordable
Housing Program; Air Quality Improvement Plan; Water Conservation Plan; Non-
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Plan; Community Purpose Facility Master Plan, Agriculture Plan, Preserve Edge
Plan, Fire Protection Plan and supporting Technical Studies and Plans. The
purposes of these documents are as follows:
1. SPA Plan
The purpose of the SPA Plan is to define, in more detail than the City’s General
Plan and Otay Ranch GDP, the development parameters for Village 8 East,
including the land uses, design criteria, circulation pattern, open space and
recreation concept and infrastructure requirements to support the community.
2. Planned Community (“PC”) District Regulations
The PC District Regulations are the zoning regulations for Village 8 East. These
Regulations implement the goals and policies of the CVGP, Otay Ranch GDP, and
the SPA Plan by establishing land use districts and standards to classify, regulate,
restrict and separate the uses of land, buildings and structures, and regulate and
limit the type, height and bulk of buildings and structures in each land use district.
These standards are established to protect the public health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista; to safeguard and enhance the appearance and
quality of development and to provide the social, physical and economic
Page 1041 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 5 December 2023
advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly planned use of land
resources. The regulations provide the basis by which the City will review and
evaluate the preliminary and final drawings for subsequent development
applications and provide guidance at the Design Review level. See PC District
Regulations, Chapter 10. Implementation and Administration.
In the event of conflict, these PC District Regulations supersede other City zoning
regulations. The PC District Regulations are adopted by Ordinance pursuant to Title
19.12.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
3. Village Design Plan (“VDP”)
This document guides the site, building and landscape design within the village to
ensure the quality of the adopted urban design and architectural concepts
established for the overall Otay Ranch community are maintained. The Village
Design Plan identifies a “main street” theme for the Village Core and expresses that
identity through streetscape and landscape design, pedestrian orientation, signage
programs and lighting guidelines. The Village Design Plan, as well as the SPA and
Tentative Map, provide for an internal trail network and connectivity to the adjacent
trail network (i.e. Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail and Regional Trail). The VDP also
identifies the village core design concept that will implement Otay Ranch’s planned
pedestrian and multi-modal orientation.
In addition to the VDP, and as required by the Otay Ranch GDP (Page II-63), a
subsequent Master Precise Plan will be prepared for the Village Core. The Master
Precise Plan serves as a link between the approved SPA/Village Design Plan and
future development in the Village Core.
4. Public Facilities Finance Plans
Preparation of a Public Facilities Finance Plan (“PFFP”) is required by Chula Vista
Municipal Code Chapter 19.92. The purpose of the PFFP is to establish compliance
mechanisms and standards to ensure public facilities, infrastructure and services
will exist, or concurrently be provided, to meet the demands of infrastructure and
climate protection generated by new development. The PFFP contains a fiscal
analysis identifying capital budget impacts on the City as well as maintenance and
operation costs for each phase of development.
The PFFP components include an analysis of infrastructure facilities such as
drainage, traffic, water and sewer, and the provision of community services and
facilities including fire protection and emergency services, law enforcement,
libraries, schools and parks. The analysis and provisions of the PFFP fulfill the
GDP requirements for SPA-level Master Facility Plans for most facilities
associated with the development of the villages. Where additional project-specific
study and planning is needed, separate technical studies and plans for the villages
Page 1042 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 6 December 2023
have been prepared and included as a component of the SPA Plan or the Project
Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).
5. Affordable Housing Program
The City of Chula Vista General Plan Balanced Communities Affordable Housing
Policy requires residential development with fifty (50) or more dwelling units to
provide a minimum of 10% of the total dwelling units for affordable housing. Of
these affordable housing units, one-half (5% of the total project) are to be
designated available to low-income households and the remaining five percent
(5%) to moderate income households. To guarantee the provision of Affordable
Housing opportunities, the City requires a specific Affordable Housing Program
(“AHP”) be prepared by the Developer. The Affordable Housing Program is
implemented through an Affordable Housing Agreement between the City and the
Developer.
The AHP delineates how, when and where affordable housing units will be
provided, intended subsidies, income and/or rent restrictions and methods to verify
compliance.
6. Air Quality Improvement Plan (“AQIP”)
Preparation of a project specific AQIP is required to accompany SPA Plans,
pursuant to CVMC 19.92.030. The AQIP addresses compliance with the air quality
standards and policies of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(“APCD”).
7. Water Conservation Plan (“WCP”)
Preparation of a project specific WCP is required to accompany SPA Plans,
pursuant to CVMC 19.92.030. The WCP prepared for the project addresses the long
term need to conserve water, short term emergency measures and establishes
standards for water conservation.
8. Energy Conservation Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP requires all SPA Plans to include a Non-Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan. The Energy Conservation Plan identifies measures to reduce the
use of non-renewable energy resources through, but not limited to, transportation;
building design and use; lighting; recycling and alternative energy sources.
9. Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP requires all SPA Plans to include a Parks, Recreation, Open
Space and Trails Plan. This Plan identifies locations, conceptual designs,
ownership, maintenance and phasing of park, recreation and trails facilities within
the SPA Plan Area. The Plan also establishes linkages to the Chula Vista Greenbelt
Page 1043 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 7 December 2023
Trail and Regional Trail. The Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan is
provided as Section V of the Village 8 East SPA Plan.
10. Community Purpose Facility Master Plan
The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the preparation of a Community
Purpose Facility Master Plan as a component of a SPA Plan. This Plan identifies
the location of sites, acreages and facilities in the village. The Community Purpose
Facility Master Plan is provided as Chapter VI of the Village 8 East SPA Plan.
11. Agriculture Plan
The 1993 Otay Ranch Program EIR requires the preparation of an Agriculture Plan
concurrent with the approval of any SPA Plan affecting onsite agricultural
resources. This Plan describes the type of agriculture activities allowed as an
interim use, including buffering guidelines designed to prevent potential land use
interface impacts related to noise, odors, dust, insects, rodents and chemicals which
may accompany agricultural activities and operations.
12. Preserve Edge Plan
In accordance with the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (“RMP”), a
Preserve Edge Plan must be prepared for all SPA Plans that contain areas adjacent
to the Otay Ranch Preserve. The purpose of the Preserve Edge Plan is to identify
allowable uses within appropriate land use designations for areas adjacent to the
Preserve.
13. Fire Protection Plan
In accordance with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Fire Department,
Chapter 49 of the 2022 California Fire Code, and the City of Chula Vista Fire Code,
a Fire Protection Plan must be provided for all new development in the Wildland
Urban Interface (“WUI”). The Fire Protection Plan identifies the wildfire risk
associated with the proposed development in the WUI area and provides measures
to minimize and mitigate potential for loss. A Fire Protection Plan and an
Addendum (2023) addressing Village 8 East has been prepared.
14. Technical Studies and Plans
The Otay Ranch GDP identified Project-wide Implementation Tasks including
preparation of an Overall Design Plan, Master Facility Plans and the Resource
Management Plan (Phase 2) for Otay Ranch. These project-wide implementation
tasks have been completed and serve as the basis for subsequent SPA planning. The
GDP also identified SPA Implementation Tasks that included preparation of SPA
Plans, PFFPs, Regional Facilities Reports, Master Facilities Plans, and others. The
full list of GDP and SPA Implementation tasks are located in Part III,
Implementation, of the 1993 GDP (pages 63-68). During the preparation of SPA
One, a number of Master Facility Plans were prepared to address the provision of
Page 1044 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 8 December 2023
certain facilities on a Ranch-wide basis. For this reason, subsequent SPA Plans are
required only to prepare Plans and Technical Studies specific to their development.
The plans for the villages are listed and described above.
Technical studies for the SPA Plan Area have been prepared for the Project EIR,
the PFFP or as part of this SPA Plan. These plans and studies, in conjunction with
mitigation measures identified by the EIR, fulfill the Otay Ranch GDP
requirements for individual Village SPA Plan implementation. The technical
studies and plans include:
• Biological Technical Report for Otay Ranch University Villages, Prepared
by Dudek & Associates, May 2014.
• University Villages Traffic Impact Analysis – Otay Ranch Villages 3 North
and a Portion of Village 4, 8 East and 10, prepared by Chen and Ryan
Associates, July 2014.
• Archaeological Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Otay Ranch
Villages 3 North and a Portion of 4, 8 East and 10, prepared by Brian Smith
and Associates, March 2014.
• Paleontological Resource and Monitoring Assessment for Villages 3 North
and a Portion of 4, 8 East and 10, prepared by Brian Smith and Associates,
March 2014.
• Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report for the Otay
Ranch University Villages Project, prepared by Dudek & Associates, May
2014.
• Noise Assessment Technical Report for the Otay Ranch University Villages
Project, prepared by Dudek & Associates, May 2014.
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Village 3 North and a Portion
of Village 4, 8 East and 10 Coast2Coast Environmental, November 11,
2011.
• Master Drainage Study for Otay Ranch Village 8 East, prepared by
Hunsaker & Associates, June 2014.
• Master Water Quality Technical Report for Otay Ranch Village 8 East,
prepared by Hunsaker and Associates, June 2014.
• Overview of Sewer Service for Otay Ranch Villages 3 North and a Portion
of Village 4, 8 East, and 10, prepared by Wilson Engineering, May 2014.
• Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Villages 3 North and a Portion
of Village 4, 8 East, and 10, prepared by Wilson Engineering, May 2014.
Page 1045 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 9 December 2023
• Geotechnical Investigation for Otay Ranch Village 8 East, prepared by
GEOCON, Inc., November 21, 2012.
• Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment for Otay Ranch Village 8 East, prepared
by Scientific Resources Associates, April 2013
• Fire Protection Plan University Villages – Village 8 East, prepared by
Dudek July 2014.
In addition to the above-listed technical reports and studies, the following analyses
were completed to support the Addendum to the 2014 EIR and analyze the proposed
revisions to the Chula Vista General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, this SPA Plan and the
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Tentative Map:
• Otay Ranch Village 8 East – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update,
prepared by Dudek, 2024.
• Otay Ranch Village 8 East Development Health Risk Screening Letter –
City of Chula Vista, prepared by Ldn Consulting, Inc., 2023.
• Otay Ranch Village 8 East Addendum – Review of Biological Resources,
prepared by Dudek, 2024.
• Updated Geotechnical Report, Otay Ranch Village 8 East, Chula Vista,
California, 2023.
• TM Drainage Study for Otay Ranch-Village 8 East, prepared by Hunsaker
& Associates, 2023.
• Priority Development Project (“PDP”) Storm Water Quality Management
Plan (“SWQMP”) for Otay Ranch Village 8 East Tentative Map, prepared
by Hunsaker & Associates, 2023.
• Otay Ranch Village 8 East Project – Noise Update Analysis, Prepared by
Dudek, 2023.
• Otay Ranch Village 8 East CEQA Transportation Analysis & Local
Mobility Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Chen-Ryan, 2023.
• Otay Ranch 8 East SPA Amendment Water Evaluation, prepared by Dexter
Wilson Engineering, Inc., 2023.
• Otay Ranch 8 East SPA Amendment Sewer Evaluation, prepared by Dexter
Wilson Engineering, Inc., 2023.
• Otay Ranch Village 8 East Archeological and Paleontological Update,
prepared by Dudek, 2024.
• Village 8 East Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary Report, DPFG/RH
Consulting Group, LLC, 2023.
Page 1046 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 10 December 2023
D. LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AND CEQA
The project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”). A January 2024 Addendum to the Otay Ranch University Villages
Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (EIR 13-01; SCH No. 2013071077;
approved December 2014 with addendums adopted in December 2016 and June
2021) has been prepared for this SPA Plan amendment and related actions. All
mitigation measures and monitoring activities in the Otay Ranch University
Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment FEIR
(EIR 13-01; SCH No. 2013071077; approved December 2014 with addendums
adopted in December 2016 and June 2021) and the related Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program that are applicable to this Village Eight East Sectional
Planning Area shall be fully implemented and enforced. All future discretionary
permits will need to be consistent with this SPA Plan.
E. RELATED DOCUMENTS
The Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan establish
the broad policy level standards and requirements for planning Village 8 East. The
Otay Ranch GDP also authorizes the level of development intended within the SPA
Plan Area and establishes the PC Zoning implementation process. All of the other
documents that are components of the SPA Plan package (Village Design Plans,
Public Facility Finance Plans, etc.) are prepared concurrently and based on this SPA
Plan.
Concurrent with the SPA level documents, subdivision maps and improvement
plans will be prepared which will provide the detailed information necessary to
construct the project described by the SPA level documents. These plans, the
construction process and ultimate uses/activities within the SPA must comply with
the applicable provisions of this SPA Plan and related documents, including:
• City of Chula Vista General Plan;
• Otay Ranch General Development Plan;
• Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (Phase 1 and 2);
• Multi-Species Conservation Plan Subarea Plan;
• City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan;
• City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan;
• Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan;
• Otay Valley Regional Park Design Standards & Guidelines;
• Otay Valley Regional Park Trail Guidelines; and,
Page 1047 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 11 December 2023
• Land Offer Agreement (2014)
• Chula Vista Fire Facility Master Plan (2014)
F. LAND OFFER AGREEMENT
This SPA Plan is internally consistent with the applicable provisions of the Land
Offer Agreement, dated June 17, 2014 between the City of Chula Vista and SSBT
LCRE V, LLC.
Page 1048 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East I. Introduction
PAGE 12 December 2023
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1049 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
II. Development Concept
Page 1050 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1051 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 15 December 2023
II. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
A. LOCATION AND REGIONAL SETTING
The SPA Plan Area is located at the southern edge of the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch,
just north of the Otay River Valley. Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map illustrates
the regional location of the SPA Plan Area; Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map illustrates the
location of Village 8 East within the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch.
Village 8 East is located south of Main Street, west of SR-125 and north of the Otay
River Valley. Existing development in the vicinity of Village 8 East includes Otay
Ranch Village 7 and Olympian High School to the north and Village 8 West to the
west. Future Otay Ranch Village 9 is located to the east.
Page 1052 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 16 December 2023
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map
Page 1053 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 17 December 2023
B. DESIGN INFLUENCE
The Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch planning documents (Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, Overall Design Plan, and other SPA plans for
Otay Ranch) describe the general design characteristics of Otay Ranch villages.
The design of Village 8 East is based on those guiding documents, the unique on-
site characteristics including the landform and aesthetics, existing and planned
circulation patterns, and land use relationships between Village 8 East and
surrounding development, especially Village 8 West and Village 9. The urban
village concept described in the Otay Ranch GDP provides additional focus for the
village. While general design influences are described below, design features and
development requirements are addressed in the PC District Regulations and Village
Design Plan.
1. Site Characteristics and Visual Context
The Village 8 East landform consists of large mesas sloping into the Otay River
Valley. One prominent drainage tributary to the Otay River extends north from the
river valley into the SPA Plan Area. The Otay River Valley, part of the Otay Ranch
Preserve and Otay Valley Regional Park, is located south of Village 8 East and
provides view opportunities. While situated above the bottom of the river valley,
Village 8 East is visible to users of the Otay Valley Regional Park and Chula Vista
Greenbelt trail systems. Further, Village 8 East is visible from the SR-125 tollway,
which is generally below the SPA Plan Area.
2. Circulation
The northern edge of Village 8 East is generally defined by the extension of Main
Street, identified by the Otay Ranch GDP as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial. La Media
Parkway, a planned 4-Lane Major Road is the extension of existing La Media
Parkway connecting the Village 8 West Town Center to Village 9, is planned to
bisect the southern third of Village 8 East in an east/west direction. These
Circulation Element roads establish connection points which Village 8 East must
accommodate and thereby set general elevations and corresponding grades.
Access to SR-125 from Village 8 East will be via the parallel street system
interchange design consisting of a couplet/parallel street system interchange with
ramps at Main Street and La Media Parkway acting as a single freeway access
system via connected on-way frontage roads in Village 8 East and Village 9.
Page 1054 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 18 December 2023
Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map
Page 1055 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 19 December 2023
3. Surrounding Land Uses
The SPA Plan Area is located at the southern limit of the Otay Valley Parcel. The
village planning concept provides for compatible land uses between adjoining
villages. Immediately surrounding the SPA Plan Area are existing and planned
development areas and dedicated Preserve open space. Existing surrounding
development includes Otay Ranch Village 7 and Olympian High School, located
north of Village 8 East and SR-125 immediately east of the village.
The Village 8 West SPA Plan Area, which includes the Village 8 West Town Center
and is planned for up to 2,334 residential units and up to 300,000 square feet of
commercial/retail, is immediately west of the project site. Village 8 East is planned
as a complimentary village to Village 8 West by providing additional density in
support of the Village 8 West Town Center. The two villages are connected by a
series of trails including the Village Pathway through the village core, Regional
Trails along Main Street and La Media Parkway and the Chula Vista Greenbelt
Trail located within the Otay River Valley.
Future Village 9, planned for 3,959 residential units and up to 1.5 million square
feet of commercial and retail uses is located east of Village 8 East. Village 8 East
is connected to Village 9 by a future multi-modal bridge spanning SR-125 and the
Regional Trails along Main Street and La Media Parkway.
These villages/planning areas are expected to be built out by 2030, subject to
market conditions. The existing and planned communities and land uses
surrounding the SPA Plan Area are depicted on Exhibit 3: Aerial Context Map.
Section II.D – Land Use Pattern provides additional context for how planned
development in Villages 8 West and 9 influenced the design of Village 8 East.
C. SITE UTILIZATION
The Village 8 East land uses are presented in Exhibit 4: Village 8 East Site
Utilization Plan, Table 1: Site Utilization Summary and Exhibit 5: Village 8
East Zoning District Map, as contemplated by the Otay Ranch GDP for this
village. The Site Utilization Plan and Summary and Zoning District Map work
together and assign a general utilization for each development parcel within this
SPA Plan. Uses include an elementary school, a variety of parks, a Community
Purpose Facility site, open space areas, multi-family residential units and Village
Core areas. In addition to defining each parcel, the Site Utilization Summary
assigns a permitted density range and an estimated number of dwelling units.
Commercial square footage is generally planned within parcels designated Village
Core (“VC”), with final square footage allocations to be determined during the
Design Review process. Dwelling unit intensity assigned to each parcel is an
estimate of the development potential and is not a guaranty that the identified
number of units or maximum intensity will be achieved for each parcel. Dwelling
Page 1056 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 20 December 2023
units and commercial square footage may be reallocated between parcels pursuant
to PC District Regulations, Chapter 10. Implementation and Administration.
D. COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
Village 8 East is designed as an urban village with a pedestrian oriented and multi-
modal transportation focus. The design is consistent with the goals of the Otay
Ranch GDP which guide the creation of distinct, residential communities that
include a village core with a strong connection to surrounding villages. The Village
8 East design is intended to provide balanced and diverse land uses,
environmentally sensitive development and multi-modal transportation
opportunities while creating a “sense of place” for village residents. The village is
comprised of a Village Core with a mix of public land uses, commercial and higher
density residential development designed with a focus on creating multi-modal
transportation opportunities, including pedestrian, bicycle, NEV and transit.
A “main street” village identity is created along the Village Core Savoria Parkway
frontage. As described in greater detail in the Village Design Plan, the main street
theme is created through the use of special paving, enhanced landscaping and
architectural treatment. Allowed land uses within the Village Core include
residential and commercial uses which may be mixed on a single parcel or
presented as a single use on a parcel within the Village Core. The final design will
be determined during Design Review.
The Village Core includes seven parcels designated VC that may include
approximately 1,348 multi-family (attached or detached) residential units and
20,000 square feet of commercial uses. A neighborhood park and an elementary
school site are also within the Village Core. The community is designed to attract
village residents to the core for social, education, neighborhood shopping and
recreation and community activities. With its proximity to the Village 8 West Town
Center, Village 8 East is part of a larger community that meets the
commercial/retail, employment and housing needs of the Otay Ranch Planning
Area. A variety of neighborhoods, featuring a range of housing types and designs
are planned with up to 1,664 multi-family homes surrounding the village core
connected by a circulation network that emphasizes pedestrian comfort and safety.
The hierarchical pedestrian circulation system includes the Chula Vista Regional
Trail, Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail, Village Pathway, Promenade Trails and the
Neighborhood and Edge Trail linkages. Village 8 East includes an approximately
¾ mile segment of the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail. This segment will be
implemented according to the Greenbelt Master Plan and OVRP Design Standards
and Guidelines. Two pedestrian connections from Village 8 East to the Chula Vista
Greenbelt/OVRP trail are provided along the Community Park Entry Drive
(Avenida Caprise) and the Community Park Trail. Pedestrian access is provided
between the Community Park and the Greenbelt/OVRP trail along the park’s
southern edge.
Page 1057 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 21 December 2023
Source: June 2023 Google Maps
Exhibit 3: Aerial Context Map
Page 1058 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 22 December 2023
The land use pattern establishes key connections to Main Street and La Media
Parkway via a north/south internal street (La Palmita Drive) linking land uses in
the Village Core and the surrounding neighborhoods. The extension of Main Street
generally forms the northern boundary of the village and provides primary access
to Village 8 East via La Palmita Drive. La Media Parkway provides secondary
access to Village 8 East from Village 8 West and will cross SR-125 in the future
to connect with the future Village 9.
Though Village 8 East is bifurcated by La Media Parkway, a 4-Lane Major Road,
a Village Pathway will connect the southern neighborhoods to the village core
along La Palmita Road and Delgado Drive. In addition, pedestrian connections are
planned to the City’s Greenbelt trail system and the Community Park within the
Otay Valley Regional Park to the south, the Village 8 West Town Center and
Village 9. Access to the regional transportation network includes a potential Bus
Rapid Transit stop along Main Street in Village 8 West and local bus service on
Main Street. Neighborhood electric vehicles are permitted on the off-street, two-
way Regional Trail facility along the south side of La Media Parkway, on low-
speed internal streets and the planned Multi-Modal Bridge spanning SR-125.
Bicycle circulation is accommodated along Main Street and La Media Parkway,
as well as the internal street network and the Multi-Modal Bridge.
Page 1059 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 23 December 2023
Exhibit 4: Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan
Page 1060 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 24 December 2023
Table 1: Village 8 East Site Utilization Summary
Page 1061 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 25 December 2023
Table 1: Site Utilization Summary (continued)
Notes:
1 Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not represent the final unit
allocation for each parcel and shall not be used to limit or restrict the final units allocated to any
parcel.; The final unit allocation must remain consistent with the permitted density range
applicable to the parcel. The final unit allocation shall be determined during Design Review and
shall be documented in the Unit Tracking Table (Village 8 East SPA Plan, Attachment 1).
Revisions to the Site Utilization Table shall not be required based on changes to the Estimated
Units presented herein.
2 Final acreage information to be determined during final engineering. Acreage may vary due to
rounding. Residential and Village Core gross acreage includes approximately 15.3 of perimeter
open space areas. Open space easements shall be recorded over perimeter open space slopes that
are to be maintained by the Master HOA or a Sub -Association, as determined during final
design.
3 Estimated Density calculated based on gross parcel acreage. Final density to be determined
during Design Review.
Page 1062 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 26 December 2023
Notes:
4 20,000 square feet of non-residential uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial
SF may be developed within a single parcel designated VC or distributed among any parcel
designated VC (VC-1 through VC-7). The final distribution of non-residential SF to be
determined during Design Review. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC
parcels with no residential units.
5 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent
with the Village Core zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC
parcels with no residential units.
6 Per the Land Offer Agreement (7/8/2014), the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall designate 4.0
acres of CPF land. The Applicant is proposing to meet a portion of the Village 8 East CPF
obligation by designating the 1.2-acre CPF-1 site as a private recreation facility. The remaining
2.8 acre CPF obligation shall be addressed in a separate agreement between the Applicant and
the City of Chula Vista.
7 Both the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map include the "Proposed” and “Alternative”
configuration and acreage for the S-1 School Site and P-1 Neighborhood Park. Either the
Proposed or Alternative may be implemented without the need for an amendme nt to the SPA
Plan or TM. If the proposed configuration is implemented, the S-1 site would be 10.0 acre (net)
and the P-1 park site would be 6.5 acre (net); however, if the alternative configuration is
implemented, the S-1 site would be 12.0 acres (net) and the P-1 park site would be 4.6 acres
(net). The final neighborhood park acreage shall be addressed in a separate agreement between
the Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
8 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If
the site is not developed as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if
the site is developed as an elementary school, then the 264 units may be reallocated to another
Village 8 East parcel or transferred to another village, as permitted in the Village 8 East PC
District Regulations, Chapter 10, Implementation and Administration.
9 A portion of the Edge Trail and associated overlook features (approximately 1.76 acres) are
included within the 8.2-acre OS-7 parcel. The Edge Trail area shall be secured with a public
access easement and the 1.76 acres shall satisfy a portion of the Village 8 East park obligation.
The 1.76-acre Edge Trail area is not counted toward meeting the Village 8 East open space
requirement.
10 Village 8 East acreage adjusted from approved 2014 development area to reflect changes in
SR-125 ROW and to facilitate the future SR-125 ROW Decertification process.
Page 1063 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 27 December 2023
Note: The Village 8 East Zoning District Map is provided for reference only. See Village 8 East Planned
Community District Regulations for additional information.
Exhibit 5: Village 8 East Zoning District Map
Page 1064 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 28 December 2023
D. MAPPING REFINEMENTS AND DENSITY TRANSFERS
The SPA Plan provides guidance for future development at the subdivision and
improvement plan levels and is the basic reference for determining permitted land
uses, densities, total units and required public facilities. The SPA Plan is not
intended to be used in a manner that predetermines the development solution for
each and every parcel. It is intended to reflect the City’s intent for determining the
intensity, design and desired character for the property.
The development parcels and interior circulation indicated on the Site Utilization
Plan is conceptual. Minor modifications to these configurations may occur as a part
of the tentative tract map, final map and final engineering approval process.
Modifications to the SPA Plan exhibits and text to reflect adjustments based on an
approved tentative tract map or final map, may be accomplished without a formal
SPA amendment, through the substantial conformance procedure established in the
PC District Regulations.
Further, the SPA Plan is not a guarantee that a certain dwelling unit yield will be
achieved on each parcel; however, the maximum density as specified for individual
parcels shall not be exceeded. Actual dwelling unit yields for projects will be
determined by field conditions and a number of external factors that influence the
design and density of individual projects. Dwelling unit reallocations between
parcels may be permitted so long as the total dwelling units authorized for Village
8 East (3,276) is not exceeded and the transfer and receiving parcels remain
consistent with the density range of the land use designation/zoning district applied
to each parcel per the Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan and Village 8 East Zoning
District Map. Said transfer shall be documented in the Unit Tracking Matrix as part
of Design Review.
Minor changes to the parcel boundary shown on the Village 8 East Zoning District
Map resulting from the approval of a tentative or final map shall be subject to
approval of the Director of Development Services, or their designee (See Chapter
10. Implementation & Administration, Otay Ranch Village 8 East, Planned
Community District Regulations.)
E. DENSITY TRANSFERS BETWEEN VILLAGES
Villages 3 North and a Portion of Village 4 (Village 3 North), 8 East and 10 were
concurrently planned and processed as three separate SPA Plans. Pursuant to the
Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and SSBT LCRE V, LLC
(Applicant) dated July 8, 2014, 6,897 units are allocated amongst the three SPA
Plan Areas. Because these villages would be built out over approximately 15 years,
it was impossible to determine the market demand in each village throughout build-
out. Therefore, to accommodate future fluctuations in market demand, the Land
Offer Agreement permits density transfers between villages of up to 15% of the
Page 1065 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 29 December 2023
total units authorized for each village. The criteria below must be met for the
density transfer to be approved without a SPA Plan Amendment.
Pursuant to the Land Offer Agreement , the Applicant may transfer, at its
discretion, up to fifteen percent (15%) of the units allocated to a village within the
Project to another village within the same Project. The Director of Development
Services may administratively approve, in his or her discretion, any transfer of
units more than fifteen percent (15%) or any transfer of units to another village
within Otay Ranch but not within the Project, if all of the following requirements are
satisfied:
• The transfer of units between villages is consistent with the village design
policies and the Entitlements for the village into which the units are being
transferred;
• The total number of units for the Project is not exceeded;
• Public facilities and infrastructure including schools and parks are provided
based on the final number of units within each village or Planning Area;
• The planned identity of the villages are preserved including the creation of
pedestrian friendly and transit-oriented development;
• Preserve conveyance obligations will continue to be based on the final map
development area; and
• The Applicant provides proof to the City of Chula Vista that all affected
property owners (owners of any parcel subject to the proposed transfer)
consent to the Density Transfer.
F. SECONDARY DESIGNATION FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE
The elementary school site has been designated on the Village 8 East Site
Utilization Plan for planning purposes; however, if a school district determines that
the school site will not be used for school purposes, the underlying High Residential
(RM-2) zoning will be implemented with densities of 18-27 dwelling units per acre.
Table 1: Village 8 East Site Utilization Summary allocates 264 multi-family units
to the S-1 school site.
Page 1066 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East II. Development Concept
PAGE 30 December 2023
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1067 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
III. Circulation
Page 1068 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1069 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 33 December 2023
III. CIRCULATION PLAN – A MULTI-MODAL APPROACH
A. INTRODUCTION
The Village 8 East Circulation Plan provides a multi-modal system that extends
existing transportation routes and constructs planned facilities. The Circulation
Plan incorporates vehicular and non-vehicular modes of transportation with public
transportation as required by the Otay Ranch GDP. The Chula Vista General Plan
Land Use and Transportation Element encourages, “a sustainable
circulation/mobility system that provides transportation choices and is well-
integrated with the City’s land uses.” In addition, the CVGP includes policies which
emphasize improved linkages between land development and pedestrian networks,
including:
• Promote and encourage development with a mix of commercial and
residential organized around compact, walkable, neighborhoods and districts
that are close to a wide variety of employment, goods and services, so as to
reduce reliance on the automobile.
• Encourage inviting, well-planned, pedestrian-friendly street environments in
all new development with good site design, adequate walkway widths and
amenities.
• Encourage and promote pedestrian-friendly elements for transit including
enhancements to roadways, interchanges and bridge crossings.
• Promote the use of non-polluting and renewable alternatives for mobility
through a system of NEV, bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails that are safe,
attractive and convenient forms of transportation.
• Support healthy lifestyles among residents through increasing opportunities
for regular physical activity by encouraging the development of a network of
pedestrian walkways in all neighborhoods.
The Village 8 East Circulation Plan establishes a network that provides access to
the community as established by the Otay Ranch GDP and in accordance with the
CVGP. The Circulation Plan arranges roads into a hierarchy, organized by function,
to facilitate access within and around the village. Streets within the SPA Plan Area
are designed as “complete” streets defined as roadways that are “…designed and
operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and
transit riders of all ages and abilities much be able to safely move along and across
a complete street. (Complete Street Coalition).” These facilities are designed to
create an integrated system of roads, bike lanes, NEV, trails and pedestrian
walkways.
Concurrent with the replanning effort in Village 8 East, CALTRANS initiated a
Page 1070 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 34 December 2023
Project Study Report-Project Development Support (“PSR-PDS”) to evaluate
alternatives that provide new local street connections, increase capacity, improve
mobility, and relieve congestion on State Route 125 (SR-125) between the Otay
River and Birch Road. The PSR-PDS includes four preliminary designs for the SR-
125 interchanges at Main Street and La Media Parkway. The Village 8 East land
use plan reflects Alternative B. The Village 8 East SPA and Tentative Map reflect
the ultimate SR-125 ROW and design for Alternative B described below.
Alternative B: Couplet/Parallel Street System Interchange Alternative B consists of
a couplet/parallel street system interchange with ramps at Main Street and La Media
Parkway acting as a single freeway access point via connected one-way frontage
roads (Type L-5 per Caltrans Highway Design Manual (“HDM”) Section
502.2(C)). For this alternative, vehicles traveling northbound on SR-125 would exit
at La Media Parkway and enter SR-125 at Main Street. Similarly, southbound
vehicles would exit SR-125 at Main Street and enter SR-125 at La Media Parkway.
The on/off ramps at La Media Parkway and Main Street will be connected by two-
lane, one-way frontage roads. This alternative will include three new overcrossings
of SR-125 at Main Street, La Media Parkway and a new Multi-Modal Bridge (17-
feet wide).
The Village 8 East plan also connects to local and regional trails systems that
provide access between village cores, neighborhood parks, community parks,
elementary schools, open space areas including the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail and
Regional Trail systems, and residential areas. Street classifications within the
village are consistent with the Chula Vista 2002 Street Otay Ranch Design
Standards and have been refined to reflect the specific opportunities and constraints
of the SPA Plan Area. Specific street design standards are established at the
Tentative Map level and conceptually presented in this SPA Plan.
The SPA Plan Public Facilities Finance Plan (“PFFP”) establishes a circulation
phasing plan which identifies the timing of specific improvements necessary to
serve the project. The PFFP also describes the obligations for the construction, or
contributions toward construction, for specific street segments which provide
access to the village.
The following sections describe the regional circulation network, project
circulation network, street standards, phasing of street improvements, transit
planning and bicycle and pedestrian trails for the SPA Plan Area.
B. REGIONAL CIRCULATION NETWORK
Regional access to Village 8 East is provided by State Route 125, which is located
adjacent to the project site. The vehicular circulation network is conceptually
shown in Exhibit 6: Vehicular Circulation Plan. SR-125 couplet interchange
planned between Main Street and La Media Parkway will provide access from
Village 8 East to SR-125. See Exhibit 7: SR-125 Couplet Interchange Concept
Page 1071 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 35 December 2023
Plan for additional information. I-805 located approximately 4 miles west of
Village 8 East, provides additional north-south access as does I-5, approximately 7
miles west of the SPA Plan area. State Route 54 and SR-905 provide regional east-
west circulation approximately 7 miles north and south of the project site,
respectively.
Main Street, a 6-lane Prime Arterial, provides east-west access to the SPA Plan
Area and connects to SR-125 just east of Village 8 East. North-south access is
provided via La Media Parkway, a 4-lane Major Road that provides secondary
access through the SPA Plan Area.
The Otay Ranch GDP provides for the expansion of the regional transit system into
Otay Ranch. An east-west Rapid Bus service line is planned along Main Street. A
north-south Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route is planned through the Eastern Urban
Center, connecting to Village 9 adjacent to Village 8 East. Local bus service is
anticipated along Main Street.
C. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION NETWORK
The primary entry from the north into Village 8 East will be from Main Street at La
Palmita Drive. La Media Parkway, a 4-Lane Major Road provides additional access
from the west and east. These entries will be signalized and allow full turning
movements.
The internal circulation concept provides adequate vehicular access through the
village, with alternate routes to disperse traffic. The internal circulation streets are
specifically designed to enhance the Village 8 East village core and surrounding
neighborhoods. Traffic calming features, such as narrowed streets, roundabouts,
medians, curb-side parking and diagonal parking are located in the internal
circulation network at appropriate locations. The final traffic calming measure
locations to be determined during final engineering.
The circulation plan encourages pedestrian activity, bicycle access and NEV routes.
Pedestrians are accommodated on all streets which are designed with landscaped
parkways along sidewalks, Promenade Trails, Village Pathways or Regional Trails
to create a fully connected pedestrian network. Main Street and La Media Parkway
include an off-street 5-foot-wide bike lane adjacent to the Chula Vista Regional
Trail. Private street configurations to be determined during Design Review and
refined during final engineering.
The phasing of development concurrent with the provision of adequate road
capacity and access improvements is fully described in the PFFP. These
improvements have been phased and designed to maintain an adequate level of
service in the circulation system serving the SPA Plan Area and on internal
roadways throughout build-out.
Page 1072 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 36 December 2023
Exhibit 6: Vehicular Circulation Plan
Page 1073 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 37 December 2023
Note: The Applicant is coordinating with CALTRANS and the City of Chula Vista on the SR-125 Couplet Interchange
Design. This concept plan is provided for reference only and is subject to final design and approval by CALTRAN S.
Exhibit 7: SR-125 Couplet Interchange Concept Plan
Page 1074 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 38 December 2023
D. STREET STANDARDS
Street standards for the arterial roads were established in the Mobility Chapter of
the Otay Ranch GDP and previous project development approvals. Internal streets,
based on the City of Chula Vista Design and Construction Standard Drawings
(2017), will be constructed to meet City engineering standards and conform to the
policies of the Otay Ranch GDP. The Mobility chapter of the Otay Ranch GDP also
allows modifications to standard street designs specific to each village. Final
improvement designs will be determined as part of the subdivision approval
process.
The Otay Ranch GDP describes automobile-oriented improvements as only one
component of an integrated mobility system, which includes bicycles, pedestrian
trails and public transit systems. For this reason, all circulation streets in and around
the SPA Plan Area have been designed to minimize steep gradients where possible,
and all circulation street right-of-way designs provide sidewalks or trails
appropriate to the street classification.
Page 1075 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 39 December 2023
Exhibit 8: Six Lane Prime Arterial
Main Street (TM Street Section 1)
Page 1076 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 40 December 2023
Westerly project boundary to La Palmita Drive / Delgado Drive
Exhibit 9: 4- Lane Major Road
Not to Scale La Media Parkway (TM Street Section 2A)
Page 1077 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 41 December 2023
La Palmita Drive / Delgado Drive to easterly project boundary
Exhibit 10: 4- Lane Major Road (continued)
Not to Scale La Media Parkway (TM Street Section 2B)
Page 1078 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 42 December 2023
Exhibit 11: Modified Residential Collector
Not to Scale Calle Escuela (TM Street Section 3)
Page 1079 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 43 December 2023
Exhibit 12: Modified Secondary Village Entry with Median
Not to Scale La Palmita Drive (TM Street Section 4)
Page 1080 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 44 December 2023
Exhibit 13: Modified Promenade Street
Not to Scale Delgado Drive (TM Street Section 5)
Page 1081 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 45 December 2023
Exhibit 14: Modified Residential Collector
Not to Scale Del Sueño Drive (TM Street Section 6)
Page 1082 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 46 December 2023
Exhibit 15: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street
Not to Scale Portion of Savoria Parkway at School/Park (TM Street Section 7)
Page 1083 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 47 December 2023
Exhibit 16: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street with Diagonal Parking
Not to Scale Portion of Savoria Parkway at Village Core (TM Street Section 8)
Page 1084 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 48 December 2023
Exhibit 17: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street
Not to Scale Portion of Savoria Parkway at Village Core (TM Street Section 9)
Page 1085 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 49 December 2023
Exhibit 18: One Way Frontage Road (Southbound)
Not to Scale Via Palermo (TM Street Section 10)
Page 1086 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 50 December 2023
Exhibit 19: Modified Residential Collector
Not to Scale Portion of Delgado Drive (Parcel R-7 to CPF-1) (TM Street Section 11)
Page 1087 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 51 December 2023
Note: The Community Park Entry Drive (Avenida Caprise) was included in the adopted Village 8 West SPA and
Tentative Map as an off-site improvement. This illustrative representation is consistent with the Village 8 West
approved design and is provided for reference only.
Exhibit 20: Community Park Entry Drive
Not to Scale Village 8 West Avenida Caprise (TM Street Section 12)
Page 1088 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 52 December 2023
Exhibit 21: Private Access Road
Not to Scale Western Edge of R-7 to La Media Parkway (TM Street Section 13)
Page 1089 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 53 December 2023
E. TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
The purpose of the Village 8 East Traffic Calming Plan is to lower the vehicle
speeds on neighborhood streets without restricting access. This Traffic Calming
Plan includes a set of street designs that slow and reduce traffic speeds while
encouraging walkers and cyclists to share the street, Village Pathway or Regional
Trail facilities. The intent in implementing traffic calming measures throughout
Village 8 East is to create streets that are valuable public spaces shared equally by
all users.
The overall goals of the Traffic Calming Plan are to:
• Improve the quality of life for residents;
• Reduce impacts of motor vehicles on local and collector streets;
• Create safe and attractive streets; and
• Create a friendly environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The objectives of the Traffic Calming Plan are to:
• Increase the level of respect for non-motorists;
• Create a feeling of safety for all users;
• Improve safety and convenience for all users;
• Reduce traffic accidents;
• Reduce noise;
• Provide space for non-vehicular users;
• Enhance street appearance;
• Reduce vehicular speed; and
• Reduce the need for enforcement.
Traffic calming measures are designed to physically force drivers to slow down to
avoid an uncomfortable driving experience. Traffic calming measures can also be
designed to achieve a desired speed limit which drivers are physically compelled
to meet. Design considerations include safety, maintenance, emergency vehicle
access, self-enforcement and drainage. There are a variety of traffic calming
measures that are widely used throughout the United States. The Village 8 East
Traffic Calming Plan includes the traffic calming measures described in Table 2:
Traffic Calming Measures. The conceptual locations of proposed traffic calming
measures are depicted in Exhibit 22: Conceptual Traffic Calming Plan. The final
locations of these measures will be determined during final engineering.
Page 1090 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 54 December 2023
Exhibit 22: Conceptual Traffic Calming Plan
Page 1091 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 55 December 2023
Table 2: Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic Calming
Measure Description Benefit/Target
Roundabouts Roundabouts include a raised center
landscaped island, special paving,
splitter islands, accessible pedestrian
crossings and pedestrian/bike refuge
islands and ramps
• Reduces speed
• Improves safety
• Provides multi-modal
accommodations
• Improves traffic movement
• Replaces traffic
stops/signals
Lane Narrowing Travel lanes are narrowed by reducing
the paving width from standards and
may include pavement markings
• Reduces speed
• Improves safety
• Provides multi-modal
accommodations
On-Street Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes are designated through
the use of signage and pavement
striping identifying separate travel
lanes for bicycles
• Reduces speed
• Improves safety
• Provides multi-modal
accommodations
On-Street Parking Striped diagonal parking or parallel
parking along one or both sides of a
street
• Reduces speed
• Improves safety
Page 1092 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 56 December 2023
La Palmita Drive & Savoria Parkway
La Palmita Drive & Calle Escuela
Exhibit 23: Conceptual Roundabouts
Page 1093 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 57 December 2023
Typical Roundabout Cross Section
Exhibit 23: Conceptual Roundabouts (continued)
F. ALTERNATIVE MODES
Alternative modes of transportation including NEVs, bicycles, walking and transit.
Providing alternative modes allows people to get out of their cars and into the public
realm where they can interact with one another as a vibrant community. Alternative
modes also promote healthier lifestyles by encouraging increased physical activity
and potentially reducing vehicle use and associated air pollutants.
The following section describes the primary alternative modes accommodated
within Village 8 East. These include public transportation and NEV, pedestrian,
and bicycle facilities.
1. Public Transportation
Public transportation is an integral part of the Otay Ranch Community. The design
of the SPA Plan Area promotes access to public transit and locates land uses close
to proposed transit stations and local bus stops. The San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) is responsible for regional transportation and transit
planning. The SANDAG Board of Directors adopted the San Diego Forward: 2021
Regional Plan which established the multimodal transportation system for San
Diego County, including the City of Chula Vista. The 2021 Regional Plan includes
Rapid Bus service from Downtown San Diego to Otay Ranch and ultimately to East
Otay Mesa and the Mexican Border. In addition, Rapid Bus routes link the H Street
Trolley Station to Otay Ranch via Southwestern College. The Chula Vista General
Page 1094 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 58 December 2023
Plan also includes plans for a Rapid Bus Route between the Palomar Street Trolley
Station and EastLake Business Center via Main Street and Otay Ranch. Rapid Bus
service is planned along La Media Parkway and Main Street, with a planned stop
in the Village 8 West Town Center. The conceptual transit plan for the SPA Plan
Area is shown in Exhibit 24: Conceptual Public Transportation Plan.
There are no planned Rapid Bus stops planned within Village 8 East. Local Bus
Service may be provided through Village 8 East on Main Street with potential stops
located at the La Palmita Drive intersection. Transit stop locations and design are
based on the following principals:
• Locate transit stops where there are a number of major pedestrian
generators.
• Locate transit stops and pedestrian walkways to provide access while
respecting the privacy of residential areas.
• At the intersection of two or more transit routes, locate bus stops to
minimize walking distance between transfer stations.
• Locate bus turnouts on the far side of the intersections to avoid conflicts
between transit vehicles and automobile traffic, permitting right-turning
vehicles to continue turning movements.
• Transit stops should be provided with adequate walkway lighting and well
designated shelters.
• Walkway ramps should be provided at transit stops to ensure accessibility.
Page 1095 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 59 December 2023
Exhibit 24: Conceptual Public Transportation Plan
Page 1096 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 60 December 2023
2. Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Circulation Network
Neighborhood electric vehicles provide a clean alternative vehicular mode of
transportation, ideal for shorter trips. The NEV network, as illustrated in Exhibit
25: Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Circulation Plan, consists of internal low-
speed streets within Village 8 East and off-street NEV facilities. NEVs are
permitted on all public streets with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or less.
The circulation system has been intentionally designed to provide an internally
connected system of low-speed streets that allow NEVs to travel between various
destinations within Village 8 East and connects west to Village 8 West and east to
future Village 9. The following NEV routes are planned within Village 8 East:
Location NEV Facility
Description Exhibit
La Media Parkway – east of
La Palmita Drive, south ROW
Off-street two-way, 12’ wide
shared bike/NEV path
See Exhibit 9
Savoria Parkway – from Del
Sueno to La Palmita Drive
On-street, two-way shared flow
in 12’ travel lanes
See Exhibit 14
Savoria Parkway – La Palmita
Drive to Multi-Modal Bridge
On-street two-way shared flow in
16.5’ - 20’ travel lanes
See Exhibits 15 and 16
Multi-Modal Bridge – Village
8 East to Village 9
Off-street two -way shared NEV,
bike and pedestrian flow on 15’
wide path
See Exhibit 29
Del Sueno Drive – Savoria
Parkway to Calle Escuela
On-street two-way shared flow in
12’ travel lanes
See Exhibit 13
La Palmita Drive / Delgado
Drive – Savoria Parkway to
CPF-1 Site
On-street two-way shared flow in
12’ travel lanes
See Exhibits 11, 12 and 18
Calle Escuela – Del
Sueno Drive to Via
Palermo
On-street, two-way
shared flow in 12’ travel
lanes
See Exhibit 10
Avenida Caprise –
Village 8 West to P-2
Community Park
On-street two-way
shared flow in 12’ travel
lanes
See Exhibit 19
Page 1097 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 61 December 2023
Exhibit 25: Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Circulation Plan
Page 1098 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 62 December 2023
3. Bicycle Circulation Network
Bicycles are accommodated throughout Village 8 East via an interconnected
network, as illustrated on Exhibit 26: Conceptual Bicycle Circulation Plan and
as described below. The final design is to be refined during final engineering and
may be different than the facilities presented herein.
• Off-Street Bike Lanes – a 5.5-foot-wide off-street cycle track is planned on both
sides of Main Street. A two-way off-street shared cycle track/NEV facility is
planned along the south side of La Media Parkway within the 17-foot Regional
Trail. In order to accommodate a safe transition from the on-street bike lanes in
Village 8 West and the off-street cycle track facility in Village 8 East, the north
side of La Media Parkway between the western boundary and La Palmita Drive
will include an 11-foot Regional Trail. Bicycles will cross onto the 17-foot
Regional Trail on the south side of La Media Parkway at the La Palmita
intersection. The cycle track facility will cross SR-125 to connect to Village 9
to the east.
• On-Street Bike Lanes – a 5-foot wide on-street bike lane with a 3-foot buffer is
planned along both sides of La Palmita Drive.
• Multi-Modal Bridge – the planned 17-foot-wide Multi-Modal Bridge provides
a bicycle connection across SR-125 between the Village 8 East core area and
the future Village 9 Town Center.
• Village Pathway – The Village Pathway, which is planned along La Palmita
Drive, Avenida Escuela and Savoria Parkway is a 10 to 12-foot wide off-street,
interconnected multi-use trail that accommodates bicycle and pedestrian users.
• Local Streets – Although no dedicated lanes are provided for bicycles, the
traffic volumes on these internal streets will be low enough to accommodate
bicycles as well as vehicles.
• Chula Vista Regional Trail – The Regional Trail is located along Main Street,
La Media Parkway and the Community Park Entry Drive (Avenida Caprise).
Bicycles are accommodated on these 5.5 to 10-foot-wide multi-use trails
designated cycle tracks and Class I bike lanes, depending on the location.
• Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail – A segment of the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail is planned
along the southern edge of the P-2 Community Park (“P-2”). This 16-foot-wide multi-
use trail easement will accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian users.
Page 1099 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 63 December 2023
Exhibit 26: Conceptual Bicycle Circulation Plan
Page 1100 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 64 December 2023
4. Pedestrian Circulation
The pedestrian circulation network includes an interconnected system of pathways,
trails and sidewalks as illustrated in Exhibit 27: Conceptual Pedestrian
Circulation Plan. The Village 8 East SPA Plan is designed to accommodate the
trails program generally described by the Otay Ranch GDP, Overall Design Plan,
the Chula Vista Active Transportation Plan, the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt
Master Plan and Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan. The plan
recognizes the provision of bicycle and pedestrian circulation is fundamental to
creating urban villages. All village streets and sidewalks have been designed at
gradients of 10 percent or less to facilitate pedestrian circulation.
The street cross-sections illustrate regional and village trails and pathways located
along public roadways. The following includes a brief description of each type of
pedestrian facility planned within Village 8 East. Separate trail cross-sections are
also provided below.
Page 1101 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 65 December 2023
Exhibit 27: Conceptual Pedestrian Circulation Plan
Page 1102 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 66 December 2023
Chula Vista Greenbelt /Otay Valley Regional Park Trail
As described in the Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and OVRP Concept Plan,
planned multi-use trails, including equestrian uses, will be implemented within the
existing Salt Creek sewer access/maintenance road through the Otay Valley on the
north side of the river. The segment of the Greenbelt Trail within Village 8 East is
approximately ¾ mile and is located along the southern edge of the P-2 Community
Park. The Greenbelt Trail is connected to the internal community park access trail
circulation system at multiple points along the park’s southern edge. In addition,
two pedestrian connections are provided between Village 8 East and the Chula
Vista Greenbelt/OVRP trail via the Community Park Entry Drive and Community
Park Access Trail.
The OVRP Concept Plan identifies a multi-use trail system through the Otay River
Valley. The portion of the Greenbelt Trail described above coincides with the
OVRP trail. By co-locating these trails on the existing Salt Creek Sewer
maintenance access road, wherever possible, impacts to sensitive habitat in the
river valley are minimized and access to the MSCP Preserve is controlled. The
Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail will be implemented according to the Greenbelt
Master Plan and OVRP Design Standards and Guidelines. All trail signage shall
conform with the Greenbelt Master Plan.
Exhibit 28: Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail
TM Trail Section 3
Page 1103 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 67 December 2023
Regional Trails
Chula Vista Regional Trails are located on the south side of Main Street, the south
side of La Media Parkway, a portion of the north side of La Media and the east side
of Delgado Drive and providing direct pedestrian access to the Community Park
via the Edge Trail and the Community Park Access Trail. The Regional Trails are
located adjacent to the roadways and may meander within adjacent landscape
buffers. The concrete or decomposed granite trails are 10 feet wide. The Regional
Trails connect Village 8 East to the Village 8 West Town Center, Village 9 Town
Center, and the University Planning Area. The Regional Trail is also planned along
the east side of the Community Park Entry Drive (Avenida Escaya) and extends
south of the P-2 Park driveway, providing an additional pedestrian connection to
the Community Park and the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail.
Main Street (TM Street Section 1)
Exhibit 29: Chula Vista Regional Trail
TM Street Sections 1, 2A and 2B and TM Trail Section 1
Page 1104 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 68 December 2023
La Media Parkway (La Palmita Drive / Delgado Drive to easterly project boundary) (TM Street
Section 2B)
La Media Parkway (westerly project boundary to La Palmita Drive / Delgado Drive @ North
ROW) (TM Street Section 2A)
Exhibit 29: Chula Vista Regional Trail (continued)
TM Street Sections 1, 2A and 2B and TM Trail Section 1
Page 1105 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 69 December 2023
La Media Parkway (westerly project boundary to La Palmita Drive / Delgado Drive @ South
ROW) (TM Street Section 2A)
Exhibit 29: Chula Vista Regional Trail (continued)
TM Street Sections 1, 2A and 2B and TM Trail Section 1
Page 1106 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 70 December 2023
South of Avenida Caprise to Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail (TM Trail Section 1)
Note: Grading and surface improvements within the 30’ Utility & Access Easement were approved with the Village
8 West SPA, Tentative Map and Grading Plan as an off-site improvement. Implementation of the Regional Trail
component within the 30’ utility corridor is limited to fencing, to be determined based on field conditions. This
illustrative representation is consistent with the approved design and is provided for reference only.
Exhibit 29: Chula Vista Regional Trail (continued)
TM Street Sections 1, 2A and 2B TM Trail Section1
Page 1107 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 71 December 2023
Multi-Modal Bridge
The 17-foot-wide Multi-Modal Bridge provides the Village Pathway connection
between the Village 8 East core and the future Village 9 Town Center. This bridge
will be designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and NEVs. A conceptual
design for the bridge is provided below. Final design to be determined during final
engineering.
Exhibit 30: Conceptual Multi-Modal Bridge
Page 1108 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 72 December 2023
Village Pathway
Village Pathways are inter-village, multi-purpose paths which link all of the Otay
Valley Parcel villages and provide access to transit stations. The Village Pathway
is a 10-to-12-foot colored concrete pathway, separated from the street by a
landscaped, tree-lined parkway. In Village 8 East, the Village Pathway is proposed
along La Palmita Drive south to La Media Parkway and on both sides of Savoria
Parkway through the Main Street area and along portions of the school and park
site. The Village Pathway would also extend along Calle Escuela, providing a
continuous link between Village 8 West and Village 8 East.
Exhibit 31: Village Pathway
TM Street Sections3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
Page 1109 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 73 December 2023
Promenade Trail
The Promenade Trail is planned along the west and north side of the elementary
school site (S-1) and along the west side of La Palmita Drive. The Promenade Trail
is planned as a tree lined 6-foot concrete path with a 7 to 8-foot landscape parkway
between the path and the curb.
Exhibit 32: Promenade Trail
TM Street Sections4, 5, 6 and 7
Page 1110 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 74 December 2023
Community Park Trail and Emergency/Maintenance Access Road
The Community Park Trail provides direct pedestrian access between Village 8
East and the Community Park and the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail system located
in the Otay River Valley. This trail is co-located with utilities necessary to serve
Village 8 East and the Community Park and AR-11 and is comprised of a 20 foot
wide paved surface and post and rail fencing, on both sides. The facility is widened
at the southeast portion to provide vehicular access between P-2 and AR-11.
Secondary emergency access to the Community Park and maintenance access for
the public utilities are also provided along this corridor. A portion of the
Community Park Trail is within the MSCP Preserve. See the Village 8 East
Preserve Edge Plan for additional details.
Note: Trail co-located within utility corridor
Exhibit 33: Community Park Trail and Emergency/Maintenance Access Road
TM Trail Section 2
Page 1111 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 75 December 2023
Community Park Access Trail
Pedestrian connections between the Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-2) and
the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail are conceptually shown on the Tentative Map. The
10-foot-wide Community Park Access Trail locations will be refined during the
park planning process.
Exhibit 34: Community Park Access Trail
TM Trail Section 6
Page 1112 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 76 December 2023
Edge Trail
The Edge Trail is comprised of a 12-foot-wide trail that loops around the
neighborhoods south of La Media Parkway and provides a pedestrian linkage
between the Regional Trail on La Media Parkway/Delgado Drive and the
Community Park Trail leading to the Community Park and Chula Vista Greenbelt
Trail system in the Otay River Valley. A portion of this trail segment will be located
within the 100’ Preserve Edge at the southern portion of Village 8 East.
Edge Trail within OS-7
Note: If trail grade exceeds 5%, trail surface may be concrete. Conceptual design may be modified during
final engineering to address drainage.
Exhibit 35: Edge Trail
TM Trail Section 4
Page 1113 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 77 December 2023
Edge Trail at perimeter of R-7, R-9 and R-10
Note: If trail grade exceeds 5%, trail surface may be concrete. Conceptual design may be modified during
final engineering to address drainage. See TM Street Section 13 for Edge Trail condition at R-7.
Exhibit 36: Edge Trail
TM Street Section 13 and TM Trail Section 5
Page 1114 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East III. Circulation
PAGE 78 December 2023
Neighborhood Trail
The Neighborhood Trail is comprised of a 5-foot-wide concrete or D.G. planned to
connect the neighborhoods north of La Media Parkway to the Regional Trail on La
Media Parkway/Delgado Drive.
Notes: If trail grade exceeds 5%, trail surface may be concrete. Conceptual design may be
modified during final engineering to address drainage.
Exhibit 37: Neighborhood Trail
TM Trail Section 7
Page 1115 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
IV. Grading
Page 1116 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1117 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IV. Grading
PAGE 81 December 2023
IV. GRADING
A. INTRODUCTION
The Land Use and Transportation Element of the Chula Vista General Plan states
the mesas, hilltops, and gently rolling topography in Chula Vista area offer the best
conditions for development. Steeply sloped hills and valleys can serve as resources,
linking developed regions and important natural features. A goal of the Otay Ranch
GDP is to concentrate urban development on flatter areas, while retaining the
sensitive natural topographic features. The SPA Plan Area is located primarily on
mesa tops sloping south to the Otay River Valley. Slopes surrounding the village
will be undulating with variable horizontal and vertical gradients, to blend into the
surrounding terrain and create an aesthetically pleasing setting. This chapter
describes the guiding policies and requirements for grading and their application to
the topographic characteristics of the SPA Plan Area.
B. GRADING REQUIREMENTS
To ensure subsequent grading plans implement the City’s policies regarding
landform grading and hillside development, final grading design to implement the
SPA Plan shall be consistent with the grading design concepts of the SPA
Conceptual Grading Plan and shall adhere to the grading standards and policies
described below.
City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 15.04 – Grading Ordinance, contains specific
criteria to guide grading within the City:
• Create artificial slopes with curves and varying slope ratios designed to
simulate the appearance of surrounding natural terrain.
• Incorporate created ravine and ridge shapes with protective drainage
control systems and integrated landscaping design.
• Conventional grading shall mean the standard 2-to-1 slope and other
uniform slope faces.
• Conventional grading should be restricted to those cases where adherence
to landform grading principles would not produce any significant
contribution to the high-quality site planning goals established overall by
the General Plan.
• Conventional grading is only appropriate where landform grading is
demonstrated to be impractical or the location of the slope is in a very low
visibility situation.
Page 1118 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IV. Grading
PAGE 82 December 2023
• The fact that landform grading may not produce the maximum size of
building pad or development area is not sufficient justification for
determining that landform grading is impractical.
Otay Ranch General Development Plan
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan also contains specific criteria to
guide grading in the overall ranch area. Final grading designs implementing the
SPA grading concept are required to incorporate the following:
• Grading within the SPA Plan Area shall be subject to Chapter 15.04 -
Excavation, Grading and Fills of the Municipal Code.
• Ranch-wide, there shall be preservation of 83 percent of the existing steep
slopes (property with gradients of 25 percent or greater).
• Geotechnical investigations shall be provided with each SPA plan.
• Grading within each village is intended to minimize earthmoving distances
and to facilitate phased grading.
• Naturalized buffering shall be provided as a transition between
development and significant existing landforms.
• Manufactured slope faces over 25 feet shall be varied to avoid excessive
“flat planed” surfaces.
• Variable slope ratios not exceeding 2:1 should be utilized when developing
grading plans.
• To complement landform grading, landform planting techniques will be
utilized. As in a natural setting, major elements of the landscape are
concentrated largely in the concave “drainages,” while convex portions are
planted primarily with ground cover and minor materials.
Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan
The Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan provides additional guidelines for grading
within the project area:
• When grading in any of the defined scenic corridors, contours shall be
carefully modulated and softened to blend with existing natural slopes to
create a more natural and irregular appearance.
• Excessively long, uniform slopes shall be avoided.
• Contours should be rounded and blended without sharp or unnatural corners
where cut or fill slopes intersect a natural canyon or slope.
Page 1119 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IV. Grading
PAGE 83 December 2023
• Transitions between new cut and fill slopes and natural slopes should be
made by rolling the top or bottom of the new slope to integrate the two
conditions.
• When grading for development or where roadways intersect a natural slope
without cut or fill slopes (daylight condition), a rounded top or bottom of
the slope should be retained to blend the natural slope with the building or
road pad.
• Create road alignments to meet the natural contours with minimal grading
and blending of cut/fill slopes with natural topography is required.
• When feasible, divided roads may be split vertically to soften the impact of
grading and to maximize potential scenic views.
• Landscape graded slopes with native and indigenous plant materials to
blend with existing planting when adjacent to new landscaping.
C. STEEP SLOPES
The GDP and RMP establish a ranch-wide standard for landform modification that
83% of steep slopes (natural slopes with gradients of 25% or greater) shall be
preserved within the Otay Ranch. Based on current data collection and updated
modeling results, Otay Ranch contains 9,821 acres of land with gradients of 25%
or greater. Applying the GDP/RMP requirement for 83% Ranch-wide steep slope
preservation equates to 1,670 acres of steep slopes Ranch-wide that could be
impacted.
Development of Village 8 East would impact approximately 18.6 acres of natural
steep slopes within the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch. See Exhibit 38: Village
8 East Steep Slope Impacts. Future build-out projections for remaining SPA Plan
areas in the Otay Valley, Proctor Valley, and San Ysidro Parcels estimate that 1,069
acres of steep slopes will be impacted Ranch-wide including the 18.6 acres within
Village 8 East. Combined with set steep slope impacts (approximately 335.6 acres
from approved plans), Ranch-wide impacts are estimated at 1,404.6 acres. The
1,404.6 acres of impact equates to approximately 86% preservation which is above
the 83% preservation standard in the RMP. Table 3 provides a summary of the
projected Ranch-wide impacts to steep slopes at build out.
Page 1120 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IV. Grading
PAGE 84 December 2023
Table 3: Otay Ranch Steep Slopes
Existing Steep
Slopes (Slope
Gradient ≥ 25%)
Steep Slope Impacts
(City of Chula Vista)
Projected Steep Slope
Impacts
(County of San
Diego)
Otay Valley Parcel
Approved SPA Plans:
Villages 1 and 1 West, 2, 4 (Park
Portion), 5, 6, 7, 8 West, 9, 11, and
Planning Area 12 (Eastern Urban
Center and Freeway Commercial)
Sub-totals 439 335.6 -
Remaining SPA Plans:
Village 3, 4 (Remainder), 8 East, 10,
University, and Planning Area 18
Sub-totals 287.4 202.7(1) -
Proctor Valley
Remaining SPA Plans:
Village 13, 14, 16, and 19
Sub-totals 486.3 - 378.3(2a,3)
San Ysidro Mountains
Remaining SPA Plans:
Villages 15 and 17
Sub-totals 560.1 - 488.0(2b,3)
Outside Development Areas
Sub-totals 8,048.5 0 0
Ranch-wide Sub-totals 9,821.3 538.3 866.3
Ranch-wide Totals 9,821.3 1,404.6
Notes:
1. Slope impacts are based on best available data including currently proposed
projects (SPA Plans/Tentative Maps) and current GDP/SRP development areas.
2. Excludes acreages associated with Wildlife Agency conservation acquisitions that
would no longer be developable:
a. 108 acres within Proctor Valley
b. 72.1 acres within San Ysidro Mountains
3. Assumes development will impact 100% of steep slopes (slope gradient ≥ 25%)
within current GDP/SRP development areas.
Page 1121 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IV. Grading
PAGE 85 December 2023
Exhibit 38: Village 8 East Steep Slope Impacts
Page 1122 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IV. Grading
PAGE 86 December 2023
D. GRADING CONCEPT
The SPA level grading plan provides a preliminary grading concept identifying
major slope locations. The preliminary grading design is as indicated on Exhibit
39: Conceptual Grading Plan. The grading concept is based on the following
objectives:
• Create efficient man-made landforms that visually respond to natural terrain
characteristics where practical.
• Create and maintain on- and off-site views.
• When significant land forms are modified for project implementation, round
the land form as much as possible to blend into the natural grade.
• With approval of the City Engineer, round the tops and toes of slopes.
When slopes cannot be rounded, utilize vegetation to alleviate sharp angular
appearances.
• Balance earthwork, utilizing an equal amount of cut for an equal amount of
fill.
• Create, where possible, barriers or physical separation from traffic noise
sources.
• Utilize elevation changes to separate potential land use conflicts.
• Wherever possible, create a fairly level area for a village core that will
accommodate mixed-use, community purpose facility, elementary school,
neighborhood park and multi-family residential development.
• Create useable areas that provide for a variety of residential housing types.
• Minimize, where feasible, impacts to sensitive areas including the Otay
River Valley.
Manufactured internal slopes within the SPA Plan Area are typically 2:1 maximum
gradient. If at the tentative map stage slopes of 25 feet in height or greater in
highly visible locations are proposed, landform grading techniques may be
considered on a case-by-case basis as/and approved by the Director of
Development Services or their designee. In the SPA Plan Area, the most visible
slope locations are along prime arterial streets and adjacent to the Otay River
Valley open space preserve area. As such, landform grading techniques will be
used for slopes 25 feet in height or greater where they occur along prime arterial
streets and natural open space, to the greatest extent possible.
Preliminary soil and geotechnical reports have been prepared for the SPA Plan Area
and have identified the site as suitable for development. The proposed raw grading
quantity for the Plan area is approximately 4.96 million cubic yards of balanced cut
Page 1123 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IV. Grading
PAGE 87 December 2023
and fill material. This raw quantity is exclusive of remedial measures which may
be required by the soils engineer. Actual quantities will be based on more detailed
engineering at the tentative map, grading plan and final map stages. Grading limits
extend beyond the boundary of the SPA Plan for the construction of roads and
infrastructure.
Based on actual field conditions, the erosion potential of slopes will be reduced
with control measures such as berms at the tops of slopes, paved interceptor ditches,
and vegetation. Erosion control will be consistent with best management practices.
Project grading permits will provide assurances acceptable to the City Engineer that
landscaped slopes will have adequate maintenance to ensure continued viability of
landscaping. Generally, except for private lots, slopes which exceed ten feet in
height will be maintained by a homeowners’ or property owners’ association or a
landscape maintenance Community Facilities District (CFD).
E. GRADING REVIEW
Tentative Maps and grading plans will require conformance to the grading concepts
and requirements contained in this SPA, and to all applicable City policies and
ordinances.
Prior to grading plan approval by the City Engineer, all grading will be subject to
the requirements of the Chula Vista Storm Water Manual, the City of Chula Vista
Subdivision Manual, Design and Construction Standards of the City of Chula Vista,
San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings, and Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction.
Page 1124 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IV. Grading
PAGE 88 December 2023
Exhibit 39: Conceptual Grading Plan
Page 1125 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space
& Trails Master Plan
Page 1126 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1127 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 91 December 2023
V. PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS MASTER PLAN
A. PURPOSE
This Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan ("SPA Park Master
Plan") identifies and describes park, recreation, open space and trail facilities for
the Village 8 East SPA Plan Area. This SPA Park Master Plan meets the Otay
Ranch Parks, Recreation and Open Space goals, objectives, policies and
implementation measures identified in the Otay Ranch GDP to provide parks,
recreation and open space amenities. The primary goal is to enhance the quality of
life for residents and visitors by providing a variety of active and passive
recreational opportunities.
This SPA Park Master Plan also meets the goals, policies, and requirements of the
2018 City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City of Chula Vista
Greenbelt Master Plan and Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. This Plan
incorporates both SPA and Tentative Map-level requirements for planning parks,
recreation facilities, open space and trails associated with the development of the
SPA Plan Area.
[Note: Village 8 East Park Implementation information presented herein is subject
to change. The Final Park Implementation proposal to be determined during
discussions between the Applicant and City Management during second submittal
review.]
B. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The provision and implementation of parks and open space in the SPA Plan Area
is regulated by the following:
Chula Vista Municipal Code – SPA Plans
Section 19.48.090 (P-C-Planned Community Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code establishes Sectional Planning Area Plans, Requirements and Content.
Subsection C.1. requires the following information to be contained in a SPA site
utilization plan:
• Land Uses
• Parks
• Open Space
Chula Vista Municipal Code – Park Lands and Public Facilities
Chapter 17.10 (Park Lands and Public Facilities) of the Chula Vista Municipal
Codes establishes the requirements for dedication of land, development of
improvements, parkland criteria, in-lieu fees for land dedication and development
improvements, commencement of park development, and collections and
distribution of park fees.
Page 1128 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 92 December 2023
Otay Ranch GDP
The Otay Ranch GDP requires specific identification of park, recreation and open
space provisions at the SPA Plan level. The SPA requirements are:
• Provide a Parks Master Plan
• Identify and reserve specific sites
• Identify equipment needs.
• Identify alternative financing methods.
• Identify alternative maintenance entities and funding.
• Identify phasing.
• Identify plans for the use of reclaimed water, as appropriate.
• Review needs for special purpose parks.
The Otay Ranch parks and recreation goals, objectives and policies provide for a
variety of parks and recreation amenities. Otay Ranch provides the opportunity for
a full range of passive and active recreational opportunities both locally and on a
regional basis. Otay Ranch GDP goals, objectives and policies related to park and
recreation facilities include the following:
Goal: Provide diverse park and recreational opportunities within Otay
Ranch which meet the recreational, conservation, preservation, cultural and
aesthetic needs of project residents of all ages and physical abilities.
Objective: Identify park, recreational and open space opportunities, where
appropriate, to serve the South County region and San Diego County as a whole.
Policy: Encourage joint use of utility easements with appropriate and
compatible uses, including, but not limited to, open space, agriculture, parking
and trails.
Objective: Maximize conservation, joint uses and access and consider safety in
the design of recreational facilities.
Policy: Commercial recreation opportunities may be permitted within Town
Square, community and regional parks to generate revenue to defray park
operational expenses.
Policy: Utilize conservation measures including reclaimed water, efficient
irrigation systems and drought tolerant plant material in the development of
public and private parks where allowed.
Policy: Minimize park operation and maintenance costs and identify
funding sources for continued operation and maintenance of all Otay Ranch park
Page 1129 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 93 December 2023
and open space land.
Objective: Provide neighborhood and Community Park and recreational
facilities to serve the recreational needs of local residents.
Policy: Provide a minimum of 3 acres of neighborhood and Community
Parkland (as governed by the Quimby Act) and 12 acres per 1,000 Otay Ranch
residents of other active or passive recreation and open space area.
Policy: Encourage the design of park sites adjacent to public schools and
other public lands where co-location of facilities is feasible. Joint use
agreements with school districts are encouraged.”
Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan contains goals and policies that
serve as the blueprint for creating a quality park system. The document establishes
goals for the creation of a comprehensive parks and recreation system that meets
the needs of the public by effectively distributing park types and associated
recreation facilities and programs throughout the City. The park sites identified on
the Site Utilization Plan are consistent with the requirements of the PRMP.
Conceptual designs for the Village 8 East parks are consistent with the park
descriptions in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan; however, the final design of
the public parks may be refined or modified during park planning to include other
facilities or amenities that serve evolving demographics and associated outdoor
recreational needs and meet the intent of the City’s parks mission.
Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan
The Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan implements an open space and trails
concept which consists of connected open space ringing the City of Chula Vista
that includes the Sweetwater Valley and Otay Valley, connected by the Otay Lakes
on the east and the San Diego Bay on the west. A primary trail system within the
Greenbelt will consist of multi-use and rural paths which will total approximately
28-miles surrounding the City. The Greenbelt Master Plan addresses existing and
potential trail locations, trail and staging area development standards, and
maintenance responsibilities. Portions of the Greenbelt include open space
conservation areas established through the MSCP and the San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge.
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan
The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) is a multi-jurisdictional planning effort by
the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego and the City of San Diego. The
OVRP will provide residents and visitors recreational opportunities ranging from
playing fields and picnic areas to hiking, biking, and horse trails while protecting
open space, wildlife, historic, agricultural, and archaeological resources. The
OVRP links south San Diego Bay with Upper and Lower Otay Lakes.
Page 1130 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 94 December 2023
The OVRP Concept Plan was originally adopted in 2001 and subsequently updated
in 2016 and provides policy direction for the jurisdictions for coordinated land
acquisition and development for the regional park within this framework of private
property rights. The OVRP Concept Plan does not change existing zoning, land
use plans or add new development regulations. It also does not preclude private
development. The OVRP Concept Plan does not call for specific types of
recreational development or give detailed design plans for specific areas. These
development decisions will be made as master plans and site-specific development
plans such as SPA Plans are prepared.
SPA Plan Public Facilities Finance Plan
The Municipal Code establishes, as a condition of SPA approval, the preparation
of a Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP). The PFFP must show how and when
facilities and services necessary to accommodate the development will be installed
and financed, including a phasing schedule to ensure that facilities are provided in
a timely manner and that one area will not utilize more than the area’s fair share of
facility or service capacity.
Entitlement Documents
Park, recreation and open space provisions are further defined as development
entitlements are processed as follows:
Tentative Map requirements:
• Include local park sites in Conditions of Approval
• Identify funding for local parks and timing for the payment
of pad fees
• Review existing or proposed trails on adjacent properties to
ensure linkages
Subdivision Landscape Master Plan requirements:
• Include all principal landscape design concepts (same
size/scale as Tentative Map)
• Include all park, recreation, open space, and trails
• Identify ownership and maintenance responsibilities
Final Map requirements:
• Dedicate local park sites
• Assure funding for local parks
• Implement design guidelines
Building Permit Requirements:
• Pay impact fee (if established)
Page 1131 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 95 December 2023
C. PARK REQUIREMENTS
Chula Vista Municipal Code
The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.10, Parklands and Public
Facilities (12/94), establishes the method by which actual required park acreage is
to be calculated, based on the number and type of residential units determined at
the Final Map level. The City's 2002 Park Acquisition and Development Fee
Update determined that each single family detached dwelling unit, including
detached condominiums, generates a need for 460 square feet of developed
parkland and each attached multi-family unit generates a need for 341 square feet
of developed parkland. Based on 336 single family detached homes, including
detached condominiums, and 2,940 multi-family attached homes, the parkland
obligation for Village 8 East is approximately 26.5 acres.
Table 4: Estimated Required Park Land Dedication
Dwelling
Unit Type
Target Number
of Units
Park
Area/DU
Total
AC
Single Family
Detached1 336 460 SF 3.5
Multiple Family
Attached 2,940 341 SF 23.0
Total 3,276 26.51
1 Includes detached condominiums
City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual
The Chula Vista Landscape Manual, Part Three addresses the requirements and
criteria of public projects, including parks, open space and streetscapes (whether a
City Public Works project or a private “turnkey” project). The Landscape Manual
provides the requirements for submittals, graphics and standards, design standards
and criteria, landscaping, irrigation, and trails.
SPA Plan
The GDP requires SPA-level planning to define the location, acreage and
boundaries of neighborhood and Community Parks and open space. The PFFP
further analyzes and determines park requirements and phasing.
The SPA Land Use Plan provides a 6.5-acre (net) Neighborhood Park (P-1) within
the village core, a 36.3 (net)2 Community Park (P-2) and the Edge Trail comprised
1 The final park land obligation to be determined at issuance of building permit by unit type.
2 The Community Park (P-2) parcel may be expanded if the Tentative Map Community Park P-2 / OS-6 Alternative
is implemented. See Village 8 East Tentative Map, Sheet 6 for additional details.
Page 1132 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 96 December 2023
of 2.1 net acres. The eastern portion (22.6 gross acres) of Active Recreation (AR-
11 per OVRP Concept Plan) is within the boundaries of this SPA Plan but is not
proposed for development at this time and the Applicant is not proposing to satisfy
any portion of the Village 8 East parkland obligations within the City’s AR-11 site.
The total parkland in the SPA Plan Area available for public park land credit totals
44.9 acres (net). The actual park acreage requirements will be based on the number
of residential units (and projected population) approved on the subsequent Final
Map(s) and/or at building permit issuance for Village 8 East and is further
discussed in the PFFP. The Village 8 East Tentative Map also includes an
alternative P-1 Neighborhood Park / S-1 School Site configuration that would
reduce the neighborhood park to 4.6 acres (net), depending on the needs of the
Chula Vista Elementary School District. If this al ternative is implemented, then
the balance of the Village 8 East park obligation would be satisfied pursuant to a
separate agreement between the Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
D. VILLAGE PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAM
The Otay Ranch Parks and Recreation Facility Implementation Plan (adopted by
the City Council on October 28, 1993) identifies the parks facility improvement
standards for Otay Ranch. The City of Chula Vista Recreation Department and the
Parks Division of the Public Works Department conducted subsequent facilities
needs assessments and proposed modifications to the adopted Otay Ranch Plan.
This SPA Park Master Plan strives for consistency with the Otay Ranch Plan and
the current proposed plans and policies of the Development Services Department.
This SPA Park Master Plan identifies the proposed types, quantities and location
of the facilities provided at each park site in the SPA Plan Area. In addition to
identifying specific facility needs and requirements, the goal of the SPA Park
Master Plan is to describe the elements necessary to ensure a rich variety of
recreational opportunities, while satisfying identified recreation needs. The
variety of recreational elements proposed and the recreational opportunities
envisioned are discussed below.
1. Recreation
The village concept organizes land uses to create a cohesive, pedestrian friendly
community, encourage non-vehicular trips and foster interaction between residents.
The SPA Park Master Plan provides a variety of recreational opportunities to
support the village concept. The recreational plan is based on the following
principles:
• Recreation standards such as total parks and recreation acreage, minimum
park size, and facility design shall conform to City requirements.
• Progressive parks and recreation concepts shall be employed with programs
tailored to people rather than people to programs.
Page 1133 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 97 December 2023
• Standards for size and design of activity areas and facilities shall be
reviewed periodically and adapted to the changing needs of the population
served.
• Logical site selection criteria to distinguish between “Community” and
“Neighborhood” Parks. Recreational considerations such as active versus
passive, big-muscle versus small motor muscle, family-oriented versus
adult-oriented shall be considered in the context of overall land planning.
• Ownership and maintenance responsibilities for parks and recreation
facilities within the villages shall be analyzed to appropriately reflect areas
of benefit, public funding limitations and fiscal impact.
• Major parks and recreation facilities shall be linked by a trail system for
pedestrians and bicycles.
To the extent practical, Community and Neighborhood Parks should be located near
school sites to increase the potential for shared use of facilities. Joint planning and
design of adjacent school/park facilities is encouraged.
The following list of park, recreation and open space amenities are planned within
Village 8 East:
Active Recreation Areas
Active recreation areas are identified in the OVRP Concept Plan and the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. These are areas within the MSCP and Otay Ranch
Preserve which are suitable for more active recreational opportunities. The project
includes a 22.6-acre (gross) portion of the active recreation area identified as
Recreation Area 11 in the OVRP Concept Plan. The 22.6-acre portion of AR-11 is
also within the SPA boundary but is not proposed for development. This property
is owned by the City of Chula Vista and remains available for active recreation uses
in the future and is designated “AR-11” in the Village 8 East SPA Plan. Pedestrian
access to the AR-11 site is provided via the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail and a
conceptual location for vehicular access and recycled water service is shown on the
Village 8 East Tentative Map.
Community Park
The PRMP, Table 4.3: Recreation Facilities in Public Parks includes the following
Recreational facilities in the Otay Ranch P-2 Community Park South (PRMP Park
#102): soccer fields, softball fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, play structures
for ages 2-5, play structures for ages 5-12, open green space, a 21,000 SF
Recreation/Community Center, a restroom building, picnic tables, shade structures
and parking. The project includes the 36.3-acre (net) Otay Ranch Community Park
South site which will also provide connections to the Chula Vista Greenbelt trail
system and an OVRP trail staging area. The final design of the community park
may be refined or modified during park planning to include other facilities or
Page 1134 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 98 December 2023
amenities that serve evolving demographics and associated outdoor recreational
needs and meet the intent of the City’s parks mission.
Neighborhood Park
The PRMP, Table 4.3: Recreation Facilities in Public Parks, includes the following
recreational facilities for the P-1 Neighborhood Park (PRMP Park #126): lighted
soccer/multi-purpose fields, lighted basketball courts, two lighted tennis/pickleball
courts, play structure for ages 2-5, play structure for ages 5-12, open green space,
maintenance/restroom building, dog park, picnic tables, paved walkways with
lighting and parking. The final design of the neighborhood park may be refined or
modified during park planning to include other facilities or amenities that serve
evolving demographics and associated outdoor recreational needs and meet the
intent of the City’s parks mission.
Private Recreation Facilities
Private recreation facilities emphasize informal social and recreational activities.
Facilities may include informal play areas, tot lots and seating areas. Pursuant to
the CVMC Section 19.48.040B.6.d, any request for credit toward the Village 8
East 4.0-acre Community Purpose Facility obligation shall be limited to 35% of
the obligation, or 1.4 acres. To receive CPF credit for a Private Recreation Facility,
the site must be designed pursuant to CVMC 14.48.025H., as further described in
the Community Purpose Facility Master Plan, Chapter VI.
Public Schools
Public school buildings and outdoor play areas provide an opportunity for
recreational activities within a village. The location of schools adjacent to parks
enhances both uses and may allow for shared use of facilities.
Commercial Centers
Commercial areas within a village can provide recreational opportunities in the
form of outdoor seating and eating areas. Businesses such as cafes, bookstores and
bike shops promote leisure and recreational activities.
Community Purpose Facilities
Pursuant to the CVMC 19.48.025, qualified CPF uses may also serve the
recreational needs of Village 8 East residents, with uses such a YMCA, Boys and
Girls Club or similar non-profit uses. See the PC District Regulations for additional
detail on compliance and permitted uses.
Private Open Space
Per CVMC Section 19.28.090, Private Open Space areas are required within multi-
family neighborhoods to serve individual resident needs, as identified in the PC
District Regulations. Private Open Space areas may include private fenced yards,
Page 1135 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 99 December 2023
courtyards, balconies, porches, roof decks, and side yards that meet the minimum
requirements in the PC District Regulations.
Common Usable Open Space (CUOS)
Per CVMC Section 19.28.090, CUOS areas are required in multi-family
neighborhoods. CUOS areas may be combined into useable spaces to meet the
neighborhood requirement as defined in the PC District Regs. Per the City of
Chula Vista Design Manual, Chapter II Multiple Family, CUOS areas should
include both passive and active recreation amenities such as tables, benches, pools,
barbecues, courts and tot lots. The final design will be determined during the Design
Review process.
Village Pathway and Trails
Special pedestrian and bicycle routes provide an opportunity for expanded
recreation and for conveniently traveling to parks or other recreational sites within
a village, as depicted on Exhibit: 26 Conceptual Bicycle Circulation Plan and
Exhibit 27: Conceptual Pedestrian Circulation Plan.
2. Parks
Park Development Standards
The SPA Park Master Plan will adhere to the standards and requirements set forth
in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and the PRMP, Chapter 3. General
standards include the following for determining net useable park acreage:
• Park sites shall be graded to a 2% slope to accommodate the facility
requirements of the specific park site.
• Slopes steeper than 4:1 are ineligible for park credit.
• Graded slopes are to be constructed in conformance with the City’s
landform grading policies.
All park areas shall be accessible per the American Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements.
Park Descriptions
There is one neighborhood park and a community park within Village 8 East.
Exhibit 40: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan illustrates the
locations of the parks within the Village 8 East SPA boundary. A conceptual design
and description of park facilities is provided below. Based on the “Recreation
Needs Assessment” survey from 2015, the PRMP (2018) recommends the facilities
listed below be included in the public parks within Village 8 East. A specific
quantity and type of sport fields and amenities anticipated within the Village 8 parks
has been identified in the PRMP; however, the final design of the public parks may
be refined or modified during park planning to include other facilities or amenities
Page 1136 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 100 December 2023
that serve evolving demographics and associated outdoor recreational needs and
meet the intent of the City’s parks mission. See Attachment 2: Public Park Facility
and Community Purpose Facility Capacity Studies for the facility capacity studies
for the P-1 and P-2 public parks and the CPF-1 site.
Page 1137 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 101 December 2023
Note: The Village 8 East Tentative Map includes an alternative configuration for the P-1 Neighborhood Park / S-1
School Site that would reduce the P-1 Park to 4.6 acres (net) and increase the S-1 School Site to 12.0 acres (net). The
final figuration will be determined based on the needs of the Chula Vista Elementary S chool District.
Exhibit 40: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 1138 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 102 December 2023
Neighborhood Park P-1
Location
A 6.5 acre (net)3 Neighborhood Park (P-1) is located in the Village Core along the
Village Pathway. This location is within walking distance of the most densely
populated portion of the village and its proximity to the elementary school
provides opportunities for shared facilities and programs.
A conceptual plan for the P-1 Park is provided in Exhibit 41. This conceptual plan
may be refined/modified through the City’s Park Master Plan process to include
other facilities or amenities that serve evolving demographics and associated
outdoor recreational needs and meet the intent of the City’s parks mission. Lighted
courts/fields may be provided, subject to the Parks Master Plan process and the
final park improvement budget. See Attachment 2 for the P-1 Park Facilities
Capacity Study.
Primary Facilities:
• Multi-Purpose/Soccer Field
• Basketball Court with lighting
• 2 Tennis/4 Pickleball Court with lighting
• Picnic Tables (quantity of shade structures to be determined through the
individual park design process)
• Play Structure for Ages 2-5
• Play Structure for Ages 5-12
• Restrooms/Maintenance Building
• Dog Park
• Open Green Space
• Parking
3 The Village 8 East Tentative Map includes an alternative configuration for the P-1 Neighborhood Park / S-1 School
site which would reduce the P-1 park to 4.6 acres (net) and correspondingly increase the S-1 School site to 12.0 acres
(net). The final figuration will be determined based on the needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Page 1139 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 103 December 2023
Note: This concept plan is for illustrative purposes only. Actual site development may vary from concepts depicted in
this exhibit, as determined during park design.
Exhibit 41: Neighborhood Park (P-1) Concept Plan
Page 1140 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 104 December 2023
Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-2)
Location
The 36.3 acres (net) Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-2) is located south of
Village 8 East, within the Otay Valley Regional Park. Primary access to the park
is provided via the Community Park Entry Drive (Avenida Caprise) through Village
8 West). Pedestrian access from Village 8 East to the park is provided via the
Community Park Trail, which is co-located with the emergency/maintenance
access drive. The Village 8 East Tentative Map shows the conceptual location of
vehicular access and recycled water facilities to the adjacent AR-11 site. The final
design to be determined during park planning.
A conceptual plan for the Otay Ranch Community Park South is provided in Exhibit
42. The conceptual plan may be refined/modified park planning to include other
facilities or amenities that serve evolving demographics and associated outdoor
recreational needs and meet the intent of the City’s parks mission. See Attachment
2 for the P-2 Park facilities capacity study.
Primary Facilities4:
• Multi-Purpose / Soccer Fields with lighting
• Softball Fields with lighting
• Tennis/Pickleball Courts with lighting
• Basketball Courts with lighting
• Picnic Tables
• Play Structures for Ages 2-5
• Play Structures for Ages 5-12
• 21,000 SF Recreation/Community Center
• Restrooms/Maintenance Building
• Open Green Space
• Parking
• Paved walkways with lighting
• Vehicular access to AR-11 to be determined during final park design
• Connections to Greenbelt Trail and Regional Trail
Note: This concept plan is for illustrative purposes only. Actual site development may vary from concepts
depicted in this exhibit, as determined during park design. Vehicular access between P-2 Park and AR-11
shall be accommodated in the final P-2 park design.
4 Sports field lighting was analyzed in the University Villages EIR (2014); final determination
regarding the need for lighting to be made during the Park design.
Page 1141 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 105 December 2023
Note: This concept plan is for illustrative purposes only. Actual site development may vary from concepts
depicted in this exhibit, as determined during park design. Vehicular access between P-2 Park and AR-11
shall be accommodated in the final P-2 park design.
Exhibit 42: Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-2) Concept Plan
Page 1142 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 106 December 2023
Active Recreation AR-11
The OVRP Concept Plan identifies Recreation Areas through the Otay River
Valley, including the site south of Village 8 East (Active Recreation Area 11). The
western portion is identified as the Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-2) in the
PRMP and Village 8 East SPA Plan. The eastern portion of Recreation Area 11 is
not proposed for development but remains designated “Active Recreation” on the
Chula Vista General Plan and remains available for future development by the City
of Chula Vista5.
3. Trails and Bicycle Routes
The SPA Plan Area has been designed to accommodate the trails program described
in the Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan, the City's Greenbelt Master Plan and the
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. The plan recognizes the provision of
bicycle and pedestrian circulation is fundamental to creating an urban village. All
circulation elements within the SPA Plan Area have been located and designed to
be as accessible as possible, however, the off-street trails contain steep topography
which may limit bicycle travel. The project will provide Greenbelt Trail
improvements along the portion of Hard Rock Road/Salt Creek Sewer Easement,
within the project boundary. Improvements may include fencing and signage and
shall be determined based upon environmental and other constraints, subject to City
review and approval per the Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, Page 25. The
Conceptual Pedestrian Circulation Plan is illustrated in Chapter III, Circulation, of
this SPA Plan. The landscape treatment and design elements of village trails are
also illustrated and described in the Village Design Plan.
4. Community Gardens
The Chula Vista General Plan includes objectives and policies related to planning
for healthy communities. Highlighting the growing awareness of the need for
Healthy Communities the national “Healthy Community” Initiative stresses healthy
choices at all levels from appropriate placement of land
uses to ensure that citizens are not adversely affected by
uses that may present health risks, to opportunities for
exercise and to have healthy diets in part through better
access to recreation facilities and healthy food choices.
Another important facet of Healthy Communities is
increasing availability and access to healthy food
choices. In 2010, the City of Chula Vista adopted a community garden policy that
provides a framework for community groups wishing to establish gardens. The
adopted Community Gardens Policy describes the community participation process
5 AR-11 is owned by the City of Chula Vista. The Applicant is not proposing to utilize any portion of the AR-11 site
to satisfy any of the Village 8 East parkland requirements.
Page 1143 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 107 December 2023
for establishing a community garden, outlines the process for community garden
planning and provides community garden establishment and maintenance
guidelines. A standard “Community Garden User Agreement” is also a component
of the Community Garden Policy.
Community gardens in Village 8 East are envisioned primarily as ornamental
gardens, funded and maintained by a village garden club or the Home Owners
Association (HOA). Potential site locations include the Private Recreation
Facilities and open space areas.
5. Open Space
Open space within the SPA Plan Area is comprised of Otay River Valley open
space (part of the Otay Ranch Preserve) to the south, graded slopes within and
surrounding the village, a Neighborhood Park, a Community Park, active recreation
area and the landscape buffer adjacent to surrounding major streets.
The Otay Ranch GDP requires the provision of open space in addition to local parks
at a ratio of 12 acres for every 1,000 residents. Based on an estimated population
of 10,549 residents, approximately 126.5 acres of open space are required. This
requirement is met through the provision of 285.36 acres of open space in the form
of preserve open space, manufactured slopes and other interior open spaces within
the SPA Plan Area.
6. Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance
The largest component of open space in the Otay Ranch is the Otay Ranch Preserve,
described in the Resource Management Plan (RMP). As prescribed by the RMP,
the development of each Otay Ranch Village requires a contribution to the Otay
Ranch preserve. The Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance requirement will be met
through dedication of land within the Preserve to the Preserve Owner / Manager
(POM) comprised of the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego.
Per the Otay Ranch RMP, the required preserve conveyance calculation is 1.188
acres of open space conveyance per one acre of development less the acreage for
“common use lands,” (local parks, schools, arterial roads and other land designated
as public use areas). The contribution requirement is based on the development
6 Approximate acreage includes approximately 15.3 acres of perimeter slope areas to be identified during final
engineering and secured with an open space easement on the applicable Village 8 East Final Map. A portion of the
Edge Trail and associated overlook features (approximately 1.76 acres) are included within the 8.2 -acre OS-7 parcel.
The Edge Trail area shall be secured with a public access easement and the 1.76 acres shall satisfy a portion of the
Village 8 East park obligation. The 1.76-acre Edge Trail area is not counted toward meeting the Village 8 East open
space requirement.
Page 1144 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 108 December 2023
area determined at the Final Map(s) level. The estimated Village 8 East Preserve
conveyance requirement calculation is as follows:
Table 5: Estimated Preserve Conveyance Obligation
Village 8 East Land Use Acres (Gross)
Village 8 East Total 572.9
Common Use Lands
P-1 7.3
P-2 43.3
AR-11 22.6
S-1 11.3
SR-125 ROW 3.7
Circulation Element
Roads
9.2
Preserve Open Space 253.6
Total Common Use Lands 351.0
Development Area 221.9
Village 8 East Preserve Conveyance Obligation* 263.6
* Actual Conveyance Acreage to be determined at Final Map level.
7. Manufactured Slopes
Manufactured slopes within the village are located between residences in
neighborhoods, along major streets and adjacent to natural open spaces. All
manufactured slopes will be constructed and landscaped to City standards and
guidelines provided in the Village 8 East Design Plan. All slopes over 25 feet in
height will be permanently irrigated, with the exception of the temporary slopes
and native transition slopes adjacent to Preserve open space which may be
temporarily irrigated for establishment of the landscape. Varied height trees, shrubs
and groundcovers will be utilized to undulate the surface of slopes and create
dimensions and variations to soften views from adjacent to the Otay Valley
Regional Park/MSCP Preserve area. The design and maintenance of the slopes
adjacent to the Preserve are described in the Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan.
8. Ownership, Funding and Maintenance
All slopes outside of the public right-of-way and the Otay Ranch Preserve will be
owned and maintained through a Community Facilities District (CFD) or HOA.
D. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OPTIONS
The following are options for ownership and maintenance of park, open space and
trail facilities in the SPA Plan Area.
Page 1145 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 109 December 2023
1. Community Facilities District and Homeowners Association
Facilities not maintained by private property owners or a public agency will be
maintained through Community Facilities Districts (CFD) or Homeowners
Associations (HOA). Such areas will include common areas, common slope areas,
common open space, private parks, entry landscaping, walls facing the public right-
of-way, trails, paseos and storm water pollution prevention facilities. Certain
public facility areas may also be included, as determined by the Director of Public
Works or their designee, such as detention basins and enhanced median and
parkway landscaping in the public right-of-way.
2. Public Agency Maintenance
Public agencies will be responsible for maintaining the facilities on publicly owned
land. These areas include landscaping within street and highway rights-of-way
(unless maintained by an HOA, per the GDP, BOA or CFD), public parks, schools
and other similar public lands.
3. City of Chula Vista General Services
Public streets, walks, parkways and trails which are located on public land and
drainage structures other than those designed as swales or brow ditches will be the
maintenance responsibility of the Chula Vista Public Works Department (unless
maintained by an HOA or CFD).
E. PHASING
1. Parks
The construction of parks is coordinated with residential development phasing to
ensure that parks are provided to serve the resident population. Park obligations
are described in the PFFP and further addressed in a separate agreement between
the Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
2. Open Space
Open spaces adjacent to the major surrounding streets will be phased with street
construction. All slopes and other open spaces will be implemented in conjunction
with adjacent development.
Conveyance of the Resource Management Preserve land will comply with the
Phase 2 RMP policies requiring conveyance of 1.188 acres of preserve land for
every acre of development area. This conveyance will occur on a phased basis
prior to approval of Final Maps.
3. Trails
Trails will be phased in conjunction with adjacent development, including street
and slope construction. Public access to trails that connect to the Chula Vista
Page 1146 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
PAGE 110 December 2023
Greenbelt multi-use trail within the Otay Ranch Preserve will be restricted until
Greenbelt Trail improvements are complete to the satisfaction of the City of Chula
Vista Director of Development Services or their designee.
Page 1147 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VI. Community Purpose
Facility Master Plan
Page 1148 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1149 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VI. Community Purpose Facility Master Plan
PAGE 113 December 2023
VI. COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY MASTER PLAN
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.48. (P-C – Planned
Community Zone), requires 1.39 acres of Community Purpose Facilities land per
1,000 persons be provided. Pursuant to the Code, Community Purpose Facilities
(CPF) means "a land use designation in a planned community intended for non-
profit and certain for-profit land uses…" The following uses are permitted within
the CPF zone:
• Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other similar organizations;
• Social and human services activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous;
• Services for homeless;
• Services for military personnel during the holidays;
• Senior care and recreation;
• Worship, spiritual growth and development, and teaching of traditional
family values;
• Non-profit or for-profit day care facilities that are ancillary to any of the
above or as a primary use. For-profit facilities as a primary use are subject
to further requirements and additional criteria as outlined in Section F of the
Code;
• Private schools that are ancillary to any of the above;
• Interim uses, subject to the findings in Section E of the Code;
• Recreational facilities, such as ball fields, for non-profit organizations
(including home owners associations) serving the local community, subject
to the requirements outlined in Section 19.48.040(B)(6) of the CVMC (P-
C-Planned Community Zone: Application – General Development Plan
Required – Contents Required) and subject to the findings outlined in
Section 19.48.025(H) of the CVMC (P-C-Planned Community Zone:
Community Purpose Facilities – Minimum Acreage Required – Permitted
Uses).
Pursuant to Section 19.48.040(B)(6) (P-C-Planned Community Zone: Application
– General Development Plan Required – Contents Required) of the CVMC, a CPF
Master Plan is required and "shall show the specific boundaries of said plan which
may be the SPA, GDP, or Planned Community Boundaries (or more than one GDP
as deemed appropriate by the Director of Development Services or their designee);
the distribution of existing and proposed CPF designated parcels within the Master
Plan area; and the tabulation of individual sites acreages which shall be prepared
and incorporated into the Planned Community's Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan….The incorporation of the CPF Master Plan into the SPA or GDP shall be
done through a SPA or GDP amendment/adoption pursuant to Sections 19.48.080
and 19.48.130 of the CVMC (P-C-Planned Community Zone: .080 = General
Development Plan – Modification Requests and Procedures and .130 = Sectional
Page 1150 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VI. Community Purpose Facility Master Plan
PAGE 114 December 2023
Area Plans – Modification Requests and Procedures)." Pursuant to CVMC Section
19.48.040d, “Recreational facility land uses shall not utilize more than 35 percent
of the overall CPF acreage.”
B. COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY REQUIREMENT
The proposed 3,276 units in Village 8 East generate a population of approximately
10,549 persons (based on 3.22 persons per residential unit), requiring
approximately 14.6 acres of CPF land. However, per the LOA, Village 8 East is
obligated to provide a total of 4.0 acres of CPF designated sites.
C. COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION
The Applicant proposes to satisfy the Village 8 East 4.0-acre CPF obligation by
designating a 1.2-acre private recreation facility (CPF-1) at the southern perimeter
of Village 8 East. The size of this CPF site complies with CVMC Section
19.48.040d, as it is less than 35 percent of the overall CPF acreage (4.0 x 35% =
1.4 acres). The CPF-1 Concept Plan represents a method of meeting CPF private
recreation requirements; however, final programming, amenities and configuration
are subject to final design. The balance of the Village 8 East CPF obligation (2.8
acres) is to be addressed in a separate agreement between the Applicant and the
City of Chula Vista.
Page 1151 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VI. Community Purpose Facility Master Plan
PAGE 115 December 2023
Exhibit 43: Community Purpose Facility Master Plan
Page 1152 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VI. Community Purpose Facility Master Plan
PAGE 116 December 2023
1. CPF-1
CPF-1 is a 1.2-acre Private Recreation Facility located at the southern edge of
Village 8 East, providing an Otay River Valley overlook and linkage to the Edge
Trail and the Community Park Trail network. Amenities may include picnic and
play areas, a tot lot and sports courts; however, final programming, amenities and
configuration are subject to final design.
Note: The CPF-1 Concept Plan is one example of how the planned components may be provided within the site;
however, the design may be refined or changed during final design.
Exhibit 44: CPF-1 Concept Plan
Page 1153 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VII. Development Phasing
Page 1154 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1155 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VII. Phasing
PAGE 119 December 2023
VII. DEVELOPMENT PHASING
A. INTRODUCTION
Development of the SPA Plan Area will be completed in phases to ensure
construction of necessary infrastructure and amenities for each phase as the
project progresses. The Conceptual Phasing Plan (Exhibit 45) reflects
anticipated market demand for a variety of housing types and commercial
development.
The Phasing Plan is non-sequential because sequential phasing is frequently
inaccurate due to unforeseen market changes or regulatory constraints.
Therefore, this SPA Plan and PFFP permit non-sequential phasing by
imposing specific facilities requirements for each phase to ensure the SPA
Plan Area is adequately served and City requirements are met. Public parks
and schools shall be phased as needed. The Phasing Plan is consistent with
the PFFP. The proposed phasing and actual construction timing of the S PA
Plan Area may be modified subject to compliance with provisions of the
PFFP.
Page 1156 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VII. Phasing
PAGE 120 December 2023
Exhibit 45: Conceptual Phasing Plan
Page 1157 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VIII. Public Facilities
Page 1158 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1159 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 123 December 2023
VIII. PUBLIC FACILITIES
A. INTRODUCTION
This section briefly summarizes the public facilities required for the SPA Plan Area
in compliance with the City’s goals that new developments provide all necessary
support services. The PFFP prepared in conjunction with this SPA Plan describes
the backbone facilities in more detail and assigns the responsibility for construction,
maintenance and financing of all required facilities.
The public facilities outlined in this section have been determined based upon
projected land uses and their distribution as shown on the Village 8 East Site
Utilization Plan (Exhibit 4). Facilities will be sized in accordance with the
projected demands and distribution for these land uses. Facilities needs and
delivery schedule may be modified, subject to City approval, during the Tentative
Map review and approval process. Electric/gas distribution facilities will be
constructed primarily in public streets and will be provided by SDG&E.
B. WATER SUPPLY AND MASTER PLAN
The Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Village 3 North and a Portion of
Village 4, 8 East and 10 prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering (2014) addressed
potable and recycled water services and facilities for Village 8 East. Dexter Wilson
Engineering subsequently prepared the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Amendment
Water Evaluation (2023) to address the proposed Village 8 East SPA Amendment.
In conformance with the GDP and SPA requirements, the Water Plan demonstrates
compliance with state and local agency requirements and the ability to serve the
SPA Plan Area. A summary of key points from the Water Plan is outlined below.
1. Water Supply
Senate Bill 610 principally applies to the California Water Code and requires the
California Environmental Quality Act process for a project to be amended to
include documentation to definitively establish water availability.
California Senate Bill 221 and Senate Bill 610 were approved on October 9, 2001
and became effective January 1, 2002. Senate Bill 221 primarily applies to the
Subdivision Map Act and requires the lead agency (City of Chula Vista), in
considering a tentative map, to verify that the public water supplier (Otay Water
District) has sufficient water supply available to serve the project.
To meet the requirements of Senate Bills 221 and 610, the City of Chula Vista
formally requested the Otay Water District to prepare a water supply assessment
report for the project. The Otay Water District Board of Directors formally
approved the Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report, Otay Ranch
Villages 3 North, a Portion of Village 4, 8 East and 10 Sectional Planning Area
Plans on November 6, 2013.
Page 1160 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 124 December 2023
The SPA Plan Area is located within the boundaries of the Otay Water District
(OWD), which is responsible for providing local water service. OWD is a member
of the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. The SPA area will be annexed into Improvement Districts 22
and 27 of the Otay Water District.
2. Potable Water Demand
Domestic water demand for the SPA Plan Area will be estimated as a part of the
Subarea Water Master Plan to be approved by the OWD. An analysis of available
water supply will also be completed to assure that sufficient supplies are planned
to be available as demand is generated by the project.
The project is within the Central Service Area of the Otay Water District. Potable
water for the development will be supplied from the 624, 711 and 980 pressure
zones. Exhibit 46: Conceptual Potable Water Plan depicts the recommended
distribution system required for the project area.
• The 624 Zone will be expanded by connecting to the existing 16-inch line in
La Media Parkway at the western boundary of Village 8 East. The 16-inch
624 Zone line will be extended east in La Media Parkway to the eastern
boundary of Village 8 East for future expansion into Village 9. A 624 Zone
loop will be formed within Village 8 East between La Media Parkway and the
existing 8-inch 624 Zone line in the southeast corner of Village 8 West.
• The 711 Zone will be expanded by connecting to the existing 16-inch line in
Main Street. This 16-inch 711 Zone line will be extended east in Main Street
to the eastern boundary of Villag e8 East for future expansion into Village 9.
A 711 Zone loop will be formed within Village 8 East between Main Street
and the existing 12-inch 624 Zone line in Calle Escuela west of the project.
• The 980 Zone will be expanded by connecting to the existing 12-inch line in
the northwest corner of Village 8 East. This 12-inch line will be extended east
in Main Street to provide service to planning areas adjacent to Main Street.
The Otay Water District has three existing reservoirs in the 624 Zone. These
reservoirs are filled by OWD Connections 10 and 12 to the San Diego County
Water Authority aqueduct. The Otay Water District also has two existing reservoirs
in the 980 Zone north of the Rolling Hills Ranch community.
The 711 Zone has storage reservoirs within the EastLake Greens development and
within the District’s Use Area Property north of Rolling Hills Ranch.
Page 1161 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 125 December 2023
3. Recycled Water Supply and Master Plan
Current Otay Water District (OWD) policies regarding new subdivision
development require the use of recycled water where available. Consistent with the
Otay Ranch GDP, it is anticipated that recycled water will be used to irrigate street
parkway landscaping, parks, manufactured slopes along open space areas and
landscaped areas of commercial, and multi-family sites as depicted on Exhibit 47:
Conceptual Recycled Water Plan.
The project is located in the 680 and 815 Zones for recycled water service. The
primary source of recycled water for the SPA Plan Area will be the South Bay
Water Reclamation Plant. From this plant, the recycled water system will consist
of a series of pump stations, transmission piping and storage reservoirs which will
provide recycled water to portions of Otay Ranch, including the SPA Plan project
area.
In the SPA Plan Area, the existing recycled water distribution system serves
Village 7 and Village 11 to the north and Village 8 West to the west. The recycled
water system is also proposed to be extended to serve Village 9.
Recycled water requirements for the project will be coordinated by the Water
District and the City. Phased construction of recycled water facilities, based on
the District approved master plan, will be incorporated into the PFFP and/or
subdivision map conditions to assure timely provision of required facilities.
4. Water Conservation
A Water Conservation Plan was prepared as a component of the 2014 SPA Plan in
conformance with the requirements of the Otay Ranch GDP and the Chula Vista
Growth Management Ordinance. Dexter Wilson Engineering prepared the Otay
Ranch Village 8 East Amendment Water Conservation Evaluation (2023) for the
SPA Amendment.
As described in the Water Conservation Plan prepared by Dexter Wilson
Engineering, certain landscaped areas are required to utilize recycled water where
available based on current Otay Water District (OWD) policies regarding new
subdivision development. Consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP, it is anticipated
that recycled water will irrigate landscape areas identified in the Water Plan.
The potential sources and availability for recycled water use are described in more
detail in the Water Plan. Potential demand within the SPA Plan area will be
estimated in a subsequent Subarea Water Master Plan to be approved by the OWD.
Recycled water requirements for the project will be coordinated by OWD and the
City. Phased construction of recycled water facilities, based on an OWD-approved
master plan, will be incorporated into the PFFP and/or subdivision map conditions
to assure timely provision of required facilities.
Page 1162 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 126 December 2023
Water conservation measures for the SPA Plan Area include the following:
• Hot Water Pipe Insulation. This measure involves the insulation of hot water
pipes with 1-inch walled pipe insulation and separation of hot and cold-water
piping. This measure is estimated to cost an additional $50 during initial
construction and result in annual savings of 2,400 gallons per residential unit.
• Pressure Reducing Valves. Setting the maximum service pressure to 60 psi
reduces any leakage present and prevents excessive flow of water from all
appliances and fixtures. This measure is estimated to cost $100 during initial
construction and result in annual water savings of 1,800 gallons per residential
unit.
• Water Efficient Dishwashers. There are a number of water efficient
dishwashers available that carry the Energy Star label. These units cost an
additional $500 on average and result in an estimated yearly water savings of
650 gallons per residential unit.
Other potential water saving features of the project include:
• Dual Flush Toilets. The developer will install dual flush toilets within the
project. This measure is estimated to cost $200 per household and result in
annual water savings of 4,000 gallons per year per residential unit.
• Water Efficient Landscaping. The developer will comply with the City’s
Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance to reduce outdoor water use. This
will include a more drought tolerant plant selection including less turf area as
well as installation of water efficient irrigation systems. While the estimated
savings from this measure is difficult to quantify at this stage of planning, it
is estimated that outdoor water usage at single family residences will be
reduced by a minimum of 10 percent, or approximately 25 gpd per home.
Page 1163 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 127 December 2023
Exhibit 46: Conceptual Potable Water Plan
Page 1164 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 128 December 2023
Exhibit 47: Conceptual Recycled Water Plan
Page 1165 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 129 December 2023
C. SEWER SERVICE
The Overview of Sewer Service for Otay Ranch Villages 3 North and a Portion of
Village 4, 8 East and 10, prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering (2014) addressed
sewer service and facilities for Village 8 East. Dexter Wilson Engineering
subsequently prepared the Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment Water
Evaluation (2023) to address the proposed Village 8 East SPA Amendment. Sewer
service to the project site is provided by the City of Chula Vista. Chula Vista
operates and maintains its own sanitary sewer collection system that connects to
the City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Sewer System.
The City of Chula Vista’s Subdivision Manual establishes sewage generation
factors based on population multipliers used to project sewage flows. The average
daily flow into the Salt Creek basin from the SPA Plan Area is estimated at 700,077
gpd. This flow will be conveyed to the existing Salt Creek Interceptor just to the
south of the project. Sewer facility improvements required to serve the SPA Plan
Area include 8-inch to 15-inch gravity sewer lines on-site and fees to fund future
improvements to the Salt Creek Interceptors.
Sewer facilities required to serve the SPA Plan Area will be constructed in phases.
The phasing and financing requirements are addressed in the PFFP and/or
subdivision map conditions to assure timely provision of required facilities.
Existing and planned sewer facilities are illustrated on Exhibit 48: Conceptual
Sewer Plan.
Page 1166 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 130 December 2023
Exhibit 48: Conceptual Sewer Plan
Page 1167 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 131 December 2023
D. STORM DRAIN & WATER QUALITY
The Master Drainage Study and Water Quality Technical Report were prepared by
Hunsaker and Associates in 2014 to assess the existing and developed drainage and
water quality conditions in the SPA Plan Area. Hunsaker and Associates
subsequently prepared the TM Drainage Study for Otay Ranch-Village 8 East
(Drainage Study) and Priority Development Project – Stormwater Quality
management Plan for Otay Ranch Village 8 East (2023) (PDP SWQMP) to assess
the Village 8 East SPA Amendment and Tentative Map. In conformance with the
Otay Ranch GDP and SPA requirements, the reports provide the necessary
hydrological studies, analysis and design solutions to provide appropriate urban
runoff and water quality for the SPA Plan Area. Key elements of the Drainage
Study and SWQMP are provided below. The conceptual storm drain sizing and
location, proposed basins and Modular Wetlands System are depicted on Exhibit
49: Conceptual Basin and Drainage Plan.
1. Drainage
All pre development and post development runoff from Village 8 East is within the
Otay River Valley watershed.
Runoff from the developed portion of Village 8 East and co-mingled flow from La
Media Parkway (Village 8 West) will be routed via a storm drain system southerly.
A cleanout with an internal diversion will be located at the downstream portion of
the system to direct the low flow to a proposed detention basin and volume based
Modular Wetlands System located east of the P-2 Community Park (designated OS-
6 on the Site Utilization Plan) to address water quality requirements, while the peak
flows continue toward the discharge point at the Otay River. The detention basin
and Modular Wetlands System outlet directly to the Otay River via internal storm
drain systems. Energy dissipating measures, such as D-41 headwalls or APWA
energy dissipating impact basins or an alternative facility, along with riprap, are
proposed at each respective outlet.
A biofiltration water quality basin is proposed at the southwestern corner of the P-
2 Park to treat runoff from the Community Park Entry Drive and a portion of the
park. The final basin design will occur during park planning.
Due to the impact of the Savage Dam at the Otay Reservoir, studies have
determined that the development of the Village 8 East site will not increase the 100-
year frequency peak flows in the Otay River. Therefore, no detention basins are
required.
Page 1168 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 132 December 2023
2. Water Quality
The development of the SPA Plan Area will implement all necessary requirements
for water quality as specified by State and local agencies.
The development will meet the requirements of the City's Standard BMP Design
Manual (BMPDM), the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program and the
Storm Water Management and Discharge Ordinance (as specified in the City of
Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Storm Water Management
Standards/Requirements Manual).
The Otay River is a USGS blue line stream, which makes it a waterway of the
United States under the Clean Water Act (CWA). All development in excess of
five acres must incorporate urban runoff planning, which will be detailed at the
Tentative Tract Map level. The conceptual grading and storm water control plan
for the SPA Plan Area provides for water quality control facilities to ensure
protection for the Otay River.
According to the San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area Analysis, the Otay
River is categorized as an exempt facility from hydromodification management
requirements. Since all runoff from the developed area within the Village 8 East
SPA area is proposed to drain directly to the Otay River, hydromodification
management measures are not required for this development.
Page 1169 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 133 December 2023
Exhibit 49: Conceptual Basin and Drainage Plan
Page 1170 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 134 December 2023
E. ROADS
Roads included in this SPA proposal are addressed in Chapter III, Circulation, of
this SPA Plan. The PFFP details their phasing and financing.
F. SCHOOLS
The Otay Ranch GDP requires preparation of a School Master Plan for each SPA.
This section addresses and satisfies the requirements for such a plan. Additionally,
the phasing and funding of school facilities is addressed in the PFFP.
The construction of up to 3,276 multi-family dwelling units is planned for the
Village 8 East SPA Plan. Based on Chula Vista Elementary School District and
Sweetwater Union High School District student generation factors
(students/dwelling unit), there is a need to accommodate approximately 820
elementary students, 220 middle school students, and 593 high school students, for
a total of 1,633 students.
1. Elementary Schools
To meet the elementary school requirements, the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP) provides for the siting of one elementary school in Village 8 East. This
SPA Plan reserves an 11.3-acre elementary school site7, Parcel S-1, in the village
core adjacent to the neighborhood park to facilitate joint use opportunities. The site
will be reserved for acquisition by the Chula Vista Elementary School District, as
provided in the PFFP. The construction schedule for the school will be determined
by the school district. At the discretion of the Chula Vista Elementary School
District, students in Village 8 East will be accommodated in neighboring village
elementary schools until the Village 8 East school is constructed, which may
include The existing Wolf Canyon Elementary School located north of Village 8
East in Village 7
2. Middle Schools & High Schools
Middle school and high school requirements are met by the existing EastLake
Middle School, Otay Ranch High School and Olympian High School. In addition
to these public schools, a private school (Mater Dei High School) and a charter
school (High Tech High School) are located proximate to Village 8 East.
7 The Village 8 East Tentative Map includes an alternative configuration for the P-1 Neighborhood Park / S-1 School
Site. If the Chula Vista Elementary School District determines the need for a larger school site, then the S-1 School
Site shall be 12.0 acres (net) and the P-1 Neighborhood Park shall be 4.6 acres (net), consistent with the Tentative
Map alternative.
Page 1171 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 135 December 2023
3. Adult Schools
Demand for adult school facilities will be satisfied within existing facilities in the
Sweetwater Union High School District, until a new facility can be constructed in
the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center on a site reserved pursuant to the Otay Ranch
GDP.
G. CHILD CARE FACILITIES
The Otay Ranch GDP establishes the following goal and threshold for child care
facilities:
GOAL: Provide adequate child care facilities and services to serve the Otay
Ranch Project Area.
The Otay Ranch GDP establishes the following threshold for child care facilities:
Threshold: Identify sites for child care and pre-school facilities adjacent to
or as part of public and private schools, religious assembly uses, village
center employment areas, residential areas, and other locations deemed
appropriate.
The City of Chula Vista adopted the Chula Vista General Plan policy direction for
the provision of adequate child care facilities necessary to serve existing and future
developed areas in the City.
Child care uses may be allowed as a primary or an accessory use. Facility-based
(not in a home) child care may be conducted by non-profit, quasi-public
organizations or commercial providers. In addition, day nurseries, daycare schools,
early childhood education, or nursery schools are permitted uses in the Village 8
East Land Use Districts (see PC District Regulations), specifically permitted within
all non-residential dominant districts, which would make them available to both
residents and employees in Village 8 East.
The State of California has adopted regulations related to licensing, application
procedures, administrative actions, enforcement provisions, continuing
requirements and physical environment for child day care and day care centers. All
child care facilities within the SPA will comply with state and local regulations.
The SPA Plan Area and the Otay Ranch Community may have a mix of child care
providers, such as school, church, non-profit or commercial facilities. Childcare
facilities may be located within private homes, commercial centers, offices,
governmental and industrial complexes and/or adjacent to public and private
schools where appropriate. The SPA Land Use Plan provides opportunities to
locate and phase facilities to meet the needs of the community.
Page 1172 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 136 December 2023
1. Family Day Care Homes
Family day care homes are defined, and required to be permitted in homes, by
California State law. Consistent with State law, family day care homes may be
located within all residential zones and residential portions of Village Core zoning
district in Village 8 East.
The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 3, Section
102417 includes regulations related to the operation of family day care homes and
all family day care homes within Village 8 East would be required to comply with
both state and local regulations.
2. Facility-Based Child Care
Facility–based childcare may be non-profit or commercial facilities located in CPF
or in the village core. The SPA Plan includes CPF and VC land uses. These land
use designations can accommodate facility-based childcare. Non-profit, and some
for-profit, childcare facilities may be permitted as CPF uses per CVMC Section
19.48.025E, and as modified by the PC District Regulations; these uses are
permitted within the Village Core zoning district.
Having child care facilities located near other compatible services and activities is
consistent with efficient land use planning. Locating childcare facilities near many
other services is consistent with the neo-traditional principles established for Otay
Ranch.
H. POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
1. Police Protection
The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) currently provides police services
within the City of Chula Vista. The demand for police services and facilities
necessary to serve the SPA Plan area is described and analyzed in the Village 8 East
PFFP.
2. Fire Protection
Fire protection services are provided by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department
(CVFD). Fire Station #7 is located adjacent to the Village 2 Core. Pursuant to the
Chula Vista Fire Master Plan approved by the Chula Vista City Council on January
28, 2014, additional fire stations are planned within the Village 8 West Town
Center and the Eastern Urban Center. The demand for fire protection equipment
and facilities to serve the SPA Plan Area is described in the PFFP. Village 8 East
must comply with the updated Chula Vista Fire Master Plan, as adopted.
The Otay Ranch GDP requires as a condition of SPA plan approval the Fire
Department review fuel modification plans. The Preserve Edge Plan and Fire
Protection Plan were developed with direction from the Fire Department. The
Page 1173 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 137 December 2023
Preserve Edge Plan provides for fuel modification zones adjacent to natural open
spaces. Fire Department-approved architectural measures, such as boxed eaves,
exterior sprinkler systems and solid block wall fencing may also be used for fire
protection in certain circumstances. The fuel modification and fire protection
strategies are more fully described in the Fire Protection Plan; University Villages
- Village 8 East.
3. Brush Management
Pursuant to the University Villages Master Fire Protection Plan (2014) (FPP),
Village 8 East FPP Addendum (2023) and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan; fuel
modification zones have been incorporated into the proposed Village 8 East
development areas adjacent to natural open space. These fuel modification zones
are consistent with the requirements of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and
Otay Ranch Phase 2 RMP. No fuel modification activities will occur within Otay
Ranch Preserve/MSCP Preserve areas. Graded landscaped slope areas will be
maintained pursuant to FPP requirements and will be outside of the Preserve.
Streets and hard surface and irrigated landscaped areas may be included in the
Brush Management Zone, in accordance with specific requirements of the FPP.
4. Emergency Medical Services
American Medical Response provides contract emergency medical services for the
City of Chula Vista, National City, and Imperial Beach. There are five American
Medical Response South County paramedic units. Two are located in Chula Vista,
two in National City, and one in Imperial Beach. The SPA Plan Area will be served
through a contract arrangement by the City of Chula Vista.
5. Emergency Disaster Plan
The following serves as the GDP-required "Emergency Disaster Plan" required at
the SPA level:
The San Diego Region is exposed to a number of hazards that have the potential
for disrupting communities, causing damage and creating casualties. Possible
natural disasters include earthquakes, floods, fires, landslides and tropical storms.
There is also the threat of man-made incidents such as war, nuclear disasters,
hazardous materials spills, major transportation accidents, crime, fuel shortages,
terrorism or civil disorder.
The San Diego County Emergency Plan is a comprehensive emergency
management system that provides for a planned response to disaster situations
associated with natural disasters, technological incidents and nuclear defense
operations. The Plan includes operational concepts relating to various emergency
situations, identifies components of the Emergency Management Organization and
describes the overall responsibilities for protecting life and property and assuring
the overall well-being of the population. The plan also identifies the sources of
Page 1174 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 138 December 2023
outside support that might be provided (through mutual aid and specific statutory
authorities) by other jurisdictions, state and federal agencies and the private sector.
The Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization consists of the
County and the cities within the County. It was established in 1961 and provides
for "preparing mutual plans for the preservation of life and property and making
provisions for the execution of these plans in the event of a local emergency, state
of emergency, and to provide for mutual assistance in the event of such
emergencies."
The foundation of California’s emergency planning and response is a statewide
mutual aid system that is designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities and
other support is provided to jurisdictions whenever their own resources prove to be
inadequate to cope with a given situation. The basis for the system is the California
Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, as provided for in the
California Emergency Services Act. This Agreement was developed in 1950 and
adopted by California's unincorporated cities and by all 58 counties. San Diego
County is in Mutual Aide Region 6 of the State system.
The City of Chula Vista participates in the Unified County Emergency Services
Organization described above. The City of Chula Vista has comprehensive
agreements with the Bureau of Land Management, California Department of
Forestry, California Conservation Corps., Urban Search and Rescue Corps., San
Diego County Fire Mutual Aid and other agencies in conjunction with the
California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement. The project
is incorporated into Chula Vista's existing emergency disaster programs, including
all fire and emergency services and mutual aid agreements.
I. LIBRARY SERVICES
Library services are provided by the City of Chula Vista as described by the City
Library Master Plan. The demand for library facilities generated by the build-out
of Village 8 East will be satisfied through participation in the City’s Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee Program as identified in the PFFP.
J. PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS FACILITIES
Parks, recreation, open space and trails are addressed in Chapter V, Parks,
Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan and the PFFP.
K. CIVIC FACILITIES
The City of Chula Vista is currently served by the Chula Vista Civic Center. The
City's master plan for the expansion of the Civic Center provides for the needs of
the Village 8 East residents. The SPA Plan Area is subject to the City’s
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program, which generates revenue for civic
facilities.
Page 1175 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 139 December 2023
L. ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITIES
The City of Chula Vista provides animal health and regulatory services. Currently,
no impact fees are imposed to fund expansion of animal control facilities.
M. REGIONAL FACILITIES
A Regional Facilities Report was completed as part of the SPA One planning
process. Generally, the Otay Ranch GDP requires the demand generated for
regional facilities to be satisfied through participation in a regional impact fee
program (if such a program is implemented) and/or, reserve land or facilities for
regional service programs in the Eastern Urban Center. The Regional Facilities
Report is updated with SPA Plan applications to ensure adequate provi sion for
regional facilities. The following is a review of the updated Otay Ranch Regional
Facility needs.
1. Integrated Solid Waste Management
The City of Chula Vista contracts with Republic Services to provide recycling and
disposal. Per Chula Vista Municipal Codes Sections 8.24 and 8.25 and State of
California Public Resources Code Chapter 12.8, 42649, it is mandatory for all
generators to recycle. Republic Services provides residences (known as Small
Quantity Generators) with automated, weekly collection services for trash,
recyclables and yard waste. The PC District Regulations for the SPA plan Area
include regulatory requirements for waste management and recycling.
2. Arts and Cultural
The Otay Ranch GDP provides for a multi-use cultural complex in the EUC.
Within villages, arts and cultural facilities may be provided in public and civic
space. The SPA Land Use Plan may provide public spaces that accommodate art
and performances including plazas within the mixed-use village core and
neighborhood park. The community purpose facilities, private pedestrian
parks/community buildings, community park and the MU/commercial area also
provide opportunities for art display and performance.
3. Health and Medical
Health and medical facilities that serve the SPA Plan Area include Scripps Chula
Vista Memorial Hospital, Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, and Paradise Valley
Hospital. A 66,000 square foot medical office building is located in Village 2,
which houses the Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group. Other local health care
providers include USCS Medical Group and Children’s Primary Medical Health
Group The commercial and community purpose facility sites within the Otay Ranch
villages provide opportunities for both public and private nursing, health education,
screening research and medical offices.
Page 1176 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East VIII. Public Facilities
PAGE 140 December 2023
4. Community and Regional Purpose Facilities
A Community Purpose Facility (CPF) Master Plan is provided in Chapter VI of this
SPA Plan. The CPF Master Plan describes the provision of facilities within the
SPA Plan Area. The Otay Ranch GDP does not locate a Regional Purpose Facility
in this SPA Plan Area.
5. Social and Senior Services
The County of San Diego has the primary responsibility to provide social services
to County residents. There are numerous non-profit health and social service
organizations located in Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista provides an adult
literacy program, a Youth Action Program and the Police Activities League
program. The County’s Area Agency on Aging provides social and nutrition
programs, legal services, ombudsman programs and services to prevent or postpone
institutionalization. The City of Chula Vista provides senior services and the Parks
and Recreation Department coordinates activities and programs at the Norman Park
Senior Center. The CPF, Community Park and Private Recreation Facilities
provide opportunities for social and senior services within Village 8 East.
6. Correctional
The increased population in Village 8 East will contribute to the need for
correctional facilities. Should a regional impact fees program be enacted to assist
in funding such facilities, Village 8 East development would be obligated to
equitably participate.
7. Transit
Transit facilities are intended to reduce the public’s dependence upon the
automobile to help alleviate traffic congestion. The provision of transit facilities is
also an action measure of the City’s CO2 Reduction Plan. Currently, two percent
of trips are conducted on public transit in the region. An increase in transit use can
be fostered through the location of higher-density housing near transit, site design
with transit orientation and enhanced pedestrian access to transit. The land use and
circulation plan for the SPA Plan Area incorporates transit-oriented design. A
Rapid Bus route is planned on Main Street. Local Bus service may be provided
through Village 8 East, with a potential station located within the Village Core.
Page 1177 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
IX. GDP Compliance
Page 1178 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1179 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 143 December 2023
VIII. OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE
The adopted Otay Ranch General Development Plan establishes goals and
objectives for land use; mobility; housing; parks, recreation, open space; public
facilities; safety; phasing; and resource protection, conservation and management.
This chapter provides a re-statement of the GDP goals and objectives followed by
an explanation of how each is implemented by this SPA Plan.
A. GDP LAND USE
This SPA Plan is designed in conformance with the Otay Ranch GDP Land Use
Plan and the GDP Village 8 East SPA Plan, as amended, is illustrated in Exhibit
50. A brief description of the SPA Plan major land use components consistency
with the Otay Ranch.
This SPA Plan contains all the requisite land uses comprising an urban village as
described by the GDP. Village 8 East is intended to include a variety of attached
and detached multi-family residential housing densities, mixed-use development,
land designated for community purpose facilities, an elementary school and parks
and open space. This SPA Plan reconfigures Village 8 East to facilitate planning
and development of the entire village area by individual property owners. Table 6
provides the proposed, amended Otay Ranch GDP for Village 8 East, including
allocated acreages for each land use and the number and type of residential units.
Page 1180 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 144 December 2023
Table 6 – GDP Exhibit 47 Proposed Village Eight (East)
Use
Dwelling Units Acreage
Approx.
Pop. SF MF Total Dens Res. Park1 CPF2 Sch.
3 C'ml.4 Ind. Open
Sp. Art. Total
MH 1,664 1,664 11.9 139.7 131.4 4,276
H 264 264 23.4 11.3 11.3 678
VC 1,348 1,348 27.8 48.5 7.3 57.6 3,464
OTHER 1.2 16.4 9.2 33.8
VILLAGE 8
EAST
SUBTOTAL5
3,276 3,276 16.7 188.2 7.3 1.2 11.3 + 16.4 9.2 233.6 8,419
1 Total park acreage includes neighborhood park. Actual park sizes to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 persons.
Part of the park acreage requirement has been allocated to the Otay Ranch Community Park South which is designated Planning Area 20 in the GDP.
2 Per the Land Offer Agreement, Village 8 East CPF obligation is 4.0 acres; however, per Village 8 East SPA Plan, a portion of the CPF would be provided within
Village 8 East and a portion would be transferred off-site to Planning Area 20, as documented in the agreement between the Applicant and the City.
3 264 units have been allocated to the elementary school site per the Village 8 East SPA Plan. If the site is not utilized for school purposes, then the underlying
Residential High zoning established in the Village East Planned Community District Regulations will be implemented. If the school is implemented, then the 264
units may be transferred to a parcel within Village 8 East or to another Otay Ranch Village. The Village 8 East Tentative Map includes an alternative configuration
for the school site and adjacent neighborhood park which may be implemented to meet the needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
4 20,000 Square feet of commercial may occur in a vertical or horizontal configuration within the VC land use category; therefore, actual acreage may vary.
5 The total Village 8 East acreage is updated to account modifications to the village boundary to reflect the SR-125 interchange design changes.
Page 1181 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 145 December 2023
Exhibit 50: Otay Ranch GDP Village 8 East Land Use Plan (Proposed)
Page 1182 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 146 December 2023
II.2.8.1 LAND USE
Goal: Develop comprehensive, well integrated and balanced land uses
which are compatible with the surroundings.
Objective: Provide a well-integrated land use pattern which promotes both
housing and employment opportunities, while enhancing the
unique environmental and visual qualities of the Otay Ranch.
Objective: Provide a wide range of residential housing opportunities, from
rural and estate homes to high-density multi-family projects.
Provide a balanced and diverse residential land use pattern for
the Otay Valley Parcel which promotes a blend of multi-family
and single-family housing styles and densities, integrated and
compatible with other land uses in the area.
Objective: Provide development patterns complementary to the adopted
plans and existing development of the adjacent communities.
Implementation:
The SPA Land Use Plan supports these GDP goals and objectives by providing
a range of housing and employment opportunities. The plan adheres to the
GDP specific directives for Village 8 East which creates a village core
(composed of MU/commercial, community purpose facility, elementary
school, neighborhood park, and residential land uses) and residential
neighborhoods that offer a variety of housing styles and densities.
The organization of the land uses within the SPA Plan Area meets the
objectives of integration and compatibility of land uses within villages and
with adjacent communities. Adjacent land uses include existing residential to
the north and future university and residential to the east, and open space
preserve to the south. Village 8 West, including the Town Center, is currently
under construction. The land uses within Village 8 East focus higher density
residential uses near the Village 8 West Town Center.
The SPA Plan supports the objective of enhancing the unique environmental
and visual qualities of Otay Ranch. The village conforms to the natural
topography of the site and maintains views toward open spaces and distant
mountains. The site plans for the multi-neighborhoods adjacent to the open
space preserve areas will be designed to soften the appearance of development
from the OVRP to the greatest extent possible.
Goal: Environmentally sensitive development should preserve and protect
significant resources and large open space areas.
Page 1183 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 147 December 2023
Objective: Provide land use arrangements which preserve significant
natural resource areas, significant landforms and sensitive
habitat.
Implementation:
These goals and objectives will be met through the conveyance of
approximately 261.7 acres of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve in accordance
with the requirements of the RMP. The SPA Plan Area is sited within land
area designated for development and provides for protection of the adjacent
environmentally sensitive land as described in the Preserve Edge Plan.
Goal: Reduce reliance on the automobile and promote alternative modes
of transportation.
Objective: Develop villages which integrate residential and commercial
uses with a mobility system that accommodates alternative
modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, bus,
light rail, and other modes of transportation.
Objective: Develop residential land uses which encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation through the provision of bus
and light rail right-of-way, and the inclusion of a bicycle and
pedestrian network.
Objective: Commercial uses should be sized to meet the needs of the
immediate and adjacent villages. Village commercial land uses
preempt large regional commercial opportunities within
villages and relegate them to the EUC or freeway commercial
areas.
Implementation:
Land uses within the SPA Plan Area, including a Village Core containing
commercial, community purpose facility, park and school uses, designed to
provide for the daily needs of residents. The provision of land uses which
minimize the need for automobile travel coupled with the multi-modal
transportation design of the village are two ways the Plan meets the GDP
goals and objectives. Designing commercial and residential uses within the
Village Core to include front doors facing public streets, wherever grades
allow, will future enhance the pedestrian-oriented design.
The Village 8 East core is within walking distance of most village residents.
Throughout the village, a system of trails and landscaped streets link
residential neighborhoods, the village core, park and school to encourage
walking, rather than driving. These paths are designed with landscaped
parkways between walkways and streets, landscaping, lighting and
furnishings to make the pedestrian experience pleasant and promote safety.
The Village Pathway and Regional Trail provide an off-street multi-purpose
Page 1184 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 148 December 2023
pathway for pedestrian and bicycle travel. Convenient support features, such
as bus stops and bicycle racks, are provided to further promote non-
automobile transportation. Bus routes can be accommodated adjacent to the
village with strategically located stops on Main Street. The village trail
system also connects to the Chula Vista Regional Trail and Chula Vista
Greenbelt Trail/OVRP Trail networks.
Goal: Promote village land uses which offer a sense of place to residents
and promotes social interaction.
Objective: Organize Otay Ranch into villages, each having its own identity
and sense of place.
Objective: The design of the Otay Ranch should promote variety and
diversity at the village scale, while providing a sense of
continuity through the use of unifying design elements.
Objective: Promote a diverse range of activities and services to
encourage a mixture of day/night and weekday/weekend uses.
Implementation:
Village 8 East meets these goals and objectives by providing a village core
with a mix of uses arranged along a main street. Allowed land uses within
the village core include commercial, community purpose facility,
neighborhood park, elementary school, and residential housing types. The
land uses, coupled with a village design theme create the village identity and
sense of place. The village incorporates Ranch-wide design elements such as
signage and landscaping to connect it with the other villages of Otay Ranch.
Goal: Diversify the economic base within Otay Ranch.
Objective: Create an economic base that will ensure there is adequate
public revenue to provide public services.
Objective: Create an Eastern Urban Center within the Otay Valley Parcel
and encourage the development of a retail base for the planning
area, but not to the detriment of existing regional and local
commercial centers.
Objective: Create employment opportunities for area residents which
complements, rather than substitutes for industrial development
on the Otay Mesa.
Implementation:
The Village 8 East Village Core contributes to the economic base with
neighborhood-serving businesses. Further, Village 8 East provides additional
housing close to the high-intensity Village 8 West Town Center, Village 9
Page 1185 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 149 December 2023
Town Center and Eastern Urban Center to meet Chula Vista General Plan
requirements related to jobs/housing balance.
Goal: Promote synergistic uses between the villages of the Otay Ranch
to provide a balance of activities, services and facilities.
Objective: Develop individual villages to complement surrounding
villages.
Objective: Select villages to provide activities and uses which draw from
surrounding villages. Uses serving more than one village, such
as a cinema complex, should be located in a village core that
has convenient access to adjacent villages.
Implementation:
Village 8 East provides commercial uses that serve neighboring villages.
Village 8 East residents will also be served by the adjacent Village 8 West
Town Center, Village 9 Town Center and the EUC.
Goal: Organize land uses based upon a village concept to produce a
cohesive, pedestrian friendly community, encourage non-vehicular
trips, and foster interaction amongst residents.
Implementation:
All areas of Village 8 East are connected by an extensive trail and pathway
system. These trails and pathways reinforce a pedestrian friendly concept as
well as promote the use of alternative modes of transportation. By reducing
the need for an automobile, residents will have opportunities to interact with
their neighbors and other residents as they walk or ride to their destinations.
II.2.8.2 MOBILITY
Goal: Provide a safe and efficient transportation system within Otay
Ranch with convenient linkages to regional transportation
elements abutting the Otay Ranch.
Objective: Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system
capacity to respond to planned growth, maintaining acceptable
levels of service (LOS).
Objective: Plan and implement a circulation system such that the
operational goal of Level of Service “C” for circulation element
arterial and major roads and intersections can be achieved and
maintained. Internal village streets/roads are not expected to
meet this standard.
Objective: Encourage other transportation modes through street/road
design standards within the village, while accommodating the
Page 1186 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 150 December 2023
automobile. Design standards are not focused on achieving
LOS standards or providing auto convenience.
Objective: Provide an efficient circulation system that minimizes impacts
on residential neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive
areas.
Implementation:
Streets surrounding and internal to the SPA Plan Area are designed in
compliance with the goals and objectives of the GDP. Street design and
phasing strives to provide efficient and appropriate levels of service. This is
achieved through completion of the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation
Plan by connecting Main Street from Village 8 West/La Media Road to SR-
125 and the extension of La Media Parkway from the Village 8 West Town
Center through the village with a planned future connection across SR-125 to
Village 9. Triggers for these facilities are specified in the PFFP.
The village circulation system accommodates public transportation. Local
bus stops are planned along Main Street. Pedestrian linkages to the planned
BRT station in the Village 8 West Town Center are planned to further connect
Village 8 East residents with transit.
Internal streets have been designed to accommodate NEVs, bicycles and
pedestrians throughout the village and provide alternatives to automobile
travel.
Goal: Achieve a balanced transportation system which emphasizes
alternatives to automobile use and is responsive to the needs of
residents.
Objective: Study, identify, and designate corridors, if appropriate, for light
rail and transit facilities.
Objective: Promote alternative forms of transportation, such as bicycle and
car paths, riding and hiking trails, and pedestrian walkways as
an integral part of the circulation system.
Implementation:
A wide variety of alternative forms of transportation, including transit routes,
NEV routes, bicycle lanes and pedestrian routes and trails are provided within
the SPA Plan Area. A Multi-Modal Bridge between Village 8 East and future
Village 9 accommodates pedestrian, bicycle and NEV users. This alternative
transportation network addresses the needs of residents by offering different
routes within and outside of the villages, including connections to public
transportation, the City of Chula Vista Bikeway network and Greenbelt and
OVRP trails.
Page 1187 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 151 December 2023
II.2.8.3 HOUSING
Goal: Create a balanced community exemplified by the provision of a
diverse range of housing styles, tenancy types and prices.
Objective: Provide a variety of housing opportunities sufficient to meet a
proportionate share of the Regional Share allocation of
housing.
Objective : Each Otay Ranch Village will proportionately assist the
appropriate land use jurisdiction to meet or exceed Otay
Ranch’s share of the five-year Regional Share allocation as
provided by each jurisdiction’s Housing Element.
Implementation:
The Village 8 East plan meets these goals and objectives by providing a
variety of housing types, including affordable housing. Proposed housing
includes apartments, townhouses, condominiums, attached housing (duplexes
and/or triplexes and, a variety of attached and detached multi-family
residential. The Affordable Housing Program and the PFFP describe in detail
how the housing goals are met. Based on the target residential units proposed
for Village 8 East, 164 low-income and 164 moderate-income residential
units will be provided.
Goal: The provision of sufficient housing opportunities for persons of all
economic, ethnic, religious and age groups, as well as those with
special needs such as the handicapped, elderly, single parent
families and the homeless.
Objective: Ensure that the Otay Ranch provides housing opportunities
sufficient to meet a proportionate share of identified special
housing needs and applies fair housing practices for all needs
groups in the sale, rental, and advertising of housing units.
Implementation:
Village 8 East will contain a variety of housing types ranging in density from
medium high to high. The variety of housing types will accommodate
families, singles and those with special housing needs, including the
handicapped and the elderly. Fair housing practices will be employed in the
sale, rental and advertising of all units.
II.2.8.4 PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE
Goal: Provide diverse park and recreational opportunities within Otay
Ranch which meet the recreational, conservation, preservation,
cultural and aesthetic needs of project residents of all ages and
physical abilities.
Page 1188 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 152 December 2023
Objective: Identify park, recreational and open space opportunities, where
appropriate, to serve the South County region and San Diego
County as a whole.
Objective: Maximize conservation, joint uses and access and consider
safety in the design of recreational facilities.
Objective: Provide neighborhood and community parks and recreational
facilities to serve the recreational needs of local residents.
Implementation:
Chapter V, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan describes in detail
the location funding and maintenance of required facilities.
II.2.8.5 CAPITAL FACILITIES
Goal: Assure the efficient and timely provision of public services and
facilities of developable areas of Otay Ranch concurrent with need.
Objective: Ensure that the pace and pattern of residential, commercial and
other non-residential development is coordinated with the
provision of adequate public facilities and services.
Objective: Permit development only through a process that phases
construction with the provision of necessary infrastructure prior
to or concurrent with need.
Objective: Development projects shall be required to provide or fund their
fair share of all public facilities needed by the development.
Objective : “Enhanced Services” may be provided to specified geographic
areas of the Otay Ranch. These are services that exceed the
normal or standard level of services provided to the jurisdiction
as a whole.
Objective: The City of Chula Vista and the county of San Diego shall enter
into a Master Property Tax Agreement covering all annexations
within an agreed-upon geographic area in Otay Ranch. That
Agreement shall consider the distribution of property tax
revenues, as well as the allocation of total project revenues
between the City and the County in accordance with the
following policies.
Objective: As a general guideline, efforts should be made to keep the
effective tax rate (ETR), including all property taxes and
special assessments, not to exceed 2.00 percent of the assessed
value of the property.
Page 1189 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 153 December 2023
Objective: Monitor the impacts of growth and development on critical
facilities and services to ensure that necessary infrastructure is
provided prior to or concurrent with need.
Implementation:
The PFFP provides an analysis and detailed description of how these goals
and objectives will be met. The SPA Plan will phase development with
infrastructure improvements and the developer will participate in fair-share
funding of facilities as described in the PFFP.
Drainage Facilities
Goal: Provide protection to the Otay Ranch project area and surrounding
communities from fire, flooding and geologic hazards.
Objective: Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program,
Drainage Master Plan(s) and Engineering Standards.
Objective: Development within floodplains will be restricted to decrease
the potential for property damage and loss of life from flooding
and to avoid the need for channels and other flood control
facilities.
Objective: Preservation of the floodplain environment from adverse
impacts due to development.
Objective: Require onsite detention of storm water flows such that existing
downstream structures will not be overloaded.
Implementation:
The project will meet the goals and objectives for drainage facilities through
planning, permitting and implementation of facilities as required by the City
and regulatory agencies. The Master Drainage Study, prepared by Hunsaker
& Associates, and tentative map address these goals. Subsequent grading and
drainage plans will provide additional, site-specific measures.
Sewerage Facilities
Goal: Provide a healthful and sanitary sewerage collection and disposal
system for the residents of Otay Ranch and the region, including a
system designed and constructed to accommodate the use of
reclaimed water.
Objective: The ongoing planning, management and development of
sewerage conveyance, treatment and disposal facilities to
adequately meet future demands.
Objective: Assure that wastewater treatment plants are consistent with
sewerage master plans.
Page 1190 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 154 December 2023
Objective: Sewage disposal systems should maximize the provision and
utilization of reclaimed water.
Implementation:
The Overview for Sewer Service for Otay Ranch Villages 3 and Portion of
Village 4, 8 East and 10 (2014) and the Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA
Amendment Water Evaluation (2023) prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering
describe the planning, management and sewer facilities necessary to serve the
development. The tentative map and subsequent improvement plans provide
additional site-specific design for implementation of the project sewer
system.
Integrated Solid Waste Management Facilities
Goal: Provide solid waste facilities and services which emphasize
recycling of reusable materials and disposal of remaining solid
waste so that the potential adverse impacts to public health are
minimized.
Objective: Reduce the volume of waste to be land-filled by 30% by 1995
and by 50% by 2000.
Implementation:
During construction, solid waste disposal and recycling of materials will
adhere to best management practices and City standards outlined in Chula
Vista Municipal Code Section 8.25.095- Construction and demolition debris
recycling. Planning for occupancy will include considerations as listed in the
City’s “Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Guide. A recycling/drop-off
center may be located within the village core. This central location will
provide an alternative method for residents and businesses in the village to
participate in recycling California Redemption Value bottles and cans.
Urban Runoff Facilities
Goal: Ensure that water quality within the Otay Ranch project area is not
compromised.
Goal: Ensure that the City of San Diego’s water rights within the Otay
River watershed shall not diminish.
Implementation:
The Master Drainage Study for Otay Ranch Village 8 East and the Water
Quality Technical Report for Otay Ranch Village 8 East, prepared by
Hunsaker & Associates describe how these goals will be met through
management and containment in conformance with City and regional
environmental protection standards.
Page 1191 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 155 December 2023
Water Facilities
Goal: Ensure an adequate supply of water for build-out of the entire Otay
Ranch project area; design the Otay Ranch project area to
maximize water conservation.
Objective: Ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis prior
to the development of each phase of the Otay Ranch Project
Area.
Objective: Ensure infrastructure is constructed concurrently with planned
growth, including adequate storage, treatment, and
transmission facilities, which are consistent with development
phasing goals, objectives and policies, and the Service/Revenue
Plan.
Objective: Ensure that water quality within the Otay Ranch Project Area
is not compromised, consistent with NPDES Best Management
Practices, and the RWQCB Basin Plans.
Objective: Promote water conservation through increased efficiency in
essential uses and use of low water demand landscaping.
Objective: Encourage suppliers to adopt a graduated rate structure
designed to encourage water conservation.
Implementation:
The Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Villages 3 and Portion of
Village 4, 8 East and 10 (2014) and the Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA
Amendment Water Evaluation (2023), prepared by Wilson Engineering
describes how these goals and objectives will be met. A Water Supply
Assessment and Verification Report for the Project which ensures sufficient
water supplies are available in normal, dry year and multiple dry years was
approved by the OWD Board of Directors on November 6, 2013.
Water Reclamation Facilities
Goal: Design a sewerage system which will produce reclaimed water.
Ensure a water distribution system will be designed and
constructed to use reclaimed water. Construction of a “dual
system” of water supply will be required for all development where
reclaimed water is used.
Objective: Encourage development of public and private open space and
recreational uses that could utilize reclaimed water.
Page 1192 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 156 December 2023
Implementation:
The Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Villages 3 and Portion of
Village 4, 8 East and 10 (2014) and the Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA
Amendment Water Evaluation (2023), prepared by Wilson Engineering
describes the implementation of reclaimed water systems in the development.
A Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) for the project will include recycled water
facilities.
Arts and Cultural Facilities
Goal: Plan sites for facilities dedicated to the enhancement of the arts at
the community level that can contain indoor and outdoor facilities
capable of supporting community theater, training and exhibition
of art and sculpture, musical training and concerts, film and
cultural festivals, public meetings, and other community events.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan provides indoor and outdoor facilities including a
neighborhood park, private facilities, elementary school, community purpose
facility, and the village core which could accommodate arts and cultural
facilities.
Cemetery Facilities
Objective: Identify and preserve adequate cemetery sites to serve the Otay
Ranch Project Area.
Implementation:
A cemetery site is not proposed in the SPA Plan Area.
Child Care Facilities
Goal: Provide adequate child care facilities and services to serve the
Otay Ranch project area.
Objective: Identify sites for child care and pre-school facilities adjacent to
or part of public and private schools, religious assembly uses,
employment areas, and other locations deemed appropriate.
Implementation:
Child care facilities can be accommodated in the commercial, community
purpose facility, elementary school, and neighborhood park land use areas.
Small and large family day care uses are also an allowable use within
residential areas consistent with State law.
Page 1193 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 157 December 2023
Health and Medical Facilities
Goal: Ensure provision of and access to facilities which meet the health
care needs of Otay Ranch residents.
Objective: Identify a general location within Otay Ranch for public and
private health service organizations, charities, and private adult
care and mental care facilities.
Implementation:
Senior congregate care and health care offices and clinics are allowable uses
within the Village Core area of Village 8 East. The community purpose
facility land use also allows health care uses.
Community and Regional Purpose Facilities
Goal: Designate areas within the Otay Ranch project area for religious,
ancillary private educational, day care, benevolent, fraternal,
health, social and senior services, charitable, youth recreation
facilities, and other County regional services.
Implementation:
A Community Purpose Facility Master Plan, included in Chapter VI of this
SPA Plan, describes the facilities provided by the development that will meet
this goal and the specific requirements of the City of Chula Vista Municipal
Code and the Land Offer Agreement.
Social and Senior Services Facilities
Goal: Ensure that Otay Ranch project area residents have adequate access
to sources of governmental and private social and senior service
programs.
Objective: Social and senior service facilities should be sited within Otay
Ranch to either provide direct service access or to provide
community service information to each village to educate the
public regarding available services.
Objective: Siting of new facilities and expansion of existing social or
senior services facilities will be planned to most effectively
serve the clients of each social and senior service activity as
part of a comprehensive social and senior service delivery
system.
Implementation:
Social and senior service needs can be met within allowable use areas
including the Village Core commercial, private recreation facility,
Page 1194 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 158 December 2023
community purpose facility and park land uses, including the Community
Park. Shared use may be available with the schools.
Animal Control Facilities
Goal: Ensure that the community of Otay Ranch is served by an effective
animal control program that provides for the care and protection of
the domestic animal population, safety of people from domestic
animals, and the education of the public regarding responsible
animal ownership.
Objective: Participate in programs to provide animal control facilities
sufficient to provide adequate shelter space per Otay Ranch
dwelling unit.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area will participate in City programs for provision of animal
control.
Civic Facilities
Goal: Assure the efficient and timely provision of public services and
facilities to developable areas of the Otay Ranch project area
concurrent with need, while preserving environmental resources of
the site and ensuring compatibility with the existing character of
surrounding communities. Integrate different types of public
facilities where such facilities are compatible and complementary.
Implementation:
This goal will be met through implementation of requirements identified by
the PFFP.
Correctional Facilities
Goal: Prevent injury, loss of life and damage to property resulting from
crime occurrence through the provision of justice facilities.
Objective: Make provisions for justice facilities, including jails, courts,
and police facilities adequate to serve the Otay Ranch Project
Area.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area does not contain correctional facilities.
Fire Protection and Emergency Services Facilities
Goals: Provide protection to the Otay Ranch project area and surrounding
communities from the loss of life and property due to fires and
medical emergencies.
Page 1195 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 159 December 2023
Objective: Provide sufficient fire and emergency service facilities to
respond to calls within the Otay Ranch urban communities
within a 7-minute response time in 85% of the cases.
Implementation:
This goal will be met through implementation of the requirements identified
by the PFFP. Chula Vista Fire Station #7 is located in Village 2. Fire Station
#10 is located in Millenia (Eastern Urban Center). An additional fire station
is planned within or adjacent to the Village 8 West Town Center.
Additionally, the circulation design of the SPA Plan Area facilitates
emergency vehicle access to all areas of the villages and the Preserve Edge
Plan includes fuel management requirements. The Village 8 East Fire
Protection Plan includes an analysis which demonstrates the SPA Plan Area
can be served within the appropriate response time requirements. The project
must also comply with the Chula Vista Fire Master Plan (1/28/14).
Justice Facilities
Goal: Prevent injury, loss of life and damage to property by having
adequate criminal justice facilities to serve Otay Ranch residents.
Objective: Cooperate with the County to identify an equitable funding
method for the development of justice facilities based on the
needs of Otay Ranch and their benefit to Otay Ranch residents.
Objective: Justice facilities serving Otay Ranch residents will be sited in
appropriate locations and in a timely manner, irrespective of
jurisdictional boundaries.
Objective: Enhance public safety by utilizing land use and site design
techniques to deter criminal activity.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area does not contain justice facilities. The design of Village
8 East fosters community interaction and awareness that deters criminal
activity. Design techniques include “eyes on the street’ orientation of
commercial and residential uses toward the street and placement of parks and
paths as focal points in the community. These techniques minimize hidden
locations where criminal activity might occur.
Law Enforcement Facilities
Goal: Protection of life and property and prevention of crime occurrence.
Objective: Make provisions for criminal justice facilities, including jails,
courts, and police facilities adequate to serve the Otay Ranch
Project Area.
Page 1196 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 160 December 2023
Objective: Enhance conditions for public safety by utilizing land use and
site design techniques to deter criminal activity and promote
law enforcement.
Objective: Site law enforcement facilities to appropriate locations in order
to serve the population.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area will not contain law enforcement facilities. The project
utilizes design techniques to deter criminal activity and promote law
enforcement. The goal can be met through implementation measures
identified in the PFFP.
Library Facilities
Goal: Sufficient libraries to meet the information and education needs of
Otay Ranch residents.
Objective: Provide high quality and contemporary library facilities and
services which meet the needs of the entire Otay Ranch Project
Area.
Objective: Five hundred square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and
staffed library facilities per 1,000 population.
Objective: Otay Ranch libraries will be equitably financed by all new
development that will benefit from the facilities.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area will contribute its fair share to City of Chula Vista library
facilities through payment of the Public Facility Development Impact Fee as
identified in the PFFP.
School Facilities
Goal: Provide high quality, K-12 educational facilities for Otay Ranch
residents by coordinated planning of school facilities with the
appropriate school district.
Goal: Coordinate the planning of adult educational facilities with
appropriate district.
Objective: School facilities shall be provided concurrently with need and
integrated with related facility needs, such as child care, health
care, parks, and libraries, where practical.
Objective: Provide school district with 12 to 18 month development plan
and 3 to 5 year development forecasts so that they may plan and
implement school building and/or allocation programs in a
timely manner.
Page 1197 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 161 December 2023
Implementation:
An elementary school site is provided within Village 8 East. SUHSD has
planned for future growth in Otay Ranch and the existing and planned middle
school and high school facilities are sufficient to accommodate the needs of
future residents.
II.2.8.6 AIR QUALITY
Goal: Minimize the adverse impacts of development on air quality.
Implementation:
The Air Quality Improvement Plan provides measures to meet this goal. The
Plan addresses improvement measures including job/housing balance, transit
access, alternative travel modes, building construction methods and
educational programs. The SPA Plan Area has been designed to offer
numerous alternative methods of transportation, including public transit ,
NEVs, bicycle lanes/routes and pedestrian trails.
Commuter Trip Management
Goal: Create a safe and efficient multi-modal transportation network
which minimizes the number and length of single passenger
vehicle trips.
Objective: Minimize the number and length of single passenger vehicle
trips to and from employment and commercial centers to
achieve an average of 1.5 persons per passenger vehicle during
weekday commute hours.
Implementation:
Village 8 East is located close to the planned regional Rapid Bus station in
Village 8 West, accommodates a local bus route and stops along Main Street,
provides an extensive pedestrian path system and has been designed to
accommodate bicycles. Employment and commercial centers are located
within and adjacent to the SPA Plan Area including the Village 8 West and
Village 9 Town Centers and the Eastern Urban Center.
Capacity Improvements
Objective: Expand the capacity of both the highway and transit components of
the regional transportation system to minimize congestion and
facilitate the movement of people and goods.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area will contribute to highway and transit improvements as
identified in the Public Facilities Finance Plan, including payment of the
TDIF to support build-out of the General Plan Circulation System.
Page 1198 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 162 December 2023
Bicycle System Design
Objective: Provide a safe, thorough and comprehensive bicycle network
which includes bicycle paths between major destinations
within, and adjacent to, Otay Ranch.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan circulation design provides for bicycle access. The Plan
includes bike facilities along major perimeter roads and internal bike routes
that offer connections to destinations outside of the villages, as well as
connections to multi-use trails within the Greenbelt Master Plan and OVRP
trail networks as well as the planned Multi-modal (NEV, pedestrian and
bicycle) bridge across SR-125.
Road Design
Objective: Design arterial and major roads and their traffic signals to
minimize travel time, stops and delays.
Implementation:
The major roads surrounding the SPA Plan Area have been designed in
accordance with City standards, except as modified for site conditions.
Traffic signals have been located to facilitate traffic flow and to provide
access to neighboring land uses. Intersections have been analyzed and
designed to provide appropriate “Level of Service” minimizing stops and
delays.
Planning and Land Development
Goal: Land development patterns which minimize the adverse impacts of
development on air quality.
Objective: Encourage mixed use development to promote linking of trips,
reduce trip length and encourage alternative mode usage.
Implementation:
Village 8 East has been designed with a Village Core that contains a mix of
uses, including commercial uses, in accordance with village concepts that
promote alternatives to automobile use. The convenient village pedestrian
path system and internal streets are designed to accommodate NEVs,
pedestrians and bicycles and will encourage alternate modes of travel.
Transit Route and Facility Design
Objective: Facilitate access to public transit.
Implementation:
Pedestrian and bicycle paths provide links to public transit lines. A Bus Rapid
Transit station is planned within the Village 9/University Innovation District
Page 1199 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 163 December 2023
east of Village 8 East. Rapid Bus service is planned along Main Street, with
a station planned in Village 8 West, and Local Bus stops are also planned
along Main Street to serve Village 8 East residents.
Pedestrian Design
Objective: Encourage pedestrian traffic as an alternative to single vehicle
passenger travel.
Implementation:
The extensive system of trails and pathways throughout the SPA Plan Area to
destinations such as the village core, schools and parks, the neighboring land
uses, will encourage residents to walk rather than drive.
Building Design
Objective: Locate and design buildings within village cores to facilitate
transit and pedestrian access.
Implementation:
Buildings within the Village 8 East village core are clustered to minimize
walking distances and oriented to the street to encourage pedestrian access.
Paths within the core link to the public transit station in Village 8 West and
local bus stops along Main Street.
Parking Management
Objective: Manage parking facilities to facilitate transit, ridesharing and
pedestrian access.
Objective: Manage parking facilities to encourage a reduction in the
number of single vehicle trips.
Implementation:
The PC District Regulations establish parking requirements for each land use
district/zone. Parking areas are located at the rear and sides of buildings to
maintain a pedestrian-oriented village streetscape. Joint parking use is
encouraged within the village core.
Street Configuration
Objective: Configure internal village streets to give pedestrian traffic a
priority.
Page 1200 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 164 December 2023
Implementation:
Village streets are designed for pedestrian comfort with sidewalks,
landscaping and furnishings. Streets are narrow to slow traffic and parking is
subordinated.
Particulate Emissions
Objective: Minimize particulate emissions, which are the result of the
construction process.
Implementation:
This objective will be met through construction practices that control fugitive
dust, minimize simultaneous operation of construction vehicles and
equipment, and use low-polluting equipment.
Energy Conservation
Objective: Minimize fossil fuel emission by conserving energy.
Implementation:
The Energy Conservation Plan fulfills the GDP requirement to prepare a Non-
renewable Energy Conservation Plan and promotes energy efficiency and use
of solar power by requiring pre-plumbing for future solar installation. The
SPA Plan circulation plan is designed to provide alternate modes of travel and
reduce vehicle trips to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
II.2.8.7 NOISE
Goal: Promote a quiet community where residents live without noise
which is detrimental to health and enjoyment of property.
Goal: Ensure residents are not adversely affected by noise.
Objective: Otay Ranch shall have a noise abatement program to enforce
regulations to control noise.
Implementation:
The SPA Land Use Plan separates higher noise generating land uses from
more sensitive residential land uses. Sound abating features, such as masonry
walls and dual-glazed windows, will be provided as needed. City standards
for noise regulation and abatement shall be enforced. The University Villages
Noise Impact Report (2014) and Noise Impact Analysis Update (2023),
prepared by Dudek and Associates, identifies potential noise impacts and
provides mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential conflicts.
Page 1201 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 165 December 2023
II.2.8.8 SAFETY
Goal: Promote public safety and provide public protection from fire,
flooding, seismic disturbances, geologic phenomena and manmade
hazards in order to:
• Preserve Life, Health and Property;
• Continue Government Functions and Public Order;
• Maintain Municipal Services; and
• Rapidly Resolve Emergencies and Return the Community Normalcy
and Public Tranquility.
General Public Safety
Objective: Provide for the continuity of government and public order.
Objective : Maintain public services and ensure the rapid resolution of
emergencies.
Objective: Minimize social and economic dislocations resulting from
injuries, loss of life and property damage.
Implementation:
The SPA Land Use Plan has utilized the recommendations of technical
studies, City codes and ordinances, and other policies and regulations to plan
for development that will promote the protection of life and property. Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles have been
incorporated into the Village 8 East Design Plan
Seismic Disturbances
Objective: Provide public protection from earthquakes, rockslides, and
liquefaction in order to minimize loss of life, injury, property
damage and disruption of community social and economic
activity.
Implementation:
Site grading and construction shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code and the Association of Structural Engineers of California to
reduce the effects of seismic shaking to the extent possible.
Floods
Objective: Prevent property damage and loss of life due to seiches, dam
failure and heavy rains.
Objective: Preservation of the floodplain environment from adverse
impacts due to development.
Page 1202 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 166 December 2023
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area is not located within a floodplain. Storm water flows
shall be controlled and conveyed in accordance with the Master Drainage Plan
for the village.
Geologic Phenomena
Objective: Prevent property damage and loss of life due to landslides, rock
falls, and erosion.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area development shall utilize grading practices that are
consistent with this objective, to the greatest extent feasible.
Fire, Crime, Health Emergency, and Hazardous Substances
Objective: Prevent property damage and loss of life due to fire, crime or
hazardous substances.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan Area is planned to reduce potential effects of fire through
adequate water supply, street design that facilitates emergency vehicle access,
and fuel-modification landscape techniques as outlined in the FPP. Crime
prevention is addressed through optimization of community interaction and
street activity and a minimization of secluded areas that could foster crime.
City codes and policies will be implemented and enforced to minimize
potential effects of hazardous substances.
II.2.8.9 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Goal: Develop Otay Ranch villages to balance regional and local public
needs, respond to market forces, and assure the efficient and timely
provision of public services and facilities concurrent with need.
Objective: Coordinate the timing of the development of Otay Ranch
villages to provide for the timely provision of public facilities,
assure the efficient use of public fiscal resources and promote
the viability of the existing and planned villages.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan will be developed in phases that balance market forces with the
provision of the facilities, as identified by the PFFP. The Chula Vista City
Council repealed the City’s Growth Management Ordinance in November
2022.
Page 1203 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 167 December 2023
II.2.8.10 RESOURCE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT
Goal: Establishment of an open space system that will become a
permanent preserve dedicated to the protection and enhancement
of the biological, paleontological, cultural resources
(archaeological and historical resources), flood plain, and scenic
resources of Otay Ranch, the maintenance of long-term biological
diversity, and the assurance of the survival and recovery of native
species and habitats within the preserve, and to serve as the
functional equivalent of the County of San Diego Resource
Protection Ordinance (RPO).
Objective: Identify sensitive and significant biological, cultural,
paleontological, agricultural, and scenic resources within Otay
Ranch that require protection and/or management.
Objective: Preserve sensitive and significant biological, cultural,
paleontological, flood plain, visual, and agricultural resources.
Implementation:
These goals and objectives will be met through compliance with the Otay
Ranch RMP and Phase 2 RMP, by conveyance of property within the preserve
to the Preserve Owner Manager at a ratio of 1.188 acres of preserve land for
every acre of non-common development land and participation in the
established CFD 97-2 to fund perpetual maintenance, management and
monitoring of Preserve areas.
Enhance and Restore Sensitive Resources
Objective: Enhance, restore, and re-establish sensitive biological resources
(species and habitats) in disturbed areas where the resources
either formerly occurred or have a high potential for
establishment.
Implementation:
Disturbed areas within the Otay Ranch Preserve may be enhanced and
restored as determined by the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager (POM).
Wildlife Corridors
Objective: Establish functional connections for onsite resources and
integrate the Preserve into a larger regional system.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan maintains functional connections for onsite resources within
the Otay River Valley and integrates the Preserve into the larger regional
system through the conveyance of approximately 261.7 acres of land into the
Preserve.
Page 1204 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 168 December 2023
Preserve Management and Maintenance
Objective: Effectively manage the Preserve to protect, maintain, and
enhance resources in perpetuity.
Implementation:
The Applicant will annex the Village 8 East SPA Plan Area into CFD 97-2 to
fund the perpetual maintenance, management and monitoring of Preserve
areas.
Resource Preserve Land Uses
Objective: Identify permitted land uses within the Preserve.
Implementation:
The Otay Ranch RMP, as incorporated into the City of Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan, identifies permitted land uses within the preserve. The MSCP
includes a list of Planned Facilities authorized for Take pursuant to the
Subarea Plan. In the SPA Plan Area, Planned Facilities include sewer
facilities ancillary to the Salt Creek Interceptor, including connections and
maintenance access roads and trails designated in the OVRP Concept Plan.
In addition, the MSCP includes a list of Future Facilities subject to MSCP
Facilities Siting Criteria (Section 6.3.3.4). Future Facilities within the SPA
Plan Area include a fire access road, storm drain facilities and trail/access
leading to the Community Park.
Resource Preserve - Adjacent Land Uses
Objective: Identify allowable uses within appropriate land use
designations for areas adjacent to the Preserve.
Implementation:
Residential uses will be separated from the Preserve by a 100-foot wide
preserve edge. As required by the Resource Management Plan, a Village 8
East Preserve Edge Plan has been prepared. The Edge Plan provides
compliance measures related to drainage, storm drain, toxic substances,
lighting, noise and invasive plant materials.
Regulatory Framework for Future Uses
Objective: Provide a regulatory framework for future permitting by
resource agencies and amendments to the RMP.
Implementation:
The SPA Plan will adhere to the regulatory framework established in the RMP
and MSCP Subarea Plan.
Page 1205 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 169 December 2023
Mineral Resources
Goal: Encourage the completion of the extraction of mineral resources before
conflicts with planned development could occur.
Objective: Extract mineral resources so as not to impair other conservation
efforts.
Implementation:
Mineral extraction does not occur in the SPA Plan Area.
Soils
Goal: Minimize soil loss due to development.
Objective: Identify development activities which present a large potential
to create excessive runoff or erosion.
Implementation:
Landform grading, slope stabilization, vegetation protection, revegetation and
other techniques will be employed to meet these goals and objectives.
Steep Slopes
Goal: Reduce impacts to environmentally sensitive and potential
geologically hazardous areas associated with steep slopes.
Objective: Research existing slope conditions prior to land development
activities.
Implementation:
The SPA grading plan is based on a geotechnical study. The site grading
creates terraces for development that follow the natural grade elevation
change. Manufactured slope heights and forms are in conformance with City
ordinances and policies.
Floodways
Goal: Preserve floodways and undisturbed flood plain fringe areas.
Objective: Restore and enhance highly disturbed floodways and flood
plains to regain former wildlife habitats and retain/restore the
ability to pass 100-year flood flows.
Objective: Preserve floodways and undisturbed flood plain fringe areas in
their natural state where downstream development will not be
adversely affected.
Implementation:
The proposed project does not impact the Otay River floodplain and
floodways.
Page 1206 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 170 December 2023
Visual Resources
Goal: Prevent degradation of the visual resources.
Objective: Blend development harmoniously with significant natural
features of the land.
Implementation:
The manufactured slopes will be contoured and/or vegetated to minimize
visual impacts. The landscape plan for the SPA Plan Area provides a
transition between the natural landscape and the development area.
Energy Conservation
Goal: Establish Otay Ranch as a “showcase” for the efficient utilization
of energy resources and the use of renewable energy resources.
Objective: Reduce the use of non-renewable energy resources within Otay
Ranch below per capita non-renewable energy consumption in
San Diego County.
Implementation:
The design of the SPA Plan Area encourages NEV use, walking, bicycling,
and public transit use to lower energy consumption. Air Quality and Water
Conservation Plans for the SPA Plan Area contribute to efficient use of
resources.
Land Use
Objective: Provide land use patterns and project features which result in
the conservation of non-renewable energy resources.
Implementation:
The land use pattern and relationship to surrounding land uses promotes
walking and cycling as alternatives to more energy consumptive automobile
use. The Water Conservation Plan and landscape design promote efficient
water use.
Water Conservation
Goal: Conserve water during and after construction of Otay Ranch.
Objective: Reduce CWA water use within Otay Ranch to a level that is
75% of County-wide, 1989 per capita levels.
Objective: Create a comprehensive framework for the design
implementation and maintenance of water conserving
measures, both indoor and outdoor.
Objective: Develop an extensive water restoration and recycling system
throughout the developed areas of Otay Ranch.
Page 1207 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East IX. Otay Ranch General Development Plan Compliance
PAGE 171 December 2023
Objective: Investigate traditional and non-traditional uses for reclaimed
water and identify potential restraints for reclaimed water use.
Objective: Comply with the water conservation standards and policies of
all applicable jurisdictions.
Implementation:
The project will adhere to the provisions of the Water Conservation Plan
prepared for the project and the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance.
Astronomical Dark Skies
Goal: Preserve dark-night skies to allow for continued astronomical
research and exploration to be carried out at the County’s two
observatories, Palomar Mountain and Mount Laguna.
Objective: Provide lighting in heavily urbanized areas of the Otay Valley
Parcel which ensures a high degree of public safety.
Objective: Provide lighting in less urbanized areas, which helps to
preserve county-wide dark-night skies, and is consistent with
more rural lighting standards prevalent in non-urbanized areas
of San Diego County.
Implementation:
Lighting within the SPA Plan Area will adhere to City and County ordinances
and standards.
Agriculture
Goal: Recognize the presence of important agricultural soils both in areas
subject to development and within the preserve.
Objective: Encourage effective utilization of agricultural soils located
within the Preserve.
Implementation:
Agricultural practices have ceased in the SPA Plan Area. Erosion control
measures will be implemented to prevent soil erosion.
Page 1208 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 1
UNIT TRACKING TABLE
Page 1209 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 2
PUBLIC PARK FACILITY AND COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY CAPACITY
STUDIES
Public Parks
Capacity studies are provided to demonstrate that facilities outlined the Chula Vista Park and
Recreation Master Plan for Village 8 East Neighborhood Park P-1 (PRMP Park No. 119) and
Community Park P-2 (PRMP Park No. 102) can be accommodated within the Village 8 East public
parks. However, as noted in Chapter V, Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan, the
final design of the public parks may be refined or modified during the park planning to include
other facilities or amenities that serve evolving demographics and associated outdoor recreational
needs and meet the intent of the City’s parks mission.
Community Purpose Facility
A capacity study is provided to demonstrate that the conceptual plan for the CPF-1 site can
accommodate required improvements for a private recreation facility, as defined in CVMC
19.48.025. However, the CPF-1 Concept Plan may be refined or modified during final design.
Page 1210 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Neighborhood Park P-1
The P-1 Park Facility Capacity Study is consistent with the PRMP; however, this conceptual plan may be
revised during final park design.
Page 1211 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Community Park P-2
Note: The P-2 Park Facility Capacity Study is consistent with the PRMP; however, this conceptual plan
may be revised during final park design. Vehicular access between P-2 Community Park and AR-11 to be
designed during final park design.
Page 1212 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Community Purpose Facility CPF-1
Page 1213 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Village Design Plan
April 2024
PREPARED FOR:
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Adopted on December 2, 2014
By Resolution No. 2014-235
Amended XX
By Resolution No. XX
Page 1214 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
CONTRIBUTING CONSULTANTS
Hunsaker & Associates
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 558-4500
Tributary LA, Inc.
2725 Jefferson Street #14
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 438-3304
RH Consulting Group, LLC
(619) 823-1494
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
WHA, Inc.
2950 Redhill Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92705-5543
Contact: Julia Malisos
(949) 250-0607
Page 1215 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
i
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
A. Village Design Plan .................................................................................................1
B. Companion Documents ............................................................................................1
1. Otay Ranch GDP Overall Design Plan ............................................2
2. Village 8 East Planned Community (PC) District Regulations ........2
3. Village Core Master Precise Plan ....................................................2
C. Administrative Design Review ................................................................................2
1. Design Review Process ....................................................................3
II. Village Identity ........................................................................................................4
A. Village Setting and Design Influences .....................................................................4
B. Urban Theme and Character ....................................................................................7
C. Pedestrian Orientation ..............................................................................................7
D. Conceptual Grading ..................................................................................................9
E. Landscape Concept ..................................................................................................9
F. Slope Landscape Design Concept ..........................................................................12
1. MSCP Interface Slopes ..................................................................13
2. Internal Slopes ...............................................................................20
III. Community and Village Monument Concept ........................................................24
A. Community Entry Monuments ..............................................................................26
B. Village Entry – North Grove (Main Street) ...........................................................27
C. Secondary Village Entry – South Grove (La Media Parkway) ..............................28
D. Village Entry – Multi-Modal Bridge .....................................................................29
IV. Streetscape Design Concept ...................................................................................31
A. Six-Lane Prime Arterial - Main Street ...................................................................35
B. Four-Lane Major Road – La Media Parkway ........................................................36
C. Modified Secondary Village Entry Street with Median - La Palmita Dr. .............38
D. Modified Residential Collector - Del Sueño Drive................................................39
E. Modified Secondary Village Entry Street -Savoria Parkway ................................40
F. Modified Residential Collector - Calle Escuela.....................................................42
G. Modified Promenade Street - Delgado Drive ........................................................43
H. One-Way Frontage Road – Via Palermo ...............................................................45
I. Community Park Entry Drive – Avenida Caprise .................................................46
J. Private Access Road ..............................................................................................47
K. Traffic Calming Measures .....................................................................................48
V. Conceptual Pedestrian Circulation Plan .................................................................50
A. Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail/Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Trail .................52
B. Chula Vista Regional Trail .....................................................................................53
C. Village Pathway .....................................................................................................56
D. Community Park Trail with Emergency/Maintenance Access ..............................57
E. Community Park Access Trail ................................................................................58
F. Promenade Trail .....................................................................................................59
G. Edge Trail...............................................................................................................60
H. Neighborhood Trail ................................................................................................62
VI. Village Park Concept .............................................................................................63
Page 1216 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ii
A. P-1 Neighborhood Park ..........................................................................................65
B. P-2 Community Park – Otay Ranch Community Park South ...............................66
VII. Community Purpose Facilities ....................................................................71
VIII. Wall and Fence Concepts ...........................................................................73
A. Community Walls ..................................................................................................73
B. Community Fencing...............................................................................................74
C. Retaining Walls ......................................................................................................76
IX. Lighting Concepts ..................................................................................................76
A. Public Park Lighting ..............................................................................................79
B. Village Core Street Lighting ..................................................................................79
1. Street Lights ...................................................................................79
2. Pathway Lights...............................................................................80
C. Parking Lot Lighting ..............................................................................................80
X. Village Core Design Concept .................................................................................81
A. Village Design Features .........................................................................................81
B. Site Planning and Pedestrian Orientation ...............................................................82
C. Building and Roof Form ........................................................................................84
D. Facade Treatments .................................................................................................85
E. Mechanical Equipment, Service, Waste, and Utility Areas ...................................86
F. Landscaping Design Guidelines .............................................................................87
G. Surface Parking Area Landscape Guidelines .........................................................87
H. Lighting, Signing and Street Furnishings ...............................................................88
XI. Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines .........................................................90
A. Design Fundamentals .............................................................................................90
B. Neighborhood Design Guidelines ..........................................................................90
B. Site Planning and Building Plotting .......................................................................94
C. Form and Massing..................................................................................................95
D. Facade Elements ....................................................................................................96
E. Trash Enclosures, Utilities, and Service Areas ......................................................96
F. Landscape Design ..................................................................................................97
G. Plotting Examples ..................................................................................................97
XII. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design ...................................110
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Village 8 East Illustrative Plan...........................................................................6
Exhibit 2: Pedestrian Oriented Streets .................................................................................8
Exhibit 3: Landscape Concept Plan ....................................................................................11
Exhibit 4: MSCP Interface Slope Concept at R-9 Multi-Family .......................................14
Exhibit 5 MSCP Interface Slope Concept at R-9 and R-10 Multi-Family .........................15
Exhibit 6: MSCP Interface Slope Concept at CPF-1 ..........................................................16
Exhibit 7: MSCP Interface Concept at P-2 Community Park ............................................17
Exhibit 8: Internal Slopes at Main Street and Palmita Drive .............................................20
Exhibit 9: Internal Slopes at La Media Parkway and Palmita Drive .................................21
Exhibit 10: Conceptual Village Identity Location Plan .......................................................25
Page 1217 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
iii
Exhibit 11: Conceptual Community Entry Monument ......................................................26
Exhibit 12: Village Entry Concept Plan (North Grove) ......................................................27
Exhibit 13: Secondary Village Entry Concept Plan (South Grove) ......................................28
Exhibit 14: Village Entry Concept Plan (Multi-Modal Bridge) ........................................29
Exhibit 15: Conceptual Vehicular Circulation Plan ...........................................................32
Exhibit 16: Conceptual Street Tree Master Plan ................................................................33
Exhibit 17: Six Lane Prime Arterial ...................................................................................35
Exhibit 18: Four Lane Major Road ....................................................................................36
Exhibit 19: Modified Secondary Village Entry with Media .............................................38
Exhibit 20: Modified Residential Collector .......................................................................39
Exhibit 21: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street ......................................................40
Exhibit 22: Modified Residential Collector ......................................................................42
Exhibit 23: Modified Promenade Street ...........................................................................43
Exhibit 24: One-Way Frontage Street (South Bound) .......................................................45
Exhibit 25: Community Park Entry Drive ..........................................................................46
Exhibit 26: Private Access Road.......................................................................................47
Exhibit 27: Conceptual Traffic Calming Measures ..........................................................48
Exhibit 28: Conceptual Pedestrian Circulation Plan ...........................................................51
Exhibit 29: Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail .............................................................................52
Exhibit 30: Chula Vista Regional Trail ..............................................................................53
Exhibit 31: Village Pathway ...............................................................................................56
Exhibit 32: Community Park Trail .....................................................................................57
Exhibit 33: Community Park Access Trail .........................................................................58
Exhibit 34: Promenade Trail ..............................................................................................59
Exhibit 35: Edge Trail (Optional) .....................................................................................61
Exhibit 36: Neighborhood Trail ........................................................................................62
Exhibit 37: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan...............................................64
Exhibit 38: P-1 Neighborhood Park Concept Plan ............................................................65
Exhibit 39: P-2 Community Park Concept Plan .................................................................67
Exhibit 40: CPF-1 Concept Plan .........................................................................................72
Exhibit 41: Community Wall Details ................................................................................73
Exhibit 42: Community Fencing Details ...........................................................................74
Exhibit 43: Lighting Concept Plan .....................................................................................78
Exhibit 44: Conceptual Light Fixtures ...............................................................................80
Exhibit 45: Village Site Planning Concept ........................................................................83
Exhibit 46: Conceptual Street Furnishings ........................................................................89
Exhibit 47: Conceptual Neighborhood Design ..................................................................93
Exhibit 48: Conceptual Private Drive ................................................................................94
Page 1218 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
iv
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1219 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 1 December 2023
I. Introduction
The following section describes the requirements and purpose of the Village Design Plan,
as articulated in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the companion
documents, the future Village Core Master Precise Plan requirements and the site plan
review process.
A. Village Design Plan
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) requires that a Village Design Plan be
prepared for each village at the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) level of planning. The
Village Design Plan for Village 8 East was originally approved by the Chula Vista City
Council in 2014. This Village Design Plan addresses the land plan changes approved by
the Chula Vista City Council on ________.
The Village Design Plan guides planning and development by defining intended character
and design elements of the village and provides guidance for developers and designers.
The Village 8 East Design Plan guides the design of sites, buildings and landscapes within
the village to ensure that the quality of the adopted urban design and architectural concepts
established for the overall Otay Ranch community are maintained. The design plan
identifies a theme for Village 8 East and delineates that identity through streetscape and
landscape design, community-level signage and architectural and lighting guidelines. Sign
regulations are provided in the Village 8 East Planned Community District Regulations
(PC District Regulations). The design plan also identifies the village core design concepts
that will implement Otay Ranch’s planned pedestrian orientation.
This introductory section of the Village Design Plan provides a description of the Design
Review process for Village 8 East. Section 2 describes the Village 8 East setting, land use
plan, and the design theme of the village. The following sections describe the overall
village design features and provide guidelines for the Village Core and multi-family
residential developments.
Images and graphics presented in this document are for the purpose of communicating
intended character and quality and to illustrate potential outcomes of the PC District
Regulation standards and the guidelines herein. Neither are suggestive of architectural
styles or intended to be interpreted as development standards or regulations.
B. Companion Documents
There are several companion documents that provide guidance for preparation of the
Village Design Plan. These documents are described below.
Page 1220 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 2 December 2023
1. Otay Ranch GDP Overall Design Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP Overall Design Plan provides framework guidelines for Otay Ranch
implementation. The Overall Design Plan was adopted in 1993 in conjunction with
approval of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and provides general design
guidelines appropriate to the pedestrian and transit-oriented village concepts envisioned
for the community.
2. Village 8 East Planned Community (PC) District Regulations
The PC District Regulations establish land use development standards and appropriate
regulations (zoning) for all construction within the Village 8 East project area. All proposed
developments must adhere to the land uses, setbacks, building heights and similar
regulatory criteria specified in the PC District Regulations.
3. Village Core Master Precise Plan
Village Core Master Precise Plan will be prepared to provide additional design direction
within the Village Core areas. A Master Precise Plan must be approved prior approval of
the first Design Review in the Village Core.
As required by the Otay Ranch GDP, the Master Precise Plan shall address the following
design considerations:
❖ A design concept plan illustration which identifies the landscape concept,
conceptual plaza spaces, village core park relationship, linkages to regional
open spaces and adjacent villages. The concept plan should identify special
setback conditions and treatments (if applicable), on-street parking, parking
lots, and transit linkages (as appropriate).
❖ Typical building elevations for commercial and residential, identifying the
intended character, scale and proportion, massing, compatibility with
surroundings and building materials.
❖ Demonstrate the adequacy of development with the intention of supporting
pedestrian orientation.
C. Administrative Design Review
An Administrative Design Review process has been established in the Village 8 East PC
District Regulations to ensure all development within Village 8 East is consistent with
Village 8 East PC District Regulations. The process requires preparation of site, landscape
and architectural plans that will be reviewed and approved by the Master Developer. Site
plans shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for review, along with a Master
Developer Approval Letter. The Design Review shall be subject to Administrative City
approval (Zoning Administrator) and shall solely focus on ensuring compliance with the
requirements in the PC District Regulations and the intent of the Village Design Plan. The
Page 1221 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 3 December 2023
Design Review process is described in greater detail in the Village 8 East PC District
Regulations, Chapter 10, Implementation and Administration.
1. Design Review Process
The Village 8 East infrastructure and development parcels will be developed by the Master
Developer. Most of the elements described in Section II of this document, including
landform grading, village entries, community monuments and streets will be implemented
by the Master Developer. The development of commercial, community-serving uses and
multi-family residential neighborhoods will be by Merchant Builders and/or builder(s)
affiliated with the Master Developer. A review process has been created to facilitate
development by Merchant Builders within the unique village planning concepts of the Otay
Ranch planned community.
The Village 8 East Design Review process includes two integrated procedures: 1)
preliminary review by the Master Developer and 2) Administrative Design Review by the
City of Chula Vista. The process requires the Merchant Builder (“builder”) to submit the
Design Review package consistent with the Village 8 East Design Review Submittal
checklist in the PC District Regulations to the Master Developer for review/approval prior
to formal application and review by the City. The Master Developer review is intended to
ensure that the builder's intended product and designs meet the standards and criteria for
the entire planned community as well as the guiding documents. Following review of the
Merchant Builder's schematic design, a continuing exchange of information will be
expected as the design is finalized in preparation for the City's Development Plan Review
process to be initiated. Upon completion of Master Developer review, the Master
Developer will provide the builder with a “Master Developer Approval Letter,” which must
be submitted to the City with the Design Review Application and submittal package. Upon
City approval, the builder shall provide the Master Developer with a copy of the final
approved plans and fully executed Zoning Administrator Notice of Decision.
Page 1222 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 4 December 2023
II. Village Identity
Village identity reflects the physical setting and surrounding design influences, including
natural and built environments. The identity of a village or community is further
communicated along streetscapes, within public spaces such as schools, parks and
gathering spaces and the landscape concepts implemented on perimeter and internal slopes
and at village entries. The following sections describe the Village 8 East identity and
context.
A. Village Setting and Design Influences
Village 8 East is located north of the Otay River Valley within the Otay Valley Parcel of
Otay Ranch. The site slopes from north to south and provides view opportunities across
the Otay River Valley to the south and mountains to the east.
Otay Ranch Village 7 is located to the north, Village 8 West Area (Cota Vera) is located to
the west, SR-125 forms the eastern boundary and the Otay River Valley and future Otay
Ranch Community Park South is located to the south. Village 8 East provides additional
synergy and population base to support the community-serving Village 8 West Town
Center. A Rapid Bus Route is planned along Main Street and a transit stop/station is
proposed in the Village 8 West Town Center just west of Village 8 East. The village core
is located in the northern portion of Village 8 East, placing neighborhood serving
commercial, a public neighborhood park and an elementary school site within walking
distance of a majority of village residents. A large community park is planned south of
Village 8 East, within the Otay Valley Regional Park. Pedestrian linkages are planned
between the southern residential neighborhoods and the community park.
An Illustrative Plan is provided as Exhibit 1: Village 8 East Illustrative Plan, depicting
a cohesive plan for implementation of the Village 8 East community. This illustrative plan
is presented as one possible conceptual plan for Village 8 East; however, the actual design
will be based on final site plans approved within Village 8 East.
Page 1223 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 5 December 2023
Page 1224 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 6 December 2023
Exhibit 1: Village 8 East Illustrative Plan
Page 1225 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 7 December 2023
B. Urban Theme and Character
Contemporary European architectural styles, complementing the Village 8 West
architecture, provide the inspiration for the Village Design Plan. European
architecture is represented by contemporary representations of Mediterranean,
Monterey, Spanish, English, French, Italian, San Francisco, and California Craftsman
styles. Contemporary European-inspired architecture is well suited to rectilinear multi-family
development that has a strong relationship with the street.
The defining design features of European architecture are particularly applicable to the
pedestrian-oriented design of the Village Core. The "main street" panned along Savoria
Parkway will be designed with outdoor seating and gathering spaces. Design elements may
include awnings, arcades, trellises and a variety of street trees to define and highlight the
created spaces. In addition to trees, the landscaping may include planting areas with a
variety of colorful shrubs, groundcovers, and vines, decorative hardscape as well as potted
and hanging accent plants. Architecture in the village core area will allow for variety but
maintain a strong basis in contemporary European-inspired architecture. This design theme
may extend to village-serving buildings such as the elementary school and recreational
facilities.
C. Pedestrian Orientation
Village 8 East is designed to be consistent with the GDP’s goal of creating vibrant
communities with a focus on walkability and pedestrian orientation. The orientation of the
built environment along pedestrian-oriented streets is a key design feature of the
village. Pedestrian-oriented streets are conceptually planned along internal streets,
wherever feasible based on proposed site grading. For non-residential uses, the number and
location of entrances, the size and distribution of windows, building setbacks from the
street, landscaping, along with building design elements such as lighting and awnings, all
contribute to the pedestrian experience. For residential uses front door access from the
public street and pedestrian oriented architecture, such as street facing windows,
courtyards, porches and stoops will promote connectivity between public and private
spaces.
Site layout is also important to facilitating pedestrians, cyclists and transit users. The
internal street network features enhanced pedestrian walkways, paths and trails designed
to create a safe, pleasant and attractive walking experience. Pedestrian-oriented design also
helps to make places more walking friendly by providing a range of transportation options.
These can include clear, comfortable pedestrian pathways, bicycle connections, bicycle
parking, access trails and walkways, and transit options and access to bus stops. Exhibit
2: Pedestrian Oriented Streets, depicts the internal streets where pedestrian oriented
features may be implemented, depending on final grades. This exhibit is based on the
conceptual grades shown on the Village 8 East Tentative Map; however, grades may
change during final engineering which may make implementation infeasible or create
additional opportunities along other corridors.
Page 1226 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 8 December 2023
Exhibit 2: Pedestrian-Oriented Streets
Page 1227 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 9 December 2023
D. Conceptual Grading
The natural sloping landform provides the opportunity to tier the site and create a fairly
level, pedestrian-oriented village core. On the north side of the village, the topography
slopes from north to south from Main Street to the Otay River Valley. The Community
Park and Preserve open space is located to the south. The site design of the village generally
follows the undulating landform of the canyon, with grades dropping from north to south.
Building sites have been created in terraces and streets are located within the topography
to adhere to City horizontal and vertical curve standards.
The design plan for the village strives to create an aesthetically pleasing landform. The
following are guidelines for grading and slope design:
❖ Create elevation changes within the property that strive for a balance of cut
and fill grading.
❖ Use grade changes to optimize views to the south and a create sense of
spaciousness.
❖ Use varied-height trees, shrubs and groundcovers to undulate the surface of
slopes.
❖ Minimize surface runoff and erosion potential by planting slopes with low water
consumptive and drought tolerant plants.
❖ Use state-of-the-art erosion control, irrigation and water management practices
to protect slopes.
E. Landscape Concept
The landscape design is planned to integrate Village 8 East with the overall Otay Ranch
design theme and to create a cohesive and well connected village across both Village 8
West and Village 8 East. The Otay Ranch design theme is addressed by extending
established arterial streetscape designs and perimeter slope landscape designs into the
Village 8 East landscape plan. Within the village, the landscape theme is an assembly of
European influences on California’s architectural history. Derivatives of the European
style including Spanish, Mediterranean, Monterey, French, Italian, San Francisco and
California Craftsman Mediterranean, Monterey, Spanish, and California Craftsman styles
architecture will complement the landscape.
The use of traditional agrarian trees such as Oak, Olive, fruiting trees and other stately
evergreens provide the key linkage between the neighborhoods. Ornate shrubs,
groundcovers and vines such as Bougainvillea, Lavender, Rosemary and other vibrant
plant materials, accentuate important destinations. The plant palette is a collection of water
Page 1228 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 10 December 2023
efficient material that compliments the diversity in European-inspired architectural styles.
The European-inspired design theme will be created through a comprehensive landscape
plan that addresses the design of outdoor spaces, features, furnishings and the use of a wide
variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers. The landscape concept is illustrated in the
provided Exhibit 3: Landscape Concept Plan. Descriptions of proposed internal and
perimeter slopes, streetscape/neighborhood park/Community Purpose Facility, private
development areas and the P-2 Community Park landscape design areas are provided in the
following sections. Additional information about the Village 8 East landscape plan is
provided in the Preserve Edge Plan. The Landscape Master Plan and the Village Core
Master Precise Plan, developed after the SPA Plan is approved, will provide more detailed
descriptions of the Village landscapes. See Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan, and 2023
addendum and Attachment 2: Approved Plant List, for additional plant palette information.
The Village 8 East landscape theme is a collection of elements reflective of California’s
and Otay Ranch’s agrarian history. Village-wide architectural styles will blend seamlessly
with the landscape, providing an elegant and cohesive community.
Page 1229 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 11 December 2023
Exhibit 3: Landscape Concept Plan
Page 1230 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 12 December 2023
F. Slope Landscape Design Concept
The Village 8 East landscape concept is compatible with the established Otay Ranch design
theme and the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance. Slopes are one of the dominant
landscapes visible from public view. The landscape concept for the MSCP Interface slopes
balances the need to provide adequate plant cover to minimize erosion, minimize fuel load
and water use and ensure compatibility with the adjacent MSCP natural open space areas.
The interior slopes are designed to provide for erosion control, while establishing a pleasant
backdrop for the village and entry landscape elements. Varied-height trees, shrubs and
groundcovers will be utilized to undulate the surface of slopes to create dimension,
variation and interest and soften the appearance of slopes visible from the Otay Valley
Regional Park.
The following describes the design concepts and approved plant palette that will create
slopes complementary to the overall Otay Ranch theme consistent with the Village 8 East
Preserve Edge Plan, Otay Valley Regional Park Private Development Guidelines, the Fire
Protection Plan University Villages – Village 8 East / 2023 Addendum, the Chula Vista
Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance and City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
Signage within areas adjacent to the MSCP shall be provided and must meet the
requirements of the City of Chula Vista and the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager.
The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Standards and Guidelines, Section 5, Private
Development Guidelines, include principles for private development adjacent to the
OVRP. Consistent with these principles, manufactured perimeter slopes adjacent to the
OVRP complement and do not negatively impact the park by utilizing the following
techniques:
❖ Perimeter slopes follow the existing topography to the greatest extent possible,
blending the site into natural topography and preserving natural drainages
between Village 8 East and the Otay River Valley.
❖ Landscape buffers are planted with native plant materials, consistent with the
Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan and Preserve Edge Plan.
❖ Retaining walls are split into multiple sections to avoid large expanses of blank
walls, while providing opportunities to screen the walls with native landscaping
in front of the wall and reduce single wall heights.
❖ Non-residential fencing at the perimeter is typically post & rail or open tubular
steel, permitting views to and from the park.
❖ Residential fencing at the perimeter is typically 2’ of block with 4’ of view
fencing, tubular steel or post & rail, permitting views to and from the park.
❖ Lighting at the perimeter must be directed away from the Preserve/OVRP by
placing light fixtures in appropriate locations and shielding lamps.
Page 1231 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 13 December 2023
1. MSCP Interface Slopes
Consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, OVRP Design Standards Guidelines
(Section 5, Private Development Guidelines) and Preserve Edge Plan, a 100-foot Brush
Management Zone (BMZ) / 100-foot Preserve Edge is provided within the development
area, outside of the Preserve. The 100-foot BMZ and Preserve Edge overlap in certain
portions adjacent to the MSCP Preserve. The BMZ is divided into two zones with a
minimum dimension of 50’ within each zone. The BMZ is measured from the closest
structure outward, with BMZ 1 located adjacent to development and BMZ 2 extending to
the MSCP boundary. The 100-foot BMZ is implemented adjacent to residential
development parcels R-9 and R-10 and the CPF-1 site, while a 30’ BMZ (Zone 2) is
implemented at the perimeter of the P-2 Community Park.
The 100’ Preserve Edge is measured from the MSCP Boundary toward the development
area and is not applicable to the P-2 Community Park, per the City of Chula Vista MSCP
Plan and Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan.
Consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP, BMZ Zone 1 will be permanently irrigated and
planted with native-compatible plant species. Temporary irrigation may be utilized in BMZ
Zone 2 during the plant establishment period, subject to approval of the Director of
Development Services or Designee. The “Approved Plant List” is provided in Attachment
“A” to this document and is subject to the requirements of the Fire Protection Plan and
Addendum and the approval of the Director of Development Services. MSCP Interface
Slope Concepts are presented in Exhibits 4 to 7 below.
Brush Management Zone Planting Requirements:
Individual trees may be planted in BMZ Zone 1 at an average rate of no less than one tree
per 200 lineal feet, no closer than 15 feet from a property line or top of slope (whichever
is further) and a minimum of 30 feet between mature canopies. Trees are not permitted
within BMZ Zone 2. Planting and irrigation requirements are provided in the Fire
Protection Plan and Addendum and Preserve Edge Plan. Slopes adjacent to the MSCP
Preserve must be planted with native species and are subject to the Preserve Edge Plan and
the “Approved Plant List” provided in Attachment “A” to this document. The primary plant
palette for the BMZ includes cacti, shrubs, ground cover and a hydroseed application,
compatible with the adjacent natural open space area.
Page 1232 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 14 December 2023
Note: Retaining wall location, height and setback are conceptual, subject to final engineering design.
Exhibit 4: MSCP Interface Slope Concept at R-9 Multi-Family
Page 1233 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 15 December 2023
Note: Retaining wall location, height and setback are conceptual, subject to final engineering design.
Exhibit 5: MSCP Interface Slope Concept at R-9 and R-10 Multi-Family
Page 1234 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 16 December 2023
Exhibit 6: MSCP Interface Slope Concept at CPF-1
Page 1235 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 17 December 2023
Exhibit 7: MSCP Interface Concept at P-2 Community Park
Plant Palette (MSCP Interface Slopes):
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite
Prunus ilicifolia 'ilicifolia' Hollyleaf Cherry
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Shrubs, Cacti & Ground Covers
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave
Atriplex semibacatta Berry Saltbush
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush
Page 1236 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 18 December 2023
Botanical Name Common Name
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster
Encelia californica California Encelia
Encelia farinosa Brittlebrush
Epilobium californicum California Fuschia
Epilobium canum California Fuschia
Galvezia speciosa 'Fire Cracker' Bush Snapdragon
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Isomeris arborea Bladder Pod
Isocoma menziesii ‘ Manziesii’ Coast Goldenbush
Ivy hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder
Limonium perezii Statice
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Opuntia littoralis Coastal Prickly Pear Cactus
Opuntia oricola No Common Name Phyla nodiflora Kurapia Rhamnus crocea Redberry
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Salvia apiana White Sage
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba
Trichostema lanatum Woolly Blue Curls
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower
Yucca schidigera Mojave Yucca
Yucca whipplei Our Lord's Candle
Hydroseed Application
Acmispon americanus Purshing's lotus Acmispon heermannii Heerman's lotus Corethrogyne filaginifolia Sand Aster Cryptantha intermedia Common cryptantha Encelia farinosa California Encelia Ericameria palmeri Palmer's goldenbush Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow Eschscholzia californica Coastal California Poppy Galium angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush Helianthemum scoparium Sun Rose Hemizonia fasciculata Common Tarplant Isocoma menziesii Menzies’ goldenbush Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields Lasthenia gracilis California Goldfields
Page 1237 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 19 December 2023
Botanical Name Common Name Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower
Page 1238 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 20 December 2023
2. Internal Slopes
La Palmita Drive at Main Street
The slopes along La Palmita Drive at Main Street follow the grades within Village 8 East
as they drop from north to south. At the northern edge, the top of the slope is at grade with
Main Street and the slope design is integral to the Village Entry. The landscape concept
within this corridor will incorporate the thematic Olive Tree from Village 8 West as it
transitions into the community. See Exhibit 8: Internal Slopes at La Palmita Drive and
Main Street for additional details. The plant palette for internal slopes is provided below.
Varied-height trees, shrubs, and groundcovers will be utilized to undulate the surface of
slopes and create dimension, variation and interest.
Note: Regional Trail/sidewalk and cycle track may meander in both north and south right-of-way and
landscape buffer. Final alignment to be determined during final engineering.
Exhibit 8: Internal Slopes at Main Street and Palmita Drive
Page 1239 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 21 December 2023
La Media Parkway at La Palmita Drive
The internal slopes within this corridor extend down from the residential development
parcels north of La Media Parkway. The landscape concept will be a continuation of the
landscape palette within Village 8 West. More ornamental shrubs, trees planted in a grove
pattern and stone retaining walls will be utilized at the La Palmita Drive intersection to
create a sense of arrival and entry and the Secondary Village Entry.
Exhibit 9: Internal Slopes at La Media Parkway and Palmita Drive
Page 1240 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 22 December 2023
Plant Palette (Internal Slopes):
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas Tree
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite
Prunus ilicifolia 'ilicifolia' Hollyleaf Cherry
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Shrubs, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave
Aloe species Aloe
Atriplex semibacatta Berry Saltbush
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush
Bougainvillea ‘Oo-La-La’ Prostrate Bougainvillea
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' Prostrate Natal Plum
Ceanothus cultivars Ceanothus
Cistus species Rockrose
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster
Echium fastuosum Pride of Maderia
Encelia californica California Encelia
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Lantana 'Spreading Yellow' Yellow Lantana
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Limonium perezii Seafoam Statice
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah
Creek' Creeping Myoporum
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Phormium species New Zealand Flax
Phyla nodiflora Kurapia
Portulcaria afra 'Minima' Elephant's Mat
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Rosmarinus officinalis 'Huntington
Carpet' Prostrate Rosemary
Salvia apiana White Sage
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Hydroseed Application
Baileya multiradiata Desert Marigold
Page 1241 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 23 December 2023
Botanical Name Common Name
Camissonia cheiranthifolia Beach Evening Primrose
Encelia farinosa Brittlebrush
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow
Eschscholzia californica California Poppy
Gaillardia pulchella Indian Blanket
Gazania splendens Gazania Splendens
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields
Limonium californicum Coastal Statice
Linaria maroccana Toad Flax
Lobularia maritima Sweet Alyssum
Lupinus excubitus Grape Soda lupine
Verbena tenuisecta Moss Verbena
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower
Page 1242 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 24 December 2023
III. Community and Village Monument Concept
Entry landscape, features and monument signs identify the village and contribute to the
establishment of the village design theme. A hierarchy of entries has been established to
help direct visitors to community, village and neighborhood areas of the village. Community
entry features include community monuments within the eastern portion of the Main Street
and La Media Parkway medians and at the western entry plaza at the Multi-Modal Bridge.
Unifying design elements will be utilized at the Main Street / La Palmita Drive intersection
consistent with the established Village 8 West gateway entry theme at the La Media Parkway
couplet. A complementary entry feature is planned at the intersection of La Media Parkway
and La Palmita Drive. The conceptual locations are provided in Exhibit 10: Conceptual
Community and Village Monument Location Plan.
Page 1243 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 25 December 2023
Exhibit 10: Conceptual Community and Village Monument Location Plan
Page 1244 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 26 December 2023
A. Community Entry Monuments
Cota Vera community entry monuments are planned within the medians along Main Street
and La Media Parkway west of the SR-125 interchange. This monument announces entry
into the larger Cota Vera Community (Villages 8 West and East) and features a curved wall
with the “Cota Vera” identification on the north side of the wall. Enhanced shrub planting
and columnar planting frame the entry wall.
Exhibit 11: Conceptual Community Entry Monument
Page 1245 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 27 December 2023
B. Village Entry – North Grove (Main Street)
The North Grove Village Entry at Main Street and La Palmita Drive comprised of a grove
of olive trees and stone veneer retaining walls and pilasters marks the northern gateway
into the community. This entry frames the south portion of the intersection and brings
residents and visitors into the community through the heart of the Village Core. A variety
of plant species representative of the agrarian landscape theme will be used to complement
the European-inspired architectural theme of Village 8.
Exhibit 12: Village Entry Concept Plan (North Grove)
Page 1246 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 28 December 2023
C. Secondary Village Entry – South Grove (La Media Parkway)
The Secondary Village Entry at La Media Parkway and La Palmita Drive is comprised of
a grove of olive trees and a series of stone veneer retaining walls and pilasters marking the
southern gateway into the community. This entry frames the north portion of the
intersection and brings residents and visitors into the community through the heart of
the Village Core. A variety of plant species representative of the agrarian landscape theme
will be used to complement the European-inspired architectural theme of Village 8.
Exhibit 13: Secondary Village Entry Concept Plan (South Grove)
Page 1247 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 29 December 2023
D. Village Entry – Multi-Modal Bridge
The future multi-modal bridge will accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and NEV travel
connecting the Village 8 East Village Core to future Village 9. This entry concept would
create whimsical entry elements located in a plaza at the western end of the bridge. The
plaza planned on the east side of the intersection of Savoria Parkway and Via Palermo will
create a “landing” and gathering space and direct users to the signalized Via Palermo
crossings. The conceptual design for the entry element may feature bright colors and
patterns, lighting and the “Cota Vera” village identification. A “green” wall is planned as
the backdrop to the village entry identification signage.
Exhibit 14: Village Entry Concept Plan (Multi-Modal Bridge)
Page 1248 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 30 December 2023
Plant Palette (Village Entry):
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Lagerstroemia indica 'Natchez' Natchez Crape Myrtle
Lagerstroemia indica 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle
Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia
Olea europea 'Willsonii' Fruitless Olive
Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus ilex Holly Oak
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Evergreen Elm
Shrubs, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' Prostrate Natal Plum
Dianella species Flax Lily
Lantana 'Spreading Yellow' Yellow Lantana
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Festuca ‘Marathon II’ Dwarf Tall Fescue
Phyla nodiflora Kurapia
Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalksticks
Page 1249 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 31 December 2023
IV. Streetscape Design Concept
Streetscapes are an important component in creating the village design theme. Streetscapes
identify the edges of Village 8 East and major points of entry and serve as the unifying
design theme. The streetscapes for the surrounding major streets will adhere to the Otay
Ranch “ranch theme” landscape and must comply with the City Landscape Water
Conservation Ordinance and Shade Tree Policy. Within the village, the design of the
streetscapes will emphasize the village pedestrian-oriented concept by providing tree-
shaded walkways, lighting, and shortened or enhanced crosswalks. The Conceptual
Vehicular Circulation Plan shows the surrounding and internal street designations for the
village. A description of each street classification and cross sections are provided to
illustrate the conceptual street landscape plan. A comprehensive plant palette has been
established for all streets within the SPA Plan area. In addition, a Street Tree Master Plan
was prepared that connects Village 8 West and Village 8 East through a complementary
street tree program. The conceptual design of proposed traffic calming measures is also
provided.
Page 1250 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 32 December 2023
Exhibit 15: Conceptual Vehicular Circulation Plan
Page 1251 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 33 December 2023
Exhibit 16: Conceptual Street Tree Master Plan
Page 1252 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 34 December 2023
A landscape palette comprised of trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses, turf and ground cover
has been prepared for the streetscape. This palette will be utilized across all of the streets
described below.
Plant Palette (Streetscape):
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Lagerstroemia indica 'Natchez' Natchez Crape Myrtle
Lagerstroemia indica 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle
Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia
Olea europea 'Willsonii' Fruitless Olive
Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus ilex Holly Oak
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Evergreen Elm
Turf
Festuca Aquawise Sportsclub Mix
(from seed) Dwarf Tall Fescue (sod)
Cynodon dactlyon ‘Bandera’ Bandera Bermuda Turf
Paspalum vaginatum ‘Seashore’ Aloha Seashore Paspalum
Shrubs, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Carissa macrocarpa ‘Boxwood
Beauty’ Thornless Natal Plum
Dianella species Flax Lily
Lantana 'Spreading Yellow' Yellow Lantana
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Festuca ‘Marathon II’ Dwarf Tall Fescue
Phyla nodiflora Kurapia
Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalksticks
Thematic Street Trees:
Marina Arbutus Natchez Crape Myrtle Holly Oak
Page 1253 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 35 December 2023
A. Six-Lane Prime Arterial - Main Street
The Main Street landscape design will be compatible with the established Otay Ranch
design themes for arterial streets and the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance. The
thematic street trees will be planted in the parkways and medians in consistently spaced
rows. Community Entry monumentation and enhanced landscaping is also planned within
the median west of SR-125.
Thematic Street Tree:
Tuscarora Crape Myrtle
Exhibit 17: Six Lane Prime Arterial
Not to Scale Main Street
Page 1254 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 36 December 2023
B. Four-Lane Major Road – La Media Parkway
La Media Parkway is a four-lane major road that connects Village 8 West, Village 8 East
and future Village 9. La Media Parkway includes an expanded 17-foot-wide Chula Vista
Regional Trail, designed to provide a two-way NEV / cycle track and a separate pedestrian
walkway on the south side. The thematic street trees will be planted in the parkways and
medians in consistently spaced rows. Community Entry monumentation and enhanced
landscaping is also planned within the median west of SR-125.
Thematic Street Tree:
Tipu Tree
Exhibit 18: Four Lane Major Road
Not to Scale La Media Parkway – Westerly project boundary to La Palmita Drive
Page 1255 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 37 December 2023
Exhibit 18: Four Lane Major Road (continued)
Not to Scale La Media Parkway –La Palmita Drive to easterly project boundary
Page 1256 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 38 December 2023
C. Modified Secondary Village Entry Street with Median - La Palmita Drive
La Palmita Drive is the primary north-south circulation street through Village 8 East. This
street unifies the varied village land uses with a continuous village theme streetscape. The
Village Pathway is the primary circulation route for pedestrian travel and provides a
bicycle path separate from the roadway. The street design includes two travel lanes and
Class 2 bike lanes. Trees will be planted in the parkways and medians in consistently
spaced rows. The Village Pathway is located on the east side of the street and the
Promenade Trail is on the west side.
Thematic Street Tree:
Callery Pear
Exhibit 19: Modified Secondary Village Entry with Media
Not to Scale La Palmita Drive
Page 1257 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 39 December 2023
D. Modified Residential Collector - Del Sueño Drive
Del Sueño Drive is located along the western edge of the school site. This street features
two travel lanes, a 10-foot median, the 12-foot-wide Village Pathway that accommodates
a Class I Bike Lane and pedestrian access and parking / drop off lane. Trees will be planted
in the parkways and medians in consistently spaced rows.
Thematic Street Tree:
Drake Elm
Exhibit 20: Modified Residential Collector
Not to Scale Del Sueño Drive
Page 1258 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 40 December 2023
E. Modified Secondary Village Entry Street -Savoria Parkway
Savoria Parkway is a key vehicular and east/west multi-modal link through the Village
Core area that provides one of two connections to Via Palermo. Along the school and park,
Savoria Parkway includes a 12-foot Village Pathway designed to accommodate an off-
street Class I Bike Lane and pedestrians along the south side. The promenade trail is
provided along the north side. Two travel lanes, parking/drop off-lane and a landscaped
median and parkways are also planned. East of the roundabout, Savoria Parkway is
expanded to provide for on-street NEV and vehicular, a 12-foot Village Pathway on both
sides and head in parking. Trees will be planted in the parkways and medians in
consistently spaced rows.
Thematic Street Tree:
Magnolia
Exhibit 21: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street
Not to Scale Savoria Parkway – west of La Palmita Drive
Page 1259 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 41 December 2023
Exhibit 16: Modified Secondary Village Entry Street (Continued)
Not to Scale Savoria Parkway – East of La Palmita Drive
Page 1260 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 42 December 2023
F. Modified Residential Collector - Calle Escuela
Calle Escuela is an east-west link from Village 8 West, through Village 8 East and
providing one of two connections to Via Palmero, the SR-125 southbound frontage street.
The Village Pathway provides an off-street pedestrian and bicycle connection adjacent to
the elementary school and the neighborhood park. Parkways with tree planters and
walkways extended to the curb are planned along the school and park site located adjacent
to parking/drop off areas to facilitate pedestrian circulation. Parking is also permitted along
the south side of Calle Escuela. Trees will be planted in the parkways and medians in
consistently spaced rows.
Thematic Street Tree:
Natchez Crepe Myrtle
Exhibit 22: Modified Residential Collector
Not to Scale Calle Escuela
Page 1261 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 43 December 2023
G. Modified Promenade Street - Delgado Drive
Delgado Drive provides primary access to the residential neighborhoods located south of
La Media Parkway. This two-lane roadway features a landscaped median and parkways,
and the Village Pathway with parking provided on both sides of the street. The Promenade
Trail is provided on the west side. Trees will be planted in the parkways in consistently
spaced rows. The median is eliminated and the Promenade Trail transitions to a standard
sidewalk south of Parcel R-7.
Thematic Street Tree:
Callery Pear
Exhibit 23: Modified Promenade Street
Not to Scale Delgado Drive – La Media Parkway to R-7
Page 1262 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 44 December 2023
Exhibit 23: Modified Promenade Street (Continued)
Not to Scale Delgado Drive – R-7 to CPF-1
Page 1263 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 45 December 2023
H. One-Way Frontage Road – Via Palermo
Via Palermo is a two-lane one-way frontage road providing southbound access to SR-125.
Located along the eastern edge of Village 8 East, Via Palermo includes a 5/10-foot-wide
Village Pathway/Sidewalk and a landscaped parkway on the west side. The eastern right-
of-way includes a 20-foot-wide landscape buffer area designed to accommodate a plaza at
the terminus of the multi-modal bridge, circulation and access for NEVs, bicycles and
pedestrians and potential noise attenuation walls.
Thematic Street Tree:
Holly Oak
Exhibit 24: One-Way Frontage Street (South Bound)
Not to Scale Via Palermo
Page 1264 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 46 December 2023
I. Community Park Entry Drive – Avenida Caprise
The Community Park Entry Drive provides a pedestrian and vehicular connection to the
community park south of Village 8 East. The road features two travel lanes and the 10’
Chula Vista Regional Trail on the east side of the road providing views of the Otay Valley.
A landscaped parkway on one side of the street and narrowed travel lanes are designed to
slow traffic and create a comfortable pedestrian experience along this road. Landscaping
on slopes created along the Community Park Entry Drive must be landscaped with native
species consistent with the Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan and the Approved Plant List
(Attachment A).
Thematic Street Tree:
Holly Oak
Note: The Community Park Entry Drive (Avenida Caprise) was included in the adopted Village 8 West
SPA and Tentative Map as an off-site improvement. This illustrative representation is consistent with the
Village 8 West approved design and is provided for reference o nly.
Exhibit 25: Community Park Entry Drive
Not to Scale Village 8 West Avenida Caprise
Page 1265 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 47 December 2023
J. Private Access Road
The proposed Private Access Road is planned along the western edge of Parcel R -7. The
proposed private road provided secondary access to the residential development parcels
south of La Media Parkway. This two-lane private road includes a landscaped parkway and
the Edge Trail on the western side, providing an additional connection to the Regional Trail
along the south side of La Media Parkway.
.
Exhibit 26: Private Access Road
Not to Scale Western Edge of R-7 to La Media Parkway
Page 1266 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 48 December 2023
K. Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic calming measures are planned along internal streets in Village 8 East. Roundabouts
are planned at the intersections of La Palmita Drive and Savoria Parkway and La Palmita
Drive and Calle Escuela. Roundabouts are designed to slow traffic through the roundabout
but provide continuous movement through the roundabout. Roundabouts include a raised
center landscaped island, special paving, splitter islands, accessible pedestrian crossings
and pedestrian/bike refuge islands and ramps. The roundabout at Savoria Parkway creates
a gateway into the Village Core. The conceptual roundabout designs are provided below.
Roundabout at La Palmita Drive & Savoria Parkway
Exhibit 27: Conceptual Traffic Calming Measures
Not to Scale
Page 1267 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 49 December 2023
Roundabout at La Palmita Drive & Calle Escuela
Typical Roundabout Cross Section
Exhibit 27: Conceptual Traffic Calming Measures (Continued)
Not to Scale
Page 1268 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 50 December 2023
V. Conceptual Pedestrian Circulation Plan
A well-designed pedestrian circulation system is a fundamental component of the village
concept. The previous Streetscape Design Concept section includes illustrations of
pedestrian amenities including sidewalks and shade trees. This section describes the
pedestrian circulation system in terms of the Otay Ranch, City and OVRP trail systems.
An overall plan is provided as well as descriptions of the types of pedestrian paths provided
in the Plan area.
Page 1269 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 51 December 2023
Note: Retaining wall location, height and setback are conceptual, subject to final engineering design.
Exhibit 28: Conceptual Pedestrian Circulation Plan
Page 1270 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 52 December 2023
A. Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail/Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Trail
As described in the Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, planned multi-use trails, including
equestrian trails, would extend south from Salt Creek on the east side of Village 11,
connecting with the Otay Lakes Trail just south of Village 11. At least one trail will extend
westerly, on a maintenance road for the Salt Creek Sewer, on the north side of the Otay
River Valley. This portion of the Greenbelt Trail is located south of Village 8 East.
Access to this trail network from Village 8 East is provided via the Community Park Trail
and the Regional Trail planned along Avenida Caprise. Access to the Community Park
from the Greenbelt Trail is provided via Community Park Access Trail segments.
The OVRP Concept Plan also identifies a multi-use trail system through the Otay River
Valley. The portion of the Greenbelt Trail described above coincides with the OVRP
trail. Consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP, this trail is co-located within the existing
Salt Creek Sewer maintenance road to avoid impacts to sensitive habitat in the river
valley and control access along the Otay Ranch Preserve edge. A 3/4-mile segment of the
Greenbelt Trail is within the Village 8 East SPA boundary. The surface treatment within
the existing Salt Creek Sewer Easement is PMB – Processed Miscellaneous Base. The
Greenbelt Master Plan requires surface treatment comprised of “Decomposed Granite /
Concrete / Asphalt/Soil-stabilized treatment” and the OVRP Trail Guidelines require “D.G.
or Native Soil” on Type “A” Trails. The existing surface treatment is consistent with these
requirements. Proposed trail improvements are limited to fencing and signage within the
easement area, to the satisfaction and approval of the Director of Development Services.
Trail signage shall conform to the Greenbelt Master Plan.
Exhibit 29: Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail
Page 1271 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 53 December 2023
B. Chula Vista Regional Trail
The Chula Vista Regional Trail provides off-street pedestrian and bicycle connections
throughout Chula Vista. Chula Vista Regional Trails are located on the south side of Main
Street and south side of La Media Parkway. These trails are located adjacent to the
roadways within landscape buffers. The trails are 10 -17 feet wide and may be decomposed
granite or concrete. Regional Trail segments serve a variety of users including pedestrians,
bicyclists and NEVs as shown below. The Regional Trail along Main Street will meander
within the 10’ buffer to accommodate the bus turnout and the location of potential trail
amenities. Trail signage shall be subject to Director of Development Services approval.
Main Street (South ROW)
Exhibit 30: Chula Vista Regional Trail
Page 1272 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 54 December 2023
La Media Parkway – La Palmita Drive to easterly project boundary (South ROW)
La Media Parkway – Westerly project boundary to La Palmita Drive (North ROW)
Exhibit 30: Chula Vista Regional Trail (Continued)
Page 1273 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 55 December 2023
La Media Parkway – Westerly project boundary to La Palmita Drive (South ROW)
South of Avenida Caprise to Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail
Note: Grading and surface improvements within the 30’ Utility & Access Easement were approved with the
Village 8 West SPA, Tentative Map and Grading Plan as an off -site improvement. Implementation of the
Regional Trail component within the 30’ utility corridor is limited to fencing, to be determined based on field
conditions. This illustrative representation is consistent with the approved design and is provided for reference
only.
Exhibit 30: Chula Vista Regional Trail (Continued)
Page 1274 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 56 December 2023
C. Village Pathway
Village Pathways are inter-village multi-purpose paths that link all of the Otay Valley
Parcel villages and provide access to the regional transit stations. The Village Pathway is
a 10 to 12 feet concrete path, separated from the street by a landscaped, tree-lined parkway.
The Village Pathway may be colored concrete (Davis, Otay Ranch Tan) with a light brush
finish.
The Village Pathway is proposed to extend through the village core along both sides of
Savoria Parkway. Both pedestrians and bicyclists are accommodated off-street through the
core area. The Village Pathway also extends through Village 8 East along La Palmita
Drive, from Main Street south to La Media Parkway and then south along Delgado Drive
to the CPF-1 Site. The pedestrian network continues via the optional Edge Trail and the
Community Park Trail, providing a continuous connection to the P-2 Park and the Chula
Vista Greenbelt Trail. Additional segments of the Village Pathway are also planned
adjacent to the school and park to provide for off-street pedestrian and bicycle access.
A Multi-Modal bridge over SR-125 provides a NEV, bicycle and pedestrian connection to
neighboring Village 9.
Exhibit 31: Village Pathway
Page 1275 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 57 December 2023
D. Community Park Trail with Emergency/Maintenance Access
The Community Park Trail provides direct pedestrian access between Village 8 East, the
Community Park and the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail system located in the Otay River
Valley. This trail is co-located with utilities necessary to serve Village 8 East and the
Community Park and AR-11 and is comprised of a 20 foot concrete surface and post and
rail fencing, as necessary Secondary emergency access to the Community Park and
maintenance access for the public utilities are also provided along this corridor. The facility
is widened to 24 feet to provide vehicular access between P-2 and AR-11. Portions of the
Community Park Trail are within the MSCP Preserve. Please see Village 8 East Preserve
Edge Plan for additional details.
Note: Utilities shown for reference only – Trail co-located with utility corridor
Exhibit 32: Community Park Trail
Page 1276 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 58 December 2023
E. Community Park Access Trail
The Community Park Access Trail segments are planned within the Community Park to
provide direct access to the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail. These trails are located along the
southern edge of the Community Park. Trail improvements include a 10’ minimum trail
surface, post and rail fencing, as necessary and trail signage. The final design to be
determined during final park design and may be modified to address drainage.
Exhibit 33: Community Park Access Trail
Page 1277 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 59 December 2023
F. Promenade Trail
The Promenade Trail is a 6-foot-wide paved sidewalk enhanced with shade trees and may
include pedestrian-scaled lighting. Promenade Trails in the village provide wider tree-lined
walks designed to enhance the pedestrian experience and convenience throughout the village.
Promenade Trail along La Palmita Drive
Promenade Trail along west side of Del Sueno Drive
Exhibit 34: Promenade Trail
Page 1278 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 60 December 2023
G. Edge Trail
The Edge Trail is comprised of 12-foot-wide D.G. trail within a 24-foot wide Public Access
Easement at the perimeter of the neighborhoods south of La Media Parkway (R-7, R-9 and
R-10) and provides a pedestrian linkage between the Regional Trail on La Media Parkway
and the Community Park Trail leading to the Community Park and Chula Vista Greenbelt
Trail system in the Otay River Valley. A portion of this trail segment will be located within
a 24-foot wide utility easement along the southern edge of Village 8 East. The Edge Trail
is conceptual. The design may be refined during final engineering to address drainage.
Edge Trail at perimeter R-7, R-9 and R-10. See TM Street Section 13 for Edge Trail condition at R-7.
Exhibit 35: Edge Trail
Page 1279 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 61 December 2023
Edge Trail within OS-7
Note: If trail grade exceeds 5%, trail surface may be concrete. Conceptual design may be modified during
final engineering to address drainage.
Exhibit 36: Edge Trail
Page 1280 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 62 December 2023
H. Neighborhood Trail
The Neighborhood Trail is a 5-foot-wide trail connects neighborhoods R-4 and R-5 to the
Chula Vista Regional Trail along La Media Parkway. If trail grade exceeds 5%, the trail
surface shall be concrete. The Neighborhood Trail design is conceptual. The design may
be modified during final engineering to address drainage.
Exhibit 37: Neighborhood Trail
Page 1281 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 63 December 2023
VI. Village Park Concept
As described in the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Village 8 East is
planned to include a public neighborhood and community park. The P-1 neighborhood
park is located adjacent to the Village Core area adjacent to the site designated for an
elementary school. The P-2 Community Park is located south of Village 8 East, adjacent
to the Otay River Valley. The Active Recreation (AR-11) site is located southeast of
Village 8 East, within the SPA boundary; however, the design will be addressed by the
City of Chula Vista (property owner) in the future. Public park facilities within Village 8
East are further described below. The final design of the public parks may be refined or
modified during the Park Master Plan process to include other facilities or amenities that
serve evolving demographics and associated outdoor recreational needs and meet the intent
of the City’s parks mission.
Page 1282 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 64 December 2023
Exhibit 38: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 1283 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 65 December 2023
A. P-1 Neighborhood Park
The 6.5 acre (net) public neighborhood park located adjacent to the elementary school will
provide active and passive recreational opportunities. The location adjacent to the
elementary school creates an expanse of open space and
combines active recreational activities conveniently
located within the village core. Access to the adjacent
school site should be coordinated with park site design and
be appropriate for the street grades, potentially along the
northern and eastern edges. Park amenities will be in
conformance with the requirements of the City Park and
Recreation Master Plan (2018) and may include multi-
purpose open lawn areas, ball field(s), sports courts, picnic shelters, a dog park, tot lot(s)
and restroom and maintenance buildings. Parking will be accommodated on-site and/or on
adjacent streets. The final design of the public parks may be refined or modified during the
Park Master Plan process to include other facilities or amenities that serve evolving
demographics and associated outdoor recreational needs and meet the intent of the City’s
parks mission. The Village 8 East Tentative Map includes an alternative configuration for
the S-1 School Site and P-1 Park, which would increase the school site from 11.3 (10.0
net) to 13.4 (12.0 net) acres and reduce the P-1 Park from 7.3 (6.5 net) acres to 5.2 (4.6
net) acres.
Exhibit 39: P-1 Neighborhood Park Concept Plan
Page 1284 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 66 December 2023
B. P-2 Community Park – Otay Ranch Community Park South
The 36.3 acre (net) P-2 Community Park is located south of Village 8 East within the Otay
River Valley. The MSCP Preserve area surrounds the park and provides opportunities for
views to expanded open space. The park serves the active recreational needs of the southern
Otay Ranch villages with lighted play fields and sport courts, a community center, children’s
play areas and parking areas. Passive recreational areas will be located adjacent to
the Otay River Valley as a transition between developed and natural open space. This
park will contain amenities and facilities described in the City of Chula Vista Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (2018). Two points of access are planned from the north via
the Community Park Entry Drive and Community Park Trail. Access between the
community park and the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail is provided at two points along
the southern park edge. Vehicular access between the P-2 Community Park and AR-11 to
be determined during final park design.
Landscaping within the P-2 Community Park shall be consistent with the 2023 Fire
Protection Plan Amendment Approved Plant List and Attachment A to this plan. A 30-
foot wide BMZ Zone 2 (vegetation thinning zone) will be implemented along the perimeter
of the Community Park and a 100-foot wide BMZ Zone 1 will be implemented around all
structures. The Community Park will likely be developed by the City of Chula Vista;
accordingly, all design standards and guidelines shall be determined by the City. A trail
staging area will also be provided within the community park to direct trail users to the
Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail/OVRP Trail. As required in the project EIR, lighting within
the P-2 Park shall be directed away from adjacent Preserve areas and shielded to prevent
light spillage. The final design of the public parks may be refined or modified during the
Park Master Plan process to include other facilities or amenities that serve evolving
demographics and associated outdoor recreational needs and meet the intent of the City’s
parks mission.
Page 1285 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 67 December 2023
Exhibit 40: P-2 Community Park Concept Plan
Page 1286 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 68 December 2023
Plant Palette (Community Park):
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree
Citrus species Citrus
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood
Dracaena draco Dragon Tree
Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Jacaranda mimisifolia Jacaranda
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle
Ligustrum lucidum Glossy Privet
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia
Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas Tree
Olea europea 'Willsonii' Fruitless Olive
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak
Quercus ilex Holly Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Evergreen Elm
Shrubs, Cacti, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave
Aloe species Aloe
Anigozanthos species Kangaroo Paw
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea
Callistemon citrinus 'Little John' Little John Bottlebrush
Carex species Sedge
Ceanothus cultivars Ceanothus
Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush
Cistus species Rockrose
Clematis species Evergreen Clematis Vine
Cordyline australis 'Atropurpurea' Bronze Dracena
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster
Crassula species Crassula
Page 1287 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 69 December 2023
Botanical Name Common Name
Cynodon dactlyon 'Bandera' Bandera Bermuda Turf
Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily
Echium fastuosum Pride of Maderia
Encelia californica California Encelia
Encelia farinose Brittlebrush
Euonymus species Euonymus
Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava Festuca species Fescue
Festuca Aquawise 'Sportsclub Mix' Aquawise Sports Turf
Festuca 'Marathon II' Dwarf Tall Fescue
Ficus pumila Creeping Fig
Grevillea ‘Noellii’ Noel Grevillea
Grewia occidentalis Lavender Starflower
Helichrysum petiolare 'Limelight' Limelight Licorice Plant
Hesperaloe species Red Yucca
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Ilex species Holly
Lantana species Lantana
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Texas Privet
Limonium perezii Seafoam Statice
Mahonia aquifolium Oregon Grape Mimulus cardinalis Scarlet Monkeyflower
Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum
Myrtus communis Myrtle
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Nephrolepis cordifolia Sword Fern
Phormium species New Zealand Flax
Paspalum vaginatum 'Seashore' Aloha Seashore Paspalum
Phyla nodiflora 'Campagna Verde' Kurapia S1 Phyla nodiflora Kurapia
Pittosporum crassifolium 'Compactum' Evergreen Pittosporum
Pittosporum tobira 'Wheeler's Dwarf' Wheeler’s Dwarf Pittosporum
Podocarpus 'Icee Blue' (Columnar) Icee-Blue Yellow-Wood
Podocarpus macrophyllus 'Maki' Shrubby Yew Pine
Portulacaria afra Elephant's Food
Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry
Pyracantha species Firethorn
Rhaphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorn
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'Minor' Dwarf Yedda Hawthorne
Page 1288 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 70 December 2023
Botanical Name Common Name
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Rosmarinus species Rosemary
Salvia apiana White Sage
Scaevola 'Mauve Clusters'
Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Paradise
Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise
Tecoma species Esperanza
Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle
Thuja occidentalis 'Degroots Spire' Degroots Spire Arbovitae
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Tulbaghia violacea Sweet Garlic
Westringia fruticosa 'Mundi' Low Coast Rosemary
Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria
Turf
Festuca Aquawise Sportclub Mix (from seed) Sports Field Fescue Mix
Dwarf Tall Fescue (sod) Marathon II
Cynodon dactylon ‘Bandera’ Bandera Bermuda Grass
Hydroseed Application
Acmispon americanus Purshing's lotus Acmispon heermannii Heerman's lotus Cryptantha intermedia Common cryptantha Eschscholzia californica Coastal California Poppy Helianthemum scoparium Sun Rose Lasthenia gracilis California Goldfields Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass Corethrogyne filaginifolia Sand Aster Encelia farinosa California Encelia
Ericameria palmeri Palmer's goldenbush
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow
Galium angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw
Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush
Hemizonia fasciculata Common Tarplant
Isocoma menziesii Menzies’ goldenbush
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower
Note: Refer to Attachment A – Village 8 East Approved Plant List for BMZ 2 plant palette applicable to 30 -
foot vegetation thinning zone at perimeter of the P-2 Community Park.
Page 1289 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 71 December 2023
VII. Community Purpose Facilities
Community purpose facilities are defined in Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.48 PC –
Planned Community Zone, with uses and development standards defined in the Village 8
East PC District Regulations. A portion of the Village 8 CPF obligation is satisfied through
the provision of an on-site CPF site. The balance of the Village 8 CPF obligation is pursuant
to a separate agreement between the Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
The 1.2-acre CPF-1 site is a Private Recreation Facility (“PRF”) located at the southern
portion of Village 8 East and is planned to provide recreational amenities with view and
trail access to the Otay River Valley and the P-2 Community Park. The CPF-1 facility will
be privately maintained by the HOA. The facility creates a focal point in the village and is
connected through the village pedestrian circulation system. The CPF-1 facility will be
designed to complement the surrounding neighborhood and amenities will be tailored to
the specific needs of the neighborhood. The concept plan for the CPF-1 site is provided
below and represents one design; however, the concept plan may be modified during final
design.
Page 1290 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 72 December 2023
Exhibit 41: CPF-1 Concept Plan
Page 1291 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 73 December 2023
VIII. Wall and Fence Concepts
The Ranch-wide theme will be maintained through a comprehensive system of walls
and fences. Walls at the Village entry will be designed to accent the entries and establish
the European inspired architectural character. Entry monumentation and architectural
walls will be comprised of a light stucco finish and will provide screening, sound
attenuation, security and neighborhood identity. Community perimeter walls will be
constructed of integral color concrete block. An enhanced wall design may be
implemented at key locations within the village core and at community entries. Wall type
and location to be determined during the Development Plan Review process.
A. Community Walls
The following represents the conceptual community wall details. The final materials, colors
and details to be determined during preparation of the Landscape Master Plan.
6’ Perimeter View Fence
(Exterior View)
6’ Perimeter Wall
(Side Yard Conditions)
Exhibit 42: Community Wall Details
Page 1292 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 74 December 2023
B. Community Fencing
The following represents the conceptual community fencing details. The final materials,
colors and details to be determined during preparation of the Landscape Master Plan and
preparation of Design Review plans.
Production Tubular Steel Fence (Perimeter
Conditions)
5’6” Vinyl Fence (Side Yard Condition)
Exhibit 43: Community Fencing Details
Page 1293 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 75 December 2023
5’6” Production Wood Fence (Side Yard
Condition)
5’6” Fire Retardant Wood Fence Return (Side
Yard Condition)
48” High Trail Fencing (Trail & Preserve
Edge Conditions)
Exhibit 42: Community Fencing Details (Continued)
Page 1294 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 76 December 2023
C. Retaining Walls
The project includes both interior and perimeter retaining walls. Interior retaining walls
will be compatible in color and materials with the freestanding community walls described
above. The final materials, colors and details to be determined during preparation of the
Landscape Master Plan. MSE walls located along the southern perimeter of the project, will
be constructed of Belgard Diamond Pro Stone Cut materials in a 3 -color blend (Toscana,
Bella and Montecito), as depicted below. The 3-color blend was chosen to blend with the
natural setting and minimize the appearance of the walls from the Otay Valley Regional
Park.
IX. Lighting Concepts
The village lighting design concept focuses on the quality of light along specific corridors
and areas. Light standards must have a distinctive character to relate to the corridors
they serve. Lighting along pedestrian corridors must be human in scale, closer spaced
and lower than is typically found on an urban street. Light standards should be
manufactured of high-quality materials that are visually pleasing. The base, pole and light
fixture must be attractive and suitable to the design theme of the village. Street light and
Village Pathway fixtures, within the Village Core, shown below are conceptual. Final
fixture design will be determined in the Village 8 East Master Precise Plan. The objectives
for exterior lighting are as follows:
❖ To contribute to the safe and efficient use of all public and private areas in
the village.
❖ To increase the perception of personal and property safety.
❖ To complement and reinforce the architectural and landscape character
of public and private spaces.
❖ To contribute to the ease of way finding through the village.
❖ To meet all applicable public and environmental standards, including energy
conservation.
Page 1295 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 77 December 2023
❖ To provide a consistent quality of lighting throughout the village.
❖ To avoid adverse impacts such as excessive glare and light spill.
❖ To reinforce the identity of each component of the village, including private
and public space improvements.
❖ To avoid adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources within the adjacent
Otay Ranch Preserve by directing light away from Preserve areas through the
placement and shielding of light fixtures.
❖ Special accent lighting may be proposed within the Village Core commercial
uses, parks and the CPF site (See Exhibit 43). Special accent lighting may
include architectural, pathway and/or lighting on signage. All special accent
lighting proposed within the 100’ Preserve Edge must be shielded and directed
away from the Preserve to minimize/avoid light spillage into Preserve areas.
Detailed lighting plans and photometric analyses will be provided at the
improvement/site plan level, as appropriate.
Page 1296 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 78 December 2023
Exhibit 43: Lighting Concept Plan
Page 1297 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 79 December 2023
A. Public Park Lighting
Public parks may include lighting of sports fields and courts. Pathway/sidewalk, parking
lot and architectural lighting may also occur within public parks. As determined during
the park master plan process, sport court and field lighting may be provided to
accommodate night-time use of sports fields and courts. Light fixtures must be shielded to
minimize light spillage into Preserve areas and other adjacent land uses. Final lighting
design and specific lighting fixtures and lamps will be determined during the park master
planning process and preparation of park construction budgets.
Note: Lighting within the Community Park and along the Community Park Entry Road and Community Park
Trail is subject to MSCP Adjacency Guidelines and EIR Mitigation Measures. Special accent lighting to be
determined in conjunction with improvement/site plans and must be accompanied by a photometrics analysis
demonstrating light spillage into the MSCP is avoided to the greatest extent possible.
B. Village Core Street Lighting
Special street lights will be placed in an alternating pattern in the median and parkways
along Savoria Parkway to minimize impacts to pedestrian circulation and planting areas.
Pedestrian-scaled light may be provided along the Village Pathway.
1. Street Lights
Street Light Pole: Concrete, approximately 22 feet tall for street lights and painted
metal theme character.
Fixture Type: Street lights – Standard “Cobra Style” with cut-off shield for street light;
concrete pole; reduced arm length.
Page 1298 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 80 December 2023
2. Pathway Lights
Pathway lights: Design and color complimentary to the Village design theme.
Lamp Type: LED Lamp
All light fixtures, including trail lighting (if any) located adjacent to Preserve Open Space
areas shall include shields to direct light away for Preserve areas.
C. Parking Lot Lighting
Parking lot lighting is to be consistent throughout the village, in terms of fixture height,
spacing, light source and performance characteristics. Fixture style may differ between
projects. Parking lots should be adequately lit with pole mounted fixtures. Parking lot
lighting adjacent to residential uses should be located to minimize light intrusion and be
adequately shielded.
Pole: Painted metal, 20 feet tall, triangularly spaced.
Fixture Type: Single or double mount, full cut-off fixtures.
Lamp Type: LED Lamp
Note: Light fixtures presented for thematic design only. Final fixtures to be determined during final design.
Exhibit 444: Conceptual Light Fixtures
Page 1299 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 81 December 2023
X. Village Core Design Concept
The unique character intended within the Village Core precludes the use of fixed or
mandated design solutions. Instead, the critical elements of the Village Core, general
character statements and identification of important design and site planning features are
utilized to create a high-quality setting.
The following design guidelines are not standards or requirements but rather provide
design guidance for the creation of Village Core parcels with a mix of uses or single uses.
It is important to provide design flexibility to respond to changing market conditions that
may occur between initial project planning and final site planning.
A vibrant, walkable community provides residents with the opportunity to shop, work and
enjoy entertainment and services close to their homes. The Village Core provides a location
for these activities by allowing a mix of retail, commercial and residential uses in a
pedestrian-focused urban environment. In a pedestrian scaled urban environment, the
relationship of the buildings to the street plays the primary role in defining public
pedestrian spaces including sidewalks, plazas and courtyards. These outdoor settings
provide a comfortable, pedestrian atmosphere and activate the overall street scene for
aesthetic, pedestrian and commercial interest.
A Village Core Master Precise Plan will be prepared subsequent to this SPA/Design Plan
approval. The Master Precise Plan will expand on the design concepts and themes of this
document and provide more detailed guidelines for architecture, signage, lighting, street
furnishings and landscape.
A. Village Design Features
This section highlights important features that contribute to the creation of a quality village
core and provides guidelines to inform merchant builder submittals to the Master
Developer. Characteristics contributing to a successful Village Core include consideration
of the following:
❖ Buildings define the street edge, public plazas and pedestrian spaces to create
quality pedestrian environments and opportunities for seating, dining and social
gathering.
❖ Building facades include variety and spontaneity that activate the pedestrian
experience.
❖ Building entries and common areas remain the primary emphasis of the public
street elevation while parking is located to the side and rear of buildings to
minimize the visual impact of parking lots on the public streetscape.
❖ Building and site design anticipates and accommodates pedestrian and vehicle
circulation to reduce traffic impacts on neighboring streets and jointly optimize
Page 1300 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 82 December 2023
pedestrians and vehicles.
❖ Individual entries for commercial spaces and shops appropriately define each
interior unit to create individuality and uniqueness.
❖ Building mass and differentiation of roof forms, materials, color and apparent
floor heights reduce building bulk and create variety within the building façade.
❖ Enhanced architecture on all four sides conveys high quality design.
❖ Building and site design promote connections between indoor and outdoor
spaces.
❖ Massing and architectural elements define street corners for Pedestrian-
Oriented Streets and primary building entries.
B. Site Planning and Pedestrian Orientation
The character of the Village Core will be established by the site design and placement of
high-density residential and potentially commercial buildings with a mix of uses that form
the streetscape, define pedestrian pathways, and establish urban spaces. Within the Village
Core, individual parcels may be designed with a single use or multiple uses, as permitted
in the Village 8 East Planned District Regulations. See Exhibit 45: Village Site Planning
Concept for a conceptual representation of how site design may be implemented in the
Village, with a more detailed focus in the Village Core area.
Providing a variety in building type and form will foster the vertical and horizontal mixed-
use nature of the Village Core to provide a range of residential, retail, commercial and
neighborhood serving uses. The following should be considered:
❖ Orient larger buildings and tenant entries toward the pedestrian-oriented street
frontage, whenever possible.
❖ Where pedestrian-oriented building placement is not possible or desirable based on
grade considerations or potential noise impacts, design building form to be visually
interesting and present a unified architectural theme for the Village Core.
❖ Parking or utilities areas may be sited adjacent to noise generating uses (i.e., SR-125)
to provide a buffer.
❖ Arrange buildings to create connective outdoor pedestrian spaces including paseos,
courtyards, plazas, squares, eating areas, arcades and/or usable open spaces with a
strong relationship to the public streets.
❖ Site buildings to define pedestrian-oriented streets and scale the street scene.
❖ Design open areas that are large enough to be useable but not so large they appear
empty or deserted.
Page 1301 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 83 December 2023
Exhibit 45: Village Site Planning Concept
Page 1302 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 84 December 2023
❖ Design pedestrian and vehicular circulation routes that are intuitive, well-defined and
easily discernible for appropriate and functional and safe maneuverability and
activity levels.
❖ Provide well-planned pedestrian linkages that are as direct as possible between key
sites such as the neighborhood park, schools, and the CPF site that support
walkability and the economic viability of the Village Core.
C. Building and Roof Form
Architectural building and roof forms greatly impact how light strikes and frames the
building, having a significant impact on how the space is perceived in the pedestrian
environment. The following elements should be considered to facilitate and create dynamic
interrelationships between light, depth and place along the streetscape and within other
pedestrian spaces:
❖ Buildings that include courtyards, plazas and other usable pedestrian spaces are
encouraged.
❖ Provide pedestrian paseos or sidewalks on each block to connect parking areas to the
street/commercial frontage, where feasible.
❖ Design building forms to be aesthetically pleasing and well-proportioned, resulting
in a balanced composition of elements along public streets.
❖ Layer wall planes and volumes to provide a rhythm of dynamic building forms and
shadows.
❖ Provide massing elements at major corners, project entries, building entries,
pedestrian nodes or major pedestrian-oriented street intersections.
❖ Incorporate elements that enhance publicly visible frontages to provide architectural
relief. Two of the following elements should be considered:
• Planter walls
• Seating opportunities
• Accent or festive lighting
• Focal objects (water, murals, sculpture, topiary)
• Outdoor dining spaces
• Awnings
• Building overhangs
• Bay windows
• Openings and entry ways
❖ Design roofs for functionality while enhancing or complementing the overall
architectural design of the building.
Page 1303 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 85 December 2023
❖ Integrate form, materials, fascia and/or cornice elements into the overall design
vocabulary, where appropriate.
❖ When used, create contiguous parapets and incorporate them into side/rear elevation
returns.
❖ Use roof forms to screen mechanical equipment from public view to the greatest
extent possible.
❖ Encourage the use of cool roofs, photovoltaics, or other energy saving materials and
features.
❖ Design roof decks to activate the street and consider privacy of residents, as
applicable.
D. Facade Treatments
The following should be considered to facilitate the creation of interesting and attractive
façade treatments:
❖ Articulate buildings and/or provide architectural detailing along public streets
to enhance pedestrian scaling and visual interest along the pedestrian-oriented
streetscapes and internal private streets.
❖ Avoid monolithic buildings of singular form, height, wall plane or materials
visible to the public to the greatest extent possible. When buildings of a single
form and height are used, consider articulating the building with layered wall
planes, banding, architectural details and/or materials.
❖ Use projections, overhangs, recesses, banding and other architectural details to
provide shadow, articulation, and scale to building elevations as appropriate to
the architectural style.
❖ Avoid identical architectural appearance or use of the same materials or color
palette in the design of adjacent buildings containing a mix of uses unless
mirrored architecture is an integral feature of the project design vocabulary.
❖ Incorporate façade design techniques to enhance building architecture and
reduce overall mass. Two of the following design techniques should be
considered:
• Color change/color variation
• Combination of different exterior materials
• Change in textures
• Vertical/horizontal wall plane projections/recesses
• Variation of roofline (height or form)
• Architectural elements significantly different from main building in
mass or height
• Projections
• Balconies
Page 1304 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 86 December 2023
• Window groupings or treatment
❖ Express a unified design for all elevations of a single building visible from a
public street or pedestrian space; however, elements and materials are not
required to wrap the building on elevations that are not visible to the public.
❖ Enhance entries through massing, articulation architectural design elements,
and/or signage.
❖ Where appropriate, utilize glass at the ground level.
E. Mechanical Equipment, Service, Waste, and Utility Areas
Due to the strong emphasis on pedestrian activity within the Village Core, location and
screening of unsightly service and utility areas is critical to ensuring the creation of a
comfortable pedestrian atmosphere. The placement of service and utility areas and
equipment are subject to City standards. The following should be considered in the
location and design of mechanical equipment, utilities, service and loading areas and waste
collection facilities:
❖ Provide appropriate loading and service areas for each building/tenant.
❖ Locate above-ground equipment, outdoor storage, trash/recycling storage, and
loading and service areas on lanes, to the side or rear of the building, or within
parking areas or structures. The precise location of trash/recycling storage
area(s) to be included on the site plan.
❖ Shield loading, service, and storage areas with walls, berms or landscaping to
limit visibility from public streets or pedestrian spaces, as feasible.
❖ Integrate screening of mechanical equipment, waste enclosures, service areas
and other service-oriented building necessities into the site and building design.
❖ Incorporate similar colors and materials as the principal building into the design
of the screening, enclosures and/or service buildings.
❖ Locate waste containers away from the public rights-of-way of pedestrian-
oriented streets, building entries, and pedestrian spaces and screen from public
view to the greatest extent feasible.
❖ Screen all roof-mounted equipment from public view with parapets, screen
walls, fencing, equipment wells, structural enclosures or similar features.
❖ Install exterior, on-site utilities underground, where feasible. For utilities
required to be above ground, screen and incorporate into the landscaping to the
greatest extent possible.
❖ Mount electrical equipment onto the interior of a building whenever practical.
When interior mounting is impractical, screen electrical equipment from public
view with walls, berms, or landscaping.
Page 1305 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 87 December 2023
F. Landscaping Design Guidelines
Design landscape and open space areas to be an integral part of the overall site plan
design, with a style and amenity level consistent with the surrounding environment and
preserve edge.
❖ Utilize a plant palette that maximizes visibility, while providing a positive
pedestrian experience and includes canopy or accent trees, low shrubs and ground
covers. Turf is prohibited as a ground cover, except as permitted per City
standards.
❖ Use of urban landscape forms such as raised planters, containers, tree grates, and
green walls is encouraged.
❖ Utilize consistent tree planting patterns. Trees shall be limbed up to 8 feet minimum
in pedestrian areas and 13’6” in vehicular areas.
❖ Incorporate social spaces with outdoor seating areas and sidewalk cafes fronting
pedestrian-oriented streets.
❖ Changes in paving texture, color or material in access areas, pedestrian spaces or
along internal pathways are encouraged.
❖ Include focal elements such as specimen plantings, water features or public art.
❖ Street tree planting must comply with the City of Chula Vista Shade Tree Policy
Number 576-19. The objective is to maximize shade cover to the greatest extent
possible.
❖ Landscaping should reinforce the urban character of the area and reflect ordered,
formal plantings rather than random, natural appearing materials. Trees should
be incorporated into the pedestrian path, planted flush to ground level with
overhead branches to create overhead canopies.
G. Surface Parking Area Landscape Guidelines
❖ Provide parking in surface lots, parking structures, below grading parking
garages, podium parking or any combination of these.
❖ Utilize shared parking to the maximum amount feasible to reduce areas devoted
to parking.
❖ Generally located surface parking lots, podium parking and above-ground
structured parking behind or to the side of buildings to reduce their frontage on
pedestrian-oriented streets. It is understood that some parking frontage along
pedestrian-oriented streets is necessary for circulation functionality.
❖ Subterranean parking garages that encroach into public rights-of-way are
subject to City Engineer approval and shall require an encroachment
permit/agreement. Enhanced street construction may be required and utility
coordination is necessary.
Page 1306 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 88 December 2023
❖ Surface parking lots should be landscaped and maintained with a combination
of trees, shrubs and groundcover.
❖ Trees should be distributed throughout the surface parking area.
❖ Shade trees must be provided for all new parking lots that will achieve 50%
canopy cover over the parking stall areas five to 15 years after planting,
pursuant to Chula Vista Shade Tree Policy Number 576-19 (May 22, 2012).
H. Lighting, Signing and Street Furnishings
❖ The Village Core commercial retail street should be well lit to encourage
evening use. Street lighting fixtures should relate to the pedestrian scale.
❖ Architectural accent lighting is encouraged.
❖ Illumination of walkway/trail connections should be provided through the use
of low intensity fixtures for safety and comfort. The lighting pattern and
intensity should become more intense at path intersections and vehicular
crossings.
❖ Within building groups, architectural and accent lighting should be indirect and
subtle. Increased lighting levels should highlight pedestrian areas to clearly
define the pedestrian path. Service area lighting should be contained within the
service area boundaries/enclosure. Lighting should be designed to minimize
glare and intrusion into neighboring land uses.
❖ Thematic street furnishings are provided below; however, final street furnishing
selections shall be made during preparation of street improvement plans (for
furnishings within the public right-of-way and/or during site plan preparation
for parcels within the Village Core.
❖ A Village Core Planned Sign Program will be developed to establish design
parameters for signage within the Village Core. Signage should inform and
direct but not dominate the visual character of the area.
Page 1307 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 89 December 2023
Exhibit 46: Conceptual Street Furnishings
Page 1308 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 90 December 2023
XI. Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
The following design guidelines are not standards or requirements, but rather provide
guidance for the design of multi-family parcels. Multi-family residential neighborhoods
are intended to be much like small villages. Each neighborhood should be cohesively
designed, using a blend of building types, complementary architectural styles and a
tastefully balanced palette of colors and materials to provide subtle contrast for diversity
and variation within each neighborhood. A variety of housing types and building
configuration/types can be provided within the same attached multi-family residential
community.
A. Design Fundamentals
Quality attached residential neighborhoods generally follow these design fundamentals:
❖ Common buildings, facilities or open spaces serve as focal points for the
neighborhoods.
❖ Building entries and common areas, not parking, should be the primary
emphasis of the public street elevation.
❖ Individual entries define each unit appropriate to the building form.
❖ Building mass and differentiation of roof forms reduce the apparent building
bulk and define common and pedestrian spaces.
❖ Color and material changes define architectural styles, highlight massing
differentiation and create diversity between buildings.
❖ Enhanced architecture on all publicly visible elevations conveys high quality
design.
❖ Architecture on all publicly visible elevations conveys high quality design.
❖ Connections between indoor and outdoor spaces are enhanced in building and
site design.
❖ All buildings, common facilities, maintenance structures, and service area
enclosures express compatible architectural style, color, and materials.
B. Neighborhood Design Guidelines
The design of multi-family neighborhoods should focus on two primary placemaking
goals:
1. Creating active architectural edges facing Pedestrian-Oriented Public Streets to support
an engaging and walkable village, and
2. Creating a livable neighborhood setting internal to the parcel in a manner that supports
a neighborhood identity.
Page 1309 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 91 December 2023
The following neighborhood design guidelines, as illustrated in Exhibit 47, apply to
residential parcels within the RM-1 and RM-2 zoning districts with the intent to achieve
the placemaking goals of Village 8 East.
Design residential products and the site plan to enable front doors and/or active architecture
as the predominant features facing Pedestrian-Oriented Public Streets.
❖ Orient front doors, porches, stoops, courtyards (private or shared), cluster access,
balconies, primary windows, massing offsets, or similar active architectural
features toward Pedestrian-Oriented Public Streets.
❖ Variation in massing, rooflines or forms, building heights, wall planes, or
plotting of color and/or architectural style facing Pedestrian-Oriented Public
Streets is encouraged.
❖ Pedestrian pathways are encouraged to provide connections through the
neighborhood (direct or indirect) that connect to the Pedestrian-Oriented Public
Streets.
❖ Carefully design fencing along public streets to maintain walkability and
neighborhood engagement. Perimeter fences or walls adjacent to Pedestrian-
Oriented Public Streets are discouraged where the street setback is less than 6
feet unless walls are required for sound attenuation.
Design neighborhoods to have a fine grain texture through mixing of products and
architectural design that creates interest and variation of the streetscape.
❖ Parcels or projects (two parcels planned together) are encouraged to include two
or more product types into a cohesive site plan.
❖ Products should be differentiated by lifestyle, price point, or unit types.
❖ Residential products should be designed to have massing, building height, and
color variation that set them apart from each other in an architecturally
compatible manner.
❖ Lower scale buildings or massing elements should be plotted along the
Pedestrian-Oriented Public Streets and village edges wherever feasible.
❖ Pedestrian walkways should be integrated into the site plan to create internal
neighborhood circulation is encouraged and can be counted as CUOS when
minimum dimensions are met.
Parcel or projects should feature a Private Drive as the primary circulation and central
organizing feature to support wayfinding and livability of each neighborhood.
❖ The Private Drive should be extended further into the parcel/project than the
neighborhood entry statement.
❖ Private Drive Aisles should not be the primary circulation feature in a
Page 1310 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 92 December 2023
parcel/project.
❖ The majority of Private Drive Aisles should take access from a Private Drive
(See Exhibit 48: Conceptual Private Drive).
❖ The majority of garages should take access from a Private Drive Aisle.
❖ Front doors and active architecture are encouraged to face or front on the Private
Drive.
❖ Large CUOS features should be visible and accessed from a Private Drive.
CUOS is encouraged to be designed as a central gathering space shared among
products, or as a sequence of CUOS spaces distributed throughout the
neighborhood.
❖ When multiple products are mixed in a neighborhood, combined central CUOS
is encouraged.
❖ Where central or combined larger open spaces is not feasible, CUOS is
encouraged to be designed as a sequence of meaningful spaces that create
gathering and livability options for residents.
❖ Consistent with the PC District Regulations, CUOS is not required to be
allocated to separate product areas.
Page 1311 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 93 December 2023
Exhibit 457: Conceptual Neighborhood Design
Page 1312 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 94 December 2023
Note: The Private Drive diagram is conceptual and parking on one side is optional.
Exhibit 48: Conceptual Private Drive
B. Site Planning and Building Plotting
Site planning and building placement play an important role in reinforcing the small village
feel by defining the common areas that unify the community. The following should be
considered in site planning and building placement:
❖ Orient buildings to provide a front door presence along the pedestrian-oriented
streets. Internally, orient buildings toward private streets, common open space areas
and major pathways whenever possible.
❖ Create a sense of arrival at major vehicular and pedestrian entries through
landscaping, location of common areas and/or placement and design of common
buildings.
❖ Design pedestrian and vehicular circulation routes that are intuitive, well-defined
and easily discernible for appropriate and functional maneuverability, safety and
activity levels.
Page 1313 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 95 December 2023
❖ Emphasize a front door presence along the pedestrian-oriented streets, pedestrian
access and connections to public sidewalks, trails, open space systems and adjacent
neighborhoods to avoid creating a walled enclave.
❖ Arrange buildings to define common areas in centralized and convenient locations.
❖ Design open areas which are usable for a variety of purposes and are sized
appropriately for the neighborhood.
❖ When surface parking or carports are utilized, minimize large parking areas through
thoughtful building placement and site design.
❖ Where appropriate, provide architectural treatments, structures and/or landscaping
that shelters pedestrian walkways, such as arbors or pergolas.
❖ Integrate non-residential uses (where permitted or located in adjacent parcels) into
the community in a manner that preserves the residential character.
❖ Design private and common open spaces areas in attached residential developments
to substantially confirm to the City’s Multi-Family Open Space Guidelines, except
as modified in the PC District Regulations.
C. Form and Massing
Massing and roof forms play an important role in establishing variation along the skyline
and distinguishing individual units, common areas, and primary entries. The following
should be considered to create dynamic interrelations of light, depth and place along the
streetscape, within common areas and along internal pathways:
❖ Minimize blank, singular planes oriented toward public views unless it is true to
the architectural style. Provide enhanced elevations on all sides of the building
visible from streets, lanes, common areas, and other public and common spaces by
incorporating architectural elements similar to those found on the front elevation.
❖ Consider intended styles in conjunction with the development of building plans,
massing forms, architectural elements, details and colors.
❖ Carefully consider the building massing, materials, details and color in developing
the architectural character of the project.
❖ Design buildings to define outdoor spaces with floor plans that have a logical and
functional relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces.
❖ Articulate roof lines to express a variety of conditions to minimize the visual
impact of repetitious flat planes, building mass and similar ridge heights.
❖ Provide vertical roof plane breaks, changes in building/ridge height or other accent
roof forms as appropriate to style.
❖ Use a variety of front-to-rear and side-to-side gables, hipped roofs, and/or the
introduction of articulated stories.
❖ Integrate form, materials, fascia and/or cornice elements into the overall design
Page 1314 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 96 December 2023
vocabulary.
❖ Encourage the use of cool roofs, photovoltaics or other energy saving materials
and features.
D. Facade Elements
Façade treatments play an important role in defining individual units and reinforcing the
overall design character of the neighborhood. Typically, the location of windows and
doorways are determined by the practical considerations of room layout, furniture
placement, views and privacy. Design emphasis here is of particular concern as windows
and doors play an important role in the exteri or architectural character of buildings.
Materials and colors help to reduce overall mass and provide visual interest.
❖ Use entries to create an initial impression, locate and frame the doorway, and act
as an interface between public and private spaces.
❖ Wherever possible, orient front doors and provide access toward the pedestrian-
oriented street, internal private street or entry courtyard.
❖ Incorporate appropriate roof elements, columns, feature windows and/or
architectural forms in the entry statement to emphasize the building character and
the location of individual doorways as appropriate to building configuration.
❖ Within the appropriate style requirements, group and coordinate windows with
other design elements to create a composition and order.
❖ Where appropriate to style, building configuration and window form use of multi-
paned windows is encouraged.
❖ Use appropriate scale and proportion typical of the architectural style in window
and door design to strengthen the elevation style.
❖ Use color, materials, windows, doors and architectural details to provide variation
and articulation and avoid unrelieved, continuous walls.
E. Trash Enclosures, Utilities, and Service Areas
Since common utility and service areas can often create a nuisance, their design and
placement must be carefully considered. The design and placement of trash enclosures,
utilities and serves areas is subject to City standards. The following guidelines are intended
to reduce the impact of service and utility areas on the community:
❖ Provide an adequate number of enclosures to accommodate the volume and types
of refuse and recycling containers required by the local disposal company.
❖ Locate enclosures in a convenient area for the majority of residents.
❖ Minimize impact on adjacent residences and neighborhood developments by
keeping enclosures away from the parcel edges so that they are not visible from
the pedestrian-oriented streets.
Page 1315 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 97 December 2023
❖ Construct trash enclosures with substantial masonry walls in a style and wall finish
that is consistent with the overall architectural character of the development.
❖ Equip all trash enclosures with complementary gates of durable construction,
hinged to self- supporting steel posts.
F. Landscape Design
Street facing and street visible landscaping is most impactful to the community and will be
designed to adhere to the overall Village design theme. Design of landscape internal to the
site (common and private outdoor spaces) promotes multi-family livability. All guidelines
in this section are intended to be consistent with the Chula Vista Landscape Water
Conservation Ordinance, Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape Manual. Interior
landscapes are encouraged to maintain the tranquil, courtyard style landscapes established
by the village design theme. The following landscape guidelines apply to the setbacks,
common areas and pathways of attached residential neighborhoods:
❖ Use planting to reinforce design patterns and serve as unifying elements.
❖ Utilize plant materials consisting of trees, shrubs and ground covers.
❖ Provide permanent irrigation systems for planting areas.
❖ Landscape street yard areas in a manner complimentary to the village streetscape
design
❖ Design mailbox structures and trash/recycling enclosures to complement adjacent
residential homes.
❖ Locate utility boxes and equipment as unobtrusively as possible and screen with
landscaping, berms or fencing.
❖ Common open space areas may include amenities such as outdoor eating and
seating areas, play grounds, swimming pools and sport courts. Decorate water
features are permitted, subject to water budget calculations.
❖ Use trees to define streets, neighborhoods and corridors to accent entries and
landmarks.
❖ Avoid large expanses of asphalt paving, softening the appearance through the use
of landscaping where possible.
G. Plotting Examples
A broad range of residential product types are allowed and encouraged within the village
design theme. Home types may range from small lot detached units, multi-plex buildings
(duplex, triplex, etc.), cluster homes, townhomes, wrap buildings, podium buildings, or
other multi-family configurations. A broad range of typologies intentionally fosters a
vibrant village with multi-family variety that is adaptable to evolving architectural
technology, ingenuity, demographics and market economics. Exclusion of a product type,
garage configuration or vehicle storage solution from these guidelines or the PC District
Page 1316 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 98 December 2023
Regulations shall not be considered rationale for denying such a solution; only the
development standards of the PC District Regulations (density, height, street setback,
building separations) shall limit the types of configurations allowed in each Zoning
District.
The following plotting examples represent potential design solutions and plotting based
on the PC District Regulations; however, they do not limit product types, configurations
or other architectural solutions not represented.
Page 1317 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 99 December 2023
Example Multi-family detached home type: Alley Home
Alley-loaded detached configuration that orients front doors to the street, internal private
drive, and/or potentially a paseo or street frontage. Typically, three to four stories. May or
may not have a private yard; PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck.
Appropriate in any Multi-family or Village Core zoning district.
Example home type/elevations for Alley Homes
Example plotting for Alley Homes
Page 1318 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 100 December 2023
Example Multi-family attached home type: Townhome
Townhome attached configuration that is typically alley-loaded. Front doors orient toward
the street, internal private drive, and/or potentially a paseo or street frontage. Typically,
two to four stories. PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck. Appropriate
in any Multi-family or Village Core zoning district.
Example home type/elevations for Townhomes
Example plotting for Townhomes
Page 1319 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 101 December 2023
Example Multi-family detached home type: Air Gap Homes
Detached configuration with a building code air gap between units, may be in duplex or
multi-plex buildings. Typically, alley loaded, however may be in a cluster configuration
with a variety of driveway lengths, or garages may load directly from a private street. May
be two to four stories in height. PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck.
Appropriate in any Multi-family or Village Core zoning district.
Example home type/elevations for Air Gap Homes
Example plotting for Air Gap Homes
Page 1320 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 102 December 2023
Example Multi-family attached home type: Paseo Homes
Attached homes typically orienting front elevation and doors toward a shared paseo.
Typically, alley loaded, however may be in a cluster configuration. May be two to four
stories in height. PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck. Typically,
higher-density home type, likely most appropriate in the RM-2 or Village Core zoning
district.
Example home type/elevations for Paseo Homes
Example plotting for Paseo Homes
Page 1321 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 103 December 2023
Example Multi-family detached home type: Cluster Homes
Configuration that may include detached homes in a cluster around a shared private drive
or parking court; may also include a combination of attached and detached homes in a
cluster. May include a variety of garage types including single car garages, two car garages,
and tandem garages. Typically three to four stories in height. May include use of zero lot
line to allow for private yards; PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck.
Appropriate in any Multi-family or Village Core zoning district.
Example home type/elevations for Cluster Homes
Example plotting for Cluster Homes
Page 1322 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 104 December 2023
Example Multi-family attached home type: Motor Court Homes
Building configuration of attached homes with garages facing an interior motor court. May
include a variety of garage types including single car garages, two car garages, and tandem
garages. Allows for active architecture on three sides; plotting may include paseos or
common open space between buildings. Typically, three to four stories in height. PUOS
typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck. Appropriate in any Multi-family or
Village Core zoning district.
Example home type/elevations for
Motorcourt Homes
Example plotting for Motorcourt Homes
Page 1323 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 105 December 2023
Example Multi-family attached home type: Interior Court Homes
Building configuration of attached homes with front doors facing an interior courtyard.
Garages are accessed from an alley or private drive. Typically, three to four stories in
height. PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck. Appropriate in any
Multi-family or Village Core zoning district.
Example home type/elevations for
Interior Court Homes
Example plotting for Interior Court Homes
Page 1324 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 106 December 2023
Example Multi-family attached home type: Villa Homes
Building configuration of attached homes with garages accessed from an interior motor
court with upper floors enclosing the parking area. Front doors face out on two to three
sides of the building making the streetscape appear as a single large villa. Typically, three
to four stories in height. PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck.
Appropriate in any Multi-family or Village Core zoning district.
Example home type/elevations for
Villa Homes
Example plotting for Villa Homes
Page 1325 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 107 December 2023
Example Multi-family attached home type: Courtyard Homes
Building configuration of attached homes with garages accessed from alleys or private
drives allowing front doors and PUOS to face an interior courtyard. May include a variety
of garage types including single car garages, two car garages, and tandem garages.
Typically, three to four stories in height. PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or
roof deck. Appropriate in any Multi-family or Village Core zoning district.
Example home
type/elevations for
Courtyard Homes
Example plotting for Courtyard Homes
Page 1326 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 108 December 2023
Example Multi-family attached home type: Apartment Homes
Building configuration of attached apartment or condominium homes. Typically, parking
is provided separately from the unit in garaged, covered, or open parking spaces. Front
doors may be from the exterior of the building or interior corridors. Typically, three to five
stories in height. PUOS typically provided in a porch, balcony, or roof deck. Appropriate
in any Multi-family or Village Core zoning district based on density.
Example home
type/elevations for
Apartment Homes
Example plotting for Apartment Homes
Page 1327 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 109 December 2023
Example attached combined uses: Horizontal and/or Vertical Mixed-Use
Appropriate for the Village Core residential and non-residential uses may be configured in
a horizontal relationship that allows for shared parking (at-grade or structured). May be
configured in a variety of ways to create a horizontal mixed-use setting (single use
buildings next to each other) or a vertical mixed-use setting (retail ground floor on
residential buildings). Typically, three to five stories in height. PUOS typically provided
in a porch, balcony, or roof deck. Appropriate in the Village Core zoning district.
Example plotting for Mixed-Use Configurations
Page 1328 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Village Design Plan
Page 110 December 2023
XII. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
Both safety and security are key components of a quality lifestyle. Proper design and
effective use of the built environment can reduce the fear and incidence of crime and
thereby improve the overall quality of life. Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED) strategies and design objectives should be considered during the Design
Review process.
Page 1329 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Attachment “A”
Approved Plant List
Page 1330 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1331 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
113
Fuel Modification (Zone 0)
Trees Not Permitted
Shrubs, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Botanical Name Common Name FMZ Notes
Aeonium arboreum Tree Aeonium 0
Agapanthus africanus Lily-of-the-Nile 0
Ajuga reptans 'Burgundy Glow' Carpet Bugle 0
Armeria maratima Amie Thrift 0
Anigozanthos species Kangaroo Paw 0
Aloe species Aloe 0
Asparagus densiflorus 'Myers' Myers Asparagus 0
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush 0
Campanula portenschlagiana Dalmation Bellflower 0
Carex species Sedge 0
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' Prostrate Natal Plum 0
Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush 0
Clivia miniata Kaffir Lily 0
Codiaeum variegatum 'Pictum' Croton 0
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster 0
Crassula species Crassula 0
Dianella species Flax Lily 0
Dymondia margaretae Dymondia 0
Encelia californica California Encelia 0
Euphorbia species Euphorbia 0
Festuca glauca 'Elijah Blue' Canyon Prince Wild Rye 0
Festuca rubra Creeping Red Fescue 0
Furcraea foetida ‘Mediopicta’ Variegated Mauritius Hemp 0
Hedera helix 'Needle Point' Dwarf English Ivy 0
Hemerocallis hybrids Daylily 0
Hesperaloe species Red Yucca 0
Lantana 'Spreading Yellow' Yellow Lantana 0
Lavendula species Lavender 0
Limonium perezii Seafoam Statice 0
Liriope muscari Big Blue Lily Turf 0
Lomandra hystrix Katie Belles 0
Festuca ‘Marathon II’ Dwarf Tall Fescue 0
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum 0
Ophiopogon japonicus Mondo Grass 0
Osteospermum fruticosum Trailing African Daisy 0
Paspalum vaginatum 'Aloha' Aloha Paspalum 0
Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium 0
Phyla nodiflora Kurapia 0
Portulacaria afra Elephant's Food 0
Page 1332 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
114
Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalksticks 0
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass 0
Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise 0
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine 0
Tradescantia pallida 'Purpurea' Purple Heart 0
Tulbaghia violacea Sweet Garlic 0
Verbena species Verbena 0
Vinca species Perwinkle 0
Zantedeschia aethiopica Common Calla 0
Fuel Modification (Zones 1 & 2)
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically compromising existing
Preserve vegetation. Notes provided below must be adhered to and planting must be implemented in accordance with the
Chula Vista Fire Department’s fuel modification guidelines summarized in the Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan.
Trees
Botanical Name Common Name FMZ Notes
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 1
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon * See Note 'A' below
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde 1
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 1
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite 1
Prunus ilicifolia 'ilicifolia' Hollyleaf Cherry 1
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak 1
Rhus lancea African Sumac 1 See Note 'B' below
Shrubs, Cacti & Ground Covers
Botanical Name Common Name FMZ Notes
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave 1
Atriplex semibacatta Berry Saltbush 1 & 2
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush 1 See Note 'C' below
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster 1
Encelia californica California Encelia 2
Encelia farinose Brittlebrush 1 & 2
Epilobium californicum California Fuschia 1 & 2
Epilobium canum California Fuschia 1 & 2
Galvezia speciosa 'Fire Cracker' Bush Snapdragon 2
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon * See Note 'A' below
Isomeris arborea Bladder Pod 2
Isocoma menziesii ‘ Manziesii’ Coast Goldenbush 2
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder *
Limonium perezii Seafoam Statice 1
Page 1333 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
115
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum 1
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass 2
Opuntia littoralis Coastal Prickly Pear Cactus 2 See Note 'E' below
Opuntia oricola No Common Name 2 See Note 'E' below Phyla nodiflora Kurapia 1 Portulacria afra 'Minima' Elephant's Mat 2 Rhamnus crocea Redberry *
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry *
Rhus ovata Sugarbush *
Salvia apiana White Sage 2 See Note 'F' below
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba * See Note 'F' below
Trichostema lanatum Woolly Blue Curls *
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower 2
Yucca schidigera Mojave Yucca 1 & 2
Yucca whipplei Our Lord's Candle 1 & 2
Hydroseed Application
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically compromising existing
Preserve vegetation
Botanical Name Common Name FMZ Notes
Acmispon americanus Purshing's lotus 1
Acmispon heermannii Heerman's lotus 1
Cryptantha intermedia Common cryptantha 1
Eschscholzia californica Coastal California Poppy 1
Helianthemum scoparium Sun Rose 1
Lasthenia gracilis California Goldfields 1
Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine 1
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass 1
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Sand Aster 2
Encelia farinosa California Encelia 2
Ericameria palmeri Palmer's goldenbush 2
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow 2
Galium angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw 2
Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush 2
Hemizonia fasciculata Common Tarplant 2
Isocoma menziesii Menzies’ goldenbush 2
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder *
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields 2 Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine 2
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower 2
Fuel Modification Notes:
* Indicates larger shrubs that may be utilized in Zone 2, in cluster of no more than 400 SF
Page 1334 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
116
A May be planted within Fuel Management Zone 1 up to 10% of the plant palette mix. No single mass shall exceed 400
sf. These shall be spaced such that the nearest shrub is no closer than the tallest shrub height (at maturity)
B Plant acceptable on a limited basis (Max. 30% of the area at the time of planting)
C Only local native shrub species will be utilized. No cultivars shall be permitted.
D Plant acceptable on a limited basis (Max. 30% of the area at the time of planting)
E Plants must be locally sourced
F May be planted in limited quantities and must be properly spaced
Parks and CPF Sites
Trees
Botanical Name Common Name Notes
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree
Citrus species Citrus
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood
Dracaena draco Dragon Tree
Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Jacaranda mimisifolia Jacaranda
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle
Ligustrum lucidum Glossy Privet
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia
Metrosideros excelsa
New Zealand Christmas
Tree
Olea europea 'Willsonii' Fruitless Olive
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak
Quercus ilex Holly Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Evergreen Elm
Shrubs, Cacti, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Botanical Name Common Name Notes
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave
Aloe species Aloe
Anigozanthos species Kangaroo Paw
Page 1335 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
117
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea
Callistemon citrinus 'Little John' Little John Bottlebrush
Carex species Sedge
Ceanothus cultivars Ceanothus
Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush
Cistus species Rockrose
Clematis species Evergreen Clematis Vine
Cordyline australis 'Atropurpurea' Bronze Dracena
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster
Crassula species Crassula
Cynodon dactlyon 'Bandera' Bandera Bermuda Turf
Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily
Echium fastuosum Pride of Maderia
Encelia californica California Encelia
Encelia farinosa Brittlebrush
Euonymus species Euonymus
Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava Festuca species Fescue
Festuca Aquawise 'Sportsclub Mix' Aquawise Sports Turf
Festuca 'Marathon II' Dwarf Tall Fescue
Ficus pumila Creeping Fig
Grevillea ‘Noellii’ Noel Grevillea
Grewia occidentalis Lavender Starflower
Helichrysum petiolare 'Limelight' Limelight Licorice Plant
Hesperaloe species Red Yucca
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Ilex species Holly
Lantana species Lantana
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Texas Privet
Limonium perezii Statice
Mahonia aquifolium Oregon Grape Mimulus cardinalis Scarlet Monkeyflower
Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum
Myrtus communis Myrtle
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Nephrolepis cordifolia Sword Fern
Phormium species New Zealand Flax
Paspalum vaginatum 'Seashore' Aloha Seashore Paspalum Phyla nodiflora 'Campagna Verde' Kurapia
Pittosporum crassifolium 'Compactum' Evergreen Pittosporum
Pittosporum tobira 'Wheeler's Dwarf' Dwarf Tobira
Page 1336 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
118
Podocarpus 'Icee Blue' (Columnar) Icee-Blue Yellow-Wood
Podocarpus macrophyllus 'Maki' Shrubby Yew Pine
Portulcaria afra Elephant's Food Portulcaria afra 'Minima' Elephant's Mat
Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry
Pyracantha species Firethorn
Rhaphiolepis indica India Hawthorn
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'Minor' Dwarf Yedda Hawthorne
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Rosmarinus species Rosemary
Salvia apiana White Sage
Scaevola 'Mauve Clusters' Mauve Clusters Pincushion Flower
Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Paradise
Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise
Tecoma species Esperanza
Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle
Thuja occidentalis 'Degroots Spire' Degroots Spire Arbovitae
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Tulbaghia violacea Sweet Garlic
Westringia fruticosa 'Mundi' Low Coast Rosemary
Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria
Hydroseed Application
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically compromising existing
Preserve vegetation
Botanical Name Common Name Notes
Acmispon americanus Purshing's lotus
Acmispon heermannii Heerman's lotus
Cryptantha intermedia Common cryptantha
Eschscholzia californica Coastal California Poppy
Helianthemum scoparium Sun Rose
Lasthenia gracilis California Goldfields
Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Sand Aster
Encelia farinosa California Encelia
Ericameria palmeri Palmer's goldenbush
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow
Galium angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw
Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush
Hemizonia fasciculata Common Tarplant
Isocoma menziesii Menzies’ goldenbush
Ivy hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder
Page 1337 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
119
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower
HOA Common Area, Interior Plant Material
Streets
Trees
Botanical Name Common Name
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Lagerstromia indica 'Natchez' Natchez Crape Myrtle
Lagerstromia indica 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle
Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia
Olea europea 'Willsonii' Fruitless Olive
Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus ilex Holly Oak
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Evergreen Elm
Shrubs, Vines, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Botanical Name Common Name
Carissa macrocarpa ‘Boxwood Beauty’ Thornless Natal Plum
Clytostoma callistegiodes Violet Trumpet Vine
Cynodon dactlyon 'Bandera' Bandera Bermuda Turf
Dianella species Flax Lily
Distictus buccinatoria Blood-Red Trumpet Vine
Distictus 'Rivers' Royal Trumpet Vine
Festuca Aquawise 'Sportsclub Mix' Aquawise Sports Turf
Festuca 'Marathon II' Dwarf Tall Fescue
Ficus pumila Creeping Fig
Ipomoea acuminata 'Blue Dawn' Blue Dawn Morning Glory
Lantana 'Spreading Yellow' Yellow Lantana
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Mandevilla species Mandevilla Vine
Pandorea jasminoides 'Alba' White Bower Vine
Paspalum vaginatum 'Seashore' Aloha Seashore Paspalum
Phyla nodiflora 'Campagna Verde' Kurapia
Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalk Sticks
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Manufactured Slopes
Trees
Botanical Name Common Name
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Page 1338 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
120
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas
Tree
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite
Prunus ilicifolia 'ilicifolia' Hollyleaf Cherry
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Shrubs, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Botanical Name Common Name
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave
Aloe species Aloe
Atriplex semibacatta Berry Saltbush
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush
Bougainvillea ‘Oo-La-La’ Prostrate Bougainvillea
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' Prostrate Natal Plum
Ceanothus cultivars Ceanothus
Cistus species Rockrose
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster
Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira
Encelia californica California Encelia
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Lantana 'Spreading Yellow' Yellow Lantana
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Limonium perezii Statice
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Phormium species New Zealand Flax
Phyla nodiflora Kurapia
Portulcaria afra 'Minima' Elephant's Mat
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Rosmarinus officinalis 'Huntington Carpet' Prostrate Rosemary
Salvia apiana White Sage
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Hydroseed Application
Botanical Name Common Name
Baileya multiradiata Desert Marigold
Camissonia cheiranthifolia Beach Evening Primrose
Encelia farinosa California Encelia
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow
Eschscholzia californica California Poppy
Gaillardia pulchella Indian Blanket
Gazania splendens Gazania Splendens
Page 1339 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
121
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields
Limonium californicum Coastal Statice
Linaria maroccana Toad Flax
Lobularia maritima Sweet Alyssum
Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine
Verbena tenuisecta Moss Verbena
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower
Private Development Areas
Trees
Botanical Name Common Name
Albizia julibrissin ‘Rosea’ Silk Tree
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Bauhinia variegata Purple Orchid Tree
Betula pendula Europen White Birch
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree
Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree
Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa
Citrus species Citrus
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood
Dracaena draco Dragon Tree
Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Hesperaloe species Red Yucca
Jacaranda mimisifolia Jacaranda
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
Lagerstroemia indica 'Muskogee' Lavender Crape Myrtle
Lagerstromia indica 'Natchez' Natchez Crape Myrtle
Lagerstromia indica 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle
Laurus noblis 'Saratoga' Saratoga Sweet Bay
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Ligustrum lucidum Glossy Privet
Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia
Maytenus boaria Mayten Tree
Melaleuca nesophila Pink Melaleuca
Metrosideros excelsa
New Zealand Christmas
Tree
Olea europea 'Willsonii' Fruitless Olive
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde
Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache
Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite
Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry
Prunus ilicifolia 'ilicifolia' Hollyleaf Cherry
Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear
Page 1340 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
122
Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' Chanticleer Ornamental
Pear
Pyrus kawakamii (Espalier) Evergreen Pear
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus ilex Holly Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Robina pseudoacicia 'Purple Robe' Black Locust
Sapium sebiferum Chinese Tallow Tree
Schinus molle California Pepper Tree
Spathodea campanulata African Tulip Tree
Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel Tree
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Tulbaghia violacea Sweet Garlic
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Evergreen Elm
Palm Trees
Botanical Name Common Name
Archontophoenix cunninghamiana King Palm
Ceratozamia hildae Bamboo Cycad
Chamadorea seifrizii Bamboo Palm
Chamaerops humilis 'Multi-Trunk' ** Mediterranean Fan Palm
Cycas revoluta Sago Palm
Howea forsteriana Kentia Palm
Neodypsis decaryi ** Triangle Palm
Phoenix dactylifera 'Medjool' ** Medjool Date Palm
Phoenix roebelenii Pigmy Date Palm
Rhapis excelsa Lady Palm
Syagrus romanzoffianum ** Queen Palm
Trachycarpus fortunei ** Windmill Palm
Zamia furfuracea Cardboard Palm
** Indicates large species of palm trees. These species of palm shall be no
closer than 10 feet to nearest structure roof line and to be maintained to
remove dead fronds and keep trunk skinned (smooth) with no accumulation
of dead material.
Shrubs & Vines
Botanical Name Common Name
Aeonium arboreum Tree Aeonium
Agapanthus africanus Lily-of-the-Nile
Agave species Century Plant
Anigozanthos species Kangaroo Paw
Aloe species Aloe
Antigonon leptopus Coral Vine
Asparagus densiflorus 'Myers' Myers Asparagus
Aspidistra elatior Cast Iron Plant
Azalea species Azalea
Bambusa multiplex 'Golden Godess' Golden Godess Bamboo
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea
Page 1341 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
123
Buxus species Boxwood
Calliandra haematocephala Pink Powder Puff
Callistemon citrinus 'Little John' Little John Bottlebrush
Ceanothus cultivars Ceanothus
Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush
Cistus species Rockrose
Clematis species Evergreen Clematis Vine
Clivia miniata Kaffir Lily
Clytostoma callistegiodes Violet Trumpet Vine
Codiaeum variegatum 'Pictum' Croton
Coleonema album White Breath of Heaven
Cordyline australis 'Atropurpurea' Bronze Dracena
Crassula species Crassula
Cuphea hyssophyla False Heather
Cyperus species Papyrus
Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily
Distictus buccinatoria Blood-Red Trumpet Vine
Distictus 'Rivers' Royal Trumpet Vine
Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira
Encelia californica California Encelia
Euonymus species Euonymus
Euphorbia species Euphorbia
Fatsia japonica Japanese Aralia
Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava
Ficus pumila Creeping Fig
Furcraea foetida mediopicta Variegated Mauritius Hemp
Grevillea ‘Noellii’ Noel Grevillea
Grewia occidentalis Lavender Starflower
Helichrysum petiolare 'Limelight' Limelight Licorice Plant
Hemerocallis hybrids Daylily
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Ilex species Holly
Ipomoea acuminata 'Blue Dawn' Blue Dawn Morning Glory
Lantana species Lantana
Lavendula species Lavender
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Texas Privet
Limonium perezii Statice
Liriope muscari Big Blue Lily Turf
Macfadyena ungis-cati Cat's Claw
Mahonia aquifolium Oregon Grape
Mandevilla species Mandevilla Vine
Myrtus communis Myrtle
Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo
Nephrolepis cordifolia Sword Fern
Pandorea jasminoides 'Alba' White Bower Vine
Phormium species New Zealand Flax
Philodendron species Philodendron
Pittosporum crassifolium 'Compactum' Evergreen Pittosporum
Page 1342 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
124
Pittosporum tobira 'Wheeler's Dwarf' Dwarf Tobira
Podocarpus 'Icee Blue' (Columnar) Icee-Blue Yellow-Wood
Podocarpus macrophyllus 'Maki' Shrubby Yew Pine
Portulcaria afra Elephant's Food
Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry
Pyracantha species Firethorn
Rhaphiolepis indica India Hawthorn
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'Minor' Dwarf Yedda Hawthorne
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Rosa species Rose
Rosmarinus species Rosemary
Salvia apiana White Sage
Sansevieria trifasciata Bowstring Hemp
Scaevola 'Mauve Clusters' Mauve Clusters Pincushion Flower
Shefflera species Scheffelera
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba
Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Paradise
Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise
Tecoma species Esperanza
Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle
Thuja occidentalis 'Degroots Spire' Degroots Spire Arbovitae
Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria
Westringia fruticosa 'Mundi' Low Coast Rosemary
Yucca species Yucca
Zantedeschia aethiopica Common Calla
Ornamental Grasses
Botanical Name Common Name
Aristida pupurea Purple Three-Awn
Bouteoua gracilis Blond Ambition Grass
Carex species Sedge
Dianella species Flax Lily
Festuca glauca 'Elijah Blue' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Festuca rubra Creeping Red Fescue
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Blue Fescue
Lomandra hystrix Katie Belles
Muhlenbergia species Muhly Grass
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Ophiopogon japonicus Mondo Grass
Pennisetum setaceum 'Sterile Green' Sterile Green Fountain
Grass
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass
Sprawling Shrubs & Ground Covers
Botanical Name Common Name
Acacia redolens 'Desert Carpet' Prostrate Acacia
Ajuga reptans 'Burgandy Glow' Carpet Bugle
Page 1343 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
125
Armeria maratima Amie Thrift
Atriplex semibacatta Berry Saltbush
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush
Bougainvillea 'Oo-La-La' Prostrate Bougainvillea
Campanula portenschlagiana Dalmation Bellflower
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' Prostrate Natal Plum
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster
Dymondia margaretae Dymondia
Festuca Marathon II Dwarf Tall Fescue
Hedera helix 'Needle Point' Dwarf English Ivy
Lantana 'Spreading Yellow' Yellow Lantana
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum
Osteospermum fruticosum Trailing African Daisy
Paspalum vaginatum 'Aloha' Aloha Paspalum
Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium
Phyla nodiflora 'Campagna Verde' Kurapia
Portulcaria afra 'Minima' Elephant's Mat
Rosmarinus officinalis 'Huntington Carpet' Prostrate Rosemary
Salvia apiana White Sage
Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalksticks
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Tradescantia pallida 'Purpurea' Purple Heart
Verbena species Verbena
Vinca species Perwinkle
Page 1344 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
April 2024
PREPARED FOR:
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Adopted on December 2, 2014
By Resolution No. 2014-235
Amended XX
By Resolution No. XX
Page 1345 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PREPARED BY:
RH Consulting Group, LLC
Contact: Ranie Hunter
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
619-823-1494
Page 1346 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page i December 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1
II. PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 2
III. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................ 2
A. Village 8 East Proposed Land Use Plan ................................................................. 2
B. Development Phasing ............................................................................................. 9
C. Discretionary Actions ........................................................................................... 10
IV. FACILITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................................... 10
A. Traffic ................................................................................................................... 10
B. Police..................................................................................................................... 16
C. Fire and Emergency Services ................................................................................ 16
D. Schools .................................................................................................................. 17
E. Libraries ................................................................................................................ 17
F. Parks, Trails and Open Space ............................................................................... 17
G. WATER ................................................................................................................ 23
H. SEWER ................................................................................................................. 27
I. DRAINAGE .......................................................................................................... 29
J. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 31
K. CIVIC CENTER ................................................................................................... 31
L. CORPORATION YARD ...................................................................................... 31
M. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES ............................................................................ 31
N. FISCAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 31
V. PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCING .................................................................................. 32
A. Development Impact Fee Programs ...................................................................... 32
B. Subdivision Security ............................................................................................. 32
Page 1347 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page ii December 2023
EXHIBIT LIST
1 Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan 4
2 Proposed Conceptual Phasing Plan 9
3A Proposed Vehicular Circulation Plan 13
3B Proposed Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Circulation Plan 14
4 Village 8 East Street Names and Estimated Traffic Volumes 15
5 Proposed Parks, Trails, Open Space and Trails Master Plan 21
6 Proposed Pedestrian Circulation Plan 22
7 Proposed Potable Water Facilities 25
8 Proposed Recycled Water Facilities 26
9 Proposed Sewer Facilities 28
10 Proposed Basin and Drainage Plan 30
TABLES
1 Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan 5
2 Comparison of Village 8 East Development (Adopted vs.
Proposed)
8
3 Street Classification Recommendations 11
H.3 Preliminary Parkland Dedication Requirements 18
H.4 Park Acreages and Eligible Credits 18
H.7 Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees 19
4 Otay Ranch Parkland Obligations & Planned Parkland 20
I.4 Projected Potable Water Demand 23
I.5 Average Recycled Water Demand by Land Use 24
J.5 Land Use Summary and Sewerage Flows 27
K.2-K.3 Summary of Pre-Development and Post-Development Storm
Water Flows
29
Page 1348 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 1 December 2023
I. OVERVIEW
The Village 8 (Village 8 West and Village 8 East) portion of Otay Ranch (“Project Area”)
was originally entitled when the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (“GDP”)/Otay
Subregional Plan (“SRP”) was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego
County Board of Supervisors in 1993. The Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area (2014
SPA) Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan (“2014 PFFP”) and Village 8 East Tentative
Map (CVT No. 13-03) were approved by the Chula Vista City Council on December 14,
2014. The Chula Vista City Council also certified the Final Environmental Impact Report
(13-01; November 2014) (“FEIR”), which contains a comprehensive disclosure and
analysis of potential environmental effects associated with implementation of Village 8
East.
This Supplemental Public Facility Finance Plan (“2023 PFFP”) addresses changes to the
public facility needs associated with the Village 8 East SPA Plan Amendment (“2023
SPA”) proposed by HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (“Applicant”). The Applicant prepared
an Addendum to FEIR 13-03 for the Proposed Project, as well as technical memos and
reports that address the proposed changes to the Village 8 East.
The 2014 PFFP was prepared consistent with the requirements of the Chula Vista Growth
Management Program and Chapter 9, Growth Management of the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. The preparation of the 2023 PFFP is required in conjunction with the
preparation of the SPA Plan Amendment for the Proposed Project to ensure that the phased
development of the Proposed Project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the
City of Chula General Plan (“CVGP”) and the Otay Ranch GDP, which may be amended
from time to time to ensure that the development of the Proposed Project will not adversely
impact City public facilities and services. In 2022, the Chula Vista City Council repealed
the Growth Management Ordinance, as such, there are no longer threshold standards. This
2023 PFFP meets the Otay Ranch GDP policy objectives.
This 2023 PFFP is based on the phasing and information presented in the Otay Ranch GDP,
CVGP and Village 8 East SPA Amendments, dated December 2023. The Applicant
prepared technical analyses to determine whether the proposed amendments resulted in any
changes to financing, constructing or maintaining public facilities within Village 8 East.
The Applicant-prepared technical analyses for the Proposed Project which are relevant to
the 2023 PFFP are discussed further below and include the following:
• TM Drainage Study for Otay Ranch-Village 8 East prepared by Hunsaker and
Associates, 2023
• PDP SWQMP for Otay Ranch Village 8 East prepared by Hunsaker and
Associates, 2023
• Otay Ranch Village 8 East Trip Generation Review and Project Information Form
prepared by Chen-Ryan, 2023
• Otay Ranch 8 East SPA Amendment Water Evaluation prepared by Dexter Wilson
Engineering, Inc, 2023
Page 1349 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 2 December 2023
• Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment Sewer Evaluation prepared by Dexter
Wilson Engineering, Inc, 2023
• Village 8 East – Fiscal Impact Summary Report, Development Planning &
Financing Group, 2023
These technical analyses supplement the technical reports associated with the 2014 Project
approvals and 2014 PFFP and demonstrate that proposed changes to the Proposed Project
do not result in changes to Mitigation Measures, Conditions of Approval or Thresholds
established in the 2014 PFFP.
II. PURPOSE
Preparation of a Public Facilities Finance Plan is required by Chula Vista Municipal Code
(“CVMC”) Chapter 19.92. The purpose of the PFFP is to establish compliance
mechanisms and standards to ensure public facilities, infrastructure and services will exist,
or concurrently be provided, to meet the demands of infrastructure and climate protection
generated by new development. Similarly, amendments to a SPA Plan require an
amendment or supplement to the PFFP. The purpose of this Supplemental PFFP is to
update and clarify the adopted 2014 PFFP to address changes to the Project.
In the City of Chula Vista, the PFFP is intended to ensure adequate levels of service are
achieved for all public services and facilities impacted by a project. It is understood that
assumed growth projections and related public facilities needs are subject to several
external factors, such as the local economy, the City’s future land use approval decisions,
etc. It is also understood that funding sources specified herein may change due to financing
programs available in the future or requirements of either state or federal laws. It is
intended that revisions to cost estimates and funding programs be handled as administrative
revisions whereas revisions to the facilities-driven growth phases are accomplished
through an update process via an amendment or supplement to the PFFP.
III. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This 2023 PFFP supplements the Village 8 East PFFP adopted on December 2, 2014. The
Proposed Project includes amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP
and Village 8 East SPA Plan and also includes Village 8 East Tentative Map CVT No. 22-
0005. In 2020, the Chula Vista City Council approved the transfer of 284 multi-family
units from Village 8 East to Village 8 West by Resolution No. 2020-033. This approved
intensity transfer resulted in a reduction in the authorized residential dwelling units within
Village 8 East from 3,560 to 3,276.
A. Village 8 East Proposed Land Use Plan
The Proposed Project’s land use plan would allow for the construction of 3,276 multiple-
family units (of which 1,348 are planned in a Village Core setting), 11.3 acres for a school;
Page 1350 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 3 December 2023
a 1.2 acre Community Purpose Facility (“CPF”) site; 73.2 acres of public parkland; 16.4
acres of open space/basins, 253.6 acres of preserve open space land and 20,000 SF of
commercial/retail uses in the Village Core area, consistent with the 2014 approvals . The
Proposed P roject would extend Main Street in its current alignment, includes a minor
realignment of La Media Road , maintains La Palmita Drive in its approximately
alignment , and modifies the alignment and classifications of internal village streets.
S ee the Proposed Exhibit 1: Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan and Table 1:
Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Table.
In order to address the changes related to the proposed land use plan, several assumptions
were made. These assumptions play a role in determining public facility needs and phasing
of those facilities and are summarized below.
• Maintain a total of 3,276 authorized units within Village 8 East.
• Reconfigure the mixed-use area and designate the Village Core.
• Realign the former pedestrian bridge, designate it a Multi-Modal Bridge to
accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (“NEV”), bicycles and pedestrians
and expand the width to 17 feet.
• Eliminate the traditional single-family lots and introduce new, innovative attached
and detached residential projects with revised residential densities to reflect the
current market conditions.
• Modify the eastern edge of Village 8 East to accommodate the SR-125 couplet
interchange design between Main Street and La Media Parkway.
• Update the pedestrian, bicycle and NEV circulation network to improve
connectivity between Village 8 East and Village 8 West
The 2023 land use plan will create a viable mixed-use Village Core that will create a strong
sense of place for the residents of Village 8 East and surrounding communities and meet
the market demand for a wider variety of multi-family housing types and retail uses. Table
2: Comparison of Village 8 East Development, compares the 2014 Project with the
proposed Village 8 East land uses.
Page 1351 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 4 December 2023
Update to Exhibit 3 (2014 PFFP, Page 15)
Exhibit 1: Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan
Page 1352 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 5 December 2023
Table 1 – Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan
Page 1353 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 6 December 2023
Table 1: Village 8 East Site Utilization Table (Continued)
Notes:
1 Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not represent the final unit
allocation for each parcel and shall not be used to limit or restrict the final units allocated to
any parcel.; The final unit allocation must remain consistent with the permitted density range
applicable to the parcel. The final unit allocation shall be determined during Design Review
and shall be documented in the Unit Tracking Table (Village 8 East SPA Plan, Attachment 1).
Revisions to the Site Utilization Table shall not be required based on changes to the Estimated
Units presented herein.
2 Final acreage information to be determined during final engineering. Acreage may vary due
to rounding. Residential and Village Core gross acreage includes approximately 15.3 of
perimeter open space areas. Open space easements shall be recorded over perimeter open
space slopes to be maintained by the Master HOA or a Sub-Association, as determined during
final design.
3 Estimated Density calculated based on gross parcel acreage. Final density to be determined
during Design Review.
Page 1354 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 7 December 2023
Notes:
4 20,000 SF of commercial uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial SF may be
developed within a single parcel designated VC or distributed among any parcel designated
VC (VC-1 through VC-7). The final distribution of commercial SF to be determined during
Design Review. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no
residential units.
5 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent
with the Village Core zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC
parcels with no residential units.
6 Per the Land Offer Agreement (7/8/2014), the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall designate 4.0
acres of CPF land. The Applicant is proposing to meet a portion of the Village 8 East CPF
obligation by designating the 1.2-acre CPF-1 site as a private recreation facility. The
remaining 2.8 acre CPF obligation shall be addressed in a separate agreement between the
Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
7 Both the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map include the "Proposed” and “Alternative”
configuration and acreage for the S-1 School Site and P-1 Neighborhood Park. Either the
Proposed or Alternative may be implemented without the need for an amendme nt to the SPA
Plan or TM. If the proposed configuration is implemented, the S-1 site would be 10.0 acre (net)
and the P-1 park site would be 6.5 acre (net); however, if the alternative configuration is
implemented, the S-1 site would be 12.0 acres (net) an d the P-1 park site would be 4.6 acres
(net). The final neighborhood park acreage shall be addressed in a separate agreement between
the Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
8 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If
the site is not developed as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if
the site is developed as an elementary school, then the 264 units may be reallocated to another
Village 8 East parcel or transferred to another village, as permitted in the Village 8 East PC
District Regulations, Chapter 10, Implementation.
9 A portion of the Edge Trail and associated overlook features (approximately 1.76 acres) are
included within the 8.2-acre OS-7 parcel. The Edge Trail area shall be secured with a public
access easement and the 1.76 acres shall satisfy a portion of the Village 8 East park obligation.
The 1.76-acre Edge Trail area is not counted toward meeting the Village 8 East open space
requirement.
10 Village 8 East acreage adjusted from approved 2014 development area to reflect changes in
SR-125 ROW and to facilitate the future SR-125 ROW Decertification process.
11 The P-2 Community Park / OS-6 Alternative would be implemented only upon City approval
of the Alternative Compliance Program (“ACP”) Permit and Rough Grading Storm Water
Quality Management Plan (“SWQMP”) (See TM Sheet 6 for additional details). This would
increase the P-2 Community Park parcel to 47.4 acres (gross) and 39.0 acres (net) and
correspondingly decrease the OS-6 parcel to 4.8 acres (gross) and 0.7 acres (gross).
Page 1355 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 8 December 2023
Table 2: Comparison of Village 8 East Development (2014 vs. Proposed)
2014 SPA Plan
Land Uses
Proposed 2023 SPA Plan
Land Uses
2014 vs. Proposed Land
Uses
Land Use Acres Units1 Acres Units Acres2 Units
Medium Residential 124.9 918 0 0 -124.9 -918
Medium High Residential 2.1 25 132.2 1,664 +130.1 +1,639
High Residential/School Site 10.8 11.3 264 +0.5 +264
Village Core 65.2 2,333 62.7 1,348 -2.5 -985
Public Neighborhood Park 7.3 0 7.3 0 0 0
Public Community Park 51.5 43.3 -8.2
Active Recreation (AR-11) 22.6 22.6 0
Manufactured Open Space 11.2 0 16.4 0 +5.2 0
Open Space Preserve 253.6 253.6 0
Community Purpose Facility 4.5 0 1.2 0 -3.3 0
Other3 21.6 22.3 +0.7
TOTAL 575.3 3,276 572.9 3,276 -2.4 0
[Note: Table updated per plan revisions – changes not shown in redline]
1 The 2014 Land Uses reflects the 284-unit reduction in the Residential High General Plan Land Use Designation
within Village 8 East.
2 The Proposed Project includes 2.4 acres less than the 2014 SPA Plan due to changes in SR-125 ROW.
3 Other category includes Future Development Lots A and B, external circulation and CALTRANS Lots 1-3.
Page 1356 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 9 December 2023
B. Development Phasing
Development of the 2023 SPA Plan may be completed in several, non-sequential phases to
ensure construction of necessary infrastructure and amenities for each phase as
development progresses. Exhibit 2, Proposed Conceptual Phasing Plan, presents the
phasing plan based on the 2023 SPA Plan. Parcels may be graded as part of a larger
development phase and developed over several years.
Update to Exhibit 4 (2014 PFFP, Page 18)
Exhibit 2: Proposed Conceptual Phasing Plan
Page 1357 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 10 December 2023
C. Discretionary Actions
Discretionary actions which require City Council and/or Planning Commission
consideration and/or approval include an Addendum to EIR 13-01; SCH No. 2013071077,
University Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Amendment, amendments to the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Otay Ranch
Village 8 East SPA Plan and applicable SPA Appendices, approval of Village 8 East
Tentative Map CVT No. 22-0005 and a Development Agreement amendment.
IV. FACILITY ANALYSIS
The following section presents updated public facility information for traffic, police, fire
and emergency services, schools, libraries, parks, trails & open space, water, sewer,
drainage, air quality, civic center, corporate yard and other public facilities. The fiscal
analysis prepared for the proposed project is also discussed below.
A. Traffic
The circulation element roadways serving the Proposed Project includes Main Street
and Otay Valley Road. The Main Street alignment would remain consistent with the
2014 SPA Plan; however, the proposed project would include modifications to the
pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Main Street . La Media Parkway would be
realigned to the north to facilitate the SR-125 couplet/parallel street system interchange
design between Main Street and La Media Parkway . The La Media Parkway
improvements have been modified to provide a transition between Village 8 West and
Village 8 East. In addition , with the exception of the main spine road (La Palmita
Drive), the 2023 SPA Plan and TM include mino r alignment changes to internal streets.
Table 3: Street Classification Recommendations provides the backbone street
classifications analyzed in the 2014 EIR vs. the proposed backbone street
classifications.
Page 1358 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 11 December 2023
Table 3: Street Classification Recommendations
Page 1359 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 12 December 2023
The Village 8 East circulation plans are depicted in Exhibit 3A: Proposed Vehicular
Circulation Plan and Exhibit 3B: Proposed Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
Circulation Plan . As part of the Proposed Project, the Applicant will be required to
secure and agree to construct all backbone roadway improvements shown on the
approved Village 8 East Tentative Map (CVT No. 22-0005) prior to approval of the
first Final Map within Village 8 East .
Chen Ryan prepared the Village 8 East –Comprehensive Project Information Form for
Transportation Studies dated November 2023 to determine if the Proposed Project would
generate additional traffic impacts beyond those analyzed in the 2014 FEIR and associated
Traffic Impact Analysis. Chen Ryan determined that, based on the proposed land use
changes within Village 8 East, the Proposed Project would generate 4,000 fewer trips than
the 2014 SPA Plan.
In order to ensure that frontage and access can accommodate the Proposed Project, traffic
operational analyses were conducted at all project access points along Main Street and La
Media Parkway, as well as at internal backbone streets. Internal street classification
designations and traffic control and geometrics at key internal intersections and project
driveways were adjusted based on these analyses. The technical memorandum
documenting these analyses determined that internal streets analyzed would operate at LOS
C within the Village Core, as permitted in the GDP, and LOS B or better outside the Village
Core area. Refer to Exhibit 4: Village 8 East Street Names and Estimated Traffic
Volumes for additional details.
Because the Proposed Project would generate fewer trips (both daily and during the peak
hours) than the 2014 SPA Plan and the trip distribution patterns would generally remain
the same as those studied in the 2014 FEIR, it can be concluded that the Proposed Project
would add fewer trips to the surrounding transportation network, including all study area
roadways, intersections, and freeways. Fewer project-related trips to a roadway, an
intersection, or a freeway indicate less or equal potential traffic impacts. The Proposed
Project generates the same or lesser traffic impacts as identified in the 2014 PFFP. The
impacts identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the Proposed Project, and no additional
mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, the Proposed Project must comply with
the FEIR Mitigation Measures TCA-1 through TCA-18 and 20 identified in the 2014 PFFP,
IV. 6. Threshold Compliance and Requirements (2014 PFFP, Pages 40-45).
Page 1360 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 13 December 2023
Update to Exhibit 5 (2014 PFFP, Page 18)
Exhibit 3A: Proposed Vehicular Circulation Plan
Page 1361 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 14 December 2023
Exhibit 3B: Proposed Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Circulation Plan
Page 1362 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 15 December 2023
Update to Exhibit 6 (2014 PFFP, Page 31)
Exhibit 4: Village 8 East Street Names and Estimated Traffic Volumes
Page 1363 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 16 December 2023
Source: Village 8 East – Trip Generation Analysis and Internal ADT Estimation; Chen -Ryan (September 2023)
Exhibit 4: Village 8 East Street Names and Estimated Traffic Volumes (Continued)
B. Police
The Proposed Project generates approximately the same demand for Police services as
identified in the 2014 PFFP. The impacts identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the
Proposed Project, and no additional mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, the
Proposed Project must comply with the FEIR Police Services Mitigation Measure PUB-3,
4, and 5 and the 2014 PFFP, V.7. Threshold Compliance and Requirements (2014 PFFP,
Page 50).
C. Fire and Emergency Services
The Proposed Project generates approximately the same demand for fire and medical
emergency services as identified in the 2014 PFFP. The impacts identified in the FEIR
remain applicable to the Proposed Project, and no additional mitigation measures would be
required. Therefore, the Proposed Project must comply with FEIR Fire and Emergency
Services Mitigation Measure PUB-1 and the 2014 PFFP, VI.7 Threshold Compliance and
Recommendations (2014 PFFP, Page 56).
Page 1364 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 17 December 2023
D. Schools
The Proposed Project includes a 11.3-acre school site, consistent with the 2014 SPA Plan4.
The 2014 PFFP estimated that the 3,560 residential units would generate approximately
1,299 elementary school (K-6) students, approximately 250 middle school (7-8) students
and approximately 277 high school (9-12) students, for a total of 1,826 students.
Based on 2022 student generation information prepared by the Chula Vista Elementary
School District and Sweetwater Union High School District, the 2023 SPA Plan estimates
that the Proposed Project would generate approximately 820 elementary school (K-6)
students, approximately 220 middle school (7-8) students and approximately 593 high
school (9-12) students, for a total of 1,633 students. The impacts identified in the FEIR
remain applicable to the Proposed Project, and no additional mitigation measures would be
required. The Proposed Project must comply with the FEIR Schools Mitigation Measures
PUB-6 and PUB-7 and the 2014 PFFP VII.7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations
(2014 PFFP, Page 64).
E. Libraries
The Proposed Project would implement the 3,276 authorized dwelling units within Village
8 East. The impacts identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the Proposed Project, and
no additional mitigation measures would be required. The Proposed Project must comply
with FEIR Library Mitigation Measures PUB-11 and PUB-12 and the 2014 PFFP, VII.7
Threshold Compliance and Recommendations (2014 PFFP, Page 68).
F. Parks, Trails and Open Space
The Proposed Project would implement the 3,276 authorized dwelling units within Village
8 East and modify the residential dwelling unit type authorized in the 2014 SPA Plan. The
2014 PFFP and SPA Plan estimated that Village 8 East would be obligated to dedicate
approximately 30.45 acres of parkland. The 2023 SPA Plan estimates that the Village 8
East parkland dedication would be 26.5 acres. The Proposed Project includes a total of
42.8 (net) acres of public parkland. The revised Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space
Plan is provided as Exhibit 5.
4 The Village 8 East Tentative Map includes an alternative configuration for the P -1 Neighborhood Park / S-
1 School Site that would reduce the P-1 Park to 4.6 acres (net) and increase the S-1 School Site to 12.0 acres
(net). The final figuration will be determined based on the needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School
District.
Page 1365 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 18 December 2023
Table H.3
Village 8 East SPA Plan
Preliminary Parkland Dedication Requirements
City Ordinance Applied to Planning Prediction of Unit Numbers and Types
(Update to 2014 PFFP, Table Page 70)
Unit Type Units
Park SF /
Unit
Total Park
SF
Total Park
Acres
Single-Family (detached)1 336 460 154,560 3.5
Multi-Family (attached) 2,940 341 1,002,540 23.0
TOTAL 3,276 - 1,154,363 26.5
1Includes detached multi-family units
Table H.4, Village 8 East SPA Plan Park Acres and Eligible Credits is presented below.
Table H.4
Village 8 East SPA Plan
Park Acres and Eligible Credits
(Update to 2014 PFFP, Page 71)
Park Net
Acreage Phase
Proposed
Credit
Eligible
Credit (ac)
P-1 – Neighborhood Park 6.50 West 100% 6.50
P-2 – Community Park5 36.30 Park 100% 36.30
Edge Trail 2.10 West/East 100% 2.10
Total Acres Eligible for Credit
Against PAD
44.90
Village 8 East PAD
Requirements6
(26.50)
Village 3 IOD (2022) (2.21)
Total Estimated Excess PAD
Credits
16.197
5 If the P-2 Community Park / OS-6 Alternative shown on Tentative Map Sheet 6 is implemented then the net park
acreage within the P-2 Community Park would be increased to 39.0 acres, resulting in a total of 47.6 acres (net)
eligible for credit against PAD obligations.
6 Park fees and land obligations are subject to change pending any changes to the dwelling unit types and
numbers, or clarification of unit type at the time the obligations are due. The final parkland and development
fee credits to be determined per the future Parks Agreement between the Applicant and the City.
7 Based on updated land use and park demand information, revised Table H.4 estimates that there would be
approximately 16.19 acres of excess parkland credits within Village 8 East available, which may be utilized
to satisfy future park obligation within the Applicant’s ownership.
Page 1366 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 19 December 2023
Table H.7, Acquisition and Development Fees is presented below.
Table H.7
Village 8 East
Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees (Preliminary Calculation)
(Update to 2014 PFFP, Page 76)
Residential Unit Type Units PAD Fee/DU Total Total Fees
Development Acquisition
Single-Family (Detached)1 336 $ 3,203,088 $ 4,259,136 $ 7,462,224
Multi-Family (Attached) 2,940 20,803,440 27,659,520 48,462,960
TOTAL 3,276 $ 24,006,582 $ 31,918,656 $ 55.925,184
1Includes detached multi-family units
Source: City of Chula Vista Notice of Updated Fees effective October 1, 2023. Per Chula Vista
Municipal Code Section 3.42.101, the Chula Vista City Council must adopt a fee schedule. The
Proposed Project must comply with the current version of the City of Chula Development Master Fee
Schedule, Chapter 16 at the time the fees are paid. Development & In-Lieu Fees were last revised
October 2023 and are indexed each October 1 .
Development of Otay Ranch within the City of Chula Vista, results in a demand for
approximately 130.678 acres of park land, which includes 110.39 acres associated with
development of villages within HomeFed Corporation’s (HomeFed) ownership (includes
the 1.92-acre IOD recorded within the Otay Ranch Village 4 community park prior to
HomeFed’s acquisition of the property in 2016) and 20.28 acres of outstanding park land
from previously developed and future Otay Ranch villages. The following Table “Otay
Ranch Parkland Obligations & Planned Park Land” presents a comprehensive accounting
of park land obligations and planned park land.
Development of HomeFed’s Villages 3, 8 West, 8 East, 9 and 10, and the 1.92-acre IOD
which satisfied a portion of Village 2’s obligation, results in the obligation to provide
110.39 acres of park land. This is satisfied through adopted SPAs and TM that include
120.27 acres of planned park land including neighborhood parks within Villages 3, 8 West,
8 East, 9 and 10 (51.91 acres), 2.1 acres of public trails (Edge Trail) and community parks
planned in Villages 4, 8 West and 8 East (66.26 acres) and results in 9.88 acres of excess
park land within HomeFed’s ownership.
Villages 6 and 11 have met their corresponding parkland obligations through a combination
of park land dedication within the respective villages and payment of in-lieu Parkland
8 Excludes 40.4 acres currently reserved in the P-4 Community Park, as shown in the Villages 2, 3 and a
Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan and the neighborhood parks constructed within developed Otay Ranch Villages
1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 11 and the Eastern Urban Center .
Page 1367 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 20 December 2023
Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees, while Village 4 will be paying in-lieu PAD fees.
Assuming the park land obligations associated with full build out of HomeFed’s entitled
villages are met within planned neighborhood and community parks, there is a remaining
unmet obligation of 20.28 acres associated Villages 4, 6 and 11.
Table 4: Otay Ranch Park Obligations & Planned Park Land
Otay Ranch Park Land Obligations & Planned Park Land
Park Land
Obligation
(Net AC) 9
Park Land Planned (Net AC)
Village Units
10 Total Neighborhood
Park Trails Community
Park
Total
Planned
Surplus/
Deficit
HomeFed Villages:
211 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.92)
3 / 4 1,638 14.92 7.50 15.16 22.66 7.74
8 West 2,334 19.80 8.31 14.80 23.11 3.31
8 East 3,276 26.50 6.50 2.10 36.30 44.90 18.40
9 3,959 31.73 23.00 0.00 23.00 (8.73)
10 1,740 15.52 6.60 0.00 6.60 (8.92)
HomeFed Villages Subtotal 12,947 108.47 51.91 2.10 66.26 120.27 9.8812
Other Otay Ranch Villages:13
4 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 (2.55)
6 4.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 (4.81)
11 12.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 (12.92)
Other Otay Ranch Villages
Subtotal 20.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 (20.28)
COMBINED TOTAL 128.75 51.91 2.10 66.26 120.27 (10.40)
The impacts identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the Proposed Project, and no
additional mitigation measures would be required. The Proposed Project must comply with
FEIR Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Mitigation Measures PUB-8 through 12
9 Based on approved SPA Plans and proposed Village 8 East SPA amendment.
10 HomeFed’s park acreage obligations are calculated assuming full buildout of all entitled units. Final park
land obligations may vary based on actual units constructed.
11 A 1.92-acre IOD was recorded within the Village 4 Community Park property when it was acquired by
HomeFed in 2016 and is included in the HomeFed subtotal.
12 After the HomeFed (108.47 AC) and Village 2 (1.92 AC) obligations are met, HomeFed has an
additional 9.88 net acres of excess community park land that may be acquired to satisfy the unmet
community park obligations of other previously developed or future Otay Ranch villages.
13 Outstanding obligations associated with developed and future villages within Otay Ranch but outside of
HomeFed’s ownership.
Page 1368 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 21 December 2023
and the 2014 PFFP, IX.10 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations (2014 PFFP,
Pages 78 to 81).
Update to Exhibit 7 (2014 PFFP, Page 82)
Exhibit 5: Proposed Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Master Plan
Page 1369 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 22 December 2023
Update to Exhibit 8 (2014 PFFP, Page 83)
Exhibit 6: Proposed Pedestrian Circulation Plan
Page 1370 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 23 December 2023
G. WATER
An Overview of Water Services was prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering for the 2014
SPA and FEIR. The Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment Water Evaluation and
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment Water Conservation Evaluation Memos were
prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering to supplement the prior evaluation based on the
Proposed Project. Table I.4 and Table I.5 below summarize the anticipated potable and
recycled water demand for the Proposed Project.
Table I.4 – Projected Potable Water Demands
(Update to 2014 PFFP, Page 91)
Land Use1 Quantity Demand Factor Total Demand (gpd)
MF Residential 3,012 unit 170 gpd/unit 512,040
Commercial2 51.5 ac 1,607 gpd/ac 82,761
Multi-Family Residential
Alt for Elementary School
Site2
264 units 170 gpd/unit
44,880
CPF 1.2 714 gpd/ac 857
Parks/Active Recreation3 73.2 0 gpd/ac 9,051
Total — — 649,589
gpd = gallons per day; DU = dwelling units; ac = acre.
1 Internal and external circulation, open space preserve and future development areas are not calculated because
either no water demand is projected from these areas or these areas are not proposed for development at this
time.
2 The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could accommodate
264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. Average demand would decrease by 44,880
gpd to 14,280 gpd (10 net-acre school site x 1,428 gpd/acre = 14,280 gpd) if the site is utilized as a school
site.
3 Parks will be irrigated with recycled water, but nominal potable water use has been estimated for standard
fixtures (lavatories, drinking fountains, etc.)
The 2014 PFFP and associated Overview of Water Supply 14 projected potable water
demand at 1,049,039 gallons per day (gpd). Based on current potable water demand
factors, t he Proposed Project would decrease water demand to 649,589 gpd,
representing a decrease of 399,450 gpd, or approximately 38.1%. This decrease in
demand will not impact the proposed water line sizing for the Proposed Project since the
backbone water line sizing has been established based on regional needs in the area and
internal water line pipe sizing will be based primarily on fire flow requirements. See
Exhibit 7: Proposed Potable Water Facilities.
14 The water demand was updated after preparation of the PFFP. The table reflects the October 2014 Water Study prepared by Dexte r Wilson
Engineering.
Page 1371 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 24 December 2023
Table I.6– Average Recycled Water Demand by Land Use
(Update to 2014 PFFP, Page 91)
TABLE I.5
AVERAGE RECYCLED WATER DEMAND BY LAND USE
Land Use1 Quantity Percentage to
be Irrigated
Irrigated
Acreage
Recycled
Water
Irrigation
Factor,
gpd/ac
Average
Demand,
gpd
Irrigated Open
Space2 23.5 100 23.5 1,900
44,650
Parks 73.2 100 73.2 1,900 139,080
Village Core 51.5 10 5.2 1,900 9,880
MF Residential 3,012 DUs 15 45 135,540
CPF 1.2 20 0.2 1,900 380
School2 11.3 AC 20 2.3 1,900 4,370
TOTAL 333,900
1 Open space preserve and future development areas are not calculated because either no water demand is
projected from these areas or they are not currently proposed for development.
2 Includes 15.3 acres of perimeter open space location within Residential and Village Core areas and 16.4
acres of Manufactured/Base Open Space (see Site Utilization Table in Attachment 1(. There are two
detention basins (8.2 acres total) located within the Manufactured/Basin Open Space areas that are excluded
from the Irrigated Open Space acreage total (15.3 + 16.4 acres – 8.2 acres = 23.5 acres).
3 The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. Average recycled water
demand of 4,370 gpd is conservatively calculated based on school use. Average recycled water demand
would increase by 7,510 gpd to 11,880 gpd (264 units x 45 gpd/unit – 11,880 gpd) if the site is utilized as
a multi-family site.
The 2014 PFFP and associated Overview of Water Service projected recycled water
demand at 384,230 gallons per day (gpd). The Proposed Project would decrease recycled
water demand to 333,900 gpd, representing a 50,330 gpd (approximately 5.9%) decrease.
Landscape systems generally require a minimum of 80 psi at the meter to obtain adequate
coverage of landscape area. The primary criteria for sizing recycled water lines is the
ability to meet peak hour recycled water demands while maintaining a maximum pipeline
velocity of 8 feet per second. See Exhibit 8, Proposed Recycled Water Facilities, for the
recycled water system serving Village 8 East.
The impacts identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the Proposed Project, and no
additional mitigation measures would be required. The Proposed Project must comply with
FEIR Mitigation Measures UTL-1 to UTL-4 and 2014 PFFP, X.8 Threshold Compliance
and Recommendations (2014 PFFP, Pages 94-96).
Page 1372 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 25 December 2023
Update to Exhibit 9 (2014 PFFP, Page 98)
Exhibit 7: Proposed Potable Water Facilities
Page 1373 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 26 December 2023
Update to Exhibit 10 (2014 PFFP, Page 99)
Exhibit 8: Proposed Recycled Water Facilities
Page 1374 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 27 December 2023
H. SEWER
Dexter Wilson Engineering prepared a sewer evaluation for the 2014 SPA Plan and FEIR.
The Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment Sewer Evaluation Memo was prepared
by Dexter Wilson Engineering based on the Proposed Project to supplement the prior
evaluation.
Table J.5 Land Use Summary and Sewage Generation
(Update to 2014 PFFP, Page 105)
Land Use1 Quantity Demand Factor Total Demand (gpd)
Multi-Family Residential 3,012 units 182 gpd/unit 548,184
Commercial 51.5 ac 1,401 5gpd/ac 72,152
Multi-Family Residential2 264 units 182 gpd/units 48,048
Park/Active Recreation 73.2 410 gpd/ac 30,012
Community-CPF Facilities 1.2ac 1,401 gpd/ac 1,681
Total — — 700,077
gpd = gallons per day; ac = acre.
1 Internal and external circulation, open space, open space preserve and future development areas are not
included in the calculation either because no sewer flow is protected or these areas are not proposed for
development at this time.
2 The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. Average flow of 48,048 gpd
is conservatively calculated based on multi-family land use. Average flow would decrease to 11,810 (10.0
net-acre school site x 1,181 gpd/ac = 11,810 gpd) if the site is utilized as a school site.
The 2014 PFFP and associated Overview of Sewer Service projected wastewater
generation at 850,339 gpd. The projected wastewater flow for the Proposed Project is
700,077 gpd, representing a reduction of 150,262 gpd or 17.7% from the 2014 PFFP Sewer
System Analysis.
The impacts identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the Proposed Project, and no
additional mitigation measures would be required. The Proposed Project must comply with
FEIR Wastewater Mitigation Measures UTL-5 to UTL-7 and the 2014 PFFP, XI.8
Threshold Compliance and Recommendations (2014 PFFP, Pages 110-111).
Page 1375 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 28 December 2023
Update to Exhibit 11 (2014 PFFP, Page 112)
Exhibit 9: Proposed Sewer Facilities
Page 1376 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 29 December 2023
I. DRAINAGE
A Drainage Study and a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) were
completed for the 2014 SPA Plan and FEIR. To supplement those analyses, Hunsaker and
Associates prepared the TM Drainage Study for Otay Ranch-Village 8 East and PDP
SWQMP for Otay Ranch Village 8 East to address the Proposed Project.
The 2014 PFFP, Table K.1 identifies pre-Project flows of 872.2 cfs, consistent with the
2014 SPA Plan and FEIR analysis.
Tables K.2 and K.3 – Pre & Post Development Storm Water Flows
(Update to 2014 PFFP, Page 117)
Pre-Developed Post Developed Difference
Discharge
Location
(Watershed)
Drainage
Area (ac)
100-Year
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Drainage
Area (ac)
100-year
Flow (cfs) Area (ac)
100-Year
Peak Flow
(cfs)
North 13.72 28.62 7.79 32.35 -5.93 +3.73
Northwest 10.11 21.75 N/A N/A -10.11 -21.75
West 14.26 27.18 N/A N/A -14.26 -27.18
Northeast 51.54 75.59 17.50 22.13 -34.04 -53.46
Southwest 208.76 380.71 227.65 400.65 +21.66 +19.90
South 25.94 50.66 N/A N/A -25.94 -50.66
East-Central 180.32 211.11 N/A N/A -180.32 -211.11
East 19.96 45.72 288.39 774.35 +267.53 +728.63
Southeast 13.28 25.93 6.33 9.21 -6.95 -16.72
Total 537.89 867.27 545.84 1,233.38 +7.95 +366.11
ac = acres; cfs = cubic feet per second
Source: TM Drainage Study for Otay Ranch-Village 8 East (September 2023)
As identified in combined Tables K.2 and K.3, the Proposed Project would increase the
flow generated by a 100-year storm by 27.42 cfs compared to the 2014 SPA Plan and FEIR.
See Exhibit 10: Basin and Drainage Plan for the drainage system serving Village 8 East.
The Proposed Project includes a detention basin and Modular Wetlands System located in
the southern portion of Village 8 East in the eastern portion of the P-2 park, designated OS-
6 on the Site Utilization Plan, adjacent to the Otay River. This basin is not subject to
hydromodification since it outlets directly to the Otay River which has been identified as
an exempted river reach.
The Proposed Project must comply with FEIR Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation
Measures HYD-1 to HYD-7 and the 2014 PFFP, XII.7 Threshold Compliance (2014 PFFP,
Pages 121-8 to 123). In addition, the Proposed Project would continue to comply with all
applicable rules and regulations including compliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Page 1377 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 30 December 2023
Elimination System permit requirements for urban runoff and stormwater discharge. BMPs
for design, treatment, and monitoring for stormwater quality would be implemented as
delineated in the FEIR with respect to municipal and construction permits.
Update to Exhibit 13 (2014 PFFP, Page 124)
Exhibit 10: Proposed Basin and Drainage Plan
Page 1378 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 31 December 2023
J. AIR QUALITY
GHG emissions and global climate change were addressed in the FEIR, Section 5.4 Air
Quality. An Air Quality and GHG Technical Memo was prepared by Dudek to analyze the
Proposed Project. The proposed land uses would generate 3,977 fewer trips (11% less)
when compared to the 2014 SPA Plan land uses. The travel behavior of the remaining land
uses previously analyzed as part of the 2014 SPA Plan would be unchanged. As a result,
operational emissions (specifically those resulting from mobile sources) associated with
Village 8 East would be reduced as compared to the prior analysis. Construction emissions
would remain unchanged, because no change in the construction schedule or required
construction equipment is anticipated.
The impacts identified in the FEIR remain applicable to the Proposed Project, and no
additional mitigation measures would be required. The Proposed Project must comply with
FEIR Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ-1 to AQ-3 and the 20201413 PFFP, XIII.4
Threshold Compliance and Recommendations (Pages 129 to 131)
K. CIVIC CENTER
Per the 2014 PFFP, there are no adopted Threshold Standards for the Civic Center. The
Public Facilities fee must be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, at the rate in
effect at the time payment is made.
L. CORPORATION YARD
Per the 2014 PFFP, there are no adopted Threshold Standards for the Corporation Yard.
The Public Facilities fee must be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, at the rate
in effect at the time payment is made.
M. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
Per the 2014 PFFP, there are no adopted Threshold Standards for other facilities that are
part of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Program. The Public Facilities fee
must be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, at the rate in effect at the time
payment is made.
N. FISCAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the requirements in CVMC 19.09.040, Threshold Standards for City Facilities,
H. Fiscal, the Applicant prepared an updated fiscal analysis for the Proposed Project
(Village 8 East – Fiscal Impact Analysis, DPFG, November 2023. The fiscal update model
utilized the City of Chula Vista fiscal year ‘23/’24 model and assumed full build out of all
3,276 residential units and no commercial square footage which represents the most
conservative land use scenario. However, the Proposed Project includes development of
Page 1379 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 32 December 2023
20,000 SF of commercial uses; therefore, the anticipated fiscal outcome is more positive
than the following estimates. The results generated from the residential only fiscal model
meet the requirements of CVMC 19.09.040 and demonstrate that the Proposed Project will
generate a fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($452,114 - $33,573,827), representing cumulative
revenue of $48,014,928 through year 20.
The full fiscal analysis model and assumptions are provided in the Village 8 East SPA
Amendment Fiscal Summary Report dated November 2023. This report demonstrates that
the proposed project generates positive net revenue to the City of Chula Vista.
V. PUBLIC FACILITY FINANCING
The Proposed Project will finance public facilities by paying development impact fees or
constructing facilities required by subdivision exactions using private funding sources or
public facilities financing and, implementation of a future agreement between the
Applicant and the City regarding park development.
A. Development Impact Fee Programs
Per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 3.42.101, the Chula Vista City Council must
adopt a fee schedule. The Proposed Project must comply with the City of Chula
Development Master Fee Schedule, Chapter 16. Development & In-Lieu Fees were last
revised October 2023 and are indexed each October 1. Per CVMC Section 3.42.101, the
Proposed Project must comply with the current version of the City of Chula Vista
Development Master Fee Schedule, Chapter 16 at the time fees are paid. Development &
In-Lieu Fees were last revised October 2023 and are indexed each October 1.
B. Subdivision Security
The Proposed Project will be developed in phases over several years. As public
improvements are complete, security provided for the Proposed Project in accordance with
the Subdivision Map Act and the Municipal Code should be reduced to reflect the
completed improvements. Accordingly, the process described herein will apply to bonds
for Grading and Drainage, Public Improvements, Habitat Restoration and Landscape and
Irrigation, but will not apply to Survey Monumentation bonds. Applicant may submit to
the City not more often than once every six months a detailed engineer’s estimate
identifying with respect to each bond the costs to complete the remaining improvements
secured by such bond (“Cost to Complete”). The City will review and approve or
disapprove the Costs to Complete, and if disapproved, Applicant may resubmit a modified
estimate of Cost to Complete for City review. Upon approval of the Costs to Complete by
the City, the amount of the applicable bond may be reduced to an amount equal to 110%
of the Costs to Complete. If approved by the City, the reduced amount will be
communicated to the bonding company in a letter. Based on the City’s communication,
the bonding company may issue a bond reduction rider to reduce the principal amount of
Page 1380 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
Page 33 December 2023
the bond to the reduced amount approved by the City. However, the bond amount may
never be reduced by this process to less than 15% of the original estimate of the costs of
the applicable improvements.
Page 1381 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Affordable Housing Program
APPENDIX H
April 2024
PREPARED FOR:
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Adopted on December 2, 2014
By Resolution No. 2014-235
Amended XX
By Resolution No. XX
Page 1382 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 1383 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1 September 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 1
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
A. Purpose and Content ......................................................................................................... 1
B. Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1
II. VILLAGE 8 East AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION, LOCATION,
PHASING, DESIGN AND UNIT MIX ............................................................................... 3
A. Obligation ......................................................................................................................... 3
B. Types of Affordable Housing ........................................................................................... 4
C. Location ............................................................................................................................ 4
D. Phasing ............................................................................................................................. 5
E. Design ............................................................................................................................... 6
F. Unit Mix by Bedroom Count ............................................................................................ 6
G. Senior Housing ................................................................................................................. 6
III. AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS .................................................................... 8
A. Income Eligibility ............................................................................................................. 8
B. Affordable Housing Costs ................................................................................................ 8
C. Underwriting Requirements ............................................................................................. 9
D. Term of Affordability and Resale Provisions of Owner-Occupied Housing .................... 9
E. Term of Affordability Restrictions of Rental Housing ................................................... 10
IV. SUBSIDIES, INCENTIVES AND FINANCING MECHANISMS .................................. 10
A. Density Bonus ................................................................................................................ 10
V. COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................................. 10
VI. AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PLAN ............................................................................. 11
VII. IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS AND CONDITIONS ............................................... 12
VIII. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 12
Page 1384 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 2 September 2023
EXHIBIT
1 Potential Affordable Housing Locations …………………..…………………….…… 7
Page 1385 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 1 December 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Content
The purpose and intent of this Affordable Housing Program (AHP) is to encourage
the development of diverse and balanced neighborhoods with a range of housing
opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including
households of lower and moderate income consistent with the City’s housing
policies and needs as specified in its General Plan Housing Element. The intent is
to ensure that when developing the limited supply of developable land, housing
opportunities for persons of all income levels are provided. The provisions of this
AHP establish standards and procedures that will encourage the development of
housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households within the Sectional
Planning Area (SPA).
The AHP identifies the type and location of affordable housing units to be provided,
potential subsidies or incentive programs, income restrictions and methods to verify
compliance. The program may be implemented through various mechanisms
including development agreements, tentative map conditions, and specific housing
project agreements that may include additional terms and conditions, consistent
with this program.
B. Needs Assessment
To encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and
moderate-income households and to further geographic and community balance,
the City’s adopted Housing Element provides for a Balanced Communities Policy,
requiring ten percent (10%) affordable housing for low- and moderate-income
households within developments of fifty (50) or more residential units. This
inclusionary housing program will serve as only one component of the City's
overall housing strategy and will complement other affordable housing efforts,
including preservation of existing assisted housing, development of new assisted
housing with public subsidies, first-time homebuyer assistance, and rehabilitation
loans for low-income homeowners. The City does find that such an inclusionary
housing policy is beneficial to increasing the supply of housing affordable to
households of lower and moderate-income incomes and to meet the City’s regional
share of housing needs given the demographics of the community and its needs,
past housing production performance, and the existing opportunities and
constraints as detailed in its Housing Element. The Balanced Communities
Policy is necessary to meet the objectives of State Housing Element law requiring
jurisdictions to affirmatively further fair housing by “taking meaningful actions
that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities" and
"address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity."
Page 1386 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 2 December 2023
The current characteristics of the City’s population, housing, employment, land
inventory, and economic conditions, which affect its housing goals, policies and
programs include:
• The population has more diversity in race/ethnicity than the region, in that
seventeen percent (17%) of the population is white (non-Hispanic) and sixty
percent (60%) is Hispanic (all races). This compares to - percent and - percent,
respectively, for the region as a whole.
• There is a disparity in household median income from west to east of I-805.
Forty-four percent (44%) of Chula Vista’s housing earn below the San Diego
Area median income with the majority of such households living west of
Interstate-805, with 12 percent of the households living below the federal
poverty line. The average household east of Interstate-805 earns above the San
Diego County median income of $74,855 (2017).
• Household size is slightly larger than the region, at 3.3 persons per household
compared to 2.8 per household for the region.
• Seniors, aged 62 years or older, comprise twelve percent (12%) of the total
households.
• Housing west of Interstate-805 was built primarily before 1980 (32% before
1960 and 50% between 1960-1980). Housing east of Interstate-805 was built
after 1980, with half of such housing built between 1980-2000.
• Housing types are diverse west of I-805, with 41% multifamily housing and
41% single family housing. Single family homes comprise the majority of
housing available east of I-805 (82% of housing).
• With single family homes dominating the landscape east of I-805, housing is
predominately owner occupied. West of I-805, housing is primarily renter
occupied.
• The median housing cost (resale) in December 2019 of single-family housing
is $660,000 for zip codes 91913-91915, $26,250 more than the region’s median
cost of $633,750 for resale single-family homes.
• The well-established neighborhoods and master planned neighborhoods create
different opportunities and require a different set of policies and programs to
address housing needs.
• The amount of land in the City available for new residential development is
severely limited by geography and size. The largest supply of vacant
developable land is planned for master planned communities.
• A high rate of new home construction is anticipated due to the many approved
master planned communities in the City.
Page 1387 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 3 December 2023
• Reinvestment in the well-established neighborhoods of Chula Vista continues
to be needed.
• The City’s diverse employment base will grow by more than 73% between 2008
and 2050, with the majority of growth in the retail, service and governmental
sectors.
• Based upon past production of housing, sufficient housing opportunities for
households with incomes at or below the Area Median Income have not been
provided.
• Despite substantial investments of Federal HOME funds and funding from the
Redevelopment Agency's Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund
(prior to the dissolution of Redevelopment), the City has not been able to
produce all the units called for in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
Chula Vista faces a growing shortage of housing that is affordable to a wide range
of our population and needed for a healthy functioning housing market. This lack
of affordable housing is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City’s
residents. Employees may be forced to live in less than adequate housing within
the City, pay a disproportionate share of their incomes to live in adequate housing
within the City or commute increasing distances to their jobs from housing located
outside the City. The City’s Balanced Communities Policy can enhance the public
welfare by increasing the supply of housing affordable to households of lower and
moderate-income incomes in a balanced manner and thereby combating the adverse
effects to the City due to an insufficient supply of affordable housing.
II. VILLAGE 8 East AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION, LOCATION,
PHASING, DESIGN AND UNIT MIX
A. Obligation
The City of Chula Vista Housing Element, Guidelines to the Balanced
Communities Policy, and the Otay Ranch GDP provide that ten percent of the total
units will be affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Of the ten
percent, five percent must be affordable to low-income households and five percent
must be affordable to moderate income households. In calculating the required
number of affordable units, fractional units shall be rounded up to one additional
affordable unit or paid as a partial in-lieu fee equal to the resulting fraction.
The estimated Village 8 East affordable housing unit obligation is based on the
Village 8 East SPA entitlement authorization of 3,276 units within Village 8 East.
The affordable units required for Village 8 East are approximately 164 low-income
affordable units and 164 moderate-income affordable units.
In addition to the Village 8 East affordable housing unit obligation, there is an
additional obligation to provide 68 moderate-income housing units pursuant to the
Page 1388 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 4 December 2023
Village 8 West Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement recorded
on December 4, 2020, as Document No. 2020-0776213 and an additional 19 low-
income affordable housing units and 19 moderate-income housing units, pursuant
to the Village 8 East Transfer Agreement recorded on June 30, 2023, as Document
No. 2023-0171698. The total affordable housing unit obligation to be satisfied
within Village 8 East is:
Affordable Housing Units
Reference Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income Total
Village 8 East Affordable Housing
Program
164 164 328
Village 8 West Balanced Communities
Affordable Housing Agreement
68 68
Village 8 East Transfer Agreement 19 19 38
TOTAL 183 251 434
B. Types of Affordable Housing
The housing policies established in the City of Chula Vista Housing Element
advocate a broad variety and diversity of housing types. The affordable housing
obligations of Village 8 East will be met through a combination of housing types
including rental and “for-sale” housing. In general, low-income housing needs will
be satisfied through the provision of rental units. Depending upon the availability
of adequate subsidies, incentives or other financing assistance, a limited number of
“for-sale” multi-family housing units affordable to low-income households may be
available as well.
While Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) may provide for housing at a lower cost,
ADUs shall not be used for satisfaction of the Balanced Communities affordable
housing obligation. Given the significant need for rental housing opportunities for
lower income households, particularly with larger households, ADUs provide a
limited benefit in addressing this need.
Housing opportunities to meet the needs of moderate-income households will be
provided through a combination of rental units as well as “for-sale” housing in
medium-high to higher density developments.
C. Location
The location of affordable housing developments shall take into consideration
Page 1389 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 5 December 2023
proximity to and availability of the following:
▪ Existing or proposed public transit facilities or transportation routes;
▪ Existing or proposed community facilities and services, such as shopping,
medical, child care, recreation areas and schools; and
▪ Existing or future employment opportunities.
Affordable housing sites within Village 8 East are designated as multifamily and/or
mixed-use development sites, as depicted in Exhibit 1: Potential Affordable
Housing Locations. These sites are in close proximity to parks, schools, public
transportation, retail commercial and community purpose facilities.
Identification of potential target sites in this Affordable Housing Program describes
one way in which the Village 8 East affordable housing obligation might be met and
is not meant to require that affordable units be constructed on any specific sites or
to preclude other alternatives. A final determination as to the location and type of
the affordable housing sites will occur with subsequent entitlements, approvals and
agreements and shall comply with the City’s goals, policies and programs contained
within the General Plan, the Balanced Communities Policy Guidelines and the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP).
D. Phasing
Development of Village 8 East will be completed in multiple phases to ensure
construction of necessary infrastructure and amenities for each phase as the project
progresses. The Phasing Plan is non-sequential. This recognizes that sequential
phasing is frequently inaccurate due to unforeseen market changes or regulatory
constraints. Therefore, the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Public Facilities Finance
Plan (PFFP) permits non-sequential phasing by imposing specific facilities
requirements for each phase to ensure that Village 8 East is adequately served, and
City threshold standards are met.
A phased approach will also be used to ensure the implementation and production
of low and moderate-income housing units commensurate with the phasing of
market rate residential units within Village 8 East. Phasing of the low- and
moderate-income units in Village 8 East is designed to link progress toward the
production of such housing to the continued entitlement and development process
for the Village 8 East SPA Area. The first or “Initial Phase” for construction of
the low and moderate-income housing units shall be comprised of 60% of the total
number of qualified low and moderate-income housing units and shall commence
construction prior to the issuance by the City of the 1,966th production building
permit within Village 8 East ("Initial Phase"). Construction of the remaining
number of required low and moderate-income housing units shall commence prior
to the City's issuance of the 3,276th production building permit ("Final Phase"). A
detailed implementation schedule and building permit stipulations for the
Page 1390 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 6 December 2023
construction and delivery of affordable units in relation to other market rate units
will be established through an Affordable Housing Agreement. Such Agreement
will be executed prior to the issuance of the first Final Subdivision Map and
recorded against the entire Village.
E. Design
Affordable housing shall be compatible with the design and use of the market rate
units, in terms of appearance, materials, and finish quality. The Developer shall
have the option of reducing the interior amenities, levels and square footage of the
affordable units.
F. Unit Mix by Bedroom Count
The affordable units shall have an overall unit mix by bedroom count which reflects
the appropriate community need and shall be comparable to the unit mix by
bedroom count of the market rate units in the residential development. Given that
21 percent of the households in Chula Vista (according to the 2010 Census) are
large families of five persons or more and a desire on the part of the City to provide
housing opportunities for these families throughout the City, a minimum of twenty
percent (20%) of the affordable units shall have three or more bedrooms.
Affordable housing to be sold and occupied by income eligible households (for sale
units) shall also provide a minimum of two bedrooms.
G. Senior Housing
Satisfaction of the affordable housing obligation through the provision of housing
for senior citizens as defined by Section 51.3 of the California Civil Code, is at the
sole discretion of the City of Chula Vista. The City shall consider such housing in
relation to the priority needs of the City’s low-income housing population and
should such provide advantages as to location, diversity of housing types, and/or
affordability levels. Senior housing is exempt from requirements to provide three
or more-bedroom units.
Page 1391 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 7 December 2023
Exhibit 1: Potential Affordable Housing Locations
Page 1392 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 8 December 2023
III. AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS
A. Income Eligibility
To determine the eligibility of a household for the low, very low, or moderate-
income housing unit, the household purchasing or renting the affordable unit must
qualify as a Very Low Income Household, Low Income Household, or Moderate
Income Household, as defined below.
B. Affordable Rents and Affordable Housing Costs
The allowable housing expense paid by a qualifying household shall not exceed a
specified fraction of the gross monthly income, adjusted for household size, for the
following classes of housing:
1. Very low-income, rental and for-sale units: 30 percent of the gross monthly
income, adjusted for household size, at 50 percent of the Area Median Income
(AMI) for San Diego County, in accordance with Section 50053 (b)(3) and
50052.5 (b)(2) of the California Health and Safety Code. For projects that are
subject to a regulatory agreement in connection with Subsidized Financing,
the City, in its sole discretion, may allow an alternate formula for calculation
of affordable rent in accordance with such regulations.
2. Lower-income, rental units: 30 percent of the gross monthly income, adjusted
for household size, at 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) for San
Diego County, in accordance with Section 50053 (b)(4) of the California
Health and Safety Code. For projects that are subject to a regulatory
agreement in connection with Subsidized Financing, the City, in its sole
discretion, may allow an alternate formula for calculation of affordable rent
in accordance with such regulations.
3. Lower-income, for-sale units: 30 percent of the gross monthly income,
adjusted for household size, at 70 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)
for San Diego County in accordance with Section 50052.5 (b) (3) of the
California Health and Safety Code.
4. Moderate-income, rental units: 30 percent of the gross monthly income,
adjusted for household size, at 110 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)
for San Diego County, in accordance Section 50053 (b)(5) of the California
Health and Safety Code.
5. Moderate-income, for-sale units: 35 percent of the gross monthly income,
adjusted for household size, at 110 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)
for San Diego County, in accordance with Section 50052.5 (b)(4) of the
California Health and Safety Code.
To determine the “Allowable housing expense” include all of the actual or projected
monthly or annual recurring expenses required of a household to obtain shelter.
Page 1393 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 9 December 2023
1. For a for-sale unit, allowable housing expenses include payments for principal
and interest on a mortgage loan, including any loan insurance fees, property
taxes and assessments, fire and casualty insurance, homeowner association
fees, and a reasonable allowance for utilities, or as defined in 25 California
Code of Regulations Section 6920.
2. For a rental unit, allowable housing expenses include payments for rent and a
reasonable allowance for utilities, or as defined in 25 California Code of
Regulations Section 6918.
C. Underwriting Requirements
To ensure the preservation of affordability of proposed low and moderate-income
housing and financial viability of program participants, the City shall encourage the
following policies:
• Fixed rate mortgages only. No adjustable rate mortgages;
• Affordable monthly housing payments no more than 30 percent of household
income (“Front End Ratio”);
• Total debt payments no more than 45 percent of household income (“Back End
Ratio”);
• No “teaser” rates; and,
• No non-occupant co-borrowers.
D. Term of Affordability and Resale Provisions of Owner-Occupied Housing
In order to ensure the continued affordability of the units, resale of the units must
be restricted for the required term of forty-five (45) years and shall comply with
City of Chula Vista Council Policy 453-02, Development of Affordable for Sale
Housing for Low- and Moderate-Income Buyers, as it may be amended by the
Chula Vista City Council from time to time. After initial sale of the affordable units
to a low-income household, all subsequent buyers of such units must also be income
eligible and the unit must be sold at an affordable price. A developer may opt to
have no income or sales price restriction for subsequent buyers, provided however
that restrictions to the satisfaction of the City are in place that would result in the
recapture by the City or its designee of a financial interest in the units equal to the
amount of subsidy necessary to make the unit affordable to a low-income household
and a proportionate share of any equity. Funds recaptured by the City shall be used
to provide assistance to other identified affordable housing production or
contributions to a special needs housing project or program. To the extent possible,
projects using for-sale units to satisfy the obligations of developers under the City’s
Affordable Housing Program shall be designed to be compatible with conventional
mortgage financing programs including secondary market requirements.
Page 1394 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 10 December 2023
E. Term of Affordability Restrictions of Rental Housing
The term of the affordability restrictions for rental projects shall be fifty-five years
(55) years from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the first structure
providing income and rent restricted units, consistent with required terms under
State housing programs, or the longest period of time if required by the construction
or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental
financing subsidy or incentive program.
IV. SUBSIDIES, INCENTIVES AND FINANCING MECHANISMS
The obligation to provide affordable housing shall not be dependent upon the
availability of subsidies, incentives or financing mechanisms. The City shall
consider providing incentives, assistance, and subsidies to those qualifying projects
and supporting any applications for assistance that requires approvals from, or
allocations by other agencies, to the extent feasible, in a manner that offsets the cost
of providing for affordable units. Offsets will be offered by the City to the extent
that resources and programs for this purpose are available to the City and to the
extent that the qualifying projects, with the use of the offsets, assist in achieving
the City’s housing goals. To the degree such offsets are available, the Developer
may make application to the City. The City agrees to use its reasonable best efforts
to assist the Developer in pursuing the benefit of certain financing mechanisms,
subsidies and other incentives to facilitate provision of affordable housing for
Village 8 East. These mechanisms include, but are not limited to, local, state and
federal subsidies and City density bonuses, planning, and design and development
techniques and standards, and City fee waivers or deferrals which reduce the cost
of providing affordable housing (collectively, the “Cost Reducing Mechanisms”).
The parties acknowledge that the City is not hereby committing, directly or through
implication, a right to receive any offsets from City or any other party or agency to
enable the Developer to meet the obligations and cannot guarantee the availability
of any Cost Reducing Mechanisms to the Developer for Village 8 East. The City
reserves the right to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove, in its sole
discretion, any Developer request for subsidized financing sponsored by the City.
A. Density Bonus
Projects that meet the applicable requirements of State law (Government Code
Section 65915) as a result of affordable housing units, are entitled to a density bonus
or other incentives in accordance with the provisions of such law.
V. COMPLIANCE
Terms related to occupancy and affordability restrictions shall be recorded as a
separate deed restriction or regulatory agreement, along with a deed of trust, solely
on the property designated for the affordable units and shall bind all future owners
and successors in interest for the term of years specified therein.
Page 1395 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 11 December 2023
The City shall monitor affordable units for compliance with those terms and
conditions of all relevant Affordable Housing Agreements or other restrictions.
The Developer shall submit compliance reports in the frequency and manner
prescribed by the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department.
VI. AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PLAN
The Developer shall provide a marketing plan acceptable to the City, in the City’s
reasonable discretion, for proactively marketing the low- and moderate-income
housing units to low- and moderate-income tenants and purchasers. Developer shall
use good faith and reasonable best efforts to market the low- and moderate-income
housing units to low- and moderate-income tenants and purchasers according to the
affirmative marketing plan. The City will use good faith and reasonable best efforts
to assist the Developer in marketing low- and moderate-income housing units to
low- and moderate-income tenants and purchasers obtaining the services of a third-
party organization in connection with such marketing efforts, processing the
applications of prospective tenants and purchasers of low- and moderate-income
housing units, and complying with the reporting requirements as required herein.
Selection of tenants shall be made randomly by lottery within the following levels
of priority, subject in all circumstances to applicable limitations imposed by law,
including, without limitation, the Fair Housing Act under Federal law:
A. Priority. Households which are displaced from their primary residence as a
result of an action of City or Agency, a condominium conversion involving the
household’s residence, expiration of affordable housing covenants applicable
to such residence, or closure of a mobile home or trailer park community in
which the household’s residence was located, and the household resided in such
housing as the household’s primary place of residence for at least two years
prior to such action or event.
B. Second Priority. Households which meet one of the following criteria: (i)
households which are displaced from their primary residence as a result of an
action of City or Agency, a condominium conversion involving the household’s
residence, expiration of affordable housing covenants applicable to such
residence, or closure of a mobile home or trailer park community in which the
household’s residence was located, and the household resided in such housing
as the household’s primary place of residence for at least one year but less than
two years prior to such action or event; (ii) households with at least one member
who resides within the City, as that person’s primary place of residence; (iii)
households with at least one member who works or has been hired to work
within the City, as that person’s principal place of full-time employment; or (iv)
households with at least one member who is expected to live within the City as
a result of a bona fide offer of employment within the City.
Page 1396 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 12 December 2023
C. Third Priority. Other Low-Income Households who do not meet the criteria
for first priority or second priority above.
VII. IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS AND CONDITIONS
This AHP may be implemented through various mechanisms including
development agreements, tentative map conditions, and specific housing project
agreements that may impose additional terms and conditions consistent herewith.
VIII. DEFINITIONS
Affirmative Marketing Plan
An outline that details actions the Developer will take to provide information and
otherwise attract eligible persons in the housing market area to the available
housing without regard to race, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, familiar
status, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, handicap, age, or any other category
which may be defined by the law now or in the future.
Low Income Household
Low Income Household has the meaning set forth in California Health and Safety
Code Section 50079.5 for “Lower income households”. Maximum incomes for
Low Income households shall be as published annually by HUD for San Diego
County.
Moderate Income Household
Moderate Income Household has the meaning set forth in California Health and
Safety Code Section 50093 for “Persons and families of low or moderate income”.
Maximum incomes for Moderate Income households shall be as published annually
by HUD for San Diego County.
Very Low Income Household
Very Low Income Household has the meaning set forth in California Health and
Safety Code Section 50105. Maximum incomes for Very Low Income Households
shall be as published annually by HUD for San Diego County.
San Diego Area Median Income
The San Diego County area median income level as determined from time to time
by HUD, adjusted for household size.
Subsidized Financing
Any financing provided by any public agency specifically for the development and
construction of low- or moderate-income housing units, including but not limited
to, the following:
• Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) – statewide competition;
Page 1397 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Affordable Housing Program
Page 13 December 2023
• Housing Bonds – State;
• Housing Bonds – City of Chula Vista;
• HOME – City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego;
• Community Development Block Grants – City of Chula Vista;
• California Department of Housing and Community Development funds – State; and,
• Other Public Financing – State and Federal.
Page 1398 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Air Quality Improvement Plan
April 2024
Adopted on December 2, 2014
By Resolution No. 2014-135
Amended __________
By Resolution No. ______________
Prepared for:
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 1399 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Prepared by
WHA, Inc.
680 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949)-250-0607
Contact: Julia Malisos
Page 1400 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page i December 2023
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
A. Intent of the AQIP ................................................................................................................................ 3
B. Community Site Design Goals ............................................................................................................. 3
C. Planning Features ................................................................................................................................. 4
D. Modeled Effectiveness of Community Design .................................................................................... 6
2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8
A. Need for a Qualitative Air Quality Plan ............................................................................................... 8
B. Purpose and Goals ................................................................................................................................ 8
C. Regulatory Framework Related to Air Quality .................................................................................... 9
1. Federal ................................................................................................................................................. 10
2. State of California ................................................................................................................................ 13
3. Regional ............................................................................................................................................... 17
4. City of Chula Vista .............................................................................................................................. 19
3. Village 8 East SPA Amendment Project Description .......................................................................... 21
4. Effect of Project on Local/Regional Air Quality ................................................................................. 25
5. Quantitative Project Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 37
6. Community Design and Site Planning Features .................................................................................. 53
7. Chula Vista CO2 Reduction Plan ......................................................................................................... 57
8. Credit Towards Increased Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards .................................................... 60
9. Compliance Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 60
List of Figures
Figure 1: Proposed Site Utilization Plan.................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2: Proposed Bicycle Circulation Plan ........................................................................................... 49
Figure 3: Proposed Transit Plan .............................................................................................................. 50
Figure 4: Proposed Pedestrian Circulation Plan ...................................................................................... 51
Figure 5: Steep Slopes ............................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 6: Development Standards ........................................................................................................... 53
Page 1401 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page ii December 2023
List of Tables
Table 1: Chula Vista CO2 Index Model Results – Village 8 .................................................................... 7
Table 2: Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality Impacts.................................................................. 10
Table 3: Ambient Air Quality Standards Matrix ..................................................................................... 12
Table 4: San Diego County Attainment Status ........................................................................................ 13
Table 5: Village 8 East Proposed Land Use Summary ........................................................................... 23
Table 6: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
Villages Three /Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten .............................................................................. 26
Table 7: Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions – 2030 (pounds/day)
Villages Three /Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten .............................................................................. 31
Table 8: Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons/year)
Villages Three /Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten .............................................................................. 33
Table 9: Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons/year)
Villages Three /Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten .............................................................................. 36
Table 10: LEED Neighborhood Development Plan Village 8 East Equivalency Analysis ..................... 37
Table 11: Community Design and Site Planning Features ...................................................................... 56
Table 12: Summary of Village 8 East Consistency with CO2 Reduction Action Measures .................... 57
Table 13: Village 8 East Air Quality Improvement Plan Compliance Checklist .................................... 60
Page 1402 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 3 December 2023
1. Executive Summary
A. Intent of the Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP)
This AQIP provides an analysis of air pollution impacts which would result from the proposed
development and demonstrates the best available design to reduce vehicle trips, maintain or
improve traffic flow, reduce vehicle miles traveled and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) direct or
indirect emissions. This AQIP demonstrates how Village 8 East has been designed consistent with
the City of Chula Vista’s Energy and Water Conservation regulations (Chula Vista Municipal
Code §20.04) and Landscape Water Conservation regulations (CVMC 20.12) and represents the
best available design in terms of improving energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions. GHG
emissions include gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
These emissions occur naturally and are produced by human activities, such as by automobile
emissions and emissions from production of electricity, to provide power to homes and businesses.
These gases prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere, while allowing in sunlight, which
has the effect of warming the air temperature.
Applicable action measures contained in the City’s CO2 Reduction Plan and specific measures for
the Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment (“proposed project” being
evaluated herein) are addressed.
B. Community Site Design Goals
Village 8 East is part of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). The GDP is a “general
plan level” document that was jointly prepared and adopted by the County of San Diego and the
City of Chula Vista. Although produced similar to a General Plan, the GDP is not part of the Chula
Vista General Plan but is consistent with it.
A central component of the Otay Ranch GDP is the “village” concept. Each village is
approximately one square mile and is defined by a village core. Village cores consist of facilities
and services needed to serve the everyday needs of its residents. Such uses include a school, shops,
parks, and civic facilities. The highest density residential uses occur in and around the core in the
form of mixed-use housing and retail as well as high-density attached homes. Residential densities
decrease near the outer edges of each village to provide diversity in housing and serve a wide range
of lifestyles and economic levels within each village. Most village cores are served by transit.
Higher residential densities at the core are intended to support commercial uses by activating the
village core during all hours of the day and promote more walkable communities by providing
facilities and services within a quarter mile of most homes. The village concept also promotes
more efficient public transit and increased ridership by providing strong activity centers in each
village and making transit close and convenient for most residents.
Village 8 East complies with the “village” concept and design goals. It is composed of 570 acres
and is located south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley, east of Village
8 West and west of State Route (SR) 125.
The proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include a Village Core mixed-use area that
Page 1403 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 4 December 2023
would accommodate multi-family residential uses, retail/commercial uses and an elementary
school. The Village Core also includes a centrally located 7.3-acre neighborhood park. A future
multi-modal bridge is planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and future Village 9. The
multi-use bridge is planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), bicycle and
pedestrian uses.
The approved (2014) land use plan for Village Eight East would allow for the construction of a
total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440
multi-family units, 20,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial; 10.3 acres for an elementary
school; a 7.3 acre neighborhood park, 51.5-acre Otay Ranch Community Park South, 4.2 acres of
Community-Purpose Facilities (CPF); and 33.8 acres of open space (Figure 1). Access to the
village is provided via the extension of Main Street and Otay Valley Road with emergency and
pedestrian access to the community park provided along a utility corridor in the southeast portion
of Village 8 East.
The Proposed Project includes 3,276 residential units, 20,000 square feet of commercial uses, a
7.3 acre neighborhood park, an 11.3-acre elementary school site, 253.6 acres of Preserve Open
Space, 16.41 acres of manufactured slopes/basins, and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11)
located east of SR-125. The 43.3-acre Otay Ranch Community Park South is located south of
Village 8 East. An existing water quality basin that serves Village 8 West is located in the western
portion of the community park and the proposed project includes an additional detention basin in
the eastern portion of the community park to serve Village 8 East.
The amendment is seeking approval to modify the Village 8 East land use plan to reflect current
market conditions and housing needs and to ensure the community relates more closely to the
adjacent Village 8 West community and future Village 9 planned east of SR-125. The replanning
effort also addresses the redesign of the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and La Media
Parkway.
C. Planning Features
The Village 8 East land use and circulation pattern is designed to reflect traditional town planning
principles including the pedestrian and transit-oriented village concept described in the Otay
Ranch GDP. This village concept intensifies residential densities and commercial uses to enhance
transit use, promote walkability, and create vibrant commercial and public spaces that promote
social interaction and a strong community identity. The variety of proposed residential,
educational, commercial, and community uses are intended to provide a mixed-use environment
that serves the needs of residents and employees.
1 A portion of the Edge Trail and associated overlook features (approximately 1.76 acres) are included within the
8.2-acre OS-7 parcel. The Edge Trail area shall be secured with a public access easement and the 1.76 acres shall
satisfy a portion of the Village 8 East park obligation. The 1.76 -acre Edge Trail area is not counted toward meeting
the Village 8 East open space requirement.
Page 1404 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 5 December 2023
Village Core
Village 8 East concentrates multi-family housing, mixed-use commercial, community purpose,
school and neighborhood park uses in and around a centrally located village core. A network of
pedestrian and bicycle circulation routes planned throughout the village connect to the village core.
Housing Intensity
Higher density residential uses are located within Village 8 East creating opportunities for
synergistic land use relationships and access to the planned public transit. The residential density
being proposed in Village 8 East will increase ridership opportunities for such transit use. A transit
stop may be provided along Main Street to serve village residents and visitors, enabling access to
the regional transportation network.
Street Widths, Pavement and Street Trees
Otay Ranch street sections are narrower than typical standards which reduces asphalt pavement
and the “urban heat-island effect” by limiting the amount of reflective surfaces. Street trees provide
shade which further reduces heat-gain.
Public Transportation
Local bus service is planned along Main Street, adjacent to Village 8 East. Transit facilities are
intended to reduce the public’s dependence upon the automobile to help alleviate traffic
congestion. The provision of transit facilities is also an action measure of the City’s CO2
Reduction Plan. Currently, two percent of trips are conducted on public transit in the region. An
increase in transit use can be fostered through the location of higher-density housing near transit,
site design with transit orientation and enhanced pedestrian access to transit. The land use and
circulation plan for the SPA Plan Area incorporates transit-oriented design.
Alternative Travel Modes
In Village 8 East, the Village Pathway and Promenade Trails allow for bicycle and pedestrian use
throughout the Village and connect to the City’s Regional Trail network and adjacent
communities. In addition, a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) network is planned within
Village 8 East to further encourage alternative travel modes.
Building and Design Features
Village 8 East incorporates several features into the site design that promote alternative
transportation use, reduce traffic congestion, encourage energy efficiency, and reduce area source
pollutants. These measures include the following:
• Foster development patterns which promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl.
• Establish an urban pedestrian-oriented village with a village core designed to reduce
reliance on automobiles.
• Promote multi-modal transportation, including walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
• Establish multi-use trail linkages to the regional trail network and adjacent communities.
Page 1405 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 6 December 2023
• Promote synergistic uses to balance activities, services and facilities with employment,
housing, transit, and commercial opportunities.
The last cycle of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24, went into effect on January 1,
2020 (2019 Code). This includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing, as
well as Energy and Green Building (CalGreen) Codes. However, construction within Village 8
East will be subject to the 2022 California Building Code (effective as of January 1, 2023) or future
cycles effective at the time when project implementation occurs.
The 2022 Building Code has an even greater emphasis on decarbonization, requiring capabilities
for electric appliances as well as provisions for photovoltaic systems, battery storage, and electric
vehicles. Therefore, future construction within Village 8 East will by design, continue to work
towards consistency with Chula Vista’s Energy and Water Conservation regulations (CVMC
§20.04) and Landscape Water Conservation regulations (CVMC §20.12) and represents code
compliance in terms of energy efficiency and GHG emissions reductions.
D. Modeled Effectiveness of Community Design
The City of Chula Vista previously used the INDEX CO2 model requirements. This tool is no
longer used. Therefore, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - Neighborhood
Development Version 4.0 (LEED-ND v4.0) checklist is being utilized as an analytical tool for
sustainable design. The 2014 approved AQIP prepared for Village 8 East did include a CO2 Index
Model for the proposed project which is provided for reference. Please refer to Table 1: Chula
Vista CO2 Index Model Results – Village 8 East.
A LEED-ND Equivalency Analysis has been prepared to study various design features within
Village 8 East for the Village 8 East SPA Amendment. Please refer to Table 10, LEED
Neighborhood Development Plan Village 8 East Equivalency Analysis.
Page 1406 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 7 December 2023
Table 1: Chula Vista CO2 Index Model Results – Village 8 East
Element Indicator Units Threshold
Score
SPA Plan
Score
Compliance
Status (Y/N)
Land Use
Use Mix 0-1 scale 0.1 0.14 Yes
Use Balance 0-1 scale 0.6 0.71 Yes
Neighborhood
Completeness
% of key uses 60 60 Yes
Housing
School Proximity to
Housing
Average walking
feet to closest 3,200 2,328 Yes
Transit Proximity to
Housing
Average walking
feet to closest stop 2,900 1,096 Yes
Employment Transit Proximity to
Employment
Average walking
feet to closest stop 2,600 673 Yes
Recreation Park Proximity to Housing Average walking
feet to closest park 1,700 1,340 Yes
Travel
Internal Street Connectivity cul-de-sac 0.7 0.79 Yes
Intersection Density Intersections/Square
Mile 210 196 No*
Pedestrian Network
Coverage
% of streets
w/sidewalks 81 86.0 Yes
Residential Multi-Modal
Access
% Dwelling Units
w/3+ modes w/in
1/8mi
40 91.7 Yes
Daily Auto Driving (3Ds
Methodology)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled/capita/day 22 21.72 Yes
Daily Auto Driving Inputs
Density 9,692 22,609
Diversity .18 0.06
Design 3.57 3.96
Street Network
Density 17.57 22.50
Pedestrian Network
Coverage 96.00 86.00
Street Route
Directness 1.73 1.45
Climate
Change
Residential Building
Energy Use MMBtu/yr/capita 29 23.9 Yes
Non-Residential Building
Energy Use
1M British Thermal
Units -/year /emp 19 9.2 Yes
Residential Building CO2
Emissions Pounds /capita/yr 4,800 3,932 Yes
Non-Residential Building
CO2 Emissions lbs/emp/yr 2,100 1,506 Yes
*Anticipated that multi-family sites will provide internal circulation which will achieve the Threshold Score.
Page 1407 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 8 December 2023
2. Introduction
A. Need for a Qualitative Air Quality Plan
Preparation of a project specific AQIP is required to accompany SPA Plans, pursuant to CVMC
19.92.030. The AQIP addresses compliance with the air quality standards and policies of the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District (“APCD”). The CVMC requires that no application
for a SPA Plan or Tentative Map shall be deemed complete or accepted for review unless an AQIP
is provided and approved as part of the approval of the SPA Plan or Tentative Map by the City.
This AQIP will serve to implement several of the key aspects of the City’s CO2 Reduction Plan as
well as reflect the City’s Green Building Standards (CVMC §15.12) and Energy Code (CVMC
§15.26) for the development of Village 8 East. A detailed discussion on project compliance with
the City’s standards for sustainable development is provided in the following sections.
B. Purpose and Goals
The purpose of the AQIP is to provide an analysis of air pollution impacts that would result from
development of Village 8 East and to demonstrate how the village’s design reduces vehicle trips,
maintains or improves traffic flow, reduces vehicle miles traveled, reduces direct or indirect
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and minimizes pollutant emissions during construction per
regulations. This AQIP also demonstrates how Village 8 East has been designed consistent with
the City’s requirements including the City’s CO2 Reduction Plan, and Green Building and Energy
Standards.
The goal and objectives provided in CVMC Chapter 19.92.030) include the following:
Goal: To maintain and improve the ambient air quality enjoyed by the residents of Chula
Vista.
Objectives.
• In an effort to address the impacts of transportation and building-related energy use at
both the regional and local level, the City shall endeavor to implement applicable air
quality improvement strategies and programs that meet or exceed those established
through the current adopted Regional Air Quality Strategy (“RAQS”), California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2005 (AB32), and the Chula Vista Climate
Protection Program
• In an effort to maintain and improve ambient air quality, the City shall endeavor to
locally mitigate any new stationary source development project’s criteria air pollutant
emissions that exceed local air quality standards.
The AQIP has been prepared based on the best available design practices and also serves to
implement several of the key aspects of the City’s Climate Action Plan and Municipal Code.
Page 1408 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 9 December 2023
C. Regulatory Framework Related to Air Quality
There are a number of actions that federal, state, and local jurisdictions have taken to improve air
quality, increase energy efficiency, and reduce GHG emissions. This section summarizes those
actions.
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare
of the public. The subject pollutants monitored by the EPA include the following:
• Carbon Monoxide (CO),
• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2),
• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),
• Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
• Ozone (O3),
• Respirable 10- and 2.5-micron particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5),
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC),
• Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG),
• Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S),
• Sulfates,
• Lead (Pb),
• Vinyl Chloride, and
• Visibility reducing particles (VRP).
The EPA has established ambient air quality standards for these pollutants. These standards are
called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) subsequently established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS). Both sets of standards are shown in Table 3: Ambient Air Quality Standards Matrix.
Areas in California where ambient air concentrations of pollutants are higher than the state
standard are considered to be in “non-attainment” status for that pollutant.
Regulation of air emissions from non-mobile sources within San Diego County has been delegated
to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). As part of its air quality permitting
process, the APCD has established thresholds for the preparation of Air Quality Impact
Assessments (AQIAs) and/or Air Quality Conformity Assessments (AQCAs). APCD has also
established an “emissions budget” or Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the San Diego Air
Basin. This budget considers existing conditions, planned growth based on General Plans for cities
within the region, and air quality control measures implemented by the APCD. The project site
lies within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SDAQMD);
applicable standards are shown in Table 2: Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality Impacts.
Page 1409 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 10 December 2023
Table 2: Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality Impacts
1. Federal
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants identified by the EPA to
be of concern with respect to health and welfare of the general public. The EPA is responsible for
enforcing the Federal CAA of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 Amendments. The CAA required the
EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which identify
concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on the public health
and welfare are anticipated. In response, the EPA established both primary and secondary
standards for several criteria pollutants, which are introduced above. Table 3: Ambient Air Quality
Standards Matrix shows the federal and state ambient air quality standards for these pollutants.
The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided they
are at least as stringent as federal standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the six
criteria pollutants through the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), and also has established
CAAQS for additional pollutants, including sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride, and
visibility-reducing particles. Areas that do not meet the NAAQS or the CAAQS for a particular
pollutant are considered to be “nonattainment areas” for that pollutant. On April 30, 2012, the San
Diego Air Basin (SDAB) was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 8-hour NAAQS
for ozone. The SDAB is an attainment area under the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants. The
SDAB currently falls under a national “maintenance plan” for CO, following a 1998 re-designation
as a CO attainment area (SDAPCD 2010). The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment
area under the CAAQS for ozone (serious nonattainment), PM10, and PM2.5.
Page 1410 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 11 December 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that CO2 is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and that the EPA has
the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The EPA announced that GHGs (including CO2,
CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.
This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s GHG emissions standards for light -duty
vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the EPA and the United States Department of
Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The standards were
established on April 1, 2010, for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles and on October 15, 2012,
for 2017 through 2025 model year vehicles (EPA 2011; EPA and NHTSA 2012).
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards
The EPA and the NHTSA have been working together on developing a national program of
regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. The
EPA is finalizing the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and the NHTSA
is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking
that established standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. This was followed up on
October 15, 2012, when the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years
2017 through 2025. The rules require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average
emissions level of 250 grams per mile by 2016, decreasing to an average industry fleet-wide level
of 163 grams per mile in model year 2025. The 2016 standard is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon
(mpg), and the 2025 standard is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if the levels were achieved solely through
improvements in fuel efficiency. The agencies expect, however, that a portion of these
improvements will be made through improvements in air conditioning leakage and the use of
alternative refrigerants that would not contribute to fuel economy. These standards would cut GHG
emissions by an estimated 2 billion metric tons (MT) and 4 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime
of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2017–2025). The combined EPA GHG
standards and NHTSA CAFE standards resolve previously conflicting requirements under both
federal programs and the standards of the State of California and other states that have adopted the
California standards (EPA 2011; EPA and NHTSA 2012).
Page 1411 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 12 December 2023
Table 3: Ambient Air Quality Standards Matrix
Source: California Air Resources Board.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for the
administration and enforcement of air quality regulations for the County. The SDAPCD and San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing
the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB.
The County’s Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated
on a triennial basis. The most recent version of the RAQS is expected to be adopted in 2023. The
local RAQS, in combination with those from all other California nonattainment areas with serious
(or worse) air quality problems, is submitted to CARB, which develops the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop
Page 1412 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 13 December 2023
emission inventories and emission reduction strategies that are included in the attainment
demonstration for the air basin. The current federal and state attainment status for San Diego
County is presented in Table 4: San Diego County Attainment Status.
Table 4: San Diego County Attainment Status
Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation
Ozone (8-Hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone (1-Hour) Attainment * Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
PM10 Unclassifiable ** Nonattainment
PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Visibility No Federal Standard Unclassified
* The federal 1-hour standard of 12 pphm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked
standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is
addressed in State Implementation Plans.
** At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or
nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.
Source: Air Pollution Control District (https://www.sdapcd.org), April 2015.
As stated above, the SDAPCD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal
and state ambient standards. The following rules and regulations apply to all sources in the
jurisdiction of SDAPCD:
SDAPCD Regulation IV Prohibitions; Rule 51: Prohibits the discharge from any source such
quantities of air contaminants or other materials that cause or have a tendency to cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, annoyance to people and/or the public, or damage to any business or property.
SDAPCD Regulation IV Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust Regulates fugitive dust emissions
from any commercial construction or demolition activity capable of generating fugitive dust
emissions, including active operations, open storage piles, and inactive disturbed areas, as well as
track-out and carry-out onto paved roads beyond a project site.
SDAPCD Regulation IV Prohibitions; Rule 67.0: Architectural Coatings: Requires
manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to
reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC
content of various coating categories.
2. State of California
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a category of air pollutants that have been shown to have an
impact on human health but are not classified as criteria pollutants. Examples include certain
aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. Air toxics are generated by
Page 1413 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 14 December 2023
a number of sources, including stationary ones such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion
sources, and laboratories; mobile ones such as automobiles; and area sources such as farms,
landfills, construction sites, and residential areas. Adverse health effects of TACs can be
carcinogenic (cancer-causing), short-term (acute) noncarcinogenic, and long-term (chronic)
noncarcinogenic. Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in
California.
California’s air toxics control program began in 1983 with the passage of the Toxic Air
Contaminant Identification and Control Act, better known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 or the
Tanner Bill. When a compound becomes listed as a TAC under the Tanner process, the CARB
normally establishes minimum statewide emission control measures to be adopted by local air
pollution control districts (APCDs). Later legislative amendments (AB 2728) required the CARB
to incorporate all 189 federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) into the state list of TACs.
Supplementing the Tanner process, AB 2588 the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and
Assessment Act of 1987 currently regulates over 600 air compounds, including all of the Tanner-
designated TACs. Under AB 2588, specified facilities must quantify emissions of regulated air
toxics and report them to the local APCD. If the APCD determines that a potentially significant
public health risk is posed by a given facility, the facility is required to perform a health risk
assessment (HRA) and notify the public in the affected area if the calculated risks exceed specified
criteria.
On August 27, 1998, CARB formally identified PM emitted in both gaseous and particulate forms
by diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. The particles emitted by diesel engines are coated with
chemicals, many of which have been identified by the EPA as HAPs and by CARB as TACs.
CARB’s Scientific Advisory Committee has recommended a unit risk factor (URF) of 300 in 1
million over a 70-year exposure period for diesel particulate. In September 2000, the CARB
approved the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled
Engines and Vehicles (Diesel Risk Reduction Plan; CARB 2000). The Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
outlined a comprehensive and ambitious program that included the development of numerous new
control measures over the next several years aimed at substantially reducing emissions from new
and existing on-road vehicles (e.g., heavy-duty trucks and buses), off road equipment (e.g.,
graders, tractors, forklifts, sweepers, and boats), portable equipment (e.g., pumps), and stationary
engines (e.g., stand-by power generators). These requirements are now in force on a state-wide
basis.
California Greenhouse Gas Regulations
There are numerous State plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHGs and global climate
change. Following is a discussion of some of these plans, policies, and regulations that (1) establish
overall State policies and GHG reduction targets; (2) require State or local actions that result in
direct or indirect GHG emission reductions for the proposed Project; and (3) require CEQA
analysis of GHG emissions.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy-efficient buildings require less
Page 1414 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 15 December 2023
electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel
combustion (typically for water heating) results in GHG emissions.
The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and
possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest update to
the Title 24 standards occurred in 20 19 and went into effect in January 1, 2020. The newest code
update will go into effect on January 1, 20 23, with subsequent iterations expected in three-year
cycles that may be in -force at time of build-out. Each building that submits for permit will be
required to meet the prevailing code at the time of permit submission , at the sole discretion of
the authority having jurisdiction.
California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Part
11) is a code with mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings
(including buildings for retail, office, public schools and hospitals) throughout California. The
current version of the code went into effect on January 1, 2020. It is expected that Village 8 East
will be required to comply with the 2022 code cycle which goes into effect on January 1, 2023.
Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations, also known as the CalGreen Building Standards Code, is the other relevant code
section that focuses on energy efficiency, water conservation, and GHG reduction.
The development of the CalGreen Code is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions
from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live
and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the
Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more
efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after
construction.
The CalGreen Code contains requirements for storm water control during construction;
construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource
conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing
the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition.
The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all
building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their
maximum efficiency.
The CalGreen Code also focuses on Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure. Depending on what type
of use, EV requirements ranges from EV-capable to fully installed EV charging stations. As it
pertains to townhomes (less than 20 units) and single-family homes with attached private garages,
the 2022 CalGreen Code requires the garages to be EV-capable with the installation of raceways
to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. The 2022 CalGreen Code is more
stringent than the 2019 Code as it regards multi-family developments with more than 20 units not
using private garages. For this typology, a variety of EV infrastructure from EV Ready to fully
installed chargers are mandated.
Executive Order S-3-05
Page 1415 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 16 December 2023
On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate
change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra
Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea
levels. In an effort to avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in
GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that the
CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG
emissions. CARB is directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by
2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve
the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading
international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet
or exceed the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established
in AB 32. California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will
make it possible to reach the ultimate goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80
percent under 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 1493 – Vehicular Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
AB 1493 (Pavley) requires that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve “the maximum
feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles
determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation
in the State.” On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that
intend to reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The
amendments bind California’s enforcement of AB 1493 (starting in 2009), while providing vehicle
manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepare California to merge
its rules with the federal CAFE rules for passenger vehicles (CARB 2013). In January 2012, CARB
approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program
combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater
numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single packet of standards called Advanced Clean Cars
(CARB 2013).
AB 341
In 2011, the State legislature enacted AB 341 (California Public Resource Code § 42649.2),
increasing the diversion target to 75 percent statewide. AB 341 also requires the provision of
recycling service to commercial and residential facilities that generate four cubic yards or more of
solid waste per week.
Executive Order (EO) S-01-07
This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a statewide goal
be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10
percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation
Page 1416 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 17 December 2023
fuels be established for California and directs the CARB to determine whether a LCFS can be
adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a
discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. Although
challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s opinion and rejected arguments
that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. CARB is
therefore continuing to implement the LCFS statewide.
Senate Bill (SB) 375
SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and
affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt
a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative
Planning Strategy categorized as “transit priority projects” would receive incentives to streamline
CEQA processing.
CARB: Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, the CARB adopted the Scoping Plan (CARB 2008) as directed by AB 32.
The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California
to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related
to energy-efficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity
generation, regional transportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to transportation,
the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing vehicle miles
traveled and vehicle GHGs through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be
implemented statewide rather than on a project by project basis.
The CARB released the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan in May 2014, to provide
information on the development of measure-specific regulations and to adjust projections in
consideration of the economic recession (CARB 2014a). To determine the amount of GHG
emission reductions needed to achieve the goal of AB 32 (i.e., 1990 levels by 2020) CARB
developed a forecast of the AB 32 Baseline 2020 emissions, which is an estimate of the emissions
expected to occur in the year 2020 if none of the foreseeable measures included in the Scoping
Plan were implemented. CARB estimated the AB 32 Baseline 2020 to be 509 million metric tons
(MMT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The Scoping Plan’s current estimate of the necessary GHG
emission reductions is 78 MMT CO2e (CARB 2014b). This represents an approximately 15.32
percent reduction. The CARB is forecasting that this would be achieved through the following
reductions by sector: 25 MMT CO2e for energy, 23 MMT CO2e for transportation, 5 MMT CO2e
for high-GWP GHGs, and 2 MMT CO2e for waste. The remaining 23 MMT CO2e would be
achieved through Cap-and-Trade Program reductions. This reduction is flexible—if CARB
receives new information and changes the other sectors’ reductions to be less than expected, the
agency can increase the Cap-and-Trade reduction (and vice versa).
3. Regional
SANDAG Regional Plan
The Regional Plan (RP) (SANDAG 2021) is the currently approved long-range planning document
developed to address the region’s housing, economic, transportation, environmental, and overall
quality-of-life needs. The RP establishes a planning framework and implementation actions that
Page 1417 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 18 December 2023
increase the region’s sustainability and encourage “smart growth while preserving natural
resources and limiting urban sprawl.” The RP encourages the regions and the County to increase
residential and employment concentrations in areas with the best existing and future transit
connections, and to preserve important open spaces. The focus is on implementation of basic smart
growth principles designed to strengthen the integration of land use and transportation. General
urban form goals, policies, and objectives are summarized as follows:
• Mix compatible uses.
• Take advantage of compact building design.
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
• Create walkable neighborhoods.
• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.
• Otay Ranch Preserve open space, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.
• Provide a variety of transportation choices.
• Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective.
• Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.
As plans are ever evolving, it is recognized that new plans may be approved in the future.
SANDAG lists 12 Near-Term Actions that are intended for implementation in the next Regional
Plan. Along with the strategies of the approved RP, these concepts are recognized as potential
features in development going forward. The 12 Near Term Actions are as follows:
1. The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
2. Develop a long-term specialized transportation strategy through 2050, as part of the next
biennial update of the SANDAG Coordinated Plan, to address the increasing specialized
service needs of seniors and people with disabilities.
3. Promote Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction by applying the Regional Complete
Streets Policy to relevant SANDAG plans, programs, and projects.
4. Develop a Regional Mobility Hub Implementation Strategy.
5. Complete a follow-up study that details ways to reduce greenhouse gases by expanding the
use of alternative fuels regionwide.
6. Incorporate regional transportation model enhancements to provide more robust data
regarding bike and pedestrian travel, carpools, vanpools, carshare, and public health.
7. Expand the Integrated Corridor Management Concept and design for up to three corridors.
Page 1418 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 19 December 2023
8. Complete the comprehensive 10-year review of the TransNet Program in accordance with
the TransNet ordinance.
9. Develop innovative financing tools to self-finance near-term projects for the new border
crossing at Otay Mesa East.
10. Participate in the target-setting and monitoring processes for federal performance measures
and report on progress toward the achievement of these federal performance measure
targets in the new System Performance Report.
11. Develop an Intraregional Tribal Transportation Strategy with tribal nations in the region.
12. Explore the development of a Regional Military Base Multimodal Access Strategy.
4. City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan
Since 2000, Chula Vista has been implementing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address the threat
of climate change to the local community. The original Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan was
revised to incorporate new climate mitigation and adaptation measures to strengthen the City’s
climate action efforts and to facilitate the numerous community co-benefits such as utility savings,
better air quality, reduced traffic congestion, local economic development, and improved quality
of life. To help guide implementation of the CAP, the City regularly conducts GHG emission
inventories. The City’s CAP was updated in 2008, 2010 and 2017.
Municipal Codes
The Chula Vista City Council adopted the California Energy Code 2022 effective January 1, 2023.
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards progress from the 2019 Energy Code in that there
is a greater push toward electrification. The 2019 Energy Code worked toward greater efficiency
whereas the 2022 Code focuses on where the energy is sourced from. The 2022 Energy Code is
likely to be applicable at the time of permit review.
Per CVMC § 15.24.045, each store in a store building, each flat in a flat building, and each building
used as a dwelling shall be so wired that each store, apartment, flat or dwelling shall have separate
lighting and/or power distribution panels. Such panels shall not serve other portions of the
building. Hotels, motels, hotel apartments and similar types of buildings may be wired from one
or more distribution panels. It is expected that this ordinance may be superseded by Title 24
updates though the build-out of the SPA Plan—future buildings will comply with the more
stringent of the requirements.
Per CVMC § 20.04.040, all new residential units shall include electrical conduit specifically
designed to allow the later installation of a photovoltaic (PV) system which utilizes solar energy
as a means to provide electricity. 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. It is expected that this ordinance may be superseded
by Title 24 updates though the build-out of the SPA Plan—future buildings will comply with the
more stringent of the requirements.
Page 1419 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 20 December 2023
Additionally, per CVMC § 20.04.030, all new residential units shall include plumbing specifically
designed to allow the later installation of a system which utilizes solar energy as the primary means
of heating domestic potable water. It is expected that this ordinance may be superseded by Title
24 updates though the build-out of the SPA Plan—future buildings will comply with the more
stringent of the requirements following the prevailing approach to water heating.
Finally, per CVMC § 20.04.050, commercial businesses are required to participate in a free
resource and energy evaluation of their facilities when they obtain a new business license and
every five years thereafter.
The City of Chula Vista has developed a number of strategies and plans aimed at improving air
quality. The City is a part of the Cities for Climate Protection Program, which is headed by the
International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The original plan followed by
the City to reduce fossil fuel consumption was the CO2 Reduction Plan , adopted in 2002.
Currently, the City uses the Climate Action Plan (CAP) which was adopted in 2017. The Climate
Action Plan references the 2002 CO2 Reducti on Plan, however, the initiatives set forth in the
CAP are more relevant to today’s conditions .
They are as follows:
• Water Conservation and Reuse
• Waste Reduction
• Renewable and Efficient Energy
• Smart Growth and Transportation
Page 1420 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 21 December 2023
3. Village 8 East SPA Amendment Project Description
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (Project Applicant) is proposing land use changes to the previously
approved project resulting in:
• 3,276 multi-family units (from 943 single family and 2,333 multi-family units)
• 20,000 SF of commercial/retail uses in a mixed use setting (no change)
• 7.3 acre neighborhood park (same as before)
• 11.3-acre elementary school site (from a 10.8 acre school site)
• 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space (OSP) (no change)
• 22.6 acres of Active Recreation (AR) (no change)
Figure 1: Proposed Site Utilization Plan, and Table 5: Village 8 East Proposed Land Use Summary,
implement the land uses contemplated by the Otay Ranch for Village 8 East. The site utilization
plan and site utilization summary work together and assign a general utilization to each
neighborhood within the SPA.
The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include a Village Core area that would
accommodate a mix of uses including multi-family residential and retail/commercial uses along
with an elementary school site and a centrally located 7.3-acre neighborhood park. A future multi-
modal bridge, planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), bicycles and
pedestrians is also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and future Village 9.
The project applicant proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to reflect current market
conditions and housing needs, to ensure the community relates more closely to the adjacent Village
8 West community and future Village 9 and University Innovation District planned east of SR-125
and accommodates the SR-125 couplet interchange design between Main Street and Otay Valley
Road.
Page 1421 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 22 December 2023
Figure 1: Proposed Site Utilization Plan
Page 1422 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 23 December 2023
Table 5: Village 8 East Proposed Land Use Summary
Page 1423 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 24 December 2023
1 Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not represent the final unit allocation for each parcel
and shall not be used to limit or restrict the final units allocated to any parcel.; The final unit allocation must remain
consistent with the permitted density range applicable to the parcel. The final unit allocation shall be determined
during Design Review and shall be documented in the Unit Tracking Table (Village 8 East SPA Plan, Attachment 1).
Revisions to the Site Utilization Table shall not be required based on changes to the Estimated Units presented herein.
2 Final acreage information to be determined during final engineering. Acreage may vary due to rounding. Residential
and Village Core gross acreage includes approximately 15.3 of perimeter open space areas. pen space easements to
be recorded over perimeter open space slopes to be maintained by the Master HOA or Sub-Association, as determined
during final design.
3 Estimated Density calculated based on gross parcel acreage. Final density to be determined during Design Review.
4 20,000 SF of commercial uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial SF may be developed within a
single parcel designated VC or distributed among any parcel designated VC (VC-1 through VC-7). The final
distribution of commercial SF to be determined during Design Review. The “Permitted Density Range” is not
applicable to VC parcels with no residential units.
5 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent with the Village Core
zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no residential units.
6 Per the Land Offer Agreement (7/8/2014), the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall designate 4.0 acres of CPF land. The
Applicant is proposing to meet a portion of the Village 8 East CPF obligation by designating the 1.2 -acre CPF-1 site
Page 1424 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 25 December 2023
as a private recreation facility. The remaining 2.8 acre CPF obligation shall be addressed in a separate agreement
between the City of Chula Vista and the Applicant.
7 Both the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map include the "Proposed” and “Alternative” configuration and
acreage for the S-1 School Site and P-1 Neighborhood Park. Either the Proposed or Alternative may be implemented
without the need for an amendment to the SPA Plan or TM. If the proposed configuration is implemented, the S-1 site
would be 10.0 acre (net) and the P-1 park site would be 6.5 acre (net); however, if the alternative configuration is
implemented, the S-1 site would be 12.0 acres (net) and the P-1 park site would be 4.6 acres (net). The final
neighborhood park acreage shall be addressed in the future Village 8 East Parks Construction Agreement.
8 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If the site is not developed
as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if the site is developed as an elementary school,
then the 264 units may be reallocated to another Village 8 East parcel or transferred to another village, as permitted in
the Village 8 East PC District Regulations, Chapter 10, Implementation.
9 A portion of the Edge Trail and associated overlook features (approximately 1.76 acres) are included within the 8.2 -
acre OS-7 parcel. The Edge Trail area shall be secured with a public access easement and the 1.76 acres shall satisfy
a portion of the Village 8 East park obligation. The 1.76-acre Edge Trail area is not counted toward meeting the Village
8 East open space requirement.
10 Village 8 East acreage adjusted from approved 2014 development area to reflect changes in SR -125 ROW and to
facilitate the future SR-125 ROW Decertification process.
11 The P-2 Community Park / OS-6 Alternative would be implemented only upon City approval of the Alternative
Compliance Program (“ACP”) Permit and Rough Grading Storm Water Quality Management Plan (“SWQMP”)
(See TM Sheet 6 for additional details). This would increase the P-2 Community Park parcel to 47.4 acres (gross)
and 39.0 acres (net) and correspondingly decrease the OS-6 parcel to 4.8 acres (gross) and 0.7 acres (gross).
4. Effect of Project on Local/Regional Air Quality
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local
airshed caused by soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-
site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials.
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity,
the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such
emission levels can only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise
ambient air quality impacts. Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions would primarily result from
grading and site preparation activities. NOx and CO emissions would primarily result from the use
of construction equipment and motor vehicles.
As stated in the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Project – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update
Memo (Dudek, September 2023), “construction emissions would remain unchanged, as no change
in the construction schedule or required construction equipment is anticipated. In addition, based
on our review of the proposed changes, the identified impacts and associated mitigation measures
in the previous EIR (City of Chula Vista 2014) remain applicable to this project, and no additional
mitigation measures would be required.”
Emissions from the construction phase of the prior project were originally estimated through the
use of emission factors from the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model
(Jones & Stokes 2007). However, because the emissions, impacts and mitigation measures of the
originally approved study have been determined to still be applicable, information within this
discussion may contain information pertaining to other parts of the University Villages project.
Page 1425 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 26 December 2023
Construction of the University Villages project was proposed to begin with Village 3 in 20142.
Project construction would end with build out of Village 10, which was anticipated to occur in
2030. This timeline is still relevant as it pertains to the Village 8 East SPA Amendment. A detailed
description of construction subphases (mass grading, fine grading, trenching, paving, building
construction, and architectural coatings), as well as other assumptions made for the purposes of
modeling, is provided in the University Villages Project Final Environmental Impact Report
(2014). Total construction was and still is expected to take approximately 15 years. For the
analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the
site for approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month), during project
construction. URBEMIS model assumptions for construction equipment were used in calculating
construction emissions as equipment and machinery mix would be typical of residential
development. Additional project-specific assumptions regarding vehicle trips, construction
schedule, soil import/export, and architectural coatings are included in Appendix A. The
equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity.
The proposed project is subject to SDAPCD Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control. This requires that
the project take steps to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line.
Compliance with Rule 55 would limit any fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) that may be generated
during grading and construction activities. To account for dust control measures in the calculations,
it was assumed that the active sites would be watered at least two times daily, resulting in an
approximately 55% reduction of particulate matter.
The proposed project is also subject to SDAPCD Rule 67: Architectural Coatings which requires
manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to
reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC
content of various coating categories.
Table 6: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions shows the estimated maximum daily
construction emissions associated with the construction phase of the proposed project before and
after compliance with Rule 55 and Rule 67. Because the project phasing overlaps with other
villages, Table 6 includes emissions for Village Three and a portion of Village Four, Village Eight
East and Village Ten.
Table 6: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
Villages Three /Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project Emissions (not compliant with SDAPCD Rules 55 and 67Unmitigated)
2014 14.99 94.29 108.02 0.10 603.75 128.74
2 The original construction schedule beginning in May 2014 is analyzed for the Proposed Project; however, actual
construction started at a later date. The construction scenario and schedule analyzed as part of the Proposed Project
analysis is considered conservative because over time, emissions for both the construction and operational scenario
would decrease due to more stringent air q uality standards implemented over time, vehicle fleet turnover to more
efficient engines, fuel mix, etc. As the duration of construction would not change (i.e. construction would occur over
a 16-year period regardless of start date), the scenario analyzed as part of this analysis is considered conservative for
the purposes of quantitatively analyzing air quality impacts.
Page 1426 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 27 December 2023
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2015 64.44 86.18 107.19 0.11 305.47 67.40
2016 103.46 155.79 202.89 0.20 908.02 195.04
2017 101.83 141.79 194.88 0.20 608.89 132.94
2018 91.99 80.71 145.21 0.19 304.55 67.14
2019 37.55 58.04 89.20 0.10 303.62 65.62
2020 36.83 52.86 86.18 0.10 303.34 65.46
2021 36.46 51.57 76.23 0.10 303.31 65.44
2022 36.46 51.57 76.23 0.10 303.31 65.44
2023 62.99 94.48 130.40 0.16 905.29 192.55
2024 58.65 62.29 104.74 0.16 304.29 66.17
2025 28.75 51.33 68.63 0.07 303.12 65.33
2026 28.59 50.83 64.86 0.07 303.11 65.33
2027 28.59 50.83 64.86 0.07 303.11 65.33
2028 28.59 50.83 64.86 0.07 303.11 65.33
2029 21.88 12.18 25.06 0.06 0.97 0.72
Maximum Daily Emissions
(Unmitigated)
103.46 155.79 202.89 0.20 908.02 195.04
Proposed Project Emissions (compliant with SDAPCD Rules 55 and 67)
2014 14.99 94.29 108.02 0.10 273.75 59.82
2015 47.65 86.18 107.19 0.11 140.47 32.94
2016 77.50 155.79 202.89 0.20 413.02 91.66
2017 75.87 141.79 194.88 0.20 278.89 64.02
2018 66.03 80.71 145.21 0.19 140.44 32.69
2019 28.38 58.04 89.20 0.10 138.62 31.26
2020 27.66 52.86 86.18 0.10 138.34 31.01
2021 27.29 51.57 76.23 0.10 138.31 30.98
2022 27.29 51.57 76.23 0.10 138.31 30.98
2023 47.22 94.48 130.40 0.16 410.29 89.17
2024 42.88 62.29 104.74 0.16 139.29 31.71
2025 22.15 51.33 68.63 0.07 138.12 30.88
2026 21.99 50.83 64.86 0.07 138.11 30.87
2027 21.99 50.83 64.86 0.07 138.11 30.87
2028 21.99 50.83 64.86 0.07 138.11 30.87
2029 15.28 12.18 25.06 0.06 0.97 0.72
Maximum Daily Emissions
(Mitigated)
77.50 155.79 202.89 0.20 413.02 91.66
City of Chula Vista
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
Source: URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4. See Appendix A of the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report for the Otay Ranch University
Villages Project for complete results.
Note: Construction emissions shown include emissions from construction of all Villages analyzed under the proposed project, includi ng Village
Three and a Portion of Village Four, Village Eight East, and Village Ten.
1 Construction emissions that would be generated under the Village Eight East Alternative Development Scenario would be essentially the same
as construction equipment fleet, daily equipment and construction crew operations, and daily construction trips to and from the site would be
Page 1427 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 28 December 2023
the same as those analyzed under the proposed project. A pounds/per day daily threshold is the only threshold numerically considered for
criteria pollutants; therefore, the quantitative analysis under both the proposed project and alternative scenario would be essentially the same.
2 “Unmitigated” PM10 and PM2.5 emissions as shown do not reflect compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55, which restricts visible fugitive dust
emissions beyond the property line. Similarly, “Unmitigated” VOC emissions as shown do not reflect compliance with SDAPCD Rule 67 which
restricts the VOC content in architectural coatings. “Mitigated” emissions as shown, account for compliance with these rules.
As shown, daily construction emissions would not exceed the City’s significance thresholds for
CO and SOx. However, the VOC, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with project
construction would exceed the City of Chula Vista’s emission thresholds. Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 – AQ-2 (below) would reduce construction-related NOx emissions. Note that mitigation
available for the reduction of NOx emissions (as described in mitigation measure AQ-1) is not
quantifiable; therefore, emission reductions for NOx are not shown in Table 6.
MM AQ-1: Prior to approval of any grading permits, the project applicant or its designee shall
place the following requirements on all grading plans, and shall be implemented during grading of
each phase of the project to minimize NOx emissions:
• Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. During
construction, vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall turn their engines off when
not in use to reduce vehicle emissions;
• All construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technology
(BACT) devices certified by CARB. A copy of each unit’s BACT documentation shall be
provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment;
• All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications;
• All diesel-fueled on-road construction vehicles shall meet the emission standards
applicable to the most current year to the greatest extent possible. To achieve this standard,
new vehicles shall be used, or older vehicles shall use post-combustion controls that reduce
pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible;
• The effectiveness of the latest diesel emission controls is highly dependent on the sulfur
content of the fuel. Therefore, diesel fuel used by on- and off-road construction equipment
shall be low sulfur (less than 15 ppm) or other alternative, low-polluting diesel fuel
formulation.
• The use of electrical construction equipment shall be employed where feasible;
• The use of catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be employed where
feasible;
• The use of injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment shall be employed where
feasible.
Page 1428 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 29 December 2023
MM AQ-2: Prior to approval of any grading permits, and during project construction, the project
applicant or its designee shall require implementation of the City’s Standard Construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs), including:
• Water, or utilize another acceptable SDAPCD dust control agent on, the grading areas at
least twice daily to minimize fugitive dust;
• Stabilize grading areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust;
• Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within the
construction site prior to public road entry;
• Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads;
• Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence;
• Wet wash the construction access point at the end of the workday if any vehicle travel on
unpaved surfaces has occurred;
• Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public
roads;
• Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during
hauling;
• Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per
hour (mph);
• Cover/water on-site stockpiles of excavated material; and
• Enforce a 20 mph speed limit on unpaved surfaces.
• Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust;
• During construction, site grading activities within 500 feet of a school in operation shall be
discontinued or all exposed surfaces shall be discontinued or all exposed surfaces shall be
watered to minimize dust transport off site to the maximum degree feasible, when the wind
velocity is greater than 15mph in the direction of the school;
• During blasting, utilize control measures to minimize fugitive dust. Control measures may
include, but are not limited to, blast enclosures, vacuum blasters, drapes, water curtains or
wet blasting.
MM AQ-3: Prior to approval of the building permit for any uses that are regulated for TACs by
the SDAPCD, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Director (or their designee) that the use complies with established criteria (such as those
Page 1429 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 30 December 2023
established by SDAPCD Rule 1200 and CARB). Also, gas stations shall not be located within 50
feet of a sensitive receptor, in accordance with CARB’s siting recommendations.
• Per the EIR, impacts specific to TACs, including diesel particulate matter generated from
traffic volumes on SR-125, would be less than significant. With respect to the development
of on-site land uses, impacts arising from the emission of TACs would be potentially
significant if the site is developed to accommodate any light industrial uses, gas stations,
or dry cleaning facilities in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Neither the state 1-hour
standard nor the 8-hour standard would be equaled or exceeded at any of the intersections
studied; potential CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant." "Potentially
significant impacts arising from the siting of land uses that emit TACs would be reduced
to LTS with implementation of MM AQ-3.
Operational Emissions
Following the completion of construction activities, the proposed project would generate VOC,
NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from project land uses, as well as mobile and stationary
sources including vehicular traffic from residents, space heating and cooling, water heating, and
fireplace (hearth) use.
In September 2023, Chen Ryan modified their traffic analysis to address the reduction in
commercial square footage from 40,000 to 20,000 square feet. The findings show that the overall
trips are 3,977 less than the 2014 Traffic Analysis. Therefore, the proposed land uses would
generate less trips than the previously approved land uses in Village 8 East. It can be concluded
that no additional traffic analysis would be required since no new or more substantially significant
traffic impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR (the Otay Ranch Village
and the University Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental
Impact Report 2014).
Although it has been determined that the 2023 proposed project would generate less trips, the
proposed project would still impact air quality through the vehicular traffic generated by project
residents. According to the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Chen Ryan 2014), total project-
generated daily traffic is estimated to be 77,663 trips per day at full buildout (2030) which includes
Village 3 and portion of Village Four, Village Eight East and Village Ten. The URBEMIS 2007
model was utilized to estimate daily emissions from proposed vehicular sources. URBEMIS 2007
default data, including temperature, trip characteristics, variable start information, emissions
factors, and trip distances, were conservatively used for the model inputs. Project -related traffic
was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model outputs for
traffic. Emission factors representing the vehicle mix and emissions for 2030 (full buildout) were
used to estimate emissions.
In addition to estimating mobile source emissions, the URBEMIS 2007 model was also used to
estimate emissions from the project area stationary sources, which include natural gas appliances,
hearths, landscaping (which would not produce winter emissions), consumer products, and
architectural coatings. All residential units would be constructed with natural gas fireplaces.
The present estimation of proposed operational emissions is based upon typical residential, retail,
and industrial uses, and the analysis is considered a reliable estimate of the project’s likely
Page 1430 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 31 December 2023
emissions. Table 7, Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions, presents the maximum
daily emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project after all phases of
construction have been completed. Because the project phasing overlaps with other villages, Table
7 includes emissions for Village Three North and portion of Village Four, Village Eight East and
Village Ten. The values shown are the maximum summer and winter daily emissions results from
URBEMIS 2007. Complete details of the emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A of
the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report for the Otay Ranch University
Village Project.
As shown, daily operational emissions would not exceed the City’s significance thresholds for
SOx. However, the VOC, NOx, CO, , PM10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with operation of the
project would exceed the City of Chula Vista’s significance thresholds.
Table 7: Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions – 2030 (pounds/day)
Villages Three /Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten
Proposed Project Emissions VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Motor Vehicles 248.06 242.40 2,753.76 8.32 1,349.61 261.83
Area Sources 396.82 87.52 168.02 0.01 0.52 0.52
Total 644.88 329.92 2,921.78 8.33 1,350.13 262.35
City of Chula Vista Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Winter
Motor Vehicles 266.89 291.97 2,576.56 6.92 1,349.61 261.83
Area Sources 377.07 131.50 56.44 0.29 3.84 3.80
Total 643.96 423.47 2,633 7.21 1,353.45 265.63
City of Chula Vista Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4. See Appendix A for complete results.
Note: Construction emissions shown include emissions from construction of all Villages analyzed under the
proposed project, including Village Three and a Portion of Village Four, Village Eight East, and Village Ten.
“Summer” emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the ozone season (Ma y 1 to October
31) and “Winter” emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year
(November 1 to April 30)
Project design features (refer to Section 6) would help to reduce operational emissions; however,
significant reductions in VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be required to reduce
emissions of these pollutants to less than significant, and feasible mitigation measures are not
available to achieve these reductions. Therefore, even with incorporation of these design features,
criteria pollutant emissions for project operations are anticipated to remain above the thresholds
for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Page 1431 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 32 December 2023
Construction GHG Emissions
GHG emissions would be associated with the construction phase of the proposed project through
use of construction equipment and vehicle trips. Emissions of CO2 were originally estimated using
the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model (Jones & Stokes 2007). The
model results were adjusted to estimate CH4 and N2O emissions in addition to CO2. The CO2
emissions from off-road equipment and vehicles and delivery trucks, which are assumed by
URBEMIS 2007 to be diesel fueled, were adjusted by a factor derived from the relative CO2, CH4,
and N2O for diesel fuel as reported in the California Climate Action Registry’s (CCAR) General
Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009) for transportation fuels and the global warming potential for
each GHG to estimate the emissions in units of CO2E. The CO2 emissions associated with
construction worker trips were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents
95% of the CO2E emissions associated with passenger vehicles (EPA 2005). The results were then
converted from annual tons per year to metric tons per year. Table 8: Estimated Construction GHG
Emissions, shows the estimated annual GHG construction emissions associated with the proposed
project. Because the project phasing overlaps with other villages, Table 8 includes emissions for
Village Three and a portion of Village Four, Village Eight East and Village Ten.
Page 1432 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 33 December 2023
Table 8: Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons/year)
Villages Three /Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten
Construction Year CO2E Emissions (MT/yr)
2014 1,117.58
2015 2,396.80
2016 3,867.28
2017 4,544.40
2018 3,085.30
2019 2,382.27
2020 2,391.37
2021 2,382.19
2022 2,373.07
2023 3,303.83
2024 2,753.49
2025 2,073.77
2026 2,073.80
2027 2,073.80
2028 1,773.19
2029 513.36
Total Construction Emissions 39,105.53
Amortized Annual Construction Emissions 1,303.52
Source: URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4. See Appendix B for complete results.
Note: Construction emissions shown include emissions from construction of all Villages analyzed under the
proposed project, including Village Three and a portion of Village Four, Village Eight East, and Village Ten.
Operational GHG Emissions
Operation of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions from vehicular traffic generated
by residents, area sources (natural gas appliances, hearth combustion, and landscape maintenance),
electrical generation, and water supply. Emissions associated with vehicular traffic, electrical
generation, and water supply would be reduced by implementing GHG reduction measures, as
indicated below.
Vehicular Traffic
Annual CO2 emissions from motor vehicle trips for full project buildout were quantified using the
URBEMIS 2007 model (refer to Appendix A for additional details and model assumptions). As
described earlier, CH4 and N2O emissions were accounted for by multiplying the URBEMIS 2007
CO2 emissions by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95% of the CO2e emissions
associated with passenger vehicles (EPA 2005).
Several regulatory initiatives have been passed to reduce on-road vehicle emissions. These
initiatives (Pavley and EPA/NHTSA standards for light-duty vehicles and the LCFS) have been
estimated to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by approximately 32% by the year 2020,
according to the San Diego County Greenhouse Gas Inventory (SDCGHGI, University of San
Diego 2008).
Page 1433 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 34 December 2023
Area Sources
Annual CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion for space and water heating, hearth
combustion, and gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment were estimated using URBEMIS
2007. The CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion were adjusted by a factor derived from the
relative CO2, CH4, and N2O for natural gas as reported in the CCAR’s General Reporting Protocol
(CCAR 2009) for stationary combustion fuels and their GWPs.
The previously approved 2014 project is required to comply with Section 15.26.030 of the City’s
Municipal Code, which requires that new residential projects that fall within climate zone 7 be at
least 15% more energy efficient than the 2008 Energy Code. As such, building design would
employ energy efficient measures beyond that required by the Energy Code, resulting in a 15%
reduction in emissions generated by natural gas use.
Electrical Generation
Annual electricity use for the proposed project was based upon estimated generation rates for land
uses in the San Diego Gas & Electric service area. The 2014 FEIR states that the proposed project
would consume approximately 65,521,407 kilowatt-hours per year. The generation of electricity
through combustion of fossil fuels typically results in emissions of CO2 and to a smaller extent
CH4 and N2O. The project as currently proposed will comply with the 2022 California Energy
Code or current code cycle at time of construction.
Again, the proposed project would be required to comply with Section 15.26.030 of the City’s
Municipal Code, which would result in a 15% reduction in emissions generated by electricity use.
Water Supply
Water supplied to the proposed project requires the use of electricity. Accordingly, the supply,
conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water would indirectly result in GHG emissions through
use of electricity. Water usage rates were obtained from the Overview of Water Service completed
for the proposed project (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2014). The estimated electrical usage
associated with supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water was obtained from a
California Energy Commission report on electricity associated with water supply in California
(CEC 2006).
The City’s Municipal Code defers to Title 24. At minimum, the proposed project will comply with
the 2022 Title 24 code cycle which is more stringent than the code cycle that was in effect at the
time of the original Village 8 East project approval. At that time, it was required, all new residential
construction, remodels, additions, and alterations must provide a schedule of plumbing fixture
fittings that will reduce the overall use of potable water by 20%, which would result in a 20%
reduction in the GHG emissions from electricity generated for supply, conveyance, treatment, and
distribution of water. The 20% reduction in the overall use of potable water was substantiated in
the project’s Water Conservation Plan; in fact, the Water Conservation Plans for Villages Three
and Portion of Village Four, Village Eight East and Village Ten identify a 29.2% reduction in the
overall use of potable water. A new analysis is not being conducted for the proposed amendment
project. However, due to the increased stringency of the 2022 Title 24 Codes, energy conservation
is being enforced by implementation of the State’s water and energy conservation requirements.
Page 1434 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 35 December 2023
Summary of Operational Emissions
The estimated GHG emissions associated with vehicular traffic, area sources, electrical generation,
and water supply are shown below in Table 9. Because the project phasing overlaps with other
villages, Table 9 includes emissions for Village Three, a portion of Village Four, Village Eight
East, and Village Ten. Additional detail regarding these calculations can be found in Appendix B
of the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report for the Otay Ranch University
Villages Project. The estimated emissions of CO2E would be 203,688 metric tons per year without
the GHG reduction measures (“business as usual”), and 144,520 metric tons per year with the
GHG reduction measures. As indicated in Table 9, the GHG reduction measures would reduce
GHG emissions by approximately 29%.
Such reduction measures, at the time of the University Villages FEIR approval (2014) included:
1. A low-carbon fuel standard to reduce the “carbon intensity” of California fuels.
2. Reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance
to restrict the sale of “do-it-yourself” automotive refrigerants.
3. Increased methane capture from landfills to require broader use of state-of-the-art
methane capture technologies.
An additional six early action regulations, which were also considered “discrete early action GHG
reduction measures,” consisted of:
1. Reduction of aerodynamic drag, and thereby fuel consumption, from existing trucks and
trailers through retrofit technology.
2. Reduction of auxiliary engine emissions of docked ships by requiring port electrification.
3. Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry.
4. Reduction of propellants in consumer products (e.g., aerosols, tire inflators, and dust
removal products).
5. Require that all tune-up, smog check and oil change mechanics ensure proper tire
inflation as part of overall service in order to maintain fuel efficiency.
6. Restriction on the use of SF6 from non-electricity sectors if viable alternatives are
available.
Page 1435 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 36 December 2023
Table 9: Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons/year)
Villages Three /Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten
Source CO2E Emissions CO2E Emissions w/ GHG
Reduction Measures
Percent
Reduction
Motor Vehicles 138,188 93,968 32%
Area Sources
Natural Gas Combustion 18,213 12,749 30%
Hearth Combustion 26 26 0%
Landscaping 39 39 0%
Electrical Generation 22,031 15,422 30%
Water Supply 9,844 6,970 29%
Solid Waste 14,043 14,043 0%
Amortized Annual
Construction Emissions
1,304 1,304 0%
Total 203,688 144,520 29.0%
Source: See Appendix B of the 2014 Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report for the Otay Ranch University
Villages Project for complete results.
Note: Construction emissions shown include emissions from construction of all Villages analyzed under the proposed project,
including Village Three and a Portion of Village Four, Village Eight East, and Village Ten.
Assessment of GHG Impacts
The City of Chula Vista has developed a number of strategies and plans aimed at improving air
quality while also addressing global climate change. In November 2002, Chula Vista adopted the
Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan in order to lower the community’s major greenhouse gas
emissions, strengthen the local economy, and improve the global environment. In addition, the
City of Chula Vista requires that an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) be prepared for all
major development projects with air quality impacts equivalent to that of a residential project of
50 or more dwelling units.
As shown in Table 9, with implementation of GHG reduction measures the proposed project would
reduce GHG emissions by an estimated 29%. The proposed project would therefore exceed the
target of 20% below business as usual that has been established for the purposes of assessing
operational GHG emissions of projects in the City of Chula Vista, and this reduction would be
consistent with the goals of AB 32. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with
the green building standards and energy codes of the City’s Municipal Code. Additionally, the
proposed project would reduce the overall use of potable water by 29%, consistent with the City’s
Municipal Code. Lastly, the project design features as stated in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this AQIP
would help to further reduce GHG emissions. The project would therefore have a less than
significant impact on global climate change.
Page 1436 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 37 December 2023
5. Quantitative Project Evaluation
As stated above, the City of Chula Vista previously used the INDEX CO2 model requirements.
This tool is no longer used. Therefore, a quantitative analysis has been performed for Village 8
East using Option Two: Alternative Modeling Programs, specifically a LEED-ND equivalency
analysis was conducted. LEED-ND criteria are more appropriate than INDEX indicators for the
Village 8 East SPA Plan for the following reasons:
• INDEX indicators do not take habitat preservation and conservation efforts into account, of
which the Project is providing a significant amount.
• LEED-ND criteria measure these benefits to a greater and more accurate extent.
• The INDEX approach uses only 16 indicators, whereas LEED-ND has 56 indicators that are
able to characterize a project much more comprehensively and thoroughly, and ultimately
capture more contributors to GHG emission reductions.
• The underlying basics of the INDEX approach are nearly 15 years old in contrast to LEED-
ND’s latest update in July of 2018. Consequently, current best practices in urban design, green
infrastructure and resilient neighborhoods are not addressed by INDEX indicators but are
covered by LEED-ND criteria.
• The California Energy Code and Green Building Standards have been updated since the
INDEX approach was established.
• The INDEX model is no longer being used.
The Village 8 East SPA Plan scores the equivalent of 41 points under the LEED-ND rating system.
Table 10: LEED Neighborhood Development Plan Village 8 East Equivalency Analysis provides
a description of the project attributes that were considered from the LEED-ND rating system. The
base ND certification of 40 points is the functional equivalent of INDEX indicator thresholds.
Therefore, the Project has demonstrated AQIP compliance.
Table 10: LEED Neighborhood Development Plan Village 8 East Equivalency Analysis
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Smart Location & Linkage
SLLp1 Smart Location Transit Served Y/N Yes 1. New infrastructure will be
constructed to serve Village 8
East, but will connect into existing
water, recycled water and sewer
infrastructure. Village 8 East will
also have a Subarea Master Plan
approved by Otay Water District.
The intent of this prerequisite is
being met as development of
Page 1437 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 38 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Village 8 East will extend existing
infrastructure.
2. 50% of dwellings and
businesses within 1/2 mile walk of
local bus stop which falls within
the minimum weekday trips (60)
and weekend trips (40). A local
transit stop is planned at Main
Street and Santa Marisol and a
BRT station is planned adjacent to
Village 8 East within the Village 8
West Town Center.
SLLp2 Imperiled
Species and
Ecological
Communities
None Y/N Yes 253.6 acres of MSCP designated
area are within the SPA boundary,
which will be permanently
preserved in their natural
condition.
SLLp3 Wetland and
Water Body
Conservation
None Y/N Yes Village 8 East is implementing the
MSCP Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
Thus, Village 8 East meets the
intent of this prerequisite by
designating approximately 44% of
the SPA area as preserve land
which will be conveyed to public
ownership for permanent
preservation and management.
SLLp4 Agricultural
Land
Conservation
None Y/N Yes Village 8 East is implementing the
MSCP Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
Thus, it meets the intent of this
prerequisite by designating
approximately 44% of the SPA
area as preserve land which land
will be conveyed to public
ownership for permanent
preservation and management.
No active agricultural land will be
converted to other uses.
SLLp5 Floodplain
Avoidance
None Y/N Yes Village 8 East is not located
within a floodplain.
SLLc1 1. Location Type 10
Page 1438 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 39 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Preferred
Locations
2. Connectivity
3. High Priority
Locations
SLLc2 Brownfield
Remediation
Brownfield Site 1
High Priority
Redevelopment
Area
2
SLLc3 Access to
Quality Transit
Existing/Planned
Transit
1-7 3 Weighted allocation of points
based on 100 weekday trips and
65 weekend trips.
SLLc4 Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Storage 1 1
Bicycle Location
Bicycle Network 1 1 Connects to an existing bicycle
network with at least 3 continuous
miles (refer to Fig. 2)
SLLc5 Housing and
Jobs Proximity
Affordable
housing
3
30% of total SF
residential OR #
of jobs within 1/2
mile = # of
housing
2
Infill project with
nonresidential
component
1
SLLc6 Steep Slope
Protection
1 1 Per the Otay Ranch GDP §10.C.3
Steep Slope Policy, there is a
ranch-wide requirement to
preserve 83% of steep slopes and
as stated in the Village 8 East
SPA §4.3– assuming the Village 8
East steep slope impacts, the Otay
Ranch GDP steep slope
preservation requirement is
exceeded with a calculated 86%
preservation.
SLLc7 Site Design for
Habitat or
Wetland and
Sites w/o
Significant habitat
or wetlands
1
Page 1439 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 40 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Water Body
Conservation
Sites with habitat
or wetlands
1
SLLc8 Restoration of
Habitat or
Wetlands and
Water Bodies
1 1 Village 8 East includes 253.6
acres of Preserve (MSCP) but also
connects to the greater MSCP
area. The steepest slopes are
preserved within the RMP/MSCP
Preserve areas. (Refer to Fig. 5)
SLLc9 Long-Term
Conservation
Management of
Habitat or
Wetlands and
Water Bodies
1 1 The Preserve Owner/Manager is
responsible for overseeing the
day-to-day and long range
preserve management activities
within the MSCP Preserve in
accordance with the Otay Ranch
Resource Management Plan
(RMP).
Neighborhood Pattern & Design
NPDp1 Walkable Streets Y/N Yes All streets have sidewalks, and the
mixed-use area is a “Main Street”
theme which considers special
paving, landscaping and
architectural treatments.
NPDp2 Compact
Development
Y/N Yes Village 8 East has densities from
11-45 du/ac. (Refer to Table 5)
NPDp3 Connected and
Open
Community
Y/N Yes 196 intersections/square mile.
(Refer to Chula Vista CO2 Index
Model Results (approved 2014):
Intersection Density. This exceeds
the pre-requisite of 140.
NPDc1 Walkable Streets 25' setback (80%) 1 1 Per the Planned Community
(PC)District Regulations, no
suggested front setbacks equal or
are greater than 25’ from the
right-of-way.
18' setback (50%) 1 1 The mixed-use retail will be
designed to include pedestrian
oriented features, consistent with
the Otay Ranch GDP and the
Village 8 East SPA Plan. All
storefronts shall be accessed from
sidewalks. Parking should be
located on street or in the rear/side
of planning areas. The Village 8
Page 1440 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 41 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
East Design Plan explains a
“Main Street” village identity
through the commercial and
mixed use area. The intent of this
credit has been achieved.
1' setback for
nonresidential
(50%)
1
Functional entries
every 75 feet
1 1 The mixed-use retail will be
designed to include pedestrian
oriented features, consistent with
the Otay Ranch GDP and the
Village 8 East SPA Plan. All
storefronts shall be accessed from
sidewalks. Parking should be
located on street or in the rear/side
of planning areas. The Village 8
East Design Plan explains a
“Main Street” village identity
through the commercial and
mixed use area. The intent of this
credit has been achieved.
Function entries
every 30 feet
1
Glass on 60% of
facades
1 1 The Village 8 East Design Plan
explains a “Main Street” village
identity through the commercial
and mixed use area. That includes
storefronts with display windows
to create interest and encourage
window shopping along the
pedestrian walk.
No blank walls
40% of sidewalk
1 1 Blank walls shall not exceed 40%
of the sidewalk when applicable
to building use. The village area is
intended to be pedestrian oriented.
Ground-level
retail, services
must be
unshuttered at
night
1 1 Architecture will be reviewed
during the Design Review
process, but it is expected that
ground level retail will not be
shuttered at night.
On-street parking
provided both
sides on 70% of
streets
1 1 On-street parking is provided
throughout the Village.
Page 1441 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 42 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Continuous
sidewalks (10'
wide on mixed-use
blocks)
1
Ground-floor
residential units at
least 24" above
grade
1
Ground floor retail
in multi-stores
1 1 100% retail in the Village Core
planning areas would be accessed
from the ground floor.
Furthermore, all would be
accessed from the sidewalk,
creating preferable street frontage.
Building height-
street width
1
20 mph residential
streets
1
25 mph mixed use
street
1
Driveways limited 1
NPDc2 Compact
Development
Density/acre 1-6 3 The SPA Amendment areas have
allowed densities of the following:
MH: 11 - 18 du/ac
H: 18 - 27 du/ac
VC 18 - 45 du/ac
(Refer to Table 5)
NPDc3 Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods
Uses with 1/4 mile
walking distances
1-4 1 Project as proposed will provide
community-serving
retail/commercial, park, school,
diverse housing types, preserved
open space, transit stop.
NPDc4 Housing Types
and Affordability
Diverse housing
types
1-7
Affordable
housing
1-3 1 328 affordable units are proposed
in Village 8 East. That is 10% of
the total units (328/3,276 = .10).
Additional diverse
housing types
NPDc5 Reduced Parking
Footprint
All off-street
parking at side or
rear
1 1
Page 1442 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 43 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
NPDc6 Connected and
Open
Community
Intersections/mile
300-400+
1-3
NPDc7 Transit Facilities 1 1 Local bus facilities will be
provided at the intersection of La
Palmita Drive and Main Street
(Refer to Fig. 3).
NPDc8 Transportation
Demand
Management
Transit Passes 1-21
points for
every 2
options
Developer-
sponsored transit
Vehicle sharing
Unbundling of
parking/fees
Guaranteed ride
home
Flexible work
arrangements
NPDc9 Access to Civic
& Public Space
90% of units and
non-residential use
entrances within
1/4 mile of 1 civic
and passive use
space
1 1 90% of dwelling units are within
1/4 mile walk distance to public
space. There are green spaces,
parks and open spaces proposed
throughout Village 8 East
including play fields at the school
and the park (P-1) (Refer to Fig.
1).
NPDc10 Access to
Recreation
Facilities
1 Rec facility of 1
acre within 1/2
1 1 90% of dwelling units are within
1/2 mile walk distance to rec
facilities. Individual planning
areas may also include rec
amenities (Refer to Fig. 1).
NPDc11 Visitability and
Universal Design
20% of dwellings
are a visitable unit
1
At least 5
Universal Design
Features
1
Kitchen features 1
Page 1443 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 44 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Bedroom/Bathroo
m features
1
NPDc12 Community
Outreach and
Involvement
Community
outreach
1 1 A community meeting will be
held prior to project approval.
Charrette 2
Endorsement
Program
2
NPDc13 Local Food
Production
Neighborhood
gardens
1
Community
supported
agriculture
1
Farmers Market
within 1/2 mile
walking distance
1
NPDc14 Tree-Lined and
Shaded
Streetscapes
Trees planted 50
oc on at least 60%
of streets
1 1 As confirmed by the project
Landscape Architect, street trees
will be planted 30-40’ on center.
Shaded sidewalks
on 40% of
sidewalks within
10 years
1
Certification from
landscape
architect that trees
are planted
properly and not
invasive
1 1
NPDc15 Neighborhood
Schools
Neighborhood
school within 1/2
mile
1 1 An elementary school is proposed
in Village 8 East (S-1). (Refer to
Fig. 1).
Green Infrastructure & Buildings
GIBp1 Certified Green
Buildings
Y/N No
GIBp2 Minimum
Building Energy
Efficiency
Y/N Yes
Page 1444 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 45 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
GIBp3 Minimum
Building Water
Efficiency
Y/N Yes
GIBp4 Construction
Activity
Pollution
Prevention
Y/N Yes
GIBc1 Certified Green
Buildings
Number of
buildings certified
under LEED OR
other green
building rating
system 10-20% 1
point;
20-30% 2 points;
30-40% 3 points,
40-50% 4 points;
+50% 5 points
1-5
GIBc2 Optimize
Building Energy
Performance
12% above
ASHRAE; OR
20% ASHRAE
1-2
ASHRAE 50%
Advanced Energy
Design
2
GIBc3 Indoor Water
Use Reduction
Reduce water use
40% non-
residential
1 1 CalGreen exceeded requirement at
the time the original 2014 project
was approved. Except for toilets,
the 2019 and 2022 CalGreen code
is consistent with this credit
requirement.
90% of residential
buildings would
earn 4 points
under LEED v4
1 1 CalGreen exceeded requirement at
the time the original 2014 project
was approved. Except for toilets,
the 2019 and 2022 CalGreen code
is consistent with this credit
requirement.
GIBc4 Outdoor Water
Use Reduction
No irrigation 2
Reduced irrigation
30% 1 point; 50%
2 points
1-2 2 California Code exceeds
requirements. Previously
approved landscape plans meet
the California Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(MWELO).
GIBc5 Building Reuse N/A 1
Page 1445 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 46 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
GIBc6 Historic
Resource
Preservation and
Adaptive Reuse
N/A
GIBc7 Minimized Site
Disturbance
1
GIBc8 Rainwater
Management
Manage runoff on
site 80th percentile
1 point; 85th 2
points; 90th 3
points; 95th 4
points
1-4 2 Stormwater management
requirements in the San Diego
Region require capture of the 85th
percentile
GIBc9 Heat Island
Reduction
Non-roof
measures
1
High-reflectance
and vegetated
roofs
1
Mixed non-roof &
roof measures
1
GIBc10
Solar Orientation
Block orientation 1 1 Block orientation within the
planning areas will be determined
during the Design Review
process. However, with the
stringent solar/photovoltaic code
requirements (2019 and 2022),
The intent of this credit has been
met.
Building
orientation
1 1 Building orientation within the
planning areas will be determined
during the Design Review
process. However, with the
stringent solar/photovoltaic code
requirements (2019 and 2022),
The intent of this credit has been
met.
GIBc11 Renewable
Energy
Production
Renewable energy
production
5% - 1 point,
12.5% -2 points;
20% -3 points
1-3 1 2019 California Energy Code
requires solar installation unless
alternative method that is equally
as efficient as solar is used. 2022
Code is more stringent the 2019
Code and includes provisions for
battery storage, further conserving
energy.
GIBc12 District Heating
and Cooling
Needs to be 80%
of projects annual
2
Page 1446 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 47 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
heating
and/cooling
GIBc13 Infrastructure
Energy
Efficiency
Infrastructure to
be 15% annual
energy reduction
1
GIBc14 Wastewater
Management
25% of
wastewater is
reused on-site
1 point; 50% 2
points
1-2
GIBc15 Recycled and
Reused
Infrastructure
1
GIBc16 Solid Waste
Management
1 1 CalGreen requires that a minimum
of 65% of nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste
be either recycled or salvaged for
reuse.
GIBc17 Light Pollution
Reduction
1 1 Per CalGreen requirements.
Innovation & Design Process
IDCPc1 Innovation
IDCPc2 LEED®
Accredited
Professional
1 1
Regional Priority Credits
Regional Priority
Credit: Region
Defined
Rainwater
Management
Regional Priority
Credit: Region
Defined
Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods
Page 1447 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 48 December 2023
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
Village 8
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Regional Priority
Credit: Region
Defined
Housing Types
and Affordability
Regional Priority
Credit: Region
Defined
Total points
41
Page 1448 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 49 December 2023
Figure 2: Proposed Bicycle Circulation Plan
Page 1449 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 50 December 2023
Figure 3: Proposed Transit Plan
Page 1450 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 51 December 2023
Figure 4: Proposed Pedestrian Circulation Plan
Page 1451 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 52 December 2023
Figure 5: Steep Slopes
Page 1452 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 53 December 2023
Figure 6 is provided as an example of how the development standards promote creation of a
pedestrian-oriented village. Pedestrian oriented streets are encouraged on specific streets where
topography and grade are not an inhibitor to walking.
Figure 6: Development Standards Example
(Please refer to the Village 8 East PC Regulations Document)
Standard(1) RM-1 RM-2 Notes
Minimum Density 11 du/ac 18 du/ac Calculated as total
dwelling units per parcel
or project area; shall not
be calculated on a per-
product/home type basis.
Maximum Density 18 du/ac 27 du/ac
Minimum Lot Area N/A Shall not apply
Maximum Lot Coverage N/A Shall not apply
Maximum Building Height(4) 45 feet 60 feet See section 3.H Height
Exceptions
Minimum Public Street Setbacks (2)(3)
La Palmita Drive 7.5 feet(4)
All setbacks are subject to
California Building Code
(“CBC”) and California Fire
Code (“CFC”) standards based
on building design and fire
rating; see section 3.I
Permitted Building
Encroachments & Projections
Main Street 5 feet from
toe of slope N/A
Calle Escuela 5 feet(4) ; 4 feet(4) for stoop conditions
Del Sueño Drive N/A 5 feet(4) ; 4 feet for
stoop conditions
La Media Parkway 7.5 feet(4) N/A
Savoria Parkway
5 feet(4); 4
feet(4) for
stoop
conditions
facing street
N/A
Delgado Drive
5 feet(4); 4 feet
for stoop
conditions
facing street
N/A
Via Palermo 5 feet(4) N/A
From Street to porch/ patio/courtyard
walls 4 feet(4) Fences permitted at back
of ROW/property line
Minimum Private Drive / Private Drive Aisle Setbacks
Building to Private Drive 4 feet(4) Measured from back of
sidewalk or parkway
Garage Door to Private Drive
17 feet standard; 5 feet allowed for
35% of Private Drive non-sidewalk
condition Regulates driveway aprons
Garage Door to Private Drive Aisle 3 feet; or ≥17 feet
Building Separations
Private Drive Aisle Dimension
30 foot garage door to garage door;
24 foot building separation 2nd story
and above
See Exhibit 3
Unless otherwise
increased or decreased by
CBC/CRC
Page 1453 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 54 December 2023
Standard(1) RM-1 RM-2 Notes
All Other Building Separations
Subject to CBC, California Residential
Code (“CRC”) and CFC standards
based on building design and fire
rating
Required Open Space(2)(5)
Private Usable Open Space
Minimum Dimension 6 feet; 60 sq.
ft. to qualify
5 feet; 40 sq. ft. to
qualify
Studio/1 Bedroom/2 Bedroom Unit 80 sq. ft. per
unit 200 sq. ft. of
combined Private
and Common
Usable Open Space
per unit
No dimension shall be less
than 5’ to qualify ≥3 Bedroom Unit 120 sq. ft. per
unit
Common Usable Open Space(2)(5)
300 sq. ft. per
unit
10 foot minimum
dimension; CUOS shall be
within ¼ mile of the
residences to be served
Required Parking(2)(5)
Multi-Family Attached & Detached
Residential Per Unit Parking
See Village 8 East Planned
Community District
Regulations, Chapter 3
Multi-Family Zoning
District and (section 3.J.4)
and Chapter 8 Parking
Regulations.
Studio 1.0 space per unit
1 bed/2 bed Units: 2.0 spaces per unit, covered or garage
space
≥3 Bedroom Units
2 spaces per unit (covered or garage
spaces) + 0.25 unassigned space for
each additional bedroom over 3
Guest Parking 1 space per 10 units
Bicycle Parking Comply with CalGreen requirements
(1) All standards are minimums unless
otherwise noted.
(2) Minor modifications to standards are
permitted subject to Section 10.E
Minor Administrative Modifications.
(3) Only public street setbacks shall be
regulated. Interior and rear property
line setbacks shall not be regulated.
Across interior property lines,
building separations shall comply
with State building and fire codes.
Where two or more parcels are
developed as a single project,
setback shall not be applicable to the
property line separating the two
parcels; all building separations shall
be regulated per building and fire
codes.
(4) Measured from back of ROW.
Required setback is permitted within
or to include ‘Landscape Buffer’
noted on the TM and SPA Plan.
Page 1454 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 55 December 2023
Standard(1) RM-1 RM-2 Notes
(5) Parking and common usable open
space will be calculated for each
parcel; but may be combined and
implemented as joint use facilities
shared between any adjoining
parcels. Requirements are permitted
to be calculated in the aggregate
across two adjoining parcels per
section 3.C.5.
Page 1455 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 56 December 2023
6. Community Design and Site Planning Features
Table 11: Community Design and Site Planning Features, below, provides an overview of the
proposed Community Design and Site Planning Features, as well as building and landscape
features, which have been integrated into the V illage 8 East SPA Plan to create a sustainable
community. These measures are based on California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.
Table 11: Community Design and Site Planning Features
Transportation Related Measures
Village 8 East provides for future local bus services within close proximity of multi-family housing.
Village 8 East SPA streets will provide for a maximum travel speed which allows residential streets to
be used by neighborhood electric vehicles and bicycles.
Off-street pathways and trails in Village 8 East will accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel.
The Village 8 East provides for future local bus services, inclusive of a transit stop at the intersection of
Main Street and Santa Marisol.
All Village 8 East development will comply with CalGreen standards for EV charging stations.
Energy-Conservation Related Measures
Project will be compliant with prevailing building and energy codes at the time of permit submission.
Project-wide recycling for residential, school, commercial, and retail establishments will be required as
required under the County’s recycling ordinance and CalGreen.
Indoor residential appliances will carry the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ENERGYSTAR®
certification, as applicable and feasible.
2019/2022 California Green Building Code Title 24, Part 11 (CalGreen) requires that 65% of all new
construction waste generated at the site be diverted to recycle or salvage. Additionally, the State has set
per capita disposal rates of 5.3 pounds per person per day for the City of Chula Vista. The Project will
be in conformance with such requirements.
CVMC 8.25.095 requires all new construction and demolition projects to divert 100% of inert waste
(asphalt, concrete, bricks, tile, trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting from
land clearing from landfill disposal); and 50% of all remaining waste generated, unless partial or full
diversion exemption is granted. Contractors will be required to put up a performance deposit and prepare
a Waste Management Report form to ensure that all materials are responsibly handled. Upon verification
that the diversion goals have been met the performance deposit will be refunded.
Landscape and irrigation to comply with California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(MWELO).
All residential units will be part of the local utility demand response program to limit peak energy usage
for cooling.
All development will provide PV solar systems and battery storage as required by Title 24.
Energy efficient lighting for streets, parks, and other public spaces will be required. Private developers
will use energy efficient lighting and design.
Page 1456 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 57 December 2023
Water-Related Measures to Reduce GHGs
All landscape shall comply with CVMC § 20.12. Landscape Water Conservation requirements as well as
2022 CalGreen requirements.
Drought tolerant, low-water usage native vegetation will be planted in public landscaped areas.
High-efficiency irrigation equipment, such as evapotranspiration controllers, soil moisture sensors and
drip emitters, will be required for all projects that install separate irrigation water meters.
Indoor residential plumbing products will carry the EPA's WaterSense certification and be compliant
with CalGreen.
7. Chula Vista CO2 Reduction Plan
This section provides a comparative evaluation between the proposed community/site design
features and the energy efficiency emission reduction action measures contained in the City’s
Carbon Dioxide CO2 Reduction Plan. This list can be found in Attachment A of the Chula Vista
AQIP Guidelines. Table 12 below provides a summary of project consistency with the City’s CO2
reduction action measures.
Table 12: Summary of Village 8 East Consistency with City CO2 Reduction Action
Measures
Action Measure Project/Community Design Features
Describe how project design will
Implement CO2 Reduction
Action Measures
Measure 6 (Enhanced Pedestrian
Connections to Transit):
Installation of walkways and
crossings between bus stops and
surrounding land uses.
Village Pathway on Street “A” and
Street “B” connecting to internal local
bus stop and Promenade Streets/Trails;
Intersection neck-downs; Regional
Trails on Main Street and Otay Valley
Road connected to Village 8 Town
Center Rapid Bus stop.
The Project will implement the
design features which will enhance
the pedestrian connection to transit
stops located with the SPA Plan
area and the planned Village 8
West Rapid Bus stop. There is a
proposed Village 8 East local stop
at Main Street and Santa Marisol.
Measure 7 (Increased Housing
Density near Transit): General
increase in land use and zoning
designations to reach an average
of at least 14-18 dwelling units
per net acre within ¼ mile of
major transit facilities.
The amendment for Village 8 East
proposes residential densities at a
Medium-High to High density range.
The densities closest to the transit
stops are 11 – 18 du/ac and 18-45
du/ac. Refer to Table 5.
Reduces vehicle-miles traveled that
in turn reduces the GHG emissions.
Measure 8 (Site Design with
Transit Orientation): Placement
of buildings and circulation routes
to emphasize transit rather than
auto access; also includes bus
turn-outs and other transit stop
amenities.
Village 8 East SPA Transit Plan /
Centrally-located local bus stop at
Village Core;
P.C. District Regulations – building
setbacks
The Village 8 East SPA land use
plan site design accommodates a
centrally located mixed use and
medium-high density core with a
transit stop within ¼ mile of the
higher density residential uses.
The building setback requirements
in the PC District Regulations and
Village Design Plan policies will
provide for pedestrian-scaled
Page 1457 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 58 December 2023
Action Measure Project/Community Design Features
Describe how project design will
Implement CO2 Reduction
Action Measures
building frontages to encourage
walking. Refer to setback standards
provided in Figure 6.
The proposed local bus stop will be
all-weather and provide seating, per
City standards.
Measure 9 (Increased Land Use
Mix): Provide a greater
dispersion/variety of land uses
such as siting of neighborhood
commercial uses in residential
areas and inclusion of housing in
commercial and light industrial
areas.
Village Core that provides opportunity
for a mix of uses including
commercial, park, school, and
residential.
Reduces vehicle-miles traveled that
in turn reduces the GHG emissions.
The Village Core provides a mix of
uses including commercial and
park uses in a residential area,
consistent with Measure 9.
Measure 10 (Reduced
Commercial Parking
Requirements): Lower parking
space requirements; allowance for
shared lots and shared parking;
allowance for on-street spaces.
The SPA provides for on-street
parking.
The project includes on-street
parking spaces throughout the
Village Core which reduces the
need for large, paved parking lots.
Measure 11 (Site Design with
Pedestrian/Bicycle Orientation):
Placement of buildings and
circulation routes to emphasize
pedestrian and bicycle access
without excluding autos; includes
pedestrian benches, bike paths,
and bike racks.
P.C. District Regulations – building
setbacks
Promotes bicycling and walking
thereby reducing vehicle-miles
traveled that in turn reduces the
GHG emissions.
The building setback requirements
in the PC District Regulations and
Village Design Plan policies will
provide for pedestrian-scaled
building frontages to encourage
walking and bicycling.
Bike racks will be provided at
parks, the elementary school and
the mixed use commercial/retail
center in the village core.
Garages set back from the living
area of homes and are discouraged
in fronts of homes on multi-family
and cluster units.
Refer to Figure 6 (when available).
Page 1458 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 59 December 2023
Action Measure Project/Community Design Features
Describe how project design will
Implement CO2 Reduction
Action Measures
Measure 12 (Bicycle Integration
with Transit and Employment):
Provide storage at major transit
stops and employment areas.
Encourage employers to provide
showers at the place of
employment near major transit
nodes.
Bicycle storage per the P.C. District
Regulations.
CalGreen requires nonresidential
buildings anticipated to generate
visitor traffic to provide short-term
bicycle racks within 200 feet of the
visitors’ entrance.
Promotes bicycling that can reduce
vehicle-miles traveled that in turn
reduces the GHG emissions.
The P.C. District Regulations
include requirements for bicycle
storage and shower/changing
facilities in businesses such that
future employees may bike to
work, consistent with CalGreen
requirements.
Measure 13 (Bike Lanes, paths,
and Routes): Continued
implementation of the City’s
bicycle master plan. Emphasis is
to be given to separate bike paths
as opposed to striping bike lanes
on streets.
The Circulation of the SPA details the
circulation system in the Village
including the off-street Village
Pathway, the Promenade
Streets/Trails; Regional Trail and
Greenbelt Trail and all provide bike
paths. (Refer to Figure 2 and Figure 4
within this AQIP).
Promotes bicycling that can reduce
vehicle-miles traveled that in turn
reduces the GHG emissions.
Measure 14 (Energy Efficient
Landscaping): Installation of
shade trees for new single-family
homes as part of an overall City-
wide tree planting effort to reduce
ambient temperatures, smog
formation, energy use, and CO2.
Village 8 East Street tree planting
shall comply with the City of Chula
Vista Shade Tree Policy Number 576-
19. The objective is to maximize
shade cover to the greatest extent
possible.
The Village 8 East street sections
provide for landscaped parkways with
street trees. The Water Conservation
Plan identifies appropriate tree which
are water efficient.
Reduces energy consumption that
reduces GHG emissions.
Measure 16 (Traffic Signal &
System Upgrades): Provide high-
efficiency LED lamps or similar
as approved by the City Engineer.
Chula Vista Public Works Department
is testing the use of induction/LED
lighting for public streets in a pilot
program. If it is determined that one of
these lighting systems is feasible on a
citywide basis, the applicable lighting
system will be used in Village 8 East.
Reduces energy consumption that
reduces GHG emissions.
Measure 18 (Energy Efficient
Building Recognition Program):
Reducing CO2 emissions by
applying building standards that
exceed current Title 24 Energy
Code requirements.
Project will meet code.
The updated Title 24 Building
Code requirements are continually
more stringent to reduce energy
consumption and emissions.
Therefore, meeting code
requirements will inherently work
towards energy efficiency and
GHG reductions.
Page 1459 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 60 December 2023
Action Measure Project/Community Design Features
Describe how project design will
Implement CO2 Reduction
Action Measures
Measure 20 (Increased
Employment Density Near
Transit): General increase in land-
use and zoning designations to
focus employment-generating
land-uses within ¼ mile of major
transit stops throughout the City.
Village Core and medium-high to
high density residential close
proximity to local bus stop.
Reduces vehicle-miles traveled that
in turn reduces the GHG emissions.
The Village 8 East SPA land use
plan locates a commercial/retail
and higher densities near the
planned future local bus stop.
8. Credit Towards Increased Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards
Village 8 East will comply with CVMC Sections 15.12 and 15.26 which both defer to California
Code, Title 24. Title 24, Part 6 refers to the Energy Code and Part 11 refers to Green Building
Standards. These code sections work toward energy efficiency in the building envelope, lighting
and appliances, and landscape features.
Detailed provisions related to the calculation and application of credits are currently under
development and subject to subsequent review and approval of City Council.
9. Compliance Monitoring
This section includes a written description and a checklist (Table 13) summarizing the project
design features and mitigation measures that have been identified to reduce Village 8 East effects
on air quality and improve energy efficiency.
Table 13: Village 8 East Air Quality Improvement Plan Compliance Monitoring Checklist
AQIP Project Design
Features/Principles
Method of
Verification1
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Party2
Project
Consistency &
Compliance
Documentation
(Column to be
Completed with
Implementation)3
PLANNING
Mixed Use Village Core Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Elementary School Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Neighborhood Park Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Commercial/Retail Center Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Local Bus Stop Transit
Review Per SANDAG SANDAG/City
Rapid Bus Stop Transit
Review Per SANDAG SANDAG/City
Page 1460 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 61 December 2023
AQIP Project Design
Features/Principles
Method of
Verification1
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Party2
Project
Consistency &
Compliance
Documentation
(Column to be
Completed with
Implementation)3
CPF-1 (Community Purpose Facility) Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Private Open Spaces Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Village Pathway – Street A and Street B Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Promenade Trails Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Chula Vista Regional Trail – Main Street
and Otay Valley Road Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Attached Homes Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Narrower Streets Plan Review Tentative Map City of Chula
Vista
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Construction related emissions Permit Review Grading
Permit
City of Chula
Vista
Siting of sensitive land uses Permit Review Building
Permit
City of Chula
Vista
TAC Emission Compliance Permit Review Building
Permit
City of Chula
Vista
BUILDING
Green Building Standards
New Construction Recycling Plan
Waste
Management
Report Review
Construction
or
demolition
permit
City of Chula
Vista
Space of recycling in projects Plan Check
Tentative
Tract OR
Building
Permit
City of Chula
Vista
Energy Efficiency Standards
Size of dwellings units Plan Check Building
Permit
City of Chula
Vista
Building compliance with prevailing code Plan Check
Building
Permit/ Title
24 Energy
Report
City of Chula
Vista
Page 1461 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 62 December 2023
AQIP Project Design
Features/Principles
Method of
Verification1
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Party2
Project
Consistency &
Compliance
Documentation
(Column to be
Completed with
Implementation)3
Installation of energy efficient appliances
as code requires Plan Check Building
Permit
City of Chula
Vista
Indoor water fixture requirements:
Hot Water Pipe Insulation
Water Efficient Dishwashers (residential
only)
Dual Flush Toilets
Plan Check Plumbing
Permit
City of Chula
Vista
Installation of Pressure Reducing Valves Plan Check Plumbing
Permit
Otay Water
District
Landscape Water Conservation Plan Check Landscape
Plan
City of Chula
Vista
Installation of Recycled Water for street
parkway landscape, parks, manufactured
slopes and landscape common areas of
commercial and multi-family residential
sites.
Plan Check
Tentative
Tract Final
Map,
Improvement
Plans
Otay Water
District/ City
of Chula Vista
Notes:
1. Method of verification may include, but is not limited to, plan check, permit review, and site inspection.
2. Identify the party responsible for ensuring compliance (City of Chula Vista, San Diego APCD, Other).
3. This column shall include all pertinent information necessary to confirm compliance including document
type, date of completion, plan/permit number, special notes/comments, and contact information.
Page 1462 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1463 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 2
The proposed land use changes would reconfigure the Village Core mixed-use area to
accommodate multi-family residential uses, retail/commercial uses, an elementary school,
and a neighborhood park. The revised plan would remain consistent with the previously
authorized residential unit count total of 3,276 units for Village 8 East.
The October 2014 Water Conservation Plan for Otay Ranch Village 8 East (October 2014
Water Conservation Plan) was prepared as a supporting document to the EIR. The October
2014 Water Conservation Plan was not revised for the 2020 Village 8 East project
amendment. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the impact of the proposed land
use changes for Village 8 East on the findings from the October 2014 Water Conservation
Plan.
Village 8 East SPA Amendment Summary
A summary of proposed changes to the Village 8 East land use plan is provided as follows:
• Provide 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses.
• Distribute 1,348 multi-family homes across eight (8) Village Core parcels.
• Distribute 1,664 multi-family residential units across ten (10) parcels designated
Medium-High Residential.
Proposed Land Use Plan
As described in greater detail in the proposed project description, site utilization plan, and
land use summary table included in Attachment 1, the proposed project includes changes to
the backbone streets, land uses, and residential unit types and distribution throughout the
village.
Page 1464 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 3
Water Demand Projection – October 2014 Water Conservation Plan
Table 1 summarizes the projected average water demands for Village 8 East based on the
approved land use plan as presented in the October 2014 Water Conservation Plan. The
October 2014 Water Study analysis used the water demand factors from the April 2013
revision of the 2008 Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan.
TABLE 1
VILLAGE 8 EAST APPROVED LAND USE PLAN
PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS (OCTOBER 2014 WATER STUDY)
Land Use1 Quantity Demand
Factor
Average Demand,
gpd
Single Family Residential (3-8 Du/Ac) 303 units 500 gpd/unit 151,500
Single Family Residential (>8 Du/Ac) 640 units 300 gpd/unit 192,000
Multi-Family Residential 2,617 units 255 gpd/unit 667,335
Commercial 8.6 ac 1,607 gpd/ac 13,820
School 10.8 ac 1,428 gpd/ac 15,422
CPF 2.9 ac 714 gpd/ac 2,071
Park2 58.8 ac 0 gpd/ac 6,891
TOTAL 1,049,039
1. Open space preserve, freeway lots and AR-11 are not calculated because either no water demand is
projected from these areas or they are not currently proposed for development.
2. To be irrigated with recycled water. Nominal potable water use has been estimated for standard fixtures
(lavatories, drinking fountains, etc.).
Water Demand Projection – Proposed Plan (2023 SPA Amendment)
Table 2 summarizes the projected average water demands for Village 8 East based on the
currently proposed 2023 SPA Amendment. This projection uses current water demand
factors from the 2015 Otay Water District Water Master Plan. The decrease in water demand
factors compared to the October 2014 Water Study is due to water conservation efforts in
recent years and the proposed changes in residential densities.
Page 1465 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 4
TABLE 2
VILLAGE 8 EAST PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS (2023 SPA AMENDMENT)
Land Use1 Quantity Demand
Factor
Average Demand,
gpd
Multi-Family Residential 3,012 units 170 gpd/unit 512,040
Commercial 51.5 ac 1,607 gpd/ac 82,761
Multi-Family Residential Alternative
for Elementary School Site2 264 units 170 gpd/unit 44,880
CPF 1.2 ac 714 gpd/ac 857
Park/Active Recreation3 73.2 ac 0 gpd/ac 9,051
TOTAL 649,589
1. Internal and external circulation, open space, open space preserve, and future development areas are
not calculated because either no water demand is projected, or these areas are not proposed for
development at this time.
2. The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. Average demand of 44,880
gpd is conservatively calculated based on multi-family land use. Average demand would decrease to
14,280 gpd (10.0 net-acre school site x 1,428 gpd/acre = 14,280 gpd) if the site is utilized as a school site.
3. Parks and the AR-11 site will be irrigated with recycled water, but nominal potable water use has been
estimated for standard fixtures (lavatories, drinking fountains, etc.).
Water Conservation Savings
A water conservation plan was prepared for Village 8 East in 2014 as part of the project
approval. In addition to standard water conservation measures, multi-family units within
Village 8 East have committed to installing the following two additional measures:
• Dual flush toilets
• Water effluent landscaping
The October 2014 Water Conservation Plan estimates water conservation savings from the
use of recycled water and from the implementation of water conservation measures at single
family and multi-family residences. Table 3 summarizes the total projected water
conservation savings from the October 2014 Water Conservation Plan.
Page 1466 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 5
TABLE 3
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
NOVEMBER 2014 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
Description1 Units Water Savings,
gpd/unit
Total Water
Savings, gpd
Recycled Water --- --- 274,325
Single Family Residential 943 49.25 46,443
Multi-Family Residential 2,617 24.25 63,462
TOTAL 384,230
Based on the current proposed SPA Amendment, Table 4 provides the estimated recycled
water savings and Table 5 summarizes the total estimated water conservation savings.
TABLE 4
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECTED RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS
Land Use1 Quantity %
Irrigated
Irrigated
Acreage
Recycled
Water
Demand
Factor
Average
Recycled
Water
Demand, gpd
Irrigated Open Space2 23.5 ac 100 23.5 1,900 gpd/ac 44,650
Park/Active Recreation 73.2 ac 100 73.2 1,900 gpd/ac 139,080
Village Core/Mixed-Use 51.5 ac 10 5.2 1,900 gpd/ac 9,880
CPF 1.2 ac 20 0.2 1,900 gpd/ac 380
Multi-Family 3,012 units 15 -- 45 gpd/unit 135,540
Elementary School3 11.3 ac 20 2.3 1,900 gpd/ac 4,370
TOTAL 333,900
1. Open space preserve and future development areas are not calculated because either no water demand
is projected from these areas, or they are not currently proposed for development.
2. Includes 15.3 acres of perimeter open space located within Residential and Village Core areas and 16.4
acres of Manufactured/Basin Open Space (see Site Utilization Table in Attachment 1). There are two
detention basins (8.2 acres total) located within the Manufactured/Basin Open Space areas that are
excluded from the Irrigated Open Space acreage total (15.3 acres + 16.4 acres – 8.2 acres = 23.5 acres).
3. The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. Average recycled water
demand of 4,370 gpd is conservatively calculated based on school use. Average recycled water demand
would increase by 7,510 gpd to 11,880 gpd (264 units x 45 gpd/unit = 11,880 gpd) if the site is utilized
as a multi-family site.
Page 1467 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Jeff O’Connor
September 14, 2023
Page 6
TABLE 5
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
ESTIMATED WATER CONSERVATION SAVINGS (2023 SPA AMENDMENT)
Description1 Units Water Savings,
gpd/unit
Total Water
Savings, gpd
Recycled Water2 --- --- 333,900
Multi-Family Residential3 3,012 24.25 73,041
TOTAL4 406,941
1. Open space preserve and future development areas are not calculated because either no water demand
is projected from these areas, or they are not currently proposed for development.
2. From Table 4.
3. The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. Water savings
conservatively exclude the 264 multi-family unit alternative for the school site per Table 4. Multi-family
residential water savings would increase by 6,402 gpd (264 units x 24.25 gpd/unit = 6,402 gpd) to 79,443
gpd if the school site is utilized as a multi-family site.
4. Total water savings would increase by 13,912 gpd (Table 4, Footnote 3 increase of 7,510 gpd plus
Table 5, Footnote 3 increase of 6,402 gpd) to 420,853 gpd if the elementary school site is utilized as a
multi-family site.
Conclusion
The proposed SPA Amendment for Village 8 East will increase total water conservation
savings by 5.9 percent. Despite using Otay Water District’s lower irrigation demand factor,
the estimated recycled water use is increased from the October 2014 Water Conservation
Plan mainly due to the amount of park and recreation area that will be irrigated with recycled
water. Residential water conservation savings are decreased from the October 2014 Water
Conservation Plan due to the shift away from single family units for multi-family units
within Village 8 East. The net effect is that projected total water conservation savings are
increased from 384,230 gpd to 406,941 gpd, or by 5.9 percent. Attachment 2 presents the
preliminary potable water plan for Village 8 East. Attachment 3 presents the preliminary
recycled water plan for Village 8 East. Backbone public water line sizing and alignments
within Village 8 East shall be confirmed during final engineering.
FF:ah
Attachments
Page 1468 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 1
VILLAGE 8 EAST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
AND
LAND USE SUMMARY
Page 1469 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 1
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST REPLANNING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT: HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley,
east of Village 8 West and west of SR-125. This urban village was originally approved by the
Chula Vista City Council in 2014 and subsequently amended in 2020. Current entitlements
accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached
homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting, 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial
uses, an elementary school site, a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and La
Media Parkway with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a
utility corridor in the southeast portion of Village 8 East. Primary access to the community park is
via existing Avenida Caprise within Village 8 West.
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC, (Applicant), proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to
reflect current market conditions and housing needs and to ensure the community relates more
closely to the adjacent Village 8 West community and future Village 9 planned east of SR -125.
The replanning effort also addresses the redesign of the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and
La Media Parkway.
Village 8 East Proposed Land Use: The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include
a Village Core area that would accommodate a mix of uses including multi-family residential and
retail/commercial uses along with an elementary school site and a centrally located neighborhood
park. A future multi-modal bridge, planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
(NEV), bicycles and pedestrians is also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and
future Village 9.
The proposed project would include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and 1,348 multi-
family homes distributed across eight Village Core parcels. Other residential land uses include
1,664 multi-family residential units in 10 parcels designated Medium-High Residential. The
elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. The project also
includes an alternative elementary school site/neighborhood park site configuration which would
increase the size of the elementary school site and correspondingly reduce the neighborhood park
site. This alternative configuration would be implemented based on the needs of the Chula Vista
Elementary School District.
The project also includes 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 16.4 acres of manufactured
slopes/basins and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located east of SR-125.
Approximately 15.3 acres comprising perimeter slope areas are included in the gross acres of
development parcels. The Village 8 East Final Map(s) will include open space easements over
perimeter slope areas based on final engineering designs. The 43.3-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South is located south of Village 8 East. An existing water quality basin that
serves Village 8 West is located in the western portion of the community park and the proposed
project includes an additional water quality basin in the eastern portion of the community park to
serve Village 8 East.
Page 1470 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 2
Village 8 East SPA Site Utilization Table (Revised)
Parcel
Permitted
Density Range
Estimated
Units1
Gross
Acres2
Estimated
Density3
Medium High Multi-Family Residential
R-1 11-18 du/ac. 154 9.9 15.6
R-2 11-18 du/ac. 163 10.7 15.2
R-3 11-18 du/ac. 162 11.4 14.2
R-4 11-18 du/ac. 147 10.9 13.5
R-5 11-18 du/ac. 155 11.0 14.1
R-6 11-18 du/ac. 143 10.3 13.9
R-7 11-18 du/ac. 226 15.8 14.3
R-8 11-18 du/ac. 176 14.0 12.6
R-9 11-18 du/ac. 196 15.4 12.7
R-10 11-18 du/ac. 142 11.5 12.3
Total MH 1,664 120.9 13.8
Village Core 3
VC-1 18-45 du/ac. 275 7.6 36.2
VC-2 18-45 du/ac. 430 11.3 38.1
VC-3A 18-45 du/ac. 161 5.5 29.3
VC-3B5 18-45 du/ac. 0 5.6 0.0
VC-4 18-45 du/ac. 192 4.5 42.7
VC-55 18-45 du/ac. 0 5.7 0.0
VC-6 18-45 du/ac. 142 5.3 26.8
VC-7 18-45 du/ac. 148 6.0 24.7
Total VC 1,348 51.5 26.2
Subtotal Residential 3,012 172.4
Other
Community Purpose Facility6
CPF-1 1.2
Subtotal CPF 1.2
Parks
P-17 7.3
P-2A 15.2
P-2B 28.1
AR-11 22.6
Total Parks 73.2
School
S-17 8 264 11.3
Page 1471 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 3
Parcel
Permitted
Density Range
Estimated
Units1
Gross
Acres2
Estimated
Density3
Open Space
MSCP Preserve OS (Lots 1-4) 253.6
Manufactured/Basin OS (Lots 5-7) 16.4
Total Open Space 270.0
Circulation
Internal 22.5
External 9.2
Total Circulation 31.7
Caltrans Lots (to be dedicated)
CT-1 1.7
CT-2 0.1
CT-3 1.9
Total Caltrans Lots 3.7
Future Development
Lot A 1.0
Lot B 8.4
Total Future Development 9.4
Subtotal Other 400.5
OVERALL SPA TOTAL9 3,276 572.9
Page 1472 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 4
NOTES:
1 Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not represent the final unit allocation for
each parcel and shall not be used to limit or restrict the final units allocated to any parcel.; The final unit
allocation must remain consistent with the permitted density range applicable to the parcel. The final
unit allocation shall be determined during Design Review and shall be documented in the Unit Tracking
Table (Village 8 East SPA Plan, Attachment 1). Revisions to the Site Utilization Table s hall not be
required based on changes to the Estimated Units presented herein.
2 Final acreage information to be determined during final engineering. Acreage may vary due to
rounding. Residential and Village Core gross acreage includes approximately 15.3 of perimeter open
space areas. The future Village 8 East Final Map(s) to include open space easements over perimeter
open space slopes as determined during final design.
3 Estimated Density calculated based on gross parcel acreage. Final density to be determined during
Design Review.
4 20,000 SF of commercial uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial SF may be developed
within a single parcel designated VC or distributed among any parcel designated VC (VC-1 through
VC-7). The final distribution of commercial SF to be determ ined during Design Review. The “Permitted
Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no residential units.
5 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent with the
Village Core zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no
residential units.
6 Per the Land Offer Agreement (7/8/2014), the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall designate 4.0 acres of
CPF land. The Applicant is proposing to meet a portion of the Village 8 East CPF obligation by
designating the 1.2-acre CPF-1 site as a private recreation facility. Pursuant to the Development
Agreement Amendment, the remaining 2.8 acre CPF obligation shall be satisfied within Otay Ranch
Planning Area 20 South.
7 Both the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map include the "Proposed” and “Alternative”
configuration and acreage for the S-1 School Site and P-1 Neighborhood Park. Either the Proposed or
Alternative may be implemented without the need for an amendment to the SPA Plan or TM. The final
neighborhood park acreage shall be addressed in the future Village 8 East Parks Construction
Agreement.
8 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If the site is
not developed as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if the site is developed
as an elementary school, then the 264 units may be reallocated to another Village 8 East parcel or
transferred to another village, as permitted in the Village 8 East PC District Regulations, Chapter 10,
Implementation.
9 Village 8 East acreage adjusted from approved 2014 development area to reflect changes in SR -125
ROW and to facilitate the future SR-125 ROW Decertification process.
Circulation: Main Street, between the Village 8 West couplet and the future SR-125 Interchange,
would be implemented as a 6-lane prime arterial roadway and includes a grade-separated expanded
Regional Trail designed to accommodate a 5-foot bike lane and 10-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail
on the south side. Local bus stops are provided on both sides of Main Street. Transit access would
be provided in shared flow travel lanes.
La Media Parkway, from its eastern terminus in Village 8 West, would continue through Village
8 East as a four-lane major road with a 17-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail comprised of a 5-foot
sidewalk and 12-foot-wide, two-way NEV/Bike Route on the south side. On the north side of La
Media Parkway, an 11-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail is provided west of La Palmita Drive and
5-foot sidewalk is provided east of La Palmita Drive. Transit access is planned in shared flow
travel lanes.
Page 1473 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Site Utilization Plan
Village Core (VC)
Medium-High Residential (MH)
Open Space (OS)
Open Space Preserve (OSP)
Park (P) / Active Recreation (AR)
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
School (H)
Future Development (FD)
CalTrans (CT)
Legend - Land Use
10005000
Page 1474 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
September 6, 2023 Page 5
SR-125: Concurrent with the replanning effort in Village 8 East, CALTRANS has initiated a
Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) to evaluate alternatives that
provide new local street connections, increase capacity, improve mobility, and relieve congestion
on State Route 125 (SR-125) between the Otay River and Birch Road. The PSR-PDS includes
four preliminary designs for the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and Otay Valley Road. The
Village 8 East land use plan reflects Alternative B. The TM will be revised to reflect the ultimate
SR-125 ROW and design.
Alternative B: Couplet/Parallel Street System Interchange Alternative B consists of a
couplet/parallel street system interchange with ramps at Main Street and Otay Valley Road acting
as a single freeway access point via connected one-way frontage roads (Type L-5 per Caltrans
Highway Design Manual (HDM) Section 502.2(C)). For this alternative, vehicles traveling
northbound on SR-125 would exit at Otay Valley Road and enter SR-125 at Main Street. Similarly,
southbound vehicles would exit SR-125 at Main Street and enter SR-125 at La Media Parkway.
The on/off ramps at La Media Parkway and Main Street will be connected by two-lane, one-way
frontage roads. This alternative will include three La Media Parkway Valley Road (approximately
94’-4” wide), and a new multi-modal bridge (22’ wide).
Discretionary Actions: Discretionary actions which require City Council and Planning
Commission consideration and/or approval. The Proposed Project includes an Addendum to Otay
Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) (EIR 13-01; SCH No. 2013071077); approved December 2014,
amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan,
the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area Plan, and Appendices, a Rezone and
approval of Village 8 East Tentative Map CVT No. 22-0005. A Development Agreement
amendment is also proposed as part of the Proposed Project.
Technical Reports and Memos: The following technical reports and memos would be prepared
for the proposed project:
• Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
• Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
• Health Risk Assessment Screening Letter (Ldn Consulting, Inc.)
• Noise Assessment Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
• Comprehensive Project Information Form/Trip Generation Analysis Update (Chen Ryan)
• Archaeological Evaluation of Cultural Resources Letter (Dudek)
• Master Drainage Study (Hunsaker)
• PDP SWQMP (Hunsaker)
• Overview of Sewer Service Update (Wilson Engineering)
• Overview of Water Service Update (Wilson Engineering)
• Geotechnical Investigation Letter (GEOCON)
• Fiscal Impact Analysis Update (Development Planning & Financing Group)
Page 1475 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 2
VILLAGE 8 EAST
PRELIMINARY POTABLE WATER PLAN
Page 1476 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1477 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 3
VILLAGE 8 EAST
PRELIMINARY RECYCLED WATER PLAN
Page 1478 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1479 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Non-Renewable Energy Conservation
Plan
April 2024
Adopted on December 2, 2014
By Resolution No. 2014-235
Amended __________
By Resolution No. ______________
Prepared for:
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by
Page 1480 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Prepared by
WHA, Inc.
680 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949)-250-0607
Contact: Julia Malisos
Page 1481 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
i
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan ...................................................................................... 3
A. Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 3
B. Building Design & Use ......................................................................................................................... 4
C. Lighting ................................................................................................................................................. 6
D. Recycling .............................................................................................................................................. 7
E. Land Use ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Page 1482 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
Page 1 December 2023
I. Introduction
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) requires the preparation of a Non-Renewable
Energy Conservation Plan (Plan) that identifies feasible methods to reduce the consumption of
non-renewable energy resources. Categories identified in this Plan where reductions may occur
include but are not limited to: Transportation, Building Design & Use, Lighting, Recycling, and
Land Use.
The Chula Vista region’s current reliance on fossil fuels makes up the majority of non-renewable
energy consumption. Fossil fuels are directly consumed in the form of gasoline, diesel fuel and
natural gas and indirectly as electricity generated from these fuels. The goals, objectives and
policies of the GDP require that any new project identify a plan that assists in a long-range strategy
that will increase the conservation of and decrease the consumption of non-renewable energy
resources.
The Proposed Otay Ranch Village 8 East project includes a Village Core area that would
accommodate a mix of uses including multi-family residential and retail/commercial uses along
with an elementary school site and a centrally located 7.3-acre neighborhood park. A future multi-
modal bridge, planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), bicycles and
pedestrians is also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and future Village 9.
The proposed project would also include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and 1,348
multi-family homes distributed across eight Village Core parcels. Other residential land uses
include 1,664 multi-family residential units in 10 parcels designated Medium-High Residential.
The elementary school site has an underlying “High” residential land use designation that could
accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not utilized as a school site. The project also
includes an alternative elementary school site/neighborhood park site configuration which would
increase the size of the elementary school site and correspondingly reduce the neighborhood park
site. This alternative configuration would be implemented based on the needs of the Chula Vista
Elementary School District.
Additionally, the project provides 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 16.4 acres1 of
manufactured slopes/basins and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located east of State
Route (SR) 125. Approximately 15.3 acres comprising perimeter slope areas are included in the
gross acres of development parcels. The Village 8 East Final Map(s) will include open space
easements over perimeter slope areas based on final engineering designs. The 43.3-acre2 (gross)
Otay Ranch Community Park South is located south of Village 8 East.
1 A portion of the Edge Trail and associated overlook features (approximately 1.76 acres) are included within the
8.2-acre OS-7 parcel. The Edge Trail area shall be secured with a public access easement and the 1.76 acres shall
satisfy a portion of the Village 8 East park obligation. The 1.76 -acre Edge Trail area is not counted toward meeting
the Village 8 East open space requirement.
2 If the P-2 Community Park / OS-6 Alternative configuration depicted on the Village 8 East Tentative Map is
implemented, then the park acreage would be increased to 47.4 acres (gross) and manufactured open space/basins
would be reduced by 4.1 acres (gross).
Page 1483 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
Page 2 December 2023
Summary of proposed land use changes to the previously approved project consist of the
following:
• 3,276 multi-family units (from 943 single family and 2,333 multi-family units)
• 20,000 SF of commercial/retail uses in a mixed use setting (no change)
• 7.3 acre neighborhood park (no change)3
• 11.3-acre elementary school site (from a 10.8 acre school site)4
• 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space (OSP) (no change)
• 22.6 acres of Active Recreation (AR) (no change)
The project applicant proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to reflect current market
conditions and housing needs, and to ensure the community relates more closely to the adjacent
Village 8 West community and future Village 9 and University Innovation District planned east of
SR 125 and accommodates the SR 125 couplet interchange design between Main Street and Otay
Valley Road.
The proposed mix of uses in a higher density environment enables more pedestrian activity rather
than car trips. The 2022 CalGreen Code requires energy conservation methods that will reinforce
Chula Vista’s desire for sustainable development and living.
3 if the alternative configuration is implemented, the S-1 site would be 12.0 acres (net) and the P-1 park site would
be 4.6 acres (net).
4 If the alternative configuration is implemented, the S-1 site would be 12.0 acres (net) and the P-1 park site would
be 4.6 acres (net).
Page 1484 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
Page 3 December 2023
II. Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
Opportunities for energy conservation in Village 8 East are characterized by the following:
A. Transportation
Transportation design features that encourage energy conservation in Village 8 East include:
• Reduced Vehicle-trip Miles:
On the regional level, Village 8 East is designed to accommodate transit service. New
transit stops are proposed at the intersection of Main Street and La Palmita Drive.
The internal circulation plan encourages pedestrian activity and bike access by way of
“complete” streets as defined within the Section Planning Area (SPA) which includes the
Village Pathway, an off-street 10 to 12-foot wide paved path for bicycles and pedestrians.
All streets include some form of sidewalk or Promenade Trail to create a fully connected
pedestrian network. Main Street includes an off-street 5.5-foot-wide cycle track adjacent
to the Chula Vista Regional Trail, and La Media Parkway includes off-street cycle tracks
as part of the network. This bike network connects to the Village Pathway in Village 8
West and will cross State Route (SR) 125, linking to Village 9.
Additional measures to promote alternative transportation or reduce traffic congestion
include uses such as open space and an elementary school within walking distance to the
majority of homes, design features that encourage walking and minimize conflicts between
cars and pedestrians, and appropriately scaled architecture and landscape aesthetics that
are visually engaging from the sidewalk.
As part of the 2014 FEIR, the Otay Ranch Village Eight East project was approved by the
City of Chula Vista City Council in December 2014 and incorporated into the Chula Vista
General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The current project wo uld
include one minor modification (0.22 acres) to the development area analyzed in the
University Villages Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment FEIR (EIR-13-01; SCH No.
2013071077; City of Chula Vista 2014). The minor change is related to the realignment of
Otay Valley Road (La Media Parkway). Proposed Village 8 East land use changes (refer
to Section 1 of this document for description) would result in a decrease in trip generation
and traffic impacts as compared to the 2014 approved project and would not substantially
change trip distribution patterns (Chen Ryan 2023). Due to the elimination of single family
units and increase in multi-family units in the Proposed Project, the overall trips calculated
for the 2023 proposed project are 4,000 less than the 2014 Traffic Analysis (Chen Ryan
TIA 2023).
• Alternative Travel Modes
The GDP describes the automobile oriented improvements as only one component of an
integrated mobility system, which includes bicycles, low speed electric vehicles, pedestrian
trails and public transit systems. For this reason, all circulation streets in and around Village
8 East have been designed to minimize steep gradients wherever possible. The village has
Page 1485 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
Page 4 December 2023
trails and sidewalks throughout, providing connectivity and access within the village and
outside of the village using means other than an automobile.
Furthermore, any residential unit with a private garage will include Electric Vehicle (EV)
- Capable infrastructure enabling electric vehicle charging. Common area parking will also
include charging stations as required by Code. Attached residential projects (e.g., multi-
family) of more than 20 units built after January 1, 2023 will comply with the 2022
California Green Building Code Title 24, Part 11 (CalGreen) code, at a minimum, which
includes various requirements from “EV Ready” to installed EV charging stations.
Neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) provide a clean alternative vehicular mode of
transportation, ideal for shorter trips. The NEV network consists of internal low-speed
streets within Village 8 East. NEVs are permitted on all public streets with a posted speed
limit of 35 miles per hour or less. The circulation system has been intentionally designed
to provide an internally connected system of low-speed streets that allow NEVs to travel
between various destinations within Village 8 East. Calle Escuela also provides a
connection for NEVs to Village 8 West and the future Multi-Modal Bridge provides a
future connection to Village 9 across SR-125. NEVs are not permitted on sidewalks, trails
or other pedestrian-only paths.
• Increase Use of Transit
Village 8 East proposes higher density homes that are close to transit and pedestrian/bicycle
trails. Enabling safe walking and biking environments as well as convenient access to a
planned transit stop encourages transit use. Village 8 East enables non-vehicular travel
through land use planning and circulation design.
• Roadway Pavement Widths and Street Trees
Otay Ranch street sections are narrower than typical standards. Narrow streets and a
reduction in asphalt pavement reduce the “urban heat-island effect” by limiting the amount
of reflective surfaces and reducing the demand for air conditioning. Street trees provide
shade which further reduces heat-gain. Street and parking lot tree planting shall comply
with the City of Chula Vista Shade Tree Policy Number 576-19 (May 22, 2012). The
objective is to maximize shade cover to the greatest extent possible. Shade trees are
provided for all new parking lots that will achieve 50% canopy cover over the parking stall
areas five to 15 years after planting. Shade street trees are also designed into the village
landscape plan reducing pavement temperatures in the hotter months.
The design of all public streets includes sidewalks and landscaping to promote pedestrian
circulation throughout the SPA Plan Area. Private street configurations are to be
determined during design review and refined during final engineering.
B. Building Design & Use
Building design and use features that encourage energy conservation in Village 8 East include:
• Housing Efficiency
Village 8 East proposes higher densities that typically require attached housing typologies.
Such attached homes use less energy for heating and cooling than larger, single-family
Page 1486 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
Page 5 December 2023
detached homes. The SPA Amendment purpose is to incorporate higher densities into
Village 8 East including Medium-High Residential, High Residential and Village Core.
Allowed densities would range from 11-45 dwelling units per acre.
• Solar Orientation
Passive solar design including the orientation of buildings can take advantage of the sun’s
warmth in winter to assist with heating as well as minimize heat gain in summer months to
assist with cooling. Village 8 East buildings will accommodate 2022 Title 24 standards (at
a minimum) which encourage effective solar orientation for useful photovoltaic systems;
see also Use of Solar Energy Systems, below.
• Building Efficiency
Buildings in Village 8 East will be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6 of the California
Building Standards Code, which regulates energy uses including building envelope, space
heating and cooling, hot water heating, and ventilation. The energy code allows builders to
use either a performance standard or a prescriptive method; either way, energy efficiency
requirements shall be met.
The City of Chula Vista has adopted Green Building Standards (Chula Vista Municipal
Code (CVMC) Chapter 15.12) and an Energy Efficiency Ordinance (CVMC Section 15.26)
that require compliance with the applicable Title 24 Part 11 and Part 6, respectively.
• Water Conservation
A Water Conservation Plan was prepared as a component of the approved SPA Plan (2014)
in conformance with the requirements of the Otay Ranch GDP and the Chula Vista Growth
Management Ordinance.
As described in the Water Conservation Plan prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering,
certain landscaped areas are required to utilize recycled water where available based on
current Otay Water District (OWD) policies regarding new subdivision development.
Consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP, it is anticipated that recycled water will irrigate
landscape areas identified in the Water Conservation Plan.
The potential sources and availability for recycled water use are described in more detail
in the Water Conservation Plan. Potential demand within the SPA Plan area will be
estimated in a subsequent Subarea Water Master Plan to be approved by the OWD prior to
project implementation. Recycled water requirements for the project will be coordinated
by OWD and the City. Phased construction of recycled water facilities, based on an OWD-
approved master plan, will be incorporated into the project Public Facilities Financing Plan
(PFFP) and/or subdivision map conditions of approval to assure timely provision of
required facilities.
Indoor Water Conservation
• Plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings shall comply with the current California
Energy Code.
Page 1487 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
Page 6 December 2023
Outdoor Water Use
• Outdoor water use shall comply with the requirements of the applicable California
Green Building Standards Code (2022 or future).
• Controllers for landscaping provided by the builder and installed at the time of final
inspection shall comply with the following:
o Controllers shall be weather- or soil moisture-based controllers that
automatically adjust irrigation in response to changes in plants’ needs as
weather conditions change.
o Weather-based controllers without integral rain sensors or communication
systems that account for local rainfall shall have a separate wired or wireless
rain sensor which connects or communicates with the controller(s). Soil
moisture-based controllers are not required to have rain sensor input.
• Use Improved Construction Standards
Residential and commercial construction within Village 8 East is required to adhere to the
Energy Efficiency Standards of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections 15.26,
20.04 and the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards in Title 24 Part 6 of the California
Code of Building Regulations.
• Use of Solar Energy Systems
Village 8 East will comply with the City of Chula Vista’s “Solar Ready” Ordinance which
requires solar hot water pre-plumbing (CVMC Section 20.04.030) and photovoltaic pre-
wiring requirements (CVMC 20.04.040) as well as the applicable state code requirements.
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 20.04.040 requires all new residential units to include
plumbing specifically designed to the later installation of a system that utilizes solar
photovoltaic or other renewable energy resource as a means of generating electricity.
However, all projects approved under the Village 8 East SPA Amendment will be required
to meet the California Energy Code current at the time of permit review. Therefore,
photovoltaics may be required to be installed rather than pre-wired.
C. Lighting
Energy efficient lighting will be used to light streets, parks and other public spaces. All residential
and commercial use lighting would be in compliance with current California Energy Code
requirements at the time of permit review.
• Energy Efficient Public Lighting
Standards for Village 8 East will comply with Title 24, Part 6 requiring the use of energy
efficient lighting in commercial public areas including plazas and parks. The proposed
project will also comply with Title 24, Part 11 regarding light pollution reduction.
Page 1488 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
Page 7 December 2023
The City of Chula Vista Public Works Department has installed LED lights in the City that
use 1/3 the electricity without reducing lighting levels and impacting public safety. The
lighting system will continue to be used in Village 8 East.
D. Recycling
Residential and Commercial Recycling programs in Village 8 East include:
• Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections 8.23-25 require all commercial and industrial
establishments that recycle with a third-party recycler to submit recycling tonnage
documentation on an annual basis to the City’s conservation coordinator, due on or before
January 31st, for the previous year. Those establishments recycling with a franchised hauler
do not need to report because the hauler does the reporting to the City. This requirement
promotes recycling of materials.
The City of Chula Vista’s Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Manual, adopted by the
Chula Vista City Council, provides information for adequate space allocated to recycling
and solid waste within individual projects, based upon the type of project and collection
service needed.
Additionally, the City of Chula Vista encourages the use of compost materials to be
incorporated into the soil of all new construction projects to improve soil health, water
retention, less water runoff and filtration of water run-off prior to entering storm drains and
creeks draining to San Diego Bay. The yard trimmings collected in Chula Vista are
composted at the Otay Landfill and may be available for purchase.
• New Construction Waste Reduction
CalGreen requires that a minimum of 65% all new construction waste generated at a site
be diverted to recycle or salvage. Additionally, the State has set per capita disposal rates of
5.3 pounds per person per day for the City of Chula Vista. To maintain these targets the
following programs must be implemented per Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections 8.23,
Solid Waste and Recycling Contract or Franchise; 8.24, Solid Waste and Litter; 8.25,
Recycling; and 19.58.340, Trash Enclosures.
All new construction and demolition projects in the City are required to divert from landfill
disposal 100% of inert waste to include asphalt, concrete, bricks, tile, trees, stumps, rocks
and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing; and 50% of all remaining
waste generated. Contractors will be required to put up a performance deposit and prepare
a Waste Management Report form to ensure that all materials are responsibly handled.
Upon verification that the diversion goals have been met the performance deposit will be
refunded. CVMC 8.25.095.
E. Land Use
Land use patterns and project features that conserve non-renewable energy resources and reduce
reliance on the automobile within Village 8 East include:
• Reduce the Reliance on the Automobile
The vision for Village 8 East is to develop a community with interconnected uses and
varying residential densities. The mix of proposed residential, commercial and community
Page 1489 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
VILLAGE 8 EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
Page 8 December 2023
uses are intended to provide a complementary, mixed-use environment with a focus on
promoting a walkable and bikeable community that reduces automobile trips.
The Village proposes sidewalks and trails throughout as well as transit stops along Main
Street. The various opportunities encourage walking or biking rather than driving. The
trails also connect to the larger regional system as does the transit, thus enabling transit use
beyond Village 8 East.
Per the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Project – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update
(Dudek, 2023), the proposed Village 8 East SPA Amendment would reduce daily vehicle
trips generated by approximately 5% as compared to the 2014 approved project.
• Regional Mass Transit Facilities
Otay Ranch and Village 8 East are designed and ready to accommodate public
transportation and alternative travel modes to reduce energy consumption. Village 8 East
is designed with transit stops to accommodate connection to the larger regional transit
system. In conformance with applicable General Plan goals and policies, public
transportation is an integral part of Otay Ranch. The Village 8 East plan has responded by
providing such public transit facilities.
In conclusion, this Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan supports the goals, objectives, and
policies of the GDP by providing methods to reduce energy consumption and increase use of
renewable energy in the future Otay Ranch Village 8 East.
Page 1490 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Preserve Edge Plan
April 2024
PREPARED FOR:
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Adopted on December 2, 2014
By Resolution No. 2014-235
Amended XX
By Resolution No. XX
Page 1491 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1492 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
II. FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITHIN THE PRESERVE ................. 2
A. Utilities ............................................................................................................................................. 2
B. Canyon Subdrains ........................................................................................................................... 3
C. Access Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 3
III. FACILITIES PROPOSED WITHIN THE 100-FOOT PRESERVE EDGE .............................. 9
A. Retaining Walls .............................................................................................................................. 9
B. Trails .............................................................................................................................................. 10
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH RMP/MSCP SUBAREA PLAN POLICIES ....................................... 12
A. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 12
B. Village 8 East Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 13
C. Toxic Substances .......................................................................................................................... 16
D. Lighting .......................................................................................................................................... 17
E. Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 17
F. Invasive Plant Materials ............................................................................................................... 19
G. Buffers ............................................................................................................................................ 19
H. Restrict Access .............................................................................................................................. 25
EXHIBITS
1 Areas Subject to the Preserve Edge Plan and Facilities Proposed within the Preserve 1
2 Typical Canyon Subdrain Detail 3
3 Pedestrian Circulation Plan 5
4 Community Park Entry Drive 6
5 Community Park Trail 7
6 Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail 7
7 Chula Vista Regional Trail 8
8 Cross Section at R-9 Multi-Family 10
9 Cross Section at R-9 & R-10 Multi-Family 11
10 Cross Section at CPF-1 Site 12
11 Water Quality Basin Plan 15
12 Otay Ranch Community Park South Concept Plan 24
13 Cross Section at Community Park (P-2) 25
14 Perimeter Wall (Barrier) at Preserve Edge Plan 27
Attachment A Village 8 East Brush Management, Preserve Edge
& Community Park Approved Plant Palette
Page 1493 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
7
Page 1494 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 1 December 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Preserve Edge Plan is to identify allowable uses within the 100-foot
Preserve Edge located within the development area adjacent to the Otay Ranch Preserve.
In accordance with Policy 7.2 of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, a Preserve
Edge Plan is to be developed for all SPA Plans that contain areas adjacent to the Preserve.
The Preserve Edge is a 100-foot-wide strip of land within the development area adjacent
to the Preserve. To provide further guidance relating to the content of the Preserve Edge
Plan, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan contains policies related to land use adjacency.
Otay Ranch GDP, RMP and MSCP policies are summarized and evaluated below. Areas
subject to the Preserve Edge Plan requirements and facilities proposed within the Preserve
are depicted on Exhibit 1 and further described below.
Exhibit 1: Areas Subject to the Preserve Edge Plan and Facilities Proposed within the Preserve
Page 1495 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 2 December 2023
II. FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITHIN THE PRESERVE
The facilities described below and depicted on Exhibit 1 are proposed within the MSCP
Preserve and are not subject to this Preserve Edge Plan, but rather are discussed for
context purposes only. Per the MSCP Subarea Plan, certain infrastructure and roads
planned in conjunction with development will be allowed to be constructed, operated
and maintained within the Preserve. The Subarea Plan anticipated these “Planned” and
“Future” facilities and requires compliance with the siting criteria identified in Section
6.3.3.4 of the Subarea Plan. The Project’s Biological Report provides the siting criteria
analysis. Facilities proposed within the Preserve include:
A. Utilities
The Village 8 East SPA Plan (“Project”) includes sewer connections to the existing
Salt Creek Interceptor located in the Otay River Valley south of Village 8 East,
Potable and Recycled Water Facilities and Storm Drain Facilities necessary to serve
Village 8 East and the Active Recreation Area (AR-11) located east of SR-125.
Two storm drain outlets are proposed to serve Villages 8 East and the Community
Park. Both storm drain facilities outlet directly to the Otay River. The storm drain
outlets are located south of the Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-2
Community Park). These facilities are partially within the area designated “Active
Recreation” in the MSCP Subarea Plan and partially within the MSCP Preserve.
With development of Village 8 West, located west of Village 8 East, a water quality
basin and storm drain outlet were constructed to serve flows from a portion of the
Community Park and the adjacent Village 8 West development area. These flows
are conveyed through the existing western basin.
The storm drain outlet proposed at the eastern portion of the P-2 Community Park
is within the MSCP Preserve and is comprised of a storm drain pipe,
headwall/dissipation and rip rap. Storm drain flows from Village 8 East are
conveyed to the Otay River Valley via the eastern storm drain outlet.
In addition to the storm drain outlets serving Village 8 East, an existing storm drain
facility within the SR-125 right of way conveys flows from existing SR-125
improvements. This facility will be extended with a headwall/dissipation and rip
rap outlet structure to the Otay River. This facility is located entirely within the
area designated “Active Recreation” in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
The Community Park Trail/Maintenance and Emergency Access Road located west
of the SR-125 ROW includes storm drain, recycled water and sewer facilities. The
grading associated with a portion of this facility impacts the MSCP Preserve.
A sewer line and potable water line is proposed within the Community Park Entry
Drive right-of-way. This facility is sized to serve Village 8 West and includes a
sewer connection to serve the Community Park. A potable water line is also
Page 1496 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 3 December 2023
proposed within the Community Park Entry Drive right-of-way sized to serve the
Community Park. The Community Park Entry Drive is planned to cross the MSCP
Preserve between Village 8 West and the Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-
2). (See Exhibits 3 and 4)
B. Canyon Subdrains
A series of canyon subdrains are proposed within the Village 8 East development
area and are proposed to outlet south of the residential parcels, within the MSCP
Preserve. Two 8” and one 6” subdrains are proposed. See Exhibit 1 for the
approximate locations of the subdrains. The subdrain outlets are comprised of a
concrete headwall. The outlet pipes extend a maximum of 20’ from the Preserve
Boundary (See Exhibit 2). Additional details are provided in the Village 8 East
Geotechnical Study prepared by GEOCON.
Exhibit 2: Typical Canyon Subdrain Detail
C. Access Facilities
The Village 8 East SPA Plan includes development of a portion of the Active
Recreation Area identified in the Otay Ranch GDP, Chula Vista MSCP Subarea
Plan and the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan (AR-11). The western
portion of AR-11 has been designated as the Otay Ranch Community Park South
(P-2) on the Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan. In order to provide vehicular,
pedestrian, emergency, and maintenance access to this recreational area and
proposed water quality basins, two access points are proposed. The Community
Park Entry Drive is entirely within the Preserve, while a portion of the Community
Park Trail is within the Preserve.
• Full public vehicular/pedestrian access to the Community Park is planned
through adjacent Village 8 West via Avenida Caprise, continuing south
through the Preserve (Community Park Entry Drive) and connecting to the
Community Park along its northwestern edge. As discussed above, utilities
Page 1497 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 4 December 2023
serving Village 8 West and the Community Park are co-located in the
Community Park Entry Drive. This utility corridor has been graded and
constructed as part of the Village 8 West project. The Community Park Entry
Drive is comprised of two travel lanes, a landscaped parkway and a 10’ wide
Chula Vista Regional Trail on one side (See Exhibit 4). Post and rail fencing
is proposed along the entire length of the Regional Trail. Utilities serving
adjacent Village 8 West (storm drain and sewer) are included in the
Community Park Entry Drive. Potable water service will be extended within
the Community Park Entry Drive right-of-way from the point of connection in
Village 8 West to the Community Park.
• The Chula Vista Regional Trail planned along the Community Entry Drive
(Avenida Caprise) extends south of the P-2 Park entry. This segment crosses
the MSCP Preserve to connect to the planned Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail.
Fencing and signage will be incorporated into the trail design as required. (See
Exhibit 3 and 7).
• Shared emergency/maintenance/pedestrian access to public storm drain, sewer
and recycled water facilities, the Village 8 East basin and the Community Park
is provided along the Community Park Trail located adjacent to and within the
SR-125 ROW along the eastern end of the Community Park (See Exhibits 3
and 5). This facility is comprised of a 20-24’ wide paved roadway. Post and
rail fencing is provided along both sides. A small portion of this facility results
in grading impacts within the Preserve (See Exhibit 1). In addition to providing
access, utilities serving Village 8 East (storm drain and sewer) and the P-2
Community Park/AR-11 (recycled water) are co-located within the public
utility and access easement. Public vehicular access is prohibited along the
Community Park Trail, except for the portion connecting the P-2 Park and AR-
11.
• The Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail/Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Trail is
co-located within the existing Salt Creek Sewer Easement on the north side of
the Otay River Valley, south of the P-2 Community Park (See Exhibits 3 and
6). This trail is a Planned Facility in the MSCP Subarea Plan. Physical
improvements associated with implementation of this trail (fencing and
signage) would not create any impacts on the MSCP Preserve, as it is planned
within a fully disturbed area. See the Biological Report for the MSCP
adjacency analysis.
Page 1498 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 5 December 2023
Exhibit 3: Pedestrian Circulation Plan
Page 1499 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 6 December 2023
Note: The Community Park Entry Drive (Avenida Caprise) was included in the adopted Village 8 West SPA and Tentative
Map as an off-site improvement. This illustrative representation is consistent with the Village 8 West approved design and is
provided for reference only.
Exhibit 4: Community Park Entry Drive
Page 1500 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 7 December 2023
Exhibit 5: Community Park Trail
Exhibit 6: Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail
Page 1501 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 8 December 2023
Note: Grading and surface improvements within the 30’ Utility & Access Easement were approved with the Village 8 West
SPA, Tentative Map and Grading Plan as an off-site improvement. Implementation of the Regional Trail component within
the utility corridor is limited to fencing, to be determined based on field conditions. This illustrative representation is consistent
with the approved design and is provided for reference only.
Exhibit 7: Chula Vista Regional Trail
Page 1502 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 9 December 2023
III. FACILITIES PROPOSED WITHIN THE 100-FOOT PRESERVE EDGE
Pursuant to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan:
“Development within the 100-foot edge is restricted to uses that are allowed within
the Preserve and the following uses:
1. Brush management in order to reduce fire fuel loads and reduce potential
fire hazard [7.2].
2. Landscaping that is compatible with open space, as demonstrated by a
Preserve Edge Plan [7.2]. No invasive plant species, such as those defined by the
California Invasive Plant Council Invasive Plant Inventory, shall be included in
the plant palette.
3. Fencing and walls that are built or landscaped in a way to minimize visual
impacts to the Preserve and the OVRP. No structures other than fencing and walls
shall be allowed [7.2].
4. Trails for passive recreational use. Trails should incorporate fencing or
barriers and signage to reduce the likelihood of human intrusion into the Preserve.
5. Detention basins, brow ditches, storm drains, and other drainage features to
protect the quality of the adjacent Preserve.”
Consistent with RMP requirements, the Proposed Project includes landscaping, brush
management areas, retaining walls and trails, including post and rail fencing, within
the Preserve Edge, as depicted on Exhibit 1 and described below. There are no
structures proposed within the 100-foot Preserve Edge.
A. Retaining Walls
A series of retaining walls is proposed within the 100’ Preserve Edge along the
southern edge of Village 8 East, outside of the MSCP Preserve. The retaining wall
system is broken into four wall sections ranging in height from ±7’ to ±17.5’. Wall
heights and locations are conceptual, subject to final engineering. A 10’ pedestrian
only access and maintenance buffer area is provided between the base of the wall
and the MSCP Preserve Boundary, A Preserve Edge Fence or Marker is provided
at the Preserve Boundary. (See Exhibit 8)
Page 1503 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 10 December 2023
Note: The above exhibit is based on a conceptual plan. Final design to be determined during final engineering, including
retaining wall location, height and setback.
Exhibit 8: Cross Section at R-9 Multi-Family
B. Trails
Village 8 East proposes a portion of the Community Park Trail within 100’ Preserve
Edge. The Community Park Trail provides emergency, pedestrian and maintenance
access to a utility corridor co-located with the trail. Within the Village 8 East
development area, the Community Park Trail connects to the CPF-1 site, planned
as a private recreation facility overlooking the Otay River Valley. This trail
segment provides a critical link between Village 8 East and the P-2 Community
Park and the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail system located in the Otay River
Valley (See Exhibits 5 and 9). Post and rail fencing and signage will be
incorporated into the trail design as required.
Page 1504 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 11 December 2023
Note: The above exhibit is based on a conceptual plan. Final design to be determined during final engineering.
Exhibit 9: Cross Section at R-9 & R-10 Multi-Family
Page 1505 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 12 December 2023
Note: The above exhibit is based on a conceptual plan. Final design to be determined during final engineering.
Exhibit 10: Cross Section at CPF-1 Site
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH RMP/MSCP SUBAREA PLAN POLICIES
The following discussion provides a description of policies identified in the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan, which were developed in consideration of the requirements of the
RMP, as well as compliance measures to be carried out by the various components of
the SPA Plan. The discussion is divided into edge effect issue areas identified in the
Subarea Plan.
A. Drainage
MSCP Policy:
"All developed and paved areas must prevent the release of toxins, chemicals,
petroleum products, exotic plant materials and other elements that might degrade
or harm the natural environment or ecosystem processes within the Preserve. This
can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins,
grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. These systems should be maintained
approximately once a year, or as often as needed, to ensure proper functioning.
Maintenance should include dredging out sediments if needed, removing exotic
plant materials, and adding chemical- neutralizing compounds (e.g., clay
compounds) when necessary and appropriate." (Page 7-25)
Page 1506 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 13 December 2023
Compliance:
The Village 8 East TM Drainage Study (“Drainage Plan”) and PDP – Stormwater
Quality Management Plan (“SWQMP”) prepared by Hunsaker and Associates
assessed the existing and developed drainage and water quality conditions in the
SPA Plan area. In conformance with the GDP and SPA requirements, the Drainage
Plan provides the necessary hydrological studies, analysis and design solutions to
provide appropriate urban runoff and water quality for the SPA Plan Area as
described below and depicted on Exhibit 11, Water Quality Basin Plan.
Drainage
• All pre-development and post-development runoff from Village 8 East
is within the Otay River Valley watershed.
• Runoff from the developed portion of Village 8 East and co-mingled flow from
La Media Parkway (Village 8 West) will be routed via a storm drain system
southerly. A cleanout with an internal diversion will be located at the
downstream portion of the system to direct the low flow to a proposed
detention base and volume based Modular Wetlands System located in the
eastern portion of the P-2 Community Park to address water quality
requirements, while the peak flows continue toward the discharge point at the
Otay River. The detention basin and Modular Wetlands System outlets directly
to the Otay River via internal storm drain systems. Energy dissipating
measures such as D-41 headwalls or APWA energy dissipating impact basin
(or alternative) along with riprap are proposed at each respective outlet.
• A biofiltration water quality basin is proposed at the southwestern corner of
the P-2 Community Park to treat runoff from the park driveway and a portion
of the park. The final basin design will occur during the park master planning
process.
• Due to the impact of the Savage Dam at the Otay Reservoir, studies have
determined that the development of the Village 8 East site will not increase the
100-year frequency peak flows in the Otay River. Therefore, no detention
basins are required.
B. Village 8 East Water Quality
The development of the SPA Plan area will implement all necessary requirements
for water quality as specified by the State and local agencies.
The development will meet the requirements of the City's Standard BMP Design
Manual (BMPDM), the Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program and the Storm
Water Management and Discharge Ordinance (as specified in the City of Chula
Vista Development and Redevelopment Storm Water Management
Page 1507 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 14 December 2023
Standards/Requirements Manual).
The Otay River is a USGS blue line stream, which makes it a waterway of the
United States under the Clean Water Act (CWA). All development in excess of
five acres must incorporate urban runoff planning, which will be detailed at the
Tentative Tract Map level. The conceptual grading and storm water control plan
for the SPA Plan area provides for water quality control facilities to ensure
protection for the Otay River.
According to the San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area Analysis, the Otay
River is categorized as an exempt facility from hydromodification management
requirements. Since all runoff from the developed area within the Village 8 East
SPA is proposed to drain directly to the Otay River, hydromodification
management measures are not required for this development.
The Biological Resources Technical Report further discusses the potential for
erosion/scouring, habitat removal, habitat conversion, flooding and washing out
existing/future facilities and the cumulative effects as a result of increased
discharge volumes and the rate of discharge into the Otay River.
In addition to the permanent drainage facilities, temporary desiltation basins to
control construction related water quality impacts will be constructed within the
SPA Plan Area with each grading phase to control sedimentation during
construction. The interim desiltation basins are designed to prevent discharge of
sediment from the project grading operations into the natural drainage channel and
will be detailed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) as
required by the Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board. The exact size, location and component elements of these interim
basins will be identified on the grading plans and SWPPP. Temporary, interim
measures will occur within the development area.
Page 1508 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 15 December 2023
Note: The above exhibit is based on a conceptual plan. Final design to be determined during final engineering.
Exhibit 11: Water Quality Basin Plan
Page 1509 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 16 December 2023
C. Toxic Substances
MSCP Policy:
"All agricultural uses, including animal-keeping activities, and recreational uses
that use chemicals or general by-products such as manure, potentially toxic or
impactive to wildlife, sensitive species, habitat, or water quality need to incorporate
methods on their site to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage
of such materials into the Preserve. Methods shall be consistent with requirements
requested by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)." (Page 7-26)
Compliance:
Agricultural uses adjacent to the Preserve have been phased out, consistent with
the Village 8 East Agricultural Plan. There are no agricultural activities currently
occurring on the site.
As described in greater detail in the SWQMP for Village 8 East, prepared by
Hunsaker & Associates, the combination of proposed construction and permanent
BMPs will reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the expected project
pollutants and will not adversely impact the beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
Anticipated pollutants from the project site may include sediments, nutrients, heavy
metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil
and grease, bacteria and viruses and pesticides. Runoff from Village 8 East will be
transmitted via public storm drain to a detention/water quality storage basin and
volume based Modular Wetlands System located in the eastern portion of the P-2
Community Park.
A second water quality biofiltration basin is conceptually located in the
southwestern portion of the P-2 Park to treat flows from the park driveway and a
portion of the P-2 Park. Stormwater pollutants are removed through physical and
biological processes, including adsorption, filtration, plant uptake, microbial
activity, decomposition, sedimentation and volatilization (EPA 1999). Adsorption
is the process whereby particulate pollutants attach to soil (e.g., clay) or vegetation
surfaces. Pollutants removed by adsorption include metals, phosphorus, and
hydrocarbons. Filtration occurs as runoff passes through the bioretention area
media, such as the sand bed, ground cover, and planting soil. Treated water is
released into the Otay River within 36 hours of capture. This system ensures that,
to the greatest extent practicable, Preserve areas adjacent to Village 8 East will not
be impacted from toxic substances that may be generated from the Village 8 East
project site.
Page 1510 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 17 December 2023
D. Lighting
MSCP Policy:
"Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Preserve should be directed away
from the Preserve, wherever feasible and consistent with public safety. Where
necessary, development should provide adequate shielding with non- invasive plant
materials (preferably native), berming, and/or other methods to protect the Preserve
and sensitive species from night lighting. Consideration should be given to the use
of low-pressure sodium lighting." (Page 7-26)
Compliance:
Improvement plans for areas within or adjacent to the 100’ Preserve Edge will
include shielded lighting designs that avoid spillover light in the Preserve. Any
proposed lighting along the southern edge of Village 8 East and the Community
Park Entry Drive will be located the greatest distance possible away from the
Preserve, while meeting public safety lighting requirements. The Community Park
Concept Plan incorporates active recreation uses such as baseball fields, soccer
fields, tennis courts, and parking areas which may include lighting and security
lighting on restroom and maintenance buildings. Per the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan (Section 6.3.4 Otay Valley Regional Park Plan Uses, Page 6- 19),
“Active recreation uses are identified in the Otay Ranch GDP as allowed uses in
the Otay Ranch Preserve are not subject to the 100-foot Edge Plan requirements.”
Lighting Plans and accompanying photometric analyses must be prepared in
conjunction with improvement plans that include lighting in areas adjacent to the
Preserve and during the P-2 Community Park master planning process to illustrate
the location of proposed lighting standards and type of light shielding measures.
Lighting Plans must demonstrate that light spillage into the Preserve is
avoided/minimized to the greatest extent possible. City of Chula Vista updated
street lighting standards require installation of energy saving LED lamps on all City
streets.
E. Noise
MSCP Policy:
"Uses in or adjacent to the Preserve should be designed to minimize noise impacts.
Berms or walls should be constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other
use that may introduce noises that could impact or interfere with wildlife utilization
of the Preserve. Excessively noisy uses or activities adjacent to breeding areas,
including temporary grading activities, must incorporate noise reduction measures
or be curtailed during the breeding season of sensitive bird species.”
Where noise associated with clearing, grading or grubbing will negatively impact
Page 1511 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 18 December 2023
an occupied nest for the least Bell’s vireo during the breeding season from March
15 to September 15, noise levels should not exceed 60 CNEL. However, on a case-
by-case basis, if warranted, a more restrictive standard may be used. If an occupied
Least Bell’s Vireo nest is identified in a pre-construction survey, noise reduction
techniques, such as temporary noise walls or berms, shall be incorporated into the
construction plans to reduce noise levels below 60 CNEL.
Where noise associated with clearing, grubbing or grading will negatively impact
an occupied nest for raptors between January 15 and July 31 or the California
gnatcatcher between February 15 and August 15 (during the breeding season),
clearing, grubbing or grading activities will be modified, if necessary, to prevent
noise from negatively impacting the breeding success of the pair. If an occupied
raptor or California gnatcatcher nest is identified in a pre-construction survey,
noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the construction plans.
Outside the bird breeding season(s), no restrictions shall be placed on temporary
construction, noise." (Page 7-26)
Compliance:
The project EIR includes Mitigation Measures requiring pre-grading surveys for
gnatcatchers, vireos and nesting raptors. Based on those surveys and locations of
nesting birds in the year of grading, if it is determined that the noise impact
thresholds established in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan would be exceeded,
the Applicant would be required to reduce the impact below the designated
threshold through either modification of construction activities (such as berming)
or avoiding clearing, grubbing, grading or construction activities within 300 feet of
an occupied nest site. Post- construction noise impacts associated with residential
development will be minimized to the greatest extent possible through site layout.
There are no single family lots backing onto the Preserve Edge. Activities
associated with the ongoing maintenance of the water quality basin and storm drain
outlets are provided in the Village 8 East TM Drainage Study.
The proposed P-2 Community Park was identified in the Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan as Active Recreation #11. Per the MSCP Subarea Plan, Section 6.3.4,
Otay Valley Regional Park Uses, “Active recreation areas are identified in the Otay
Ranch GDP as allowed uses in the Otay Ranch Preserve and are not subject to the
100-foot Edge Plan requirements.” However, as part of the University Village EIR
preparation, Anita Hayworth, Ph.D. (Dudek), reviewed the Conceptual Community
Park Concept Plan as it relates to species points in the vicinity of the park. Dr.
Hayworth identified up to four gnatcatcher points north of the Community Park site
and several documented Vireo sightings west and south of the Otay Quarry.
However, noise generating sports fields are located approximately 150 feet from
these sensitive receptors. In addition, riparian habitat (Willow patch) within the
Otay River Valley is approximately 150 feet south of the soccer field, providing
ample setbacks from mapped sensitive habitats. After reviewing minor adjustments
Page 1512 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 19 December 2023
to field locations, Dr. Hayworth indicated that no additional changes to the 2014
Conceptual Community Park Plan were necessary. Further, Dr. Hayworth
determined that limitations to park activities during breeding seasons (February 15
and August 15) are not warranted. See Biological Report for MSCP Adjacency
Analysis. These recommendations will remain applicable during the park master
planning process.
F. Invasive Plant Materials
MSCP Policy:
"No invasive non-native plant species shall be introduced into areas immediately
adjacent to the Preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to the Preserve should be
planted with native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat. The plant list
contained in the “Wildland / Urban Interface: Fuel Modification Standards,” and
provided as Appendix L of the Subarea Plan, must be reviewed and utilized to the
maximum extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in areas adjacent
to the Preserve.” (Page 7-27)
Compliance:
Landscape plans within the 100’ Preserve Edge will not contain invasive species,
as determined by the City of Chula Vista and identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan,
Appendices N, List of Invasive Species. Landscape areas within the 100’ Preserve
Edge including, but not limited to, manufactured slopes, must comply with the
Approved Plant List provided as Attachment “A” to this document. This list also
meets the requirements outlined in the attachment to the Village 8 East Fire
Protection Plan and 2023 Addendum, as some of these areas are also within the
100’ Brush Management Zone required by the MSCP Subarea Plan. Any changes
to the Approved Plant List must be approved by the Director of Development
Services or their designee. The area may be planted with container stock (liners) or
a hydroseed mix.
G. Buffers
MSCP Policy:
"There shall be no requirements for buffers outside the Preserve, except as may be
required for wetlands pursuant to Federal and/or State permits, or by local agency
CEQA mitigation conditions. All open space requirements for the Preserve shall be
incorporated into the Preserve. Fuel modification zones must be consistent with
Section 7.4.4 of the Subarea Plan."
Compliance:
Brush Management Zones have been incorporated into the proposed development
areas of the SPA Plan pursuant to the requirements of the Subarea Plan. Where
Page 1513 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 20 December 2023
appropriate, graded landscaped slope areas will be maintained pursuant to Fire
Department requirements and will be outside of the Preserve. The Village 8 East
Fire Protection Plan and 2023 Addendum provide specific fuel modification
requirements for the entire SPA Plan Area. Consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP
requirements, a 100’ Brush Management Zone has been established and portions of
the Brush Management Zone coincide with the 100’ Preserve Edge. A description
of the Brush Management Zones is provided below and shown in Exhibits 8, 9, 10
and 13.
Brush Management Zones:
Zone 1: All public and private areas located between a structure’s edge and 50 feet
outward. These areas may be located on publicly maintained slopes, private open
space lots, public streets, and/or private yards.
• Provide a permanent irrigation system within this irrigated wet zone.
• Only those trees on the Approved Plant List and those approved by the Director
of Development Services or designee as not being invasive are permitted in
this zone.
• All plant and seed material to be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible
to avoid genetically compromising the existing Preserve Vegetation.
• Tree limbs shall not encroach within 10 feet of a structure or chimney,
including outside barbecues or fireplaces.
• Provide a minimum of 10 feet between tree canopies.
• Additional trees (excluding prohibited or highly flammable species) may be
planted as parkway streets on single loaded streets.
• Limit 75% of all groundcovers and sprawling vine masses to a maximum
height of 18 inches.
• 25% of all groundcover and sprawling vine masses may reach a maximum
height of 24 inches.
• Groundcovers much be of high-leaf moisture content.
• Shrubs shall be less than 2 feet tall and planted on 5-foot centers.
• Randomly placed approved succulent type plant material may exceed the
height requirements, provided that they are spaced in groups of no more than
three and a minimum of five feet away from described “clear access routes.”
• Vegetation/Landscape Plans within this zone shall be in compliance with the
Preserve Edge Plan, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Village 8
East Fire Protection Plan.
Zone 2: All public and private areas located between the outside edge of Zone 1
and 50 feet outward to 100 feet, per the Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan. These
areas may be located on public slopes, private open space lots and public streets,
Page 1514 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 21 December 2023
and are subject to the criteria provided below:
• Utilize temporary irrigation to ensure the establishment of vegetation intended
to stabilize the slopes and minimize erosion.
• Trees may be located within this zone, provided they are planted in clusters of
no more than three. A minimum distance of no less than 20 feet shall be
maintained between the tree cluster’s mature canopies.
• Only those trees on the Approved Plant List and those approved by the
Director of Development Services or Designee as not being invasive are
permitted in this zone.
• All plant and seed material to be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible
to avoid genetically compromising the existing Preserve Vegetation.
• Limit 75% of all groundcover and sprawling vine masses to a maximum height
of 36 inches.
• 25% of all groundcover and sprawling vine masses may reach a maximum
height of 48 inches.
• Randomly placed approved succulent type plant material may exceed the
height requirements, provided that they are spaced in groups of no more than
three and a minimum of five feet away from described “clear access routes.”
• Shrubs may be planted in clusters not exceeding a total of 400 sq. ft.
• Provide a distance of no less than the width of the largest shrub’s mature
spread between each shrub cluster.
• Provide “avenues” devoid of shrubs a minimum width of 6 feet and spaced a
distance of 200 linear feet on center to provide a clear access route from toe
of slope to top of slope.
• When shrubs or other plants are planted underneath trees, the tree canopy shall
be maintained at a height no less than three times the shrub or other plant’s
mature height (break up any fire laddering effect).
• There shall be no hedges.
A more detailed description of the Brush Management Zones, including
maintenance activities, planting programs, etc. is provided in the University
Villages Fire Protection Plan and Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan Addendum
(2023). Any proposed changes in the Brush Management Zone are subject to
approval by the Chula Vista Director of Development Services and the Chula Vista
Fire Chief.
The 100’ Preserve Edge coincides with the 100’ Brush Management Zone in some
areas. Retaining walls are also included within Zone 2 of the 100’ Brush
Management Zone.
Page 1515 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 22 December 2023
The irrigation design proposed for the Preserve Edge includes permanent irrigation
within Brush Management Zone 1 (0-50 feet) and temporary irrigation in Zone 2 to
ensure the establishment of vegetation intended to stabilize the slope and minimize
erosion. The temporary irrigation is described below:
Zone 2 (51 – 100 feet) would be irrigated with temporary above-ground irrigation
lines utilized only during plant establishment using sprinkler heads that spray 360
degrees. When the plants have become established, the sprinkler heads will
be adjusted to spray only 180 degrees toward the upper 50 feet of the slope.
With proper maintenance and management, the temporary irrigation within Brush
Management Zone 2 as described above, does not conflict with the Adjacency
Management Issues found in Section 7.5.2 of the City of Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan.
Otay Ranch GDP Objective:
Identify allowable uses within appropriate land use designations for areas
adjacent to the Preserve.
Policy: All development plans adjacent to the edge of the Preserve shall be subject
to review and comment by the Preserve Owner/Manager, the City of Chula
Vista, and the County of San Diego to assure consistency with resource
protection objectives and policies.
Policy: "Edge Plans" shall be developed for all SPAs that contain areas adjacent to
the Preserve. The "edge" of the Preserve is a strip of land 100 feet wide that
surrounds the perimeter of the Preserve. It is not a part of the Preserve - it
is a privately or publicly owned and maintained area included in lots within
the urban portion of Otay Ranch immediately adjacent to the Preserve.
Compliance:
The preparation of this Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan fulfills the requirement
to develop an “Edge Plan” for any SPA Plan Area adjacent to the Preserve and is
subject to review and comment by the Preserve Owner/Manager, the City of Chula
Vista and County of San Diego. Uses within the 100’ Preserve Edge are either
privately or publicly owned and maintained.
The Otay Ranch Community Park South located south of Village 8 East is identified
as “Active Recreation” in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and is not subject
to the 100-foot Edge Plan requirements. However, the Community Park Concept
Plan was developed and refined based on input from the Applicant’s biologist to
minimize/avoid impacts on sensitive resources located within the surrounding
Preserve areas. See the Otay Ranch Community Park South Concept Plan (Exhibit
Page 1516 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 23 December 2023
12). In addition to the Concept Plan, a cross section depicting the relationship
between the community park, the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail/Salt Creek Sewer
Easement and the Otay River Valley is provided in Exhibit 13. The University
Villages 2014 Biological Technical Report addressed/analyzed the park in
relationship to the MSCP Adjacency Guidelines and provides mitigation measures
to be applied during park master planning.
MSCP Adjacency Guidelines
All new development must adhere to the Adjacency Guidelines for drainage found
on Page 7-25 of the Subarea Plan. In summary, the guidelines state that:
1. All developed areas must prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum
products, exotic plant materials and other elements that might degrade or harm the
natural environment or ecosystem processes within the Preserve.
2. Develop and implement urban runoff and drainage plans which will create the
least impact practicable for all development adjacent to the Preserve.
3. All development located within or directly adjacent to or discharging directly
to an environmentally sensitive area are required to implement site design, source
control, and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Compliance:
To adhere to these MSCP guidelines, excessive runoff into the Preserve from
adjacent irrigated slopes must be prevented. Erosion control BMPs must be
installed prior to planting and watering to prevent siltation into the Preserve. The
irrigation system installed on the slopes should have an automatic shutoff valve to
prevent erosion in the event the pipes break. Irrigation schedules for the slopes
adjacent to the Preserve must be evaluated and tested in the field to determine the
appropriate water duration and adjusted, as necessary, to prevent excessive runoff.
A manual weeding program or the focused application of glyphosate shall be
implemented on the manufactured slopes adjacent to the Preserve to control weeds
that are likely to be encouraged by irrigation. Weed control efforts should occur
quarterly or as needed, to prevent weeds on the manufactured slopes from moving
into the adjacent Preserve. A qualified monitor shall check the irrigated slopes
during plant establishment to verify that excessive runoff does not occur and that
any weed infestations are controlled.
Page 1517 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 24 December 2023
Exhibit 12: Otay Ranch Community Park South Concept Plan
Page 1518 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 25 December 2023
Exhibit 13: Cross Section at Community Park (P-2)
H. Restrict Access
Both the Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan contain policies
that restrict or limit access into the Preserve. These policies are discussed below:
Otay Ranch RMP Policy 6.5:
“Identify restricted use areas within the Preserve.”
Standard: Public access may be restricted within and adjacent to wetlands, vernal
pools, restoration areas, and sensitive wildlife habitat (e.g., during breeding season)
at the discretion of the Preserve Owner/Manager.
Guidelines:
1. The Preserve Owner/Manager shall be responsible for identifying and
designating restricted areas based on biological sensitivity...”
Page 1519 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 26 December 2023
MSCP Policy:
“The public access to finger canyons will be limited through subdivision design,
fencing or other appropriate barriers, and signage.”
“Install barriers (fencing, rocks/boulders, appropriate vegetation) and/or signage in
new communities where necessary to direct public access to appropriate locations.”
Compliance:
Pursuant to the requirements of the MSCP Subarea Plan and RMP, the land plan
has been designed to provide access to the preserve areas at designated locations,
directing pedestrians to developed public trails within the Otay River Valley via
designated public trails and roadways. The Village Design Plan provides wall and
fence details for Village 8 East. Perimeter view fencing/post and rail fencing along
the adjacent development parcel boundaries will be provided outside of the
Preserve. In addition, a post and rail fence is planned along the down-slope edge of
the Edge Trail within the Brush Management Zone. This property will be
maintained by the Master HOA, with maintenance funded through a Homeowner’s
Association. A Preserve Edge Fence/Marker will be provided at the MSCP
Boundary.
Access to the Brush Management Zone will be provided via locked gates for
maintenance and fire protection activities only located every 1,000’ along the
southern edge of Village 8 East. Interim access control measures, such as fencing,
signage, etc. will be provided within the development area to restrict public access
until trail improvements within the Preserve are complete. The conceptual location
of perimeter fencing at the Preserve Edge is depicted in Exhibit 14. Perimeter
fencing is intended to provide a barrier between development and Preserve areas.
The exact location and type of all proposed fencing will be depicted on the overall
Village 8 East Landscape Master Plan and will be subject to review and approval
by the Director of Development Services or Designee. Signage, identifying the
MSCP Preserve and notifying the public of access restrictions, will be provided at
key locations along the Preserve Edge. A detailed sign program for trails will be
provided on the Village 8 East Landscape Master Plan and will be subject to review
and approval by the Director of Development Services and the Public Works
Director or designees.
Page 1520 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Otay Ranch Village 8 East Preserve Edge Plan
Page 27 December 2023
Exhibit 14: Perimeter Wall (Barrier) at Preserve Edge Plan
Page 1521 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT “A”
VILLAGE 8 EAST BRUSH MANAGEMENT, PRESERVE EDGE &
COMMUNITY PARK
APPROVED PLANT LIST – December 2023
Brush Management Modification (Zones 1 & 2)
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically
compromising existing Preserve vegetation. Notes provided below must be adhered to and planting
must be implemented in accordance with the Chula Vista Fire Department’s fuel modification
guidelines summarized in the Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan and 2023 Addendum.
Trees
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 1
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon * See Note 'A' below
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde 1
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 1
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite 1
Prunus ilicifolia 'ilicifolia' Hollyleaf Cherry 1
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak 1
Rhus lancea African Sumac 1 See Note 'B' below
Shrubs, Cacti & Ground Covers
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave 1
Atriplex semibacatta Berry Saltbush 1
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush 1 & 2 See Note 'C' below
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster 1
Encelia californica California Encelia 2
Encelia farinose California Encelia 1 & 2
Epilobium californicum California Fuschia 1 & 2
Epilobium canum California Fuschia 1 & 2
Galvezia speciosa 'Fire Cracker' Bush Snapdragon 2
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon * See Note 'A' below
Isomeris arborea Bladder Pod 2
Isocoma menziesii ‘ Manziesii’ Coast Goldenbush 2
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder *
Limonium perezii Statice 1
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum 1
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass 2
Opuntia littoralis Coastal Prickly Pear Cactus 2 See Note 'E' below
Opuntia oricola No Common Name 2 See Note 'E' below Phyla nodiflora Kurapia 1 Rhamnus crocea Redberry *
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry *
Rhus ovata Sugarbush *
Salvia apiana White Sage 2 See Note 'F' below
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba * See Note 'F' below
Trichostema lanatum Woolly Blue Curls *
Page 1522 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower 2
Yucca schidigera Mojave Yucca 1 & 2
Yucca whipplei Our Lord's Candle 1 & 2
Hydroseed Application
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically compromising existing
Preserve vegetation
Acmispon americanus Purshing's lotus 1
Acmispon heermannii Heerman's lotus 1
Cryptantha intermedia Common cryptantha 1
Eschscholzia californica Coastal California Poppy 1
Helianthemum scoparium Sun Rose 1
Lasthenia gracilis California Goldfields 1
Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine 1
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass 1
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Sand Aster 2
Encelia farinosa California Encelia 2
Ericameria palmeri Palmer's goldenbush 2
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow 2
Galium angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw 2
Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush 2
Hemizonia fasciculata Common Tarplant 2
Isocoma menziesii Menzies’ goldenbush 2
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder *
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields 2 Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine 2
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower 2
Brush Management Notes:
* Indicates larger shrubs that may be utilized in Zone 2, in cluster of no more than 400 SF
A May be planted within Fuel Management Zone 1 up to 10% of the plant palette mix. No single mass shall exceed
400 sf. These shall be spaced such that the nearest shrub is no closer than the tallest shrub height (at maturity)
B Plant acceptable on a limited basis (Max. 30% of the area at the time of planting)
C Only local native shrub species will be utilized. No cultivars shall be permitted.
D Plant acceptable on a limited basis (Max. 30% of the area at the time of planting)
E Plants must be locally sourced
F May be planted in limited quantities and must be properly spaced
Community Park P-2 Plant List
Trees
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree
Citrus species Citrus
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood
Dracaena draco Dragon Tree
Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Jacaranda mimisifolia Jacaranda
Page 1523 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
Lagerstroemia indica Lavender Crape Myrtle
Ligustrum lucidum Glossy Privet
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia
Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas Tree
Olea europea 'Willsonii' Fruitless Olive
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak
Quercus ilex Holly Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Evergreen Elm
Shrubs, Cacti, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave
Aloe species Aloe
Anigozanthos species Kangaroo Paw
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea
Callistemon citrinus 'Little John' Little John Bottlebrush
Carex species Sedge
Ceanothus cultivars Ceanothus
Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush
Cistus species Rockrose
Clematis species Evergreen Clematis Vine
Cordyline australis 'Atropurpurea' Bronze Dracena
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster
Crassula species Crassula
Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily
Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira
Encelia californica California Encelia
Encelia farinose California Encelia
Euonymus species Euonymus
Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava Festuca species Fescue
Ficus pumila Creeping Fig
Grevillea ‘Noellii’ Noel Grevillea
Grewia occidentalis Lavender Starflower
Helichrysum petiolare 'Limelight' Limelight Licorice Plant
Hesperaloe species Red Yucca
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Ilex species Holly
Lantana species Lantana
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Texas Privet
Limonium perezii Statice
Page 1524 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Mahonia aquifolium Oregon Grape Mimulus cardinalis Scarlet Monkeyflower
Muhlengurgia rigens Deergrass
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum
Myrtus communis Myrtle
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Nephrolepis cordifolia Sword Fern
Phormium species New Zealand Flax Phyla nodiflora Kurapia
Pittosporum crassifolium
'Compactum' Evergreen Pittosporum
Pittosporum tobira 'Wheeler's Dwarf' Wheeler’s Dwarf Pittosporum
Podocarpus 'Icee Blue' (Columnar) Icee-Blue Yellow-Wood
Podocarpus macrophyllus 'Maki' Shrubby Yew Pine
Portulcaria afra Elephant's Food Portulcaria afra 'Minima' Elephant's Mat
Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry
Pyracantha species Firethorn
Rhaphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorn
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'Minor' Dwarf Yedda Hawthorne
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Rosmarinus species Rosemary
Salvia apiana White Sage
Scaevola 'Mauve Clusters' Mauve Clusters Pincushion
Flower
Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Paradise
Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise
Tecoma species Esperanza
Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle
Thuja occidentalis 'Degroots Spire' Degroots Spire Arbovitae
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Tulbaghia violacea Sweet Garlic
Westringia fruticosa 'Mundi' Low Coast Rosemary
Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria
Turf
Festuca Aquawise Sportslube Mix
(from seed) Sports Field Fescue Mix
Dwarf Tall Fescue (sod) Marathon II
Cynodon dactylon ‘Bandera’ Bandera Bermuda Grass
Hydroseed Application
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically compromising existing
Preserve vegetation.
Acmispon americanus Purshing's lotus
Acmispon heermannii Heerman's lotus
Cryptantha intermedia Common cryptantha
Eschscholzia californica Coastal California Poppy
Helianthemum scoparium Sun Rose
Lasthenia gracilis California Goldfields
Page 1525 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Sand Aster
Encelia farinosa California Encelia
Ericameria palmeri Palmer's goldenbush
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow
Galium angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw
Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush
Hemizonia fasciculata Common Tarplant
Isocoma menziesii Menzies’ goldenbush
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine
Page 1526 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
14056
1 December 2023
Justin Gipson, Fire Division Chief: Director of Fire Prevention and Support Services, Chula
Vista Fire Department
Dudek Fire Protection; Michael Huff, Principal Fire Protection Planner
Dudek Fire Protection; Noah Stamm, Fire Protection Planner III
Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan Addendum and Figures Updates
December 2023 (Updated January 2024)
Attachment 1 – Updated Site Plan and Site Utilization Plan
Attachment 2 – FPP Figure 12 – Updated Fuel Modification Zone Exhibit
Attachment 3a – FPP Figure 13 – Updated Perimeter Fence at Preserve Edge
Attachment 3b - V8 East Park Concept Section at P-2 Park Area
Attachment 4 – Updated FPP Attachment 2 – Approved Plant Palettes for Village 8 East
Interior Landscape and Fuel Modification Zones
Attachment 5 – Updated Prohibited Plant List
The University Villages, Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared by Dudek was approved by the City Chula
Vista Fire Department (CVFD) in 2014. In September 2022, Dudek was asked to evaluate proposed changes
related to the Village 8 East replanning effort. HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (Applicant) has prepared a new tentative
map (TM) and amendments to the Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA), which include an amendment
to the FPP. Dudek has evaluated the revised site plan (Attachment 1) and determined that the findings of the
approved Fire Protection Plan (FPP) dated July 2014 remain applicable and valid. The site changes do not impact
the analysis, results, or requirements of the FPP as long as the FPP’s requirements are maintained.
In addition to the revised site plan and SPA, the Village 8 East replanning effort includes an updated landscape
plan with a variety of newly proposed plant species along with an updated prohibited plant list. Dudek has reviewed
the proposed plant palette and prohibited plant list and provided opinions that required the removal of some
species, resulting in the proposed plant palettes which Dudek accepts as meeting the FPP requirements for fuel
modification zone areas and separately, for interior landscape areas.
As indicated, Dudek has determined that the findings of the approved 2014 FPP remain applicable with the
proposed site plan and SPA updates, with some minor FPP changes. First, the fire and buildings codes have been
updated since the FPP was prepared in 2014 with the most recent update adopted on January 1, 2023. The FPP
will be amended to incorporate consistency with the latest codes.
Items 1 through 5 below summarize the proposed addenda to the 2014 FPP. Additionally, Attachment 2 – FPP
Figure 12 – Village 8 East Fuel Modification Zone Exhibit has been updated to reflect the revised Village 8 East TM
with no FMZ width reductions except at the P-2 Park.
Page 1527 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
14056
2 December 2023
. The approved FPP (December 2014) shall include the
application of all applicable Chapters of the 2022 California Fire Code (CFC), including Chapter 49 and all applicable
Chapters of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), including Chapter 7A, for the entire University Villages, Village
8 East Project Site.
.
The FPP is amended to include the following Project Description and Table 1:
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley, east of
Village 8 West and west of SR-125. This urban village was originally approved by the Chula Vista City Council
in 2014 and subsequently amended in 2020. Current entitlements accommodate a total of 3,276
residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached homes and 440 multi -family units in a
mixed-use setting, 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses, an elementary school site, a
neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South. Access to the village is
provided via the extension of Main Street and La Media Parkway with emergency and pedestrian access to
the community park provided along a utility corridor in the southeast portion of Village 8 East. Primary
access to the community park is via existing Avenida Caprise within Village 8 West.
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC, (Applicant), proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to reflect
current market conditions and housing needs and to ensure the community relates more closely to the
adjacent Village 8 West community and future Village 9 planned east of SR-125. The replanning effort also
addresses the redesign of the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and La Media Parkway.
: The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include a Village Core
area that would accommodate a mix of uses including multi -family residential and retail/commercial uses
along with an elementary school site and a centrally located neighborhood park. A future multi-modal
bridge, planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), bicycles and pedestrians is also
planned in the Village Core linking Village 8 East and future Village 9.
The proposed project would include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and 1,348 multi -family
homes distributed across eight Village Core parcels. Other residential land uses include 1,664 multi-family
residential units in 10 parcels designated Medium-High Residential. The elementary school site has an
underlying “High” residential land use designation that could accommodate 2 64 multi-family units if the
site is not utilized as a school site. The project also includes an alternative elementary school
site/neighborhood park site configuration which would increase the size of the elementary school site and
correspondingly reduce the neighborhood park site. This alternative configuration would be implemented
based on the needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
The project also includes 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 16.4 acres of manufactured slopes/basins
and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located east of SR -125. Approximately 15.3 acres
comprising perimeter slope areas are included in the gross acres of development parcels. The Village 8
East Final Map(s) will include open space easements over perimeter slope areas based on final engineering
designs. The 43.3-acre (gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South is located south of Village 8 East. An
existing water quality basin that serves Village 8 West is located in the western portion of the community
Page 1528 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
14056
3 December 2023
park and the proposed project includes an additional water quality basin in the eastern portion of the
community park to serve Village 8 East.
Page 1529 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Parcel Permitted
Density Range
Estimated
Units1
Gross
Acres2
Estimated
Density3
Medium High Multi-Family
Residential
R-1 11-18 du/ac 154 9.9 15.6
R-2 11-18 du/ac 163 10.7 15.2
R-3 11-18 du/ac 162 11.4 14.2
R-4 11-18 du/ac 147 10.9 13.5
R-5 11-18 du/ac 155 11.0 14.1
R-6 11-18 du/ac 143 10.3 13.9
R-7 11-18 du/ac 226 15.8 14.3
R-8 11-18 du/ac 176 14.0 12.6
R-9 11-18 du/ac 196 15.4 12.7
R-10 11-18 du/ac 142 11.5 12.3
Total MH 1,664 120.9 13.8
Village Core4
VC-1 18-45 du/ac. 275 7.6 36.2
VC-2 18-45 du/ac. 430 11.3 38.1
VC-3A 18-45 du/ac. 161 5.5 29.3
VC-3B5 18-45 du/ac. 0 5.6 0.0
VC-4 18-45 du/ac. 192 4.5 42.7
VC-55 18-45 du/ac. 0 5.7 0.0
VC-6 18-45 du/ac. 142 5.3 26.8
VC-7 18-45 du/ac. 148 6.0 24.7
Total VC 1,348 51.5 26.2
Subtotal Residential 3,012 172.4
Other
Community Purpose Facility6
CPF-1 1.2
Subtotal CPF 1.2
Parks
P-17 7.3
P-211 43.3
AR-11 22.6
Total Parks 73.2
School
S-17 8 264 11.3
Page 1530 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Parcel Permitted
Density Range
Estimated
Units1
Gross
Acres2
Estimated
Density3
Open Space
MSCP Preserve OS (Lots 1-4) 253.6
Manufactured/Basin OS (Lots 5-
8) 9 16.4
Total Open Space 270.0
Circulation
Internal 22.5
External 9.2
Total Circulation 31.7
CALTRANS LOTS
(to be dedicated)
CT-1 1.7
CT-2 0.1
CT-3 1.9
Total CALTRANS Lots 3.7
Future Development
Lot A 1.0
Lot B 8.4
Total Future Development 9.4
Subtotal Other 400.5
OVERALL SPA TOTAL10 3,276 572.9
Page 1531 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
NOTES:
1 Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not represent the final unit allocation for each
parcel and shall not be used to limit or restrict the final units allocated to any parcel.; The final unit allocation
must remain consistent with the permitted density range applicable to the parcel. The final unit allocation
shall be determined during Design Review and shall be documented in the Unit Tracking Table (Village 8
East SPA Plan, Attachment 1). Revisions to the Site Utilization Table shall not be required based on changes
to the Estimated Units presented herein.
2 Final acreage information to be determined during final engineering. Acreage may vary due to rounding.
Residential and Village Core gross acreage includes approximately 15.3 of perimeter open space areas. Open
space easements to be recorded over perimeter open space slopes to be maintained by the Master HOA or
Sub-Association, as determined during final design.
3 Estimated Density calculated based on gross parcel acreage. Final density to be determined during Design
Review.
4 20,000 SF of commercial uses are authorized within Village 8 East. Commercial SF may be developed
within a single parcel designated VC or distributed among any parcel designated VC (VC -1 through VC-7).
The final distribution of commercial SF to be determined during Design Review. The “Permitted Density
Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no residential units.
5 VC-3B and VC-5 are anticipated to be developed with non-residential uses only, consistent with the Village
Core zoning district. The “Permitted Density Range” is not applicable to VC parcels with no residential units.
6 Per the Land Offer Agreement (7/8/2014), the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall designate 4.0 acres of CPF
land. The Applicant is proposing to meet a portion of the Village 8 East CPF obligation by designating the
1.2-acre CPF-1 site as a private recreation facility. The remaining 2.8 acre CPF obligation shall be addressed
in a separate agreement between the Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
7 Both the Village 8 East SPA Plan and Tentative Map include the "Proposed” and “Alternative”
configuration and acreage for the S-1 School Site and P-1 Neighborhood Park. Either the Proposed or
Alternative may be implemented without the need for an amendment to the SPA Plan or TM. The final
neighborhood park acreage shall be addressed in the future Village 8 East Parks Construction Agreement.
8 The S-1 school site has an underlying residential land use designation of High Residential. If the site is not
developed as a school site, then it shall be developed as residential; however, if the site is developed as an
elementary school, then the 264 units may be reallocated to another Village 8 East parcel or transferred to
another village, as permitted in the Village 8 East PC District Regulations, Chapter 10, Implementation.
9 A portion of the Edge Trail and associated overlook features (approximately 1.76 acres) are included within
the 8.2-acre OS-7 parcel. The Edge Trail area shall be secured with a public access easement and the 1.76
acres shall satisfy a portion of the Village 8 East park obligation. The 1.76 -acre Edge Trail area is not counted
toward meeting the Village 8 East open space requirement.
10 Village 8 East acreage adjusted from approved 2014 development area to reflect changes in SR -125 ROW
and to facilitate the future SR-125 ROW Decertification process.
11 The P-2 Community Park / OS-6 Alternative would be implemented only upon City approval of the
Alternative Compliance Program (“ACP”) Permit and Rough Grading Storm Water Quality Management
Plan (“SWQMP”) (See TM Sheet 6 for additional details). This would increase the P-2 Community Park
parcel to 47.4 acres (gross) and 39.0 acres (net) and correspondingly decrease the OS-6 parcel to 4.8 acres
(gross) and 0.7 acres (gross).
Page 1532 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
14056
6 December 2023
Local bus stops are provided on both sides of Main Street. Transit access would be provided in shared flow
travel lanes.
La Media Parkway, from its eastern terminus in Village 8 West, would continue through Village 8 East as a
four-lane major road with a 17-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail comprised of a 5-foot sidewalk and 12-foot-
wide, two-way NEV/Bike Route on the south side. On the north side of La Media Parkway, an 11-foot Chula
Vista Regional Trail is provided west of La Palmita Drive and 5-foot sidewalk is provided east of La Palmita
Drive. Transit access is planned in shared flow travel lanes.
Concurrent with the replanning effort in Village 8 East, CALTRANS has initiated a Project Study
Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) to evaluate alternatives that provide new local street
connections, increase capacity, improve mobility, and relieve congestion on State Route 125 (SR-125)
between the Otay River and Birch Road. The PSR-PDS includes four preliminary designs for the SR-125
interchanges at Main Street and Otay Valley Road. The Village 8 East land use plan reflects Alternative B.
The TM will be revised to reflect the ultimate SR-125 ROW and design.
Alternative B: Couplet/Parallel Street System Interchange Alternative B consists of a couplet/parallel street
system interchange with ramps at Main Street and Otay Valley Road acting as a single freeway access point
via connected one-way frontage roads (Type L-5 per Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Section
502.2(C)). For this alternative, vehicles traveling northbound on SR-125 would exit at Otay Valley Road and
enter SR-125 at Main Street. Similarly, southbound vehicles would exit SR-125 at Main Street and enter
SR-125 at La Media Parkway. The on/off ramps at La Media Parkway and Main Street will be connected by
two-lane, one-way frontage roads. This alternative will include three La Media Parkway Valley Road
(approximately 94’-4” wide), and a new multi-modal bridge (22’ wide).
Discretionary actions which require City Council and Planning Commission
consideration and/or approval. The Proposed Project includes an Addendum to Otay Ranch University
Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (EIR 13-
01; SCH No. 2013071077); approved December 2014, amendments to the City of Chula Vista General
Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Otay Ranch Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area
Plan, and Appendices, a Rezone and approval of Village 8 East Tentative Map CVT No. 22-0005. A
Development Agreement amendment is also proposed as part of the Proposed Project.
: The following technical reports and memos would be prepared for the
proposed project:
•Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
•Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
•Health Risk Assessment Screening Letter (Ldn Consulting, Inc.)
•Noise Assessment Technical Memorandum (Dudek)
•Comprehensive Project Information Form/Trip Generation Analysis Update (Chen Ryan)
•Archaeological Evaluation of Cultural Resources Letter (Dudek)
•Master Drainage Study (Hunsaker)
•PDP SWQMP (Hunsaker)
•Overview of Sewer Service Update (Wilson Engineering)
•Overview of Water Service Update (Wilson Engineering)
Page 1533 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
14056
7 December 2023
• Geotechnical Investigation Letter (GEOCON)
• Fiscal Impact Analysis Update (Development Planning & Financing Group)
Fuel Modification Zones
will remain the same throughout the University Villages, Village 8 East Project area with the following exceptions:
1) a reduction of the 100-foot FMZ around the perimeter of the Otay Ranch Community Park South (P-2) to
30 feet (see Attachment 2). It should be noted that there will be a structure(s) proposed within the P-2 Park
area, however, the location of the structure(s) is not yet identified. Any structures located within the P-2
Park area will be provided with 100 feet or more of irrigated fuel modification around all sides.
2) the six-foot tall CMU fire wall that was previously proposed along the rear yards of the structures at the
southern edge of the development area, is now unnecessary and will instead be tubular steel or post & rail
(Attachment 3a). The six-foot CMU fire wall along the rear yards of the structures is being eliminated
because a full 100 feet of on-site fuel modification (i.e. Zones 0, 1, and 2) is achievable along exposed
sides of the structures along the southern boundary that are exposed to the naturally-vegetated open space
areas. Furthermore, within the fuel modification zones, there are multiple MSE/retaining walls proposed
that range in height between 3 and 12 feet, as well as multi -tiered edge trails/community park trails that
are between 8 feet and 20 feet wide. The inclusion of the MSE/retaining walls and the trails provide and
equivalent separation of fuels. Finally, the P-2 Park area that is south of the V8 East community provides
an irrigated fuel break that separates the fuels around V8 East. See Attachments 3a and 3b for cross
sections of the fuel modification zones adjacent to the southern portion of the development. and;
3) the inclusion of Zone “0”, which will be located on all sides of and directly adjacent to all structures. Zone
0 extends 5 feet from buildings, structures, decks, etc.
The 100 feet of FMZ around the Community Park South is considered unnecessary based on the park’s landscape,
maintenance, and ignition resistant conditions. Therefore, the FMZ has been reduced to 30 feet of maintained
zone around the perimeter of the P-2 Park to augment the already lower fuel, maintained and managed park
landscape. It should be noted that there will be a structure(s) proposed within the P-2 Park area, however, the
location of the structure(s) is not yet identified. Any structures located within the P-2 Park area will be provided with
100 feet or more of irrigated fuel modification around all sides.
The Zone “0” ember-resistant zone is currently not required by law, but science has proven it to be the most
important of all the defensible space zones. This zone includes the area under and around all attached decks, and
requires the most stringent wildfire fuel redu ction. The ember-resistant zone is designed to keep fire or embers
from igniting materials that can spread the fire to a home. The following provides guidance for this zone, which may
change based on the regulation developed by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.
• Use hardscape like gravel, pavers, concrete and other noncombustible mulch materials. No combustible bark
or mulch
• Remove all dead and dying weeds, grass, plants, shrubs, trees, branches and vegetative debris (leaves,
needles, cones, bark, etc.); Check and clear roofs, gutters, decks, porches, stairways, etc.
• Remove all branches within 10 feet of any chimney or stovepipe outlet
• Limit plants in this area to low growing, nonwoody, properly maintained plants
Page 1534 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
14056
8 December 2023
• Limit combustible items (outdoor furniture, planters, etc.) on top of decks
• Relocate firewood and lumber at least 30-feet from structures
• Vegetation limited to no more than 6” to 18” in height
• Vegetation shall be irrigated
• Replace combustible fencing, gates, and arbors attach to the home with noncombustible alternatives
• Consider relocating garbage and recycling containers outside this zone
• Consider relocating boats, RVs, vehicles and other combustible items outside this zone
Zone 1 and 2 Fuel modification and fire safety standards will follow the recommendations of Section 4.1 through
4.1.3 of the Project’s approved FPP. Zone 1 will include all public and private areas located between a structure's
edge and 50 feet outward and Zone 2 will include all public and private areas located between the outside edge of
Zone 1 and a minimum of 50 feet outward to 100 feet, per the Project’s FPP (dated July 2014). FMZ consistent
landscape or hardscape is allowable and consistent with the intent of a 100-foot wide FMZ.
The Proposed plant palettes for all
areas including the landscape and fuel modification zone areas are provided as Attachment 4 to this technical
memorandum. These plant palettes shall supersede the palettes presented in the 2014 FPP (FPP Attachment 2).
The Proposed prohibited plant list (Attachment 5)
has been edited to remove California pepper (Schinus mole), camphor tree (Cinnamonum camphora), bottle brush
(Callistemon sp) with proper maintenance, olive tree (Olea europa), manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), coyote bush
(Baccharis sp.), iceplant (Carpobrotus sp), English ivy (Hedera helix) with maintenance, Mahonia (Mahonia sp),
Laurel sumac (Rhus lancea) at low densities, purple nightshade (Solanum xantii) and periwinkle (Vinca major).
These plants are proposed to be used in modest applications as isolated individuals within the interior landscape
areas and be subject to ongoing maintenance to address their accumulation of debris. This prohibited plant list
shall supersede the palettes presented in the 2014 FPP (FPP Attachment 3).
Dudek has reviewed the proposed changes to the site plan, plant palette and prohibited plant lists and find that
the proposed changes are acceptable and do not conflict with the intent of the 2014 FPP. In addition, the Project
will apply all applicable Chapters of the 2022 Fire and Building Codes, including Chapters 49 of the CFC and Chapter
7A of the CBC).
Please feel free to contact me at (619) 992-9161, if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Page 1535 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
A-1
Attachment 1
Updated FPP Figure 1 –Site Plan and Updated Site
Utilization Plan
Page 1536 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT 1
Updated FPP Figure 1 - Site Plan
Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan Addendum
SOURCE: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, October 2023,
Page 1537 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1538 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
A-2
Attachment 2
Up dated FPP Figure 12 –Village 8 East Fuel Modification
Zone Exhibit Revised Village 8 East TM
Page 1539 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Da
te
:
5
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
l
t
e
r
r
y
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
0
5
6
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
P
P
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
_
V
8
E
a
s
t
F
u
e
l
M
o
d
P
l
a
n
2
0
2
3
0
5
1
7
.
m
x
d
OS-1
OS-4
LOT B
R-10R-9
MH MH
N.A.P.
CPF-1
OS-1
P-2
COMMUNITY PARK
OS-7
OS-2 OS-2
OS-3
OS-2
OS-5
OS-6
OS-7
AR-11
(UNDERLYING
DESIGNATION)
UNITY PARK
Any structure located within
the community park (P2 area)
will be protected by 100 feet
of FMZ on all sides.
Fule Modification Plan
Village Eight East Focused Fire Protection Plan
SOURCE: Hunsaker 2022; SANGIS 2022
0 320160Feet
Village 8 East Project Boundary
MSCP
Fuel Modification Zone
Zone 0 (0-5 Ft irrigated)
Zone 1 ( 50-Ft irrigated)
Zone 2 (50-Ft thinning)
P2 Park Zone (30-Ft thinning)
10-Ft Roadside Zone
ATTACHMENT 2
P-2
COMM
Page 1540 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
A-3
Attachment 3a
Updated FPP Figure 13 – Perimeter Wall at Preserve Edge
Page 1541 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1542 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1543 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1544 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1545 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
A-4
Attachment 3b
V8 East Park Concept Section at P-2 Park Area
Page 1546 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1547 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
A-5
Attachment 4
Updated FPP Attachment 2 – Approved
Plant Lists
Page 1548 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT “A”
VILLAGE 8 EAST BRUSH MANAGEMENT, PRESERVE EDGE &
COMMUNITY PARK
APPROVED PLANT LIST – December 2023
Brush Management Modification (Zones 1 & 2)
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically compromising existing
Preserve vegetation. Notes provided below must be adhered to and planting must be implemented in accordance with the
Chula Vista Fire Department’s fuel modification guidelines summarized in the Village 8 East Fire Protection Plan and 2023
Addendum.
Trees
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 1
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon *See Note 'A' below
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde 1
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 1
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite 1
Prunus ilicifolia 'ilicifolia' Hollyleaf Cherry 1
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak 1
Rhus lancea African Sumac 1 See Note 'B' below
Shrubs, Cacti & Ground Covers
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave 1
Atriplex semibacatta Berry Saltbush 1
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush 1 & 2 See Note 'C' below
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster 1
Encelia californica California Encelia 2
Encelia farinose California Encelia 1 & 2
Epilobium californicum California Fuschia 1 & 2
Epilobium canum California Fuschia 1 & 2
Galvezia speciosa 'Fire Cracker' Bush Snapdragon 2
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon *See Note 'A' below
Isomeris arborea Bladder Pod 2
Isocoma menziesii ‘ Manziesii’ Coast Goldenbush 2
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder *
Limonium perezii Statice 1
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum 1
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass 2
Opuntia littoralis Coastal Prickly Pear Cactus 2 See Note 'E' below
Opuntia oricola No Common Name 2 See Note 'E' below
Phyla nodiflora Kurapia 1
Rhamnus crocea Redberry *
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry *
Rhus ovata Sugarbush *
Salvia apiana White Sage 2 See Note 'F' below
Page 1549 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba * See Note 'F' below
Trichostema lanatum Woolly Blue Curls *
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower 2
Yucca schidigera Mojave Yucca 1 & 2
Yucca whipplei Our Lord's Candle 1 & 2
Hydroseed Application
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically compromising existing
Preserve vegetation
Acmispon americanus Purshing's lotus 1
Acmispon heermannii Heerman's lotus 1
Cryptantha intermedia Common cryptantha 1
Eschscholzia californica Coastal California Poppy 1
Helianthemum scoparium Sun Rose 1
Lasthenia gracilis California Goldfields 1
Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine 1
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass 1
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Sand Aster 2
Encelia farinosa California Encelia 2
Ericameria palmeri Palmer's goldenbush 2
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow 2
Galium angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw 2
Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush 2
Hemizonia fasciculata Common Tarplant 2
Isocoma menziesii Menzies’ goldenbush 2
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder *
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields 2 Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine 2
Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower 2
Brush Management Notes:
* Indicates larger shrubs that may be utilized in Zone 2, in cluster of no more than 400 SF
A May be planted within Fuel Management Zone 1 up to 10% of the plant palette mix. No single mass shall exceed
400 sf. These shall be spaced such that the nearest shrub is no closer than the tallest shrub height (at maturity)
B Plant acceptable on a limited basis (Max. 30% of the area at the time of planting)
C Only local native shrub species will be utilized. No cultivars shall be permitted.
D Plant acceptable on a limited basis (Max. 30% of the area at the time of planting)
E Plants must be locally sourced
F May be planted in limited quantities and must be properly spaced
Community Park P-2 Plant List
Trees
Arbutus 'Marina' Marina Strawberry Tree
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree
Citrus species Citrus
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood
Dracaena draco Dragon Tree
Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat
Page 1550 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
Jacaranda mimisifolia Jacaranda
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
Lagerstroemia indica Lavender Crape Myrtle
Ligustrum lucidum Glossy Privet
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box
Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia
Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas Tree
Olea europea 'Willsonii' Fruitless Olive
Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' Desert Museum Palo Verde Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak
Quercus ilex Holly Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Evergreen Elm
Shrubs, Cacti, Ornamental Grasses & Ground Covers
Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave
Aloe species Aloe
Anigozanthos species Kangaroo Paw
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea
Callistemon citrinus 'Little John' Little John Bottlebrush
Carex species Sedge
Ceanothus cultivars Ceanothus
Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush
Cistus species Rockrose
Clematis species Evergreen Clematis Vine
Cordyline australis 'Atropurpurea' Bronze Dracena
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' Bearberry Cotoneaster
Crassula species Crassula
Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily
Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira
Encelia californica California Encelia
Encelia farinose California Encelia
Euonymus species Euonymus
Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava Festuca species Fescue
Ficus pumila Creeping Fig
Grevillea ‘Noellii’ Noel Grevillea
Grewia occidentalis Lavender Starflower
Helichrysum petiolare 'Limelight' Limelight Licorice Plant
Hesperaloe species Red Yucca
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Ilex species Holly
Lantana species Lantana
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye
Page 1551 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Texas Privet
Limonium perezii Statice
Mahonia aquifolium Oregon Grape Mimulus cardinalis Scarlet Monkeyflower
Muhlengurgia rigens Deergrass
Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Creeping Myoporum
Myrtus communis Myrtle
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Nephrolepis cordifolia Sword Fern
Phormium species New Zealand Flax Phyla nodiflora Kurapia
Pittosporum crassifolium
'Compactum' Evergreen Pittosporum
Pittosporum tobira 'Wheeler's Dwarf' Wheeler’s Dwarf Pittosporum
Podocarpus 'Icee Blue' (Columnar) Icee-Blue Yellow-Wood
Podocarpus macrophyllus 'Maki' Shrubby Yew Pine
Portulcaria afra Elephant's Food Portulcaria afra 'Minima' Elephant's Mat
Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry
Pyracantha species Firethorn
Rhaphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorn
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'Minor' Dwarf Yedda Hawthorne
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Rosmarinus species Rosemary
Salvia apiana White Sage
Scaevola 'Mauve Clusters' Mauve Clusters Pincushion
Flower
Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Paradise
Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise
Tecoma species Esperanza
Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle
Thuja occidentalis 'Degroots Spire' Degroots Spire Arbovitae
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Tulbaghia violacea Sweet Garlic
Westringia fruticosa 'Mundi' Low Coast Rosemary
Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria
Turf
Festuca Aquawise Sportslube Mix
(from seed) Sports Field Fescue Mix
Dwarf Tall Fescue (sod) Marathon II
Cynodon dactylon ‘Bandera’ Bandera Bermuda Grass
Hydroseed Application
Plant and seed material should be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid genetically compromising existing
Preserve vegetation.
Acmispon americanus Purshing's lotus
Acmispon heermannii Heerman's lotus
Cryptantha intermedia Common cryptantha
Eschscholzia californica Coastal California Poppy
Page 1552 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Botanical Name Common Name BMZ Notes
Helianthemum scoparium Sun Rose
Lasthenia gracilis California Goldfields
Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Sand Aster
Encelia farinosa California Encelia
Ericameria palmeri Palmer's goldenbush
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow
Galium angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw
Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush
Hemizonia fasciculata Common Tarplant
Isocoma menziesii Menzies’ goldenbush
Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh Elder
Lasthenia californica Dwarf goldfields
Lupinus excubitus Grape soda lupine
Page 1553 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
A-6
Attachment 5
Updated FPP – Village 8 East Prohibited Plant List
Page 1554 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A – PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
14056 A-1 OCTOBER 2022
Appendix A
Prohibited Plant List – Updated October 2022
Abies species Fir Trees S
Acacia species Acacia HS
Agonis juniperina Juniper Myrtle S
Araucaria species Norfolk Island Pine S
Callistemon species Bottlebrush H
Cedrus species Cedar HS
Chamaecyparis species False Cypress S
Cinnamomum camphora1 Camphor Tree H
Conifers2 H
Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Cryptomeria S
Cupressocyparis leylandii Leylandii Cypress S
Cupressus forbesii Tecate Cypress S
Cupressus glabra Arizona Cypress S
Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress S
Cupressus species Cypress species H
Eucalyptus species Eucalyptus species HS
Eucalyptus Most Eucalyptus Species K
Juniperus species Juniper H
Larix species Larch S
Olea europea Olive Tree H
Palmae species Palms HS**
Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican Palo Verde K
Pinus species Pine HS**
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box K
Podocarpus species Fern Pine S
Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry Laurel K
Prunus lyonil Catalina Cherry K
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir S
Quercus engelmannii Englemann Oak K
Quercus suber Cork Oak K
Schinus mole California Pepper Tree H
Tamarix species Tamarix C
Taxodium species Cypress S
Taxus species Yew S
Tsuga species Hemlock S
Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm
1
Page 1555 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A – PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
14056 A-2 OCTOBER 2022
GROUNDCOVERS, SHRUBS & VINES
Acacia species Acacia HS
Achillia millefolium Common Yarrow K
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise HS
Adenostoma sparsifolium Red Shanks HS
Aeonium decorum Aeonium K
Aeonium simsii ncn K
Ajuga reptans Carpet Bugle K
Anthemix cotula Mayweed H
Aptenia cordifolla x ‘Red Apple’ Red apple K
Arbutus menziesii Madrone H
Arctostaphylos species1 Manzanita H
Artemisia pycnocephala Beach Sagewort K
Artemisia califomica California Sagebrush HS
Artemisia caucasica Caucasia Artemisia H
Artemisia pycnocephala Sandhill Sage H
Artemisia species H
Arundo donax Giant Cane C
Atriplex species Saltbush H
Atriplex canescens Four-Wing Saltbush K
Atriplex lentiformis ssp. Breweri Brewer Saltbush K
Baccharis pilularis consanguinea Chaparral Bloom H
Baccharis pilularis var. pilularis Twin Peaks K
Baccharis species Coyote Bush H
Bambusa species Bamboo S
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea H
Brassica nigra Black Mustard H
Brassica rapa Yellow Mustard H
Cardaria draba Hoary Cress, Perennial Peppergrass H
Carpobrotus species1 Ice Plant, Hottentot Fog H
Carpobrotus chilensis Sea Fig Ice Plant K
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye Daisy K
Cirsium vulgare Wild Artichoke H
Conyza canadensis Horseweed H
Coprosma pumila Prostrate Coprosma S
Cortaderia selloana Pampas Grass HC
Crassula Lactea ncn K
Crassula multicava ncn K
Crassula ovata Jade Tree K
Crassula tetrangona ncn K
Cytisus Spp. Scotch Broom, French Broom, etc. HC
Delosperma ‘alba’ White Trailing Ice Plant K
Dodonea viscosa Hopseed Bush S
Drosanthemum floribundum Rosea Ice Plant K
Drosanthemum hispidum ncn K
Drosanthemum speciosum Dewflower K
Eriogonum fasciculatum 2 Common Buckwheat H
Eriogonum species3 Common Buckwheat HS
2
Page 1556 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A – PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
14056 A-3 OCTOBER 2022
GROUNDCOVERS, SHRUBS & VINES
Eschscholzia Mexicana Mexican Poppy K
Fremontodendron species Flannel Bush H
Gaillardia x grandiflora Blanketflower K
Gazania hybrids South African Daisy K
Gaxania rigens leucolaen Trailing Gazaniz K
Hedera helix1 English Ivy H
Helix canariensis1 English Ivy K
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Plant HS
Hypericum calycinum Aaron’s Beard K
Juniperus species Juniper S
Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce H
Lampranthus aurantiacus Bush Ice Plant K
Lampranthus filicaulis Redondo Creeper K
Lampranthus spectabilis Trailing Ice Plant K
Limonium pectinatum ncn K
Limonium perezii Sea Lavendar K
Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle S
Lonicera japonica ‘Halliana’ Hall’s Japanese Honeysuckle K
Lotus coniculatus Bird’s Foot Trefoil K
Mahonia species Mahonia H
Malephora luteola Trailing Ice Plant K
Miscanthus species Eulalie Grass S
Muehlenbergia species Deer Grass S
Nerium oleander Oleander K
Nicotania bigelovii Indian Tobacco H
Nicotania glauca Tree Tobacco H
Ophiopogon japonicus Mondo Grass K
Osteospermum fruticosum Trailing African Daisy K
Penstemon spectabilis Beard Tongue K
Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass C
Perronskia Atriplicifloria Russian Sage H
Pickeringia ‘Montana’ Chaparral Pea S
Plantago sempervirens Evergreen Plantain K
Portulacaria afra Elephant’s Food K
Potentilla tabemaemontanii Spring Cinquefoil K
Rhamnus Alatemus Italian Buckhorn K
Rhus Diversiloba Poison Oak (worker/firefighter safety) H
Rhus laurina3 Laurel Sumac H
Rhus Lentii Pink Flowering Sumac H
Ricinus communis Castor Bean H
Romneya coulteri ‘white cloud’ White Cloud Matilija Poppy K
Rosmarinus species3 Rosemary S
Salsola austrails Russian Thistle H
Salvia mellifera Black Sage S
Salvia species Sage H
Sedum acre Goldmoss Sedum K
Sedum album Green Stonecrop K
3 Rosemariuns species (dwarf) is acceptable for use within this project area.
Page 1557 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
APPENDIX A – PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
14056 A-4 OCTOBER 2022
GROUNDCOVERS, SHRUBS & VINES
Sedum confusum ncn K
Sedum ilineare ncn K
Sedum x rubrotinctum Pork and Beans K
Senecio serpens ncn K
Solanum xantii3 Purple Nightshade (toxic) H
Silybum marianum Milk Thistle H
Tamarix Spp. Tamarisk K
Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle K
Thuja species Arborvitae S
Trifolium hirtum ‘Hyron’ Hyron Rose Clover K
Trifolium ffagiferum ‘O’Connor’s’ O’Connor’s Legume K
Urtica urens Burning Nettle S
Verbena species Verbena K
Vinca major Periwinkle H
Vinca minor Dwarf Periwinkle K
Vulpiamyuros ‘Zorro’ Zorro Annual Fescut K
Yucca species Yucca K
Exceptions
1. The use of palm trees is prohibited within any Brush Management Zones, however Palm trees may be
permitted within the development (in moderation), with prior approval from the City of Chula Vista Fire
Department. Proper spacing, irrigation and maintenance required.
2. Bougainvillea species may be used within the FPPA “B” Brush Management Zones, (in very moderate
amounts), with prior approval from the City of Chula Vista Fire Department.
3. Pursuant to San Diego County Fire Chiefs Association Fuel Modification Zone Plant List (July 15, 1997), plant
species prohibited in fuel modification zones adjacent to reserve [Fire Protection Planning Area “A”] lands
(acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones).
Page 1558 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
CITY OF CHULA VISTA NET FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
SUMMARY REPORT
April 2024
Prepared for:
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-3780
Prepared by:
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc.
26840 Aliso Viejo Pkwy, Suite 110
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
949-388-9269
RH Consulting Group
ranie@rhconsultinggroup.com
619-823-1494
Page 1559 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Page 1560 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background & Purpose .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 City Net Fiscal Impact Model .......................................................................................... 2
1.3 Village 8 East Historic Development ............................................................................... 3
1.4 Proposed Village 8 East Amendments (Proposed Project) .............................................. 3
1.5 Summary of Findings – Proposed Project ........................................................................ 6
1.6 Summary of Finding – Historic Land Uses ...................................................................... 7
2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Background & Purpose .................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 9
2.4 City Fiscal Model ........................................................................................................... 13
3.0 Adjustments to Fiscal Model ............................................................................................. 13
3.1 Property Tax – Growth in Assessed Valuation .............................................................. 13
3.2 Property Valuation ......................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Residential Valuation Assumptions ........................................................................ 15
3.2.2 Non-Residential Valuation Assumptions ................................................................ 16
TABLES
1 Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan 5
2 Summary of Proposed Project Net Fiscal Revenue 7
3 Summary of Historic Project Net Fiscal Revenue 8
4 Total Assessed Value after Turn-Over – Proposed Project 15
FIGURES
1 Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan 4
2 Regional Location Map 10
3 Vicinity Map 11
4 Village 8 East Aerial Map 12
5 Chula Vista Residential Market Overview 2012-2021 14
6 San Diego Home Price Index 2010-2021 14
Page 1561 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page ii December 2023
ATTACHMENTS
A Village 8 East City Fiscal Model and Summary of Adjustment to City of Chula
Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis Model – Proposed Project Scenario
B Village 8 East City Fiscal Model and Summary of Adjustment to City of Chula
Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis Model – Historic Land Uses Scenario
Page 1562 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 1 December 2023
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Background & Purpose
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is a 572-acre mixed use village located in the southern portion of Otay
Ranch (“Village 8 East”). HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (“HomeFed”) is currently pursuing
entitlements which would amend land uses within Village 8 East (“Proposed Project”).
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley,
east of Village 8 West and west of SR-125. This urban village was originally approved by the
Chula Vista City Council in 2014 and subsequently amended in 2020. Current entitlements
accommodate a total of 3,276 residential units, including 943 detached homes, 1,893 attached
homes and 440 multi-family units in a mixed-use setting, 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial
uses, an elementary school site, a neighborhood park and the 51.5-acre (gross) Otay Ranch
Community Park South. Access to the village is provided via the extension of Main Street and La
Media Parkway with emergency and pedestrian access to the community park provided along a
utility corridor in the southeast portion of Village 8 East. Primary access to the community park is
via existing Avenida Caprise within Village 8 West.
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC, (Applicant), proposes to amend the Village 8 East land use plan to
reflect current market conditions and housing needs and to ensure the community relates more
closely to the adjacent Village 8 West community and future Village 9 planned east of SR-125.
The replanning effort also addresses the redesign of the SR-125 interchanges at Main Street and
La Media Parkway.
Village 8 East Proposed Land Use: The Proposed Village 8 East Land Use Plan would include
a Village Core area that would accommodate a mix of uses including multi-family residential and
retail/commercial uses along with an elementary school site and a centrally located 7.3-acre
neighborhood park. A future multi-modal bridge, planned to accommodate Neighborhood Electric
Vehicles (NEV), bicycles and pedestrians is also planned in the Village Core linking Village 8
East and future Village 9.
The proposed project would include 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses 336 single-family
homes, 275 senior housing (55+), and 1,328 for-sale townhomes. Other residential land uses
include 1,073 multi-family residential units. The elementary school site has an underlying “High”
residential land use designation that could accommodate 264 multi-family units if the site is not
utilized as a school site.
The project also includes 253.6 acres of Preserve Open Space, 16.4 acres of manufactured
slopes/basins and the 22.6-acre active recreation site (AR-11) located east of SR-125. The 43.3-
acre (gross) Otay Ranch Community Park South is located south of Village 8 East. An existing
water quality basin that serves Village 8 West is located in the western portion of the community
park and the proposed project includes an additional water quality basin in the eastern portion of
the community park to serve Village 8 East.
Page 1563 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 2 December 2023
In order to provide fiscal revenue information pertinent to the City’s evaluation of the Proposed
Project, the City requested that HomeFed prepare a summary of the City’s Net Fiscal Impact Model
to estimate the fiscal impacts of both the Proposed Project and Historic Land Use scenarios.
HomeFed retained Development Planning & Financing Group (“DPFG”) to prepare the City’s Net
Fiscal Impact Model and RH Consulting Group to prepare this summary which includes the
following:
• DPFG prepared a fiscal impact analysis using the Fiscal Year 2023/2024 City’s Fiscal
Impact Model (“Fiscal Model”) for both the Proposed Project and Historic Land Uses
scenarios. In order to provide the most conservative model outcomes, DPFG assumed
build-out of all residential units but did not include commercial development in either
model.
• DPFG utilized the Fiscal Model to prepare an analysis.
• DPFG adjusted the Fiscal Model to account for property turnover and reassessment of
property taxes upon turnover/resale that will occur.
• DPFG adjusted the Fiscal Model to account for HOA maintained parks that will offset
anticipated City park expenditures.
• The adjusted Fiscal Model indicates the following:
o The Proposed Project scenario generates positive City revenues from years 1
through 20 and approximately $48,014,928 in cumulative net positive revenue over
20 years; and
o The Historic Land Uses scenario generates positive City revenues from years 1
through 20 and approximately $70,520,087 in cumulative net positive revenue over
20 years.
• The Fiscal Model demonstrates that municipal revenues from the Proposed Project would
fully offset the cost of providing municipal services, while generating net positive revenues
to the City.
1.2 City Net Fiscal Impact Model
This report summarizes the Fiscal Model outputs prepared for the City. The Proposed Project
Fiscal Model and Historic Land Use Fiscal Model outputs are provided as Attachments “A” and
B” respectively. The Fiscal Models were adjusted to incorporate the following assumptions:
1. The home prices used in the Fiscal Models are based on actual Village 8 West home sales
that occurred between March 2022 and January 2023.
2. An increase in the assessed value of residential property due to turnover (resale) was
estimated using an annual escalation factor of 3.5%, which is consistent with the historical
average of several recognized indices, including Case Shiller, California Association of
Realtors, Federal Reserve, and Zillow. An escalation factor of 3.5% is considered
conservative as available historic information between 1992 and 2022 has shown an
average compound growth rate in home prices of 4.00% and 5.50%.
3. Average turnover (resale) of eight years was assumed for all residential units for the
purpose of adjusting the assessed values to calculate property taxes. This turnover
assumption is reasonable as information on the typical homeowner from the National
Association of Realtors shows that the typical duration for owning a townhome or detached
Page 1564 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 3 December 2023
single-family home is 6-8 years. In addition to typical turnover, in order to reflect similar
assessed value increases over build-out of the residential portion of both Fiscal Model
scenarios, the initial (year 1) home price assumption is increased by 3.5% until the initial
year of sale for each unit which is then assumed to be the initial base year value. Over the
next seven years, the base year value escalates by 2% over the prior year, consistent with
California Constitution Article XIII A Section 2(b). In year eight, the initial base year value
is reset assuming a reset of the assessed value based on an escalation factor of 3.5%. For
the purposes of preparing the most conservative fiscal impact analysis, the Fiscal Models
assumed no commercial or industrial turnover.
4. Land use assumption for the two scenarios are as follows:
Proposed Project:
• 1,928 for-sale homes
• 900 for-rent apartment homes
• 275 affordable housing apartment homes
• 173 for rent townhomes
• 20,000 SF Commercial
Historic Land Uses:
• 943 for-sale homes
• 2,333 for-rent apartment homes
• 20,000 SF Commercial
1.3 Village 8 East existing Development
The Village 8 East site is vacant and undeveloped.
1.4 Proposed Village 8 East Amendments (Proposed Project)
Amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan (CVGP), Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP), the Village 8 East SPA Plan, a Zoning change and a new tentative map are necessary to
implement the Proposed Project. The proposed project would change the residential product types
within Village 8 East. The Medium Residential category would be eliminated and Medium High,
High Village Core Residential would be implemented within Village 8 East. The proposed
project’s unit count would remain consistent with the Historic entitlement of 3,276 units. The
proposed project would establish a range of commercial uses within 20,000 square feet.
Page 1565 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 4 December 2023
Figure 1
Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan
Page 1566 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 5 December 2023
Table 1: Proposed Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan
Page 1567 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 6 December 2023
1.5 Summary of Findings – Proposed Project
Based on the adjusted Fiscal Model, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate between
approximately $452,114 and $3,573,837 per year in net City municipal revenues during the first
20 years of operation and a cumulative total net revenue of approximately $48,014,928 over the
same period. A summary of the Fiscal Model outcome for the Proposed Project is provided in
Table 2: Summary of Proposed Project Net Fiscal Revenue.
Page 1568 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 7 December 2023
Table 2: Summary of Proposed Project Net Fiscal Revenue
Year
Net Fiscal
Revenue
(unadjusted)
Net Fiscal
Revenue
(adjusted)
Cumulative Net
Fiscal Revenue
1 $ 452,114 $ 452,114 $ 452,114
2 923,941 1,034,795 1,486,909
3 1,259,130 1,382,130 2,869,039
4 1,638,433 1,780,343 4,649,382
5 2,012,433 2,177,819 6,827,201
6 2,004,875 2,171,469 8,998,670
7 1,985,833 2,153,709 11,152,379
8 1,975,733 2,210,425 13,362,804
9 1,974,607 2,279,797 15,642,601
10 2,029,711 2,409,187 18,051,788
11 2,086,523 2,544,230 20,596,018
12 2,137,890 2,670,075 23,266,093
13 2,187,676 2,728,404 25,994,497
14 2,238,676 2,788,119 28,782,616
15 2,290,441 2,848,773 31,631,390
16 2,342,972 2,984,959 34,616,349
17 2,396,525 3,126,452 37,742,801
18 2,450,964 3,273,290 41,016,091
19 2,505,640 3,425,010 44,441,101
20 2,561,516 3,573,827 48,014,928
1.6 Summary of Finding – Historic Land Uses
Based on the adjusted Fiscal Model, the Historic Land Use is estimated to generate between
approximately $555,956 and $5,298,778 per year in net City municipal revenues during the first
20 years of operation and a cumulative total net revenue of approximately $70,520,087 over the
same period. A summary of the Fiscal Model outcome for the Proposed Project is provided in
Table 3: Summary of Historic Project Net Fiscal Revenue.
Page 1569 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 8 December 2023
Table 3: Summary of Historic Project Net Fiscal Revenue.
Year
Net Fiscal
Revenue
(unadjusted)
Net Fiscal
Revenue
(adjusted)
Cumulative Net
Fiscal Revenue
1 $ 555,956 $ 555,956 $ 555,956
2 1,152,727 1,262,028 1,817,984
3 1,605,256 1,729,294 3,547,278
4 2,111,487 2,258,455 5,805,733
5 2,661,390 2,840,072 8,645,805
6 3,040,775 3,247,586 11,893,391
7 3,048,961 3,257,864 15,151,255
8 3,063,273 3,353,910 18,505,165
9 3,085,273 3,462,063 21,967,228
10 3,163,996 3,631,546 25,598,774
11 3,244,940 3,808,049 29,406,823
12 3,320,923 3,984,591 33,391,414
13 3,395,839 4,134,266 37,525,680
14 3,472,511 4,223,663 41,749,343
15 3,550,499 4,314,630 46,063,973
16 3,629,814 4,497,677 50,561,650
17 3,710,727 4,687,564 55,249,214
18 3,793,112 4,884,380 60,133,594
19 3,876,334 5,087,715 65,221,309
20 3,961,369 5,298,778 70,520,087
Page 1570 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 9 December 2023
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Background & Purpose
HomeFed is currently pursuing entitlements that would amend the land uses within Village 8 East
to address market changes. In order to provide fiscal analyses to assist the City in their evaluation
of the Proposed Project, the City requested that HomeFed provide a Net Fiscal Model for two
scenarios: Proposed Project and Historic Land Uses. HomeFed retained DPFG to prepare two
Fiscal Models and RH Consulting to prepare this summary report.
2.2 Project Location
The Village 8 East SPA Plan Area is located at the southwestern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel
of Otay Ranch. Figure 2 illustrates the regional location of the SPA Plan area; Figure 3 illustrates
the vicinity and Figure 4 provides an aerial map of the Village 8 East Project Area.
Otay Ranch Village 8 East is south of the extension of Main Street, north of the Otay River Valley,
east of Village 8 West and west of SR-125. Future development in the vicinity of Village 8 East
includes Otay Ranch Villages 4, 8 West (currently under construction) and 9 to the east. Historic
Village 7 and Olympian High School are located to the north.
2.3 Proposed Project
The Proposed Project would modify the residential mix within Village 8 East and include 20,000
sf of commercial uses within the village core. Other proposed changes include implementation of
the modified SR-125 interchange couplet between Main Street and La Media Parkway, a minor
realignment of La Media Parkway and minor internal circulation changes. The total assessed value
of the Village 8 East Proposed Project is estimated to be approximately $2,912,282,079 (year 20)
per the City fiscal impact analysis model.
Page 1571 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 10 December 2023
Figure 2
Regional Location Map
Page 1572 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 11 December 2023
Figure 3
Vicinity Map
Page 1573 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 12 December 2023
Figure 4
Village 8 East Aerial Map
Page 1574 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 13 December 2023
2.4 City Fiscal Model
The Analysis herein is based on the Fiscal Model outputs prepared by DPFG. The Fiscal Model
estimates fiscal impacts based on land uses, employee count, dwelling unit and assessed property
values. All other assumptions in the Fiscal Year 2023/2024 City’s Fiscal Model are constrained
and are not subject to modification. However, DPFG has also prepared an Adjustment to CV
Fiscal Impact Analysis Model for both scenarios which anticipates property turnover (resale)
reassessment of residential properties. For purposes of both scenarios, a residential only fiscal
model estimate was prepared, based on the assumption that commercial development timing is
uncertain at his time.
3.0 Adjustments to Fiscal Model
Based on DPFG’s experience and expertise in utilizing the City Fiscal Model, the following
adjustments to the model and valuation information were implemented in both the Proposed
Project and Historic Land Uses scenarios.
3.1 Property Tax – Growth in Assessed Valuation
The Fiscal Model assumes that property tax growth will be equal to 2.0% based on Proposition 13
statutory limits. However, each of the uses includes for-sale products, 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 residential turnover, while aggregate assessed property
value may lag market value, property tax revenue growth is expected to generally track market
value growth.
The Proposed Project Fiscal Model assumes absorption of the single-family residences to be 450
units per year and is anticipated to occur over a five-year time frame. The Proposed Project also
includes 1,073 multi-family units anticipated to be absorbed over a 7-year period with an estimated
150 units absorbed per year. The Historic Project assumes a 6-year absorption time frame due to
the larger anticipated single family uses and 100 multi-family units absorbed per year with a final
buildout estimated within year 4.
The duration of the initial homebuyer holding period drives the lag between assessed value and
market value, and the rate of turnover determines how closely assessed values track market values.
Information on typical homeowner tenure from the National Association of Realtors suggests a
median tenure of townhome or detached single-family home is 6-8 years. In addition to typical
turnover, in order to reflect similar assessed value increases over build-out of the residential units,
the initial (year 1) home price assumption is increased by 3.5% annually until the initial year of
sale for each unit, which is then assumed to be the initial base year value. Over the next seven
years, the base year value escalates by 2% over the prior year, consistent with California
Constitution Article XIII A Section 2(b). In year eight, the initial base year value is reset to the
then market value based on a cumulative annual escalation factor of 3.5%. For the purposes of
preparing the most conservative fiscal impact analysis, the Fiscal Models assumed no commercial
or industrial turnover. Refer to Table 4: Total Assessed Value after Turnover (Proposed Project).
Summary illustrations of home pricing are provided in Figures 5 and 6.
Page 1575 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 14 December 2023
Source: Zillow.com
Figure 5
Chula Vista Residential Market Overview 2015 - 2022
Figure 6
San Diego Home Price Index 2010 - 2022
Source: Case-Shiller San Diego Index
Page 1576 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 15 December 2023
Table 4: Total Assessed Value after Turnover (Proposed Project)
Year
Total High Density
Total Med-High
Density (SF) Assessed
Value After Turnover
Total Assessed
Value
(MF) Assessed Value
After
Turnover
1 $ - $ 308,806,485 $ 308,806,485
2 - 634,597,327 634,597,327
3 - 978,090,501 978,090,501
4 - 1,340,031,581 1,340,031,581
5 - 1,643,234,998 1,643,234,998
6 - 1,676,099,698 1,676,099,698
7 - 1,709,621,692 1,709,621,692
8 - 1,795,731,713 1,795,731,713
9 - 1,885,381,049 1,885,381,049
10 - 1,978,704,087 1,978,704,087
11 - 2,075,840,125 2,075,840,125
12 - 2,163,826,695 2,163,826,695
13 - 2,207,103,229 2,207,103,229
14 - 2,251,245,294 2,251,245,294
15 - 2,296,270,200 2,296,270,200
16 - 2,401,219,139 2,401,219,139
17 - 2,510,332,881 2,510,332,881
18 - 2,623,767,026 2,623,767,026
19 - 2,741,682,816 2,741,682,816
20 - 2,849,346,547 2,849,346,547
3.2 Property Valuation
DPFG utilized a combination of actual sales, comparable sales and income method calculations to
determine property valuations for the residential (for-sale), residential (apartments) and
commercial land uses within Village 8 East.
3.2.1 Residential Valuation Assumptions
For-Sale Residential:
For-sale residential Historic values were calculated based on actual Village 8 West sales/closing
prices across several for-sale product types. Sales within Village 8 West began in 2021 and final
closings occurred in 2022. DPFG calculated the average 2022 home value by escalating yearly
closing prices by approximately 2% per year which resulted in a weighted average value for all 3
years of $875,000/residential unit for the Historic single family detached units. A similar approach
was used for the other land uses, which resulted in an average price of $690,000 for the townhomes
units. This derived weighted average value was applied to units for both the Proposed Land Use
and Historic Project Fiscal Model scenarios.
Page 1577 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Chula Vista Net Fiscal Impact Model Summary Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 East SPA Amendment
Page 16 December 2023
Rental Apartments and Affordable:
There are currently 440 apartment units anticipated to be constructed in the Historic Land Use.
The Proposed Use is anticipated to include 1,125 market-rate apartments units. In order to
determine the assessed value of both the Historic and proposed apartment units in Village 8 East,
DPFG identified two comparable apartment project sales: Pulse Millenia, a 273-apartment unit
project, sold in 2016/17 for $98.9 million (average value of $362,000/apartment unit); and Alexan
Millenia, a 309-apartment unit project, sold in 2019 for $131 million (average value of
$424,000/apartment unit). DPFG calculated a conservative assessed value by escalating the per
unit value of the comparable projects by approximately 5.5% over a 2.25-year period, which
resulted in a rounded value of $475,000/apartment unit. This was then adjusted down to $450,000
based on the anticipated size of the apartment units. This escalation factor is consistent with the
San Diego rental market data in the Census ACS Survey and per the CBRE 2021 Multifamily U.S.
Real Estate Market Outlook report. This estimated value was utilized for rental apartment units in
both the Proposed Project and Historic Land Uses Fiscal Model scenarios.
3.2.2 Non-Residential Valuation Assumptions
The Historic Land Uses scenario includes 20,000 SF of commercial uses within the mixed-use
area. The Proposed Project would also include 20,000 SF of commercial uses within the Village
8 East village core area. For the purposes of this analysis the non-residential components were not
analyzed
Page 1578 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT A
VILLAGE 8 EAST CHULA VISTA FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MODEL AND
SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS TO CHULA VISTA FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
MODEL
PROPOSED LAND USE SCENARIO
Page 1579 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Page 1580 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Single Family Residential 1,260 2,520 3,780 5,040 6,168 6,168 6,168
Multi-Family Residential 420 840 1,260 1,680 2,100 2,520 2,940
Total (Per Capita Base)1,680 3,360 5,040 6,720 8,268 8,688 9,108
Employment Population 84 168 252 336 413 434 455
Totals 1,764 3,528 5,292 7,056 8,682 9,123 9,564
Single Family Residential 450 900 1,350 1,800 2,203 2,203 2,203
Multi-Family Residential 150 300 450 600 750 900 1,050
Totals 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 2,953 3,103 3,253
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
General Fund Revenues
Tax Revenues
Property Tax AV 475,292$ 969,595$ 1,483,480$ 2,017,533$ 2,528,237$ 2,672,703$ 2,821,938$
Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 255,059 517,158 786,637 1,063,842 1,327,990 1,416,042 1,506,735
Sales and Use Tax - Project Specific Project Specific - - - - - - -
Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita 52,071 105,473 158,609 212,067 261,721 275,914 290,264
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 273,856 616,623 972,969 1,343,301 1,697,440 1,797,619 1,901,103
Franchise Fees Per Capita 82,467 165,587 249,426 334,047 412,940 436,046 459,468
Other Taxes Per Capita 38,171 77,814 115,969 152,179 184,933 191,974 198,862
Subtotal Tax Revenues 1,176,916 2,452,250 3,767,090 5,122,969 6,413,261 6,790,298 7,178,369
Other Revenues Per Capita 21,672 18,451 28,543 39,605 47,998 49,690 51,333
Licenses and Permits Per Capita 11,110 19,511 29,390 39,361 47,704 49,385 51,017
Fines, forfeitures, penalties Per Capita 5,843 15,342 23,109 30,949 37,509 38,831 40,114
Use of Money & Property Per Capita 21,617 42,555 62,843 82,514 100,001 103,526 106,948
Charges for Services No Forecast - - - - - - -
Intergovernmental Per Capita 9,078 26,437 39,822 53,332 64,635 66,914 69,126
Subtotal Other Revenues 69,320 122,295 183,709 245,762 297,848 308,346 318,538
Total General Fund Revenues 1,246,236$ 2,574,545$ 3,950,799$ 5,368,730$ 6,711,109$ 7,098,644$ 7,496,908$
General Fund Expenditures
General Government Per Capita 24,694$ 51,086$ 77,565$ 104,655$ 130,530$ 138,848$ 147,226$
Community Development (20%)Per Capita 2,689 5,564 8,448 11,398 14,216 15,122 16,035
Public Works/Engineering (20%)Per Capita 23,623 48,870 74,201 100,116 124,869 132,827 140,841
PC/EMP Base
Drainage Management System 26.50$ 45,300 90,601 135,901 181,201 222,953 234,278 245,604
Building Management System 4.10 7,001 14,001 21,002 28,003 34,455 36,205 37,956
Parks Management System 15.68 26,797 53,595 80,392 107,190 131,888 138,587 145,287
Open Space Management System 6.72 11,485 22,969 34,454 45,938 56,523 59,395 62,266
Fleet Management System 3.73 6,380 12,761 19,141 25,521 31,402 32,997 34,592
Pavement Annual (PMP)14.18 24,245 48,491 72,736 96,981 119,327 125,388 131,450
General Govt Management System 0.65 1,117 2,233 3,350 4,466 5,495 5,774 6,054
Urban Forestry Management System 6.72 11,485 22,969 34,454 45,938 56,523 59,395 62,266
78.28$ 133,810 267,620 401,430 535,239 658,568 692,020 725,472
Community Services Per Capita 13,579 28,092 42,653 57,549 71,778 76,352 80,959
Public Safety:
Police Services Project Specific 334,262 699,308 1,011,281 1,417,000 1,797,492 1,989,331 2,193,637
Fire Services Project Specific 240,114 505,897 1,009,033 1,413,850 1,788,372 1,929,225 2,079,568
Animal Control Services Per Capita 21,350 44,167 67,059 90,480 112,851 120,043 127,286
Total Public Safety 595,726 1,249,371 2,087,374 2,921,330 3,698,715 4,038,599 4,400,491
Total General Fund Expenditures 794,122$ 1,650,603$ 2,691,670$ 3,730,288$ 4,698,676$ 5,093,768$ 5,511,025$
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall)$452,114 $923,941 $1,259,130 $1,638,443 $2,012,433 $2,004,875 $1,985,883
Population
Number of Homes
Page 1581 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Total (Per Capita Base)
Employment Population
Totals
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Totals
Year
General Fund Revenues
Tax Revenues
Property Tax AV
Sales and Use Tax Per Capita
Sales and Use Tax - Project Specific Project Specific
Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific
Franchise Fees Per Capita
Other Taxes Per Capita
Subtotal Tax Revenues
Other Revenues Per Capita
Licenses and Permits Per Capita
Fines, forfeitures, penalties Per Capita
Use of Money & Property Per Capita
Charges for Services No Forecast
Intergovernmental Per Capita
Subtotal Other Revenues
Total General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
General Government Per Capita
Community Development (20%)Per Capita
Public Works/Engineering (20%)Per Capita
PC/EMP Base
Drainage Management System 26.50$
Building Management System 4.10
Parks Management System 15.68
Open Space Management System 6.72
Fleet Management System 3.73
Pavement Annual (PMP)14.18
General Govt Management System 0.65
Urban Forestry Management System 6.72
78.28$
Community Services Per Capita
Public Safety:
Police Services Project Specific
Fire Services Project Specific
Animal Control Services Per Capita
Total Public Safety
Total General Fund Expenditures
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall)
Population
Number of Homes
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168
3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004
9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173
459 459 459 459 459 459 459 459
9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631
2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203
1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073
3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2,893,356$ 2,951,223$ 3,010,248$ 3,070,453$ 3,131,862$ 3,194,499$ 3,258,389$ 3,323,557$
1,540,449 1,564,183 1,611,109 1,659,442 1,709,225 1,760,502 1,813,317 1,867,717
- - - - - - - -
293,406 294,564 303,401 312,503 321,878 331,535 341,481 351,725
1,950,627 1,990,754 2,031,684 2,073,432 2,116,015 2,159,450 2,203,754 2,248,944
465,188 467,770 481,803 496,257 511,145 526,479 542,273 558,542
197,931 195,662 201,532 207,578 213,805 220,220 226,826 233,631
7,340,957 7,464,158 7,639,777 7,819,666 8,003,931 8,192,685 8,386,041 8,584,115
50,953 50,231 51,738 53,290 54,889 56,535 58,231 59,978
50,640 49,922 51,420 52,963 54,551 56,188 57,874 59,610
39,817 39,253 40,431 41,644 42,893 44,180 45,505 46,871
106,157 104,653 107,792 111,026 114,357 117,787 121,321 124,961
- - - - - - - -
68,614 67,642 69,671 71,761 73,914 76,131 78,415 80,768
316,181 311,701 321,052 330,684 340,604 350,822 361,347 372,187
7,657,138$ 7,775,859$ 7,960,829$ 8,150,349$ 8,344,535$ 8,543,507$ 8,747,388$ 8,956,302$
150,044$ 151,796$ 155,379$ 159,244$ 163,164$ 167,193$ 171,348$ 175,629$
16,341 16,532 16,923 17,343 17,770 18,209 18,662 19,128
143,537 145,213 148,640 152,338 156,087 159,942 163,917 168,013
247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340
38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224
146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314
62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706
34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837
132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379
6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096
62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706
730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602
82,508 83,472 85,442 87,568 89,723 91,939 94,224 96,578
2,277,042 2,333,968 2,392,317 2,452,125 2,513,429 2,576,264 2,640,671 2,706,688
2,151,608 2,208,431 2,267,480 2,326,931 2,394,806 2,467,133 2,541,147 2,617,382
129,722 131,237 134,334 137,676 141,065 144,549 148,141 151,842
4,558,373 4,673,636 4,794,132 4,916,732 5,049,299 5,187,946 5,329,959 5,475,911
5,681,405$ 5,801,251$ 5,931,118$ 6,063,827$ 6,206,646$ 6,355,832$ 6,508,712$ 6,665,861$
$1,975,733 $1,974,607 $2,029,711 $2,086,523 $2,137,890 $2,187,676 $2,238,676 $2,290,441
Page 1582 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Total (Per Capita Base)
Employment Population
Totals
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Totals
Year
General Fund Revenues
Tax Revenues
Property Tax AV
Sales and Use Tax Per Capita
Sales and Use Tax - Project Specific Project Specific
Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific
Franchise Fees Per Capita
Other Taxes Per Capita
Subtotal Tax Revenues
Other Revenues Per Capita
Licenses and Permits Per Capita
Fines, forfeitures, penalties Per Capita
Use of Money & Property Per Capita
Charges for Services No Forecast
Intergovernmental Per Capita
Subtotal Other Revenues
Total General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
General Government Per Capita
Community Development (20%)Per Capita
Public Works/Engineering (20%)Per Capita
PC/EMP Base
Drainage Management System 26.50$
Building Management System 4.10
Parks Management System 15.68
Open Space Management System 6.72
Fleet Management System 3.73
Pavement Annual (PMP)14.18
General Govt Management System 0.65
Urban Forestry Management System 6.72
78.28$
Community Services Per Capita
Public Safety:
Police Services Project Specific
Fire Services Project Specific
Animal Control Services Per Capita
Total Public Safety
Total General Fund Expenditures
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall)
Population
Number of Homes
16 17 18 19 20
6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168
3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004
9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173
459 459 459 459 459
9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631
2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203
1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073
3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276
16 17 18 19 20
3,390,028$ 3,457,829$ 3,526,985$ 3,597,525$ 3,669,475$
1,923,748 1,981,461 2,040,904 2,102,132 2,165,196
- - - - -
362,277 373,145 384,340 395,870 407,746
2,295,037 2,342,052 2,390,008 2,438,923 2,488,816
575,298 592,557 610,334 628,644 647,503
240,640 247,859 255,295 262,954 270,842
8,787,028 8,994,903 9,207,866 9,426,046 9,649,578
61,778 63,631 65,540 67,506 69,531
61,398 63,240 65,137 67,091 69,104
48,277 49,725 51,217 52,753 54,336
128,710 132,571 136,548 140,644 144,864
- - - - -
83,191 85,687 88,257 90,905 93,632
383,353 394,854 406,699 418,900 431,467
9,170,381$ 9,389,756$ 9,614,565$ 9,844,946$ 10,081,045$
180,043$ 184,522$ 189,112$ 194,006$ 198,936$
19,609 20,096 20,596 21,129 21,666
172,235 176,519 180,910 185,593 190,308
247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340
38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224
146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314
62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706
34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837
132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379
6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096
62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706
730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602
99,005 101,468 103,992 106,683 109,394
2,774,355 2,843,714 2,914,807 2,987,677 3,062,369
2,695,903 2,776,780 2,860,084 2,945,886 3,034,263
155,658 159,530 163,499 167,730 171,992
5,625,916 5,780,024 5,938,389 6,101,293 6,268,623
6,827,409$ 6,993,231$ 7,163,601$ 7,339,307$ 7,519,529$
$2,342,972 $2,396,525 $2,450,964 $2,505,640 $2,561,516
Page 1583 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Property Tax Analysis
Residential Units
Single Family Residential
Total Cumulative SFR Units 2,203 450 900 1,350 1,800 2,203 2,203 2,203
Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 1,260 2,520 3,780 5,040 6,168 6,168 6,168
Percentage Complete 20%41%61%82%100%100%100%
Constructed Assessed Values $1,516,230,000 $309,715,615 $619,431,230 $929,146,845 $1,238,862,460 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000
Multi-Family Residential - Attached Townhomes
Total Cumulative MFR Units 1,073 150 300 450 600 750 900 1,050
Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 420 840 1,260 1,680 2,100 2,520 2,940
Percentage Complete 14%28%42%56%70%84%98%
Constructed Assessed Values $482,850,000 $67,500,000 $135,000,000 $202,500,000 $270,000,000 $337,500,000 $405,000,000 $472,500,000
Total Cumulative Residents 1,680 3,360 5,040 6,720 8,268 8,688 9,108
Commercial
Percentage Complete 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Constructed Assessed Values -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Industrial
Percentage Complete 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Constructed Assessed Values -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Office
Percentage Complete 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Constructed Assessed Values -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Hotel
Percentage Complete 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Constructed Assessed Values -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions 377,215,615$ 754,431,230$ 1,131,646,845$ 1,508,862,460$ 1,853,730,000$ 1,921,230,000$ 1,988,730,000$
Inflation Factor 2.00%100.00%102.00%104.04%106.12%108.24%110.41%112.62%
Total AV - Inflated $377,215,615 $769,519,855 $1,177,365,378 $1,601,216,914 $2,006,536,968 $2,121,193,162 $2,239,632,988
Cumulative AV (w/o Prior Years Inflation)$377,215,615 $769,519,855 $1,177,365,378 $1,601,216,914 $2,006,536,968 $2,121,193,162 $2,239,632,988
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 $377,215,615 $769,519,855 $1,177,365,378 $1,601,216,914 $2,006,536,968 $2,121,193,162 $2,239,632,988
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Ad-Valorem 1.00%3,772,156$ 7,695,199$ 11,773,654$ 16,012,169$ 20,065,370$ 21,211,932$ 22,396,330$
Total AV Tax Due to City 12.60%$475,292 $969,595 $1,483,480 $2,017,533 $2,528,237 $2,672,703 $2,821,938
Page 1584 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year
Property Tax Analysis
Residential Units
Single Family Residential
Total Cumulative SFR Units
Total Cumulative Residents
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Multi-Family Residential - Attached Townhomes
Total Cumulative MFR Units
Total Cumulative Residents
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Cumulative Residents
Commercial
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Industrial
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Office
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Hotel
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions
Inflation Factor
Total AV - Inflated
Cumulative AV (w/o Prior Years Inflation)
Prior Years AV Inflation Factor
Prior Years AV Inflation Amount
Cumulative Residential AV - Inflated
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Ad-Valorem
Total AV Tax Due to City
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203
6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
$1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000
1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073
3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
$482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000
9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$
114.87%117.17%119.51%121.90%124.34%126.82%129.36%
$2,296,314,544 $2,342,240,835 $2,389,085,652 $2,436,867,365 $2,485,604,712 $2,535,316,807 $2,586,023,143
$2,296,314,544 $2,342,240,835 $2,389,085,652 $2,436,867,365 $2,485,604,712 $2,535,316,807 $2,586,023,143
2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,296,314,544 $2,342,240,835 $2,389,085,652 $2,436,867,365 $2,485,604,712 $2,535,316,807 $2,586,023,143
22,963,145$ 23,422,408$ 23,890,857$ 24,368,674$ 24,856,047$ 25,353,168$ 25,860,231$
$2,893,356 $2,951,223 $3,010,248 $3,070,453 $3,131,862 $3,194,499 $3,258,389
Page 1585 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year
Property Tax Analysis
Residential Units
Single Family Residential
Total Cumulative SFR Units
Total Cumulative Residents
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Multi-Family Residential - Attached Townhomes
Total Cumulative MFR Units
Total Cumulative Residents
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Cumulative Residents
Commercial
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Industrial
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Office
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Hotel
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions
Inflation Factor
Total AV - Inflated
Cumulative AV (w/o Prior Years Inflation)
Prior Years AV Inflation Factor
Prior Years AV Inflation Amount
Cumulative Residential AV - Inflated
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Ad-Valorem
Total AV Tax Due to City
15 16 17 18 19 20
2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203 2,203
6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168 6,168
100%100%100%100%100%100%
$1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000 $1,516,230,000
1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073
3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004 3,004
100%100%100%100%100%100%
$482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000 $482,850,000
9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173
0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$ 1,999,080,000$
131.95%134.59%137.28%140.02%142.82%145.68%
$2,637,743,606 $2,690,498,478 $2,744,308,447 $2,799,194,616 $2,855,178,509 $2,912,282,079
$2,637,743,606 $2,690,498,478 $2,744,308,447 $2,799,194,616 $2,855,178,509 $2,912,282,079
2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,637,743,606 $2,690,498,478 $2,744,308,447 $2,799,194,616 $2,855,178,509 $2,912,282,079
26,377,436$ 26,904,985$ 27,443,084$ 27,991,946$ 28,551,785$ 29,122,821$
$3,323,557 $3,390,028 $3,457,829 $3,526,985 $3,597,525 $3,669,475
Page 1586 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Summary of Adjustment to CV Fiscal Impact Analysis Model
November 10, 2023
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cumulative Residential AV - Inflated per CV Model 309,715,615$ 631,819,855$ 966,684,378$ 1,314,690,754$ 1,641,216,114$ 1,674,040,436$ 1,707,521,245$ 1,741,671,670$ 1,776,505,103$ 1,812,035,205$
Revised Inflation Assuming 8 year Turnover (a)309,715,615 636,465,589 980,970,011 1,343,976,649 1,689,141,814 1,722,924,650 1,757,383,143 1,844,601,239 1,935,386,161 2,029,873,034
Difference in Assessed Value - 4,645,734 14,285,633 29,285,896 47,925,700 48,884,214 49,861,898 102,929,569 158,881,058 217,837,828
Total Residential Property Tax Increase Due to City [1]-$ 5,854$ 18,000$ 36,900$ 60,386$ 61,594$ 62,826$ 129,691$ 200,190$ 274,476$
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall) per CV Model [2]452,114$ 923,941$ 1,259,130$ 1,638,443$ 2,012,433$ 2,004,875$ 1,985,883$ 1,975,733$ 1,974,607$ 2,029,711$
Total Project Projected Net Revenue [1] + [2] = [3]452,114$ 929,795$ 1,277,130$ 1,675,343$ 2,072,819$ 2,066,469$ 2,048,709$ 2,105,425$ 2,174,797$ 2,304,187$
Benefits from HOA Maintained Parks (b)[4]- 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000
Adjusted Total Net Revenues [3] + [4] = [5]452,114$ 1,034,795$ 1,382,130$ 1,780,343$ 2,177,819$ 2,171,469$ 2,153,709$ 2,210,425$ 2,279,797$ 2,409,187$
Cumulative Adjusted Net Revenues 452,114$ 1,486,909$ 2,869,038$ 4,649,381$ 6,827,201$ 8,998,670$ 11,152,379$ 13,362,804$ 15,642,601$ 18,051,788$
Footnotes:
Total Project Net Revenue (Residential Turnover based on DPFG Turnover
Model - Assumes 3.5% Escalation in new Home Pricing)
(a) Assumes 8 year turnover with 2.00% annual escalation and 3.50%
escalation when re-assessed.
(b) Analysis assumes HOA maintained park will be built when first
occupancy is granted and maintenance will commence 1 year after park
construction in year 2. Estimated $14,000 per year for park maintenance
Page 1587 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Summary of Adjustment to CV Fiscal Impact Analysis Model
November 10, 2023
Year
Cumulative Residential AV - Inflated per CV Model
Revised Inflation Assuming 8 year Turnover (a)
Difference in Assessed Value
Total Residential Property Tax Increase Due to City [1]
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall) per CV Model [2]
Total Project Projected Net Revenue [1] + [2] = [3]
Benefits from HOA Maintained Parks (b)[4]
Adjusted Total Net Revenues [3] + [4] = [5]
Cumulative Adjusted Net Revenues
Footnotes:
Total Project Net Revenue (Residential Turnover based on DPFG Turnover
Model - Assumes 3.5% Escalation in new Home Pricing)
(a) Assumes 8 year turnover with 2.00% annual escalation and 3.50%
escalation when re-assessed.
(b) Analysis assumes HOA maintained park will be built when first
occupancy is granted and maintenance will commence 1 year after park
construction in year 2. Estimated $14,000 per year for park maintenance
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1,848,275,909$ 1,885,241,428$ 1,922,946,256$ 1,961,405,181$ 2,000,633,285$ 2,040,645,951$ 2,081,458,870$ 2,123,088,047$ 2,165,549,808$ 2,208,860,804$
2,128,201,914 2,224,277,205 2,268,762,749 2,314,138,004 2,360,420,764 2,466,826,481 2,577,432,218 2,692,394,492 2,811,875,488 2,928,948,324
279,926,005 339,035,777 345,816,493 352,732,823 359,787,479 426,180,531 495,973,348 569,306,445 646,325,680 720,087,520
352,707$ 427,185$ 435,729$ 444,443$ 453,332$ 536,987$ 624,926$ 717,326$ 814,370$ 907,310$
2,086,523$ 2,137,890$ 2,187,676$ 2,238,676$ 2,290,441$ 2,342,972$ 2,396,525$ 2,450,964$ 2,505,640$ 2,561,516$
2,439,230$ 2,565,075$ 2,623,404$ 2,683,119$ 2,743,773$ 2,879,959$ 3,021,452$ 3,168,290$ 3,320,010$ 3,468,827$
105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000
2,544,230$ 2,670,075$ 2,728,404$ 2,788,119$ 2,848,773$ 2,984,959$ 3,126,452$ 3,273,290$ 3,425,010$ 3,573,827$
20,596,018$ 23,266,093$ 25,994,497$ 28,782,616$ 31,631,390$ 34,616,349$ 37,742,801$ 41,016,091$ 44,441,101$ 48,014,928$
Page 1588 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1 -$ 309,715,615$ 309,715,615$
2 - 636,465,589 636,465,589
3 - 980,970,011 980,970,011
4 - 1,343,976,649 1,343,976,649
5 - 1,689,141,814 1,689,141,814
6 - 1,722,924,650 1,722,924,650
7 - 1,757,383,143 1,757,383,143
8 - 1,844,601,239 1,844,601,239
9 - 1,935,386,161 1,935,386,161
10 - 2,029,873,034 2,029,873,034
11 - 2,128,201,914 2,128,201,914
12 - 2,224,277,205 2,224,277,205
13 - 2,268,762,749 2,268,762,749
14 - 2,314,138,004 2,314,138,004
15 - 2,360,420,764 2,360,420,764
16 - 2,466,826,481 2,466,826,481
17 - 2,577,432,218 2,577,432,218
18 - 2,692,394,492 2,692,394,492
19 - 2,811,875,488 2,811,875,488
20 - 2,928,948,324 2,928,948,324
November 10, 2023
Total Med-High Density
(SF) Assessed Value After
Turnover
Total High Density (MF)
Assessed Value After
Turnover
Total Assessed ValueYear
Village 8 East
Total Assessed Value After Turnover
Page 1589 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1 -$ -$ -$ -$
2 - - - -
3 - - - -
4 - - - -
5 - - - -
6 - - - -
7 - - - -
8 Assess - - - -
9 - Assess - - -
10 - - Assess - -
11 - - - -
12 - - - -
13 - - - -
14 - - - -
15 - - - -
16 Assess - - - -
17 - Assess - - -
18 - - Assess - -
19 - - - -
20 - - - -
1 309,715,615$ -$ -$ 309,715,615$
2 315,909,927 320,555,662 - 636,465,589
3 322,228,126 326,966,775 331,775,110 980,970,011
4 328,672,688 333,506,110 338,410,612 1,343,976,649
5 335,246,142 340,176,233 345,178,824 1,689,141,814
6 341,951,065 346,979,757 352,082,401 1,722,924,650
7 348,790,086 353,919,352 359,124,049 1,757,383,143
8 Assess 407,836,321 360,997,739 366,306,530 1,844,601,239
9 415,993,047 Assess 422,110,592 373,632,660 1,935,386,161
10 424,312,908 430,552,804 Assess 436,884,463 2,029,873,034
11 432,799,166 439,163,860 445,622,152 2,128,201,914
12 441,455,150 447,947,137 454,534,595 2,224,277,205
13 450,284,253 456,906,080 463,625,287 2,268,762,749
14 459,289,938 466,044,202 472,897,793 2,314,138,004
15 468,475,736 475,365,086 482,355,749 2,360,420,764
16 Assess 537,042,553 484,872,387 492,002,864 2,466,826,481
17 547,783,404 Assess 555,839,042 501,842,921 2,577,432,218
18 558,739,072 566,955,823 Assess 575,293,409 2,692,394,492
19 569,913,853 578,294,940 586,799,277 2,811,875,488
20 581,312,130 589,860,838 598,535,262 2,928,948,324
Footnotes:
(a) Turnover calculations based on 3.50% escalation and turnover occuring every 8 years. Assumes 2.00% escalation when no turnover event occurs.
Year 1 Units (450 Units)Year 2 Units (450 Units)Year 3 Units (450 Units)
Reassessment
Year
Reassessment
Year
Reassessment
Year
Current
Year
Final Assessed
Value
Final Assessed
Value
Final Assessed
Value
Final Assessed
Value
Final Assessed
Value
Reassessment
Year
Total SF Assessed
Value After Turnover
HIGH DENSITY (MULTIFAMILY UNITS)
MED-HIGH DENSITY (SINGLE FAMILY UNITS)
Assessed Value and Reassessment Year - Breakdown by Absorption Year
November 10, 2023
Total MF Assessed
Value After Turnover
Year 1 Units (0 Units)
Reassessment
Year
Reassessment
Year
Village 8 East
Current
Year
Final Assessed
Value
Year 2 Units (0 Units)Year 3 Units (0 Units)
Page 1590 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
High Density (Multifamily)
MF Unit Absorption - - - - - - - - - -
MF AV of Single unit 635,000$ 657,225$ 680,228$ 704,036$ 728,677$ 754,181$ 780,577$ 807,897$ 836,174$ 865,440$
Med-High Density (Single Family)
SF Unit Absorption 450 450 450 450 403 - - - - -
SF AV of Single Unit 688,257$ 712,346$ 737,278$ 763,083$ 789,791$ 817,433$ 846,043$ 875,655$ 906,303$ 938,024$
November 10, 2023
Village 8 East
Initial Home Value by Year
Assumes 3.50% Annual Appreciation
Page 1591 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ATTACHMENT B
VILLAGE 8 EAST CHULA VISTA FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MODEL AND
SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS TO CHULA VISTA FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
MODEL
HISTORIC LAND USE SCENARIO
Page 1592 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Page 1593 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Single Family Residential 1,400 2,800 4,200 5,600 7,000 7,941 7,941
Multi-Family Residential 280 560 840 1,120 1,232 1,232 1,232
Total (Per Capita Base)1,680 3,360 5,040 6,720 8,232 9,173 9,173
Employment Population 84 168 252 336 412 459 459
Totals 1,764 3,528 5,292 7,056 8,644 9,631 9,631
Single Family Residential 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2,836 2,836
Multi-Family Residential 100 200 300 400 440 440 440
Totals 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 2,940 3,276 3,276
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
General Fund Revenues
Tax Revenues
Property Tax AV 530,154$ 1,081,514$ 1,654,717$ 2,250,415$ 2,832,455$ 3,240,380$ 3,305,187$
Sales and Use Tax Per Capita 255,059 517,158 786,637 1,063,842 1,322,143 1,494,990 1,517,388
Sales and Use Tax - Project Specific Project Specific - - - - - - -
Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita 52,071 105,473 158,609 212,067 260,568 291,296 292,316
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific 311,899 694,232 1,091,711 1,504,789 1,908,396 2,191,265 2,236,205
Franchise Fees Per Capita 82,467 165,587 249,426 334,047 411,123 460,356 462,717
Other Taxes Per Capita 38,171 77,814 115,969 152,179 184,119 202,677 200,268
Subtotal Tax Revenues 1,269,822 2,641,778 4,057,069 5,517,339 6,918,805 7,880,965 8,014,082
Other Revenues Per Capita 21,672 18,451 28,543 39,605 47,787 52,461 51,696
Licenses and Permits Per Capita 11,110 19,511 29,390 39,361 47,494 52,138 51,378
Fines, forfeitures, penalties Per Capita 5,843 15,342 23,109 30,949 37,344 40,996 40,398
Use of Money & Property Per Capita 21,617 42,555 62,843 82,514 99,561 109,298 107,704
Charges for Services No Forecast - - - - - - -
Intergovernmental Per Capita 9,078 26,437 39,822 53,332 64,351 70,644 69,614
Subtotal Other Revenues 69,320 122,295 183,709 245,762 296,536 325,537 320,791
Total General Fund Revenues 1,339,142$ 2,764,073$ 4,240,777$ 5,763,101$ 7,215,341$ 8,206,502$ 8,334,872$
General Fund Expenditures
General Government Per Capita 24,694$ 51,086$ 77,565$ 104,655$ 129,956$ 146,590$ 148,267$
Community Development (20%)Per Capita 2,689 5,564 8,448 11,398 14,154 15,965 16,148
Public Works/Engineering (20%)Per Capita 23,623 48,870 74,201 100,116 124,320 140,232 141,837
PC/EMP Base
Drainage Management System 26.50$ 45,300 90,601 135,901 181,201 221,972 247,340 247,340
Building Management System 4.10 7,001 14,001 21,002 28,003 34,303 38,224 38,224
Parks Management System 15.68 26,797 53,595 80,392 107,190 131,307 146,314 146,314
Open Space Management System 6.72 11,485 22,969 34,454 45,938 56,275 62,706 62,706
Fleet Management System 3.73 6,380 12,761 19,141 25,521 31,264 34,837 34,837
Pavement Annual (PMP)14.18 24,245 48,491 72,736 96,981 118,802 132,379 132,379
General Govt Management System 0.65 1,117 2,233 3,350 4,466 5,471 6,096 6,096
Urban Forestry Management System 6.72 11,485 22,969 34,454 45,938 56,275 62,706 62,706
78.28$ 133,810 267,620 401,430 535,239 655,668 730,602 730,602
Community Services Per Capita 13,579 28,092 42,653 57,549 71,462 80,609 81,531
Public Safety:
Police Services Project Specific 322,787 658,916 952,869 1,335,153 1,660,537 1,879,660 1,934,420
Fire Services Project Specific 240,653 507,032 1,011,298 1,417,022 1,785,501 2,045,334 2,104,921
Animal Control Services Per Capita 21,350 44,167 67,059 90,480 112,354 126,736 128,186
Total Public Safety 584,789 1,210,114 2,031,226 2,842,656 3,558,392 4,051,730 4,167,526
Total General Fund Expenditures 783,185$ 1,611,346$ 2,635,522$ 3,651,614$ 4,553,951$ 5,165,728$ 5,285,911$
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall)$555,956 $1,152,727 $1,605,256 $2,111,487 $2,661,390 $3,040,775 $3,048,961
Population
Number of Homes
Page 1594 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Total (Per Capita Base)
Employment Population
Totals
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Totals
Year
General Fund Revenues
Tax Revenues
Property Tax AV
Sales and Use Tax Per Capita
Sales and Use Tax - Project Specific Project Specific
Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific
Franchise Fees Per Capita
Other Taxes Per Capita
Subtotal Tax Revenues
Other Revenues Per Capita
Licenses and Permits Per Capita
Fines, forfeitures, penalties Per Capita
Use of Money & Property Per Capita
Charges for Services No Forecast
Intergovernmental Per Capita
Subtotal Other Revenues
Total General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
General Government Per Capita
Community Development (20%)Per Capita
Public Works/Engineering (20%)Per Capita
PC/EMP Base
Drainage Management System 26.50$
Building Management System 4.10
Parks Management System 15.68
Open Space Management System 6.72
Fleet Management System 3.73
Pavement Annual (PMP)14.18
General Govt Management System 0.65
Urban Forestry Management System 6.72
78.28$
Community Services Per Capita
Public Safety:
Police Services Project Specific
Fire Services Project Specific
Animal Control Services Per Capita
Total Public Safety
Total General Fund Expenditures
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall)
Population
Number of Homes
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941
1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232
9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173
459 459 459 459 459 459 459 459
9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631
2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836
440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440
3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
3,371,291$ 3,438,717$ 3,507,491$ 3,577,641$ 3,649,194$ 3,722,178$ 3,796,621$ 3,872,554$
1,540,449 1,564,183 1,611,109 1,659,442 1,709,225 1,760,502 1,813,317 1,867,717
- - - - - - - -
293,406 294,564 303,401 312,503 321,878 331,535 341,481 351,725
2,282,044 2,328,799 2,376,490 2,425,134 2,474,752 2,525,361 2,576,983 2,629,637
465,188 467,770 481,803 496,257 511,145 526,479 542,273 558,542
197,931 195,662 201,532 207,578 213,805 220,220 226,826 233,631
8,150,309 8,289,696 8,481,826 8,678,556 8,879,999 9,086,274 9,297,502 9,513,805
50,953 50,231 51,738 53,290 54,889 56,535 58,231 59,978
50,640 49,922 51,420 52,963 54,551 56,188 57,874 59,610
39,817 39,253 40,431 41,644 42,893 44,180 45,505 46,871
106,157 104,653 107,792 111,026 114,357 117,787 121,321 124,961
- - - - - - - -
68,614 67,642 69,671 71,761 73,914 76,131 78,415 80,768
316,181 311,701 321,052 330,684 340,604 350,822 361,347 372,187
8,466,489$ 8,601,397$ 8,802,878$ 9,009,240$ 9,220,604$ 9,437,097$ 9,658,849$ 9,885,993$
150,044$ 151,796$ 155,379$ 159,244$ 163,164$ 167,193$ 171,348$ 175,629$
16,341 16,532 16,923 17,343 17,770 18,209 18,662 19,128
143,537 145,213 148,640 152,338 156,087 159,942 163,917 168,013
247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340
38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224
146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314
62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706
34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837
132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379
6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096
62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706
730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602
82,508 83,472 85,442 87,568 89,723 91,939 94,224 96,578
1,987,635 2,037,326 2,088,259 2,140,466 2,193,977 2,248,827 2,305,048 2,362,674
2,162,827 2,219,945 2,279,303 2,339,063 2,407,292 2,479,997 2,554,397 2,631,028
129,722 131,237 134,334 137,676 141,065 144,549 148,141 151,842
4,280,184 4,388,508 4,501,897 4,617,205 4,742,335 4,873,372 5,007,585 5,145,544
5,403,216$ 5,516,124$ 5,638,882$ 5,764,299$ 5,899,681$ 6,041,258$ 6,186,338$ 6,335,494$
$3,063,273 $3,085,273 $3,163,996 $3,244,940 $3,320,923 $3,395,839 $3,472,511 $3,550,499
Page 1595 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Total (Per Capita Base)
Employment Population
Totals
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Totals
Year
General Fund Revenues
Tax Revenues
Property Tax AV
Sales and Use Tax Per Capita
Sales and Use Tax - Project Specific Project Specific
Transient Occupancy Tax Per Capita
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Project Specific
Franchise Fees Per Capita
Other Taxes Per Capita
Subtotal Tax Revenues
Other Revenues Per Capita
Licenses and Permits Per Capita
Fines, forfeitures, penalties Per Capita
Use of Money & Property Per Capita
Charges for Services No Forecast
Intergovernmental Per Capita
Subtotal Other Revenues
Total General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
General Government Per Capita
Community Development (20%)Per Capita
Public Works/Engineering (20%)Per Capita
PC/EMP Base
Drainage Management System 26.50$
Building Management System 4.10
Parks Management System 15.68
Open Space Management System 6.72
Fleet Management System 3.73
Pavement Annual (PMP)14.18
General Govt Management System 0.65
Urban Forestry Management System 6.72
78.28$
Community Services Per Capita
Public Safety:
Police Services Project Specific
Fire Services Project Specific
Animal Control Services Per Capita
Total Public Safety
Total General Fund Expenditures
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall)
Population
Number of Homes
16 17 18 19 20
7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941
1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232
9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173
459 459 459 459 459
9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631 9,631
2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836
440 440 440 440 440
3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276
16 17 18 19 20
3,950,005$ 4,029,005$ 4,109,585$ 4,191,777$ 4,275,612$
1,923,748 1,981,461 2,040,904 2,102,132 2,165,196
- - - - -
362,277 373,145 384,340 395,870 407,746
2,683,345 2,738,126 2,794,003 2,850,998 2,909,132
575,298 592,557 610,334 628,644 647,503
240,640 247,859 255,295 262,954 270,842
9,735,312 9,962,153 10,194,461 10,432,373 10,676,031
61,778 63,631 65,540 67,506 69,531
61,398 63,240 65,137 67,091 69,104
48,277 49,725 51,217 52,753 54,336
128,710 132,571 136,548 140,644 144,864
- - - - -
83,191 85,687 88,257 90,905 93,632
383,353 394,854 406,699 418,900 431,467
10,118,665$ 10,357,006$ 10,601,160$ 10,851,273$ 11,107,498$
180,043$ 184,522$ 189,112$ 194,006$ 198,936$
19,609 20,096 20,596 21,129 21,666
172,235 176,519 180,910 185,593 190,308
247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340 247,340
38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224 38,224
146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314 146,314
62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706
34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837 34,837
132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379 132,379
6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096 6,096
62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706 62,706
730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602 730,602
99,005 101,468 103,992 106,683 109,394
2,421,741 2,482,284 2,544,341 2,607,950 2,673,148
2,709,959 2,791,258 2,874,996 2,961,246 3,050,083
155,658 159,530 163,499 167,730 171,992
5,287,358 5,433,072 5,582,836 5,736,926 5,895,223
6,488,851$ 6,646,279$ 6,808,048$ 6,974,940$ 7,146,129$
$3,629,814 $3,710,727 $3,793,112 $3,876,334 $3,961,369
Page 1596 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Property Tax Analysis
Residential Units
Single Family Residential
Total Cumulative SFR Units 2,836 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2,836 2,836
Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 1,400 2,800 4,200 5,600 7,000 7,941 7,941
Percentage Complete 18%35%53%71%88%100%100%
Constructed Assessed Values $2,131,295,000 $375,757,228 $751,514,457 $1,127,271,685 $1,503,028,914 $1,878,786,142 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000
Multi-Family Residential - Attached Townhomes
Total Cumulative MFR Units 440 100 200 300 400 440 440 440
Total Cumulative Residents 2.80 280 560 840 1,120 1,232 1,232 1,232
Percentage Complete 23%45%68%91%100%100%100%
Constructed Assessed Values $198,000,000 $45,000,000 $90,000,000 $135,000,000 $180,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000
Total Cumulative Residents 1,680 3,360 5,040 6,720 8,232 9,173 9,173
Commercial
Percentage Complete 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Constructed Assessed Values -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Industrial
Percentage Complete 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Constructed Assessed Values -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Office
Percentage Complete 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Constructed Assessed Values -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Hotel
Percentage Complete 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Constructed Assessed Values -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions 420,757,228$ 841,514,457$ 1,262,271,685$ 1,683,028,914$ 2,076,786,142$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$
Inflation Factor 2.00%100.00%102.00%104.04%106.12%108.24%110.41%112.62%
Total AV - Inflated $420,757,228 $858,344,746 $1,313,267,462 $1,786,043,748 $2,247,980,110 $2,571,729,894 $2,623,164,492
Cumulative AV (w/o Prior Years Inflation)$420,757,228 $858,344,746 $1,313,267,462 $1,786,043,748 $2,247,980,110 $2,571,729,894 $2,623,164,492
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 $420,757,228 $858,344,746 $1,313,267,462 $1,786,043,748 $2,247,980,110 $2,571,729,894 $2,623,164,492
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Ad-Valorem 1.00%4,207,572$ 8,583,447$ 13,132,675$ 17,860,437$ 22,479,801$ 25,717,299$ 26,231,645$
Total AV Tax Due to City 12.60%$530,154 $1,081,514 $1,654,717 $2,250,415 $2,832,455 $3,240,380 $3,305,187
Page 1597 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year
Property Tax Analysis
Residential Units
Single Family Residential
Total Cumulative SFR Units
Total Cumulative Residents
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Multi-Family Residential - Attached Townhomes
Total Cumulative MFR Units
Total Cumulative Residents
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Cumulative Residents
Commercial
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Industrial
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Office
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Hotel
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions
Inflation Factor
Total AV - Inflated
Cumulative AV (w/o Prior Years Inflation)
Prior Years AV Inflation Factor
Prior Years AV Inflation Amount
Cumulative Residential AV - Inflated
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Ad-Valorem
Total AV Tax Due to City
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836
7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
$2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000
440 440 440 440 440 440 440
1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
$198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000
9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$
114.87%117.17%119.51%121.90%124.34%126.82%129.36%
$2,675,627,782 $2,729,140,338 $2,783,723,145 $2,839,397,608 $2,896,185,560 $2,954,109,271 $3,013,191,456
$2,675,627,782 $2,729,140,338 $2,783,723,145 $2,839,397,608 $2,896,185,560 $2,954,109,271 $3,013,191,456
2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,675,627,782 $2,729,140,338 $2,783,723,145 $2,839,397,608 $2,896,185,560 $2,954,109,271 $3,013,191,456
26,756,278$ 27,291,403$ 27,837,231$ 28,393,976$ 28,961,856$ 29,541,093$ 30,131,915$
$3,371,291 $3,438,717 $3,507,491 $3,577,641 $3,649,194 $3,722,178 $3,796,621
Page 1598 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year
Property Tax Analysis
Residential Units
Single Family Residential
Total Cumulative SFR Units
Total Cumulative Residents
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Multi-Family Residential - Attached Townhomes
Total Cumulative MFR Units
Total Cumulative Residents
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Cumulative Residents
Commercial
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Industrial
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Office
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Hotel
Percentage Complete
Constructed Assessed Values
Constructed Assessed Values
Total Current Period Assessed Value Additions
Inflation Factor
Total AV - Inflated
Cumulative AV (w/o Prior Years Inflation)
Prior Years AV Inflation Factor
Prior Years AV Inflation Amount
Cumulative Residential AV - Inflated
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Ad-Valorem
Total AV Tax Due to City
15 16 17 18 19 20
2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836 2,836
7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941 7,941
100%100%100%100%100%100%
$2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000 $2,131,295,000
440 440 440 440 440 440
1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232
100%100%100%100%100%100%
$198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000 $198,000,000
9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173 9,173
0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
0%0%0%0%0%0%
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$ 2,329,295,000$
131.95%134.59%137.28%140.02%142.82%145.68%
$3,073,455,285 $3,134,924,391 $3,197,622,879 $3,261,575,337 $3,326,806,843 $3,393,342,980
$3,073,455,285 $3,134,924,391 $3,197,622,879 $3,261,575,337 $3,326,806,843 $3,393,342,980
2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$3,073,455,285 $3,134,924,391 $3,197,622,879 $3,261,575,337 $3,326,806,843 $3,393,342,980
30,734,553$ 31,349,244$ 31,976,229$ 32,615,753$ 33,268,068$ 33,933,430$
$3,872,554 $3,950,005 $4,029,005 $4,109,585 $4,191,777 $4,275,612
Page 1599 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Summary of Adjustment to CV Fiscal Impact Analysis Model
November 10, 2023
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cumulative Residential AV - Inflated per CV Model 375,757,228$ 766,544,746$ 1,172,813,462$ 1,595,026,308$ 2,033,658,542$ 2,353,121,895$ 2,400,184,333$ 2,448,188,020$ 2,497,151,780$ 2,547,094,816$
Revised Inflation Assuming 8 year Turnover (a)375,757,228 772,181,105 1,190,145,264 1,630,556,925 2,094,358,126 2,436,146,600 2,484,869,532 2,597,740,494 2,715,079,951 2,837,054,658
Difference in Assessed Value - 5,636,358 17,331,802 35,530,617 60,699,583 83,024,705 84,685,199 149,552,474 217,928,170 289,959,842
Total Residential Property Tax Increase Due to City [1]-$ 7,102$ 21,838$ 44,769$ 76,481$ 104,611$ 106,703$ 188,436$ 274,589$ 365,349$
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall) per CV Model [2]555,956$ 1,152,727$ 1,605,256$ 2,111,487$ 2,661,390$ 3,040,775$ 3,048,961$ 3,063,273$ 3,085,273$ 3,163,996$
Total Project Projected Net Revenue [1] + [2] = [3]555,956$ 1,159,828$ 1,627,094$ 2,156,255$ 2,737,872$ 3,145,386$ 3,155,664$ 3,251,710$ 3,359,863$ 3,529,346$
Benefits from HOA maintained Parks (b)[4]- 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200
Adjusted Total Net Revenues [3] + [4] = [5]555,956$ 1,262,028$ 1,729,294$ 2,258,455$ 2,840,072$ 3,247,586$ 3,257,864$ 3,353,910$ 3,462,063$ 3,631,546$
Cumulative Adjusted Net Revenues 555,956$ 1,817,985$ 3,547,278$ 5,805,734$ 8,645,806$ 11,893,391$ 15,151,256$ 18,505,165$ 21,967,228$ 25,598,773$
Footnotes:
Total Project Net Revenue (Residential Turnover based on DPFG Turnover
Model - Assumes 3.5% Escalation in new Home Pricing)
(a) Assumes 8 year turnover with 2.00% annual escalation and 3.50%
escalation when re-assessed.
(b) Analysis assumes HOA maintained park will be built when first
occupancy is granted and maintenance will commence 1 year after park
construction in year 2. Estimated $14,000 per year for park maintenance
Page 1600 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Village 8 East
Summary of Adjustment to CV Fiscal Impact Analysis Model
November 10, 2023
Year
Cumulative Residential AV - Inflated per CV Model
Revised Inflation Assuming 8 year Turnover (a)
Difference in Assessed Value
Total Residential Property Tax Increase Due to City [1]
Projected Net Revenues/(Shortfall) per CV Model [2]
Total Project Projected Net Revenue [1] + [2] = [3]
Benefits from HOA maintained Parks (b)[4]
Adjusted Total Net Revenues [3] + [4] = [5]
Cumulative Adjusted Net Revenues
Footnotes:
Total Project Net Revenue (Residential Turnover based on DPFG Turnover
Model - Assumes 3.5% Escalation in new Home Pricing)
(a) Assumes 8 year turnover with 2.00% annual escalation and 3.50%
escalation when re-assessed.
(b) Analysis assumes HOA maintained park will be built when first
occupancy is granted and maintenance will commence 1 year after park
construction in year 2. Estimated $14,000 per year for park maintenance
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2,598,036,712$ 2,649,997,447$ 2,702,997,396$ 2,757,057,343$ 2,812,198,490$ 2,868,442,460$ 2,925,811,309$ 2,984,327,536$ 3,044,014,086$ 3,104,894,368$
2,963,837,419 3,095,607,294 3,207,939,859 3,272,098,656 3,337,540,629 3,476,111,566 3,619,967,626 3,769,302,491 3,924,316,797 4,085,218,378
365,800,707 445,609,847 504,942,463 515,041,313 525,342,139 607,669,106 694,156,317 784,974,956 880,302,711 980,324,010
460,909$ 561,468$ 636,228$ 648,952$ 661,931$ 765,663$ 874,637$ 989,068$ 1,109,181$ 1,235,208$
3,244,940$ 3,320,923$ 3,395,839$ 3,472,511$ 3,550,499$ 3,629,814$ 3,710,727$ 3,793,112$ 3,876,334$ 3,961,369$
3,705,849$ 3,882,391$ 4,032,066$ 4,121,463$ 4,212,430$ 4,395,477$ 4,585,364$ 4,782,180$ 4,985,515$ 5,196,578$
102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200 102,200
3,808,049$ 3,984,591$ 4,134,266$ 4,223,663$ 4,314,630$ 4,497,677$ 4,687,564$ 4,884,380$ 5,087,715$ 5,298,778$
29,406,822$ 33,391,414$ 37,525,680$ 41,749,343$ 46,063,973$ 50,561,650$ 55,249,214$ 60,133,594$ 65,221,309$ 70,520,087$
Page 1601 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1 -$ 375,757,228$ 375,757,228$
2 - 772,181,105 772,181,105
3 - 1,190,145,264 1,190,145,264
4 - 1,630,556,925 1,630,556,925
5 - 2,094,358,126 2,094,358,126
6 - 2,436,146,600 2,436,146,600
7 - 2,484,869,532 2,484,869,532
8 - 2,597,740,494 2,597,740,494
9 - 2,715,079,951 2,715,079,951
10 - 2,837,054,658 2,837,054,658
11 - 2,963,837,419 2,963,837,419
12 - 3,095,607,294 3,095,607,294
13 - 3,207,939,859 3,207,939,859
14 - 3,272,098,656 3,272,098,656
15 - 3,337,540,629 3,337,540,629
16 - 3,476,111,566 3,476,111,566
17 - 3,619,967,626 3,619,967,626
18 - 3,769,302,491 3,769,302,491
19 - 3,924,316,797 3,924,316,797
20 - 4,085,218,378 4,085,218,378
November 10, 2023
Total Med-High Density
(SF) Assessed Value After
Turnover
Total High Density (MF)
Assessed Value After
Turnover
Total Assessed ValueYear
Village 8 East
Total Assessed Value After Turnover
Page 1602 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1 -$ -$ -$ -$
2 - - - -
3 - - - -
4 - - - -
5 - - - -
6 - - - -
7 - - - -
8 Assess - - - -
9 - Assess - - -
10 - - Assess - -
11 - - - -
12 - - - -
13 - - - -
14 - - - -
15 - - - -
16 Assess - - - -
17 - Assess - - -
18 - - Assess - -
19 - - - -
20 - - - -
1 375,757,228$ -$ -$ 375,757,228$
2 383,272,373 388,908,731 - 772,181,105
3 390,937,821 396,686,906 402,520,537 1,190,145,264
4 398,756,577 404,620,644 410,570,948 1,630,556,925
5 406,731,708 412,713,057 418,782,367 2,094,358,126
6 414,866,343 420,967,318 427,158,014 2,436,146,600
7 423,163,669 429,386,665 435,701,174 2,484,869,532
8 Assess 494,800,514 437,974,398 444,415,198 2,597,740,494
9 504,696,524 Assess 512,118,532 453,303,502 2,715,079,951
10 514,790,455 522,360,903 Assess 530,042,681 2,837,054,658
11 525,086,264 532,808,121 540,643,534 2,963,837,419
12 535,587,989 543,464,283 551,456,405 3,095,607,294
13 546,299,749 554,333,569 562,485,533 3,207,939,859
14 557,225,744 565,420,240 573,735,244 3,272,098,656
15 568,370,259 576,728,645 585,209,949 3,337,540,629
16 Assess 651,557,789 588,263,218 596,914,148 3,476,111,566
17 664,588,944 Assess 674,362,311 608,852,431 3,619,967,626
18 677,880,723 687,849,557 Assess 697,964,992 3,769,302,491
19 691,438,338 701,606,549 711,924,292 3,924,316,797
20 705,267,104 715,638,680 726,162,778 4,085,218,378
Footnotes:
(a) Turnover calculations based on 3.50% escalation and turnover occuring every 8 years. Assumes 2.00% escalation when no turnover event occurs.
HIGH DENSITY (MULTIFAMILY UNITS)
MED-HIGH DENSITY (SINGLE FAMILY UNITS)
Assessed Value and Reassessment Year - Breakdown by Absorption Year
November 10, 2023
Total MF Assessed
Value After Turnover
Year 1 Units (350 Units)
Reassessment
Year
Reassessment
Year
Village 8 East
Current
Year
Final Assessed
Value
Year 2 Units (350 Units)Year 3 Units (350 Units)
Final Assessed
Value
Final Assessed
Value
Reassessment
Year
Total SF Assessed
Value After TurnoverCurrent
Year
Final Assessed
Value
Final Assessed
Value
Final Assessed
Value
Year 1 Units (500 Units)Year 2 Units (500 Units)Year 3 Units (500 Units)
Reassessment
Year
Reassessment
Year
Reassessment
Year
Page 1603 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
High Density (Multifamily)
MF Unit Absorption 350 350 350 350 350 143 - - - -
MF AV of Single unit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Med-High Density (Single Family)
SF Unit Absorption 500 500 500 500 500 336 - - - -
SF AV of Single Unit 751,514$ 777,817$ 805,041$ 833,218$ 862,380$ 892,563$ 923,803$ 956,136$ 989,601$ 1,024,237$
November 10, 2023
Village 8 East
Initial Home Value by Year
Assumes 3.50% Annual Appreciation
Page 1604 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations
April 2024
PREPARED FOR:
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Adopted on December 2, 2014
By Resolution No. 2014-235
By Ordinance No. 3331
Amended XX
By Resolution No. XX
By Ordinance ____
Page 1605 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1606 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.A. PURPOSE & SCOPE ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.B. PRIVATE AGREEMENTS .............................................................................. 1-1
1.C. CONFLICTING ORDINANCES ...................................................................... 1-1
1.D. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS ............................................... 1-1
1.E. ADOPTION OF ZONING DISTRICT MAP ................................................... 1-4
1.F. DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................... 1-4
2. ZONING DISTRICT MAP
2.A. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT CATEGORIES/INTENT ....................... 2-1
2.B. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES .............................................................................. 2-1
3. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
3.A. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.B. PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES ................................................... 3-1
3.B.1. Temporary Uses .................................................................................................... 3-3
3.B.2. Interim Uses.......................................................................................................... 3-3
3.C. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ...................................... 3-4
3.C.1. Design Goals, Principals, and Guidelines ............................................................ 3-4
3.C.2. General Standards ................................................................................................. 3-4
3.C.3. Specific Standards ................................................................................................ 3-4
3.C.4. Site Planning ......................................................................................................... 3-6
3.D. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS .......................................................................... 3-8
3.D.1. Private Usable Open Space................................................................................... 3-8
3.D.2. Common Usable Open Space ............................................................................... 3-9
3.E. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES .......................... 3-10
3.F. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (“ADU”) ................................................ 3-10
3.G. RECIPROCAL USE EASEMENTS .............................................................. 3-11
3.H. HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS ................................................................................ 3-12
3.I. PERMITTED BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS AND PROJECTIONS .... 3-12
3.J. MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................. 3-13
3.J.1. Utilities ............................................................................................................... 3-13
3.J.2. Noise ................................................................................................................... 3-13
3.J.3. Energy Conservation .......................................................................................... 3-13
3.J.4. Parking, Loading and Storage ............................................................................ 3-13
3.J.5. Access ................................................................................................................. 3-14
Page 1607 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
ii
3.J.6. Common Facilities .............................................................................................. 3-14
3.J.7. Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 3-14
3.J.8. Storm Water........................................................................................................ 3-14
4. VILLAGE CORE DISTRICT
4.A. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.B. PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES ................................................... 4-1
4.C. TEMPORARY USES ....................................................................................... 4-4
4.C.1. Construction and Sales ......................................................................................... 4-4
4.C.2. Permitted throughout SPA Plan Area ................................................................... 4-4
4.C.3. Interim Uses.......................................................................................................... 4-5
4.D. VILLAGE CORE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ..................................... 4-5
4.D.1. Design Goals, Principals, and Guidelines ............................................................ 4-5
4.D.2 General Standards ................................................................................................. 4-5
4.D.3. Specific Standards ................................................................................................ 4-6
4.D.4. Site Planning ......................................................................................................... 4-8
4.E. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS .......................................................................... 4-9
4.E.1. Private Usable Open Space................................................................................... 4-9
4.E.2. Common Usable Open Space ............................................................................. 4-10
4.F. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES .......................... 4-11
4.G. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS .............................................................. 4-11
4.H. HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS ................................................................................ 4-11
4.I. PERMITTED BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS AND PROJECTIONS .... 4-12
4.J. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .................................................................. 4-12
4.J.1. Utilities ............................................................................................................... 4-12
4.J.2. Noise ................................................................................................................... 4-13
4.J.3. Energy Conservation .......................................................................................... 4-13
4.J.4. Parking, Loading And Storage ........................................................................... 4-13
4.J.5. Access ................................................................................................................. 4-13
4.J.6. Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 4-14
4.J.7. Storm Water........................................................................................................ 4-14
5. OPEN SPACE AND PARKS DISTRICT
5.A. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.B. PERMITTED & CONDITIONAL USES.......................................................... 5-1
5.C. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ............................................... 5-3
5.C.1. Site Planning ......................................................................................................... 5-3
5.C.2. Landscaping .......................................................................................................... 5-3
Page 1608 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
iii
5.C.3. Accessory Uses & Buildings ................................................................................ 5-3
5.D. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .................................................................... 5-3
6. COMMUNITY PURCHASE FACILITY DISTRICT
6.A. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.B. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ............................................... 6-1
6.C. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .................................................................... 6-2
7. OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS
7.A. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOTS ................................................................. 7-1
7.B. CALTRANS LOTS .......................................................................................... 7-1
8. PARKING REGULATIONS
8.A. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 8-1
8.B. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................... 8-1
8.C. RESIDENTIAL GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS .......................................... 8-2
8.D. PRIVATE DRIVES & PRIVATE DRIVE AISLES ........................................ 8-2
8.E. VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ....................................................................... 8-2
8.F. BICYCLE PARKING ....................................................................................... 8-2
8.G. PAVING ........................................................................................................... 8-3
8.H. PARKING AREA LIGHTING ......................................................................... 8-3
8.I. SURFACE PARKING LOT SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING ............... 8-3
8.J. PARKING STRUCTURES .............................................................................. 8-3
8.K. PARKING LOT AND PARKING STRUCTURE ACCESS ........................... 8-4
9. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REGULATIONS
9.A. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 9-1
9.B. GENERAL SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 9-1
9.C. MAJOR AND MINOR IDENTIFICATION .................................................... 9-1
9.C.1. Freestanding Signs ................................................................................................ 9-1
9.C.2. Gateway Signs ...................................................................................................... 9-2
9.C.3. Wall and Projecting Signs .................................................................................... 9-2
9.D. CHANGEAGE SIGNAGE ............................................................................... 9-3
9.D.1. Temporary Signs .................................................................................................. 9-3
9.D.2. Marquee Signs ...................................................................................................... 9-3
9.D.3. Pageantry .............................................................................................................. 9-3
9.D.4. PORTABLE SIGNS ............................................................................................. 9-4
9.E. DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE ............................................................................. 9-4
9.F. ILLUMINATION OF SIGNS........................................................................... 9-5
Page 1609 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
iv
10. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
10.A. PURPOSE ....................................................................................................... 10-1
10.B. AMENDMENTS ............................................................................................ 10-1
10.C. EFFECTS OF REGULATIONS ..................................................................... 10-1
10.D. MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS ....................................................................... 10-1
10.E. MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION .......................................... 10-1
10.E.1. Minor Modification Requirements ..................................................................... 10-2
10.F. SPA PLAN INTERPRETATION ................................................................... 10-2
10.F.1. Substantial Conformance .................................................................................... 10-2
10.F.2. Clarification of Ambiguity ................................................................................. 10-3
10.F.3. Site Utilization and Mapping Refinements ........................................................ 10-3
10.G. REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................................................... 10-3
10.G.1. Administrative Design Review ........................................................................... 10-4
10.G.2. Administrative Design Review Process ............................................................. 10-4
10.G.3. Administrative Design Review Permit Submittal Requirements ....................... 10-5
10.G.4. Parcel Unit Count (Unit Tracking Table) ........................................................... 10-5
10.H. INTENSITY TRANSFERS BETWEEN VILLAGES ................................... 10-6
10.I. PERMITS, VARIANCES AND ZONING APPLICATIONS ....................... 10-7
10.J. SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ................................. 10-7
10.K. VILLAGE 8 EAST LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN .................................... 10-7
10.L. VILLAGE CORE MASTER PRECISE PLAN .............................................. 10-7
11. ENFORCEMENT
11.A. ENFORCEMENT ........................................................................................... 11-1
11.B. MONITORING AND UPDATES .................................................................. 11-1
Page 1610 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
v
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Conceptual Semi-private Courtyard/Open Space ............................................. 1-5
Exhibit 2: Village 8 East Zoning District Map ................................................................. 2-2
Exhibit 3a: Conceptual Multi-Family Private Drive Aisle ............................................. 3-7
Exhibit 3b: Typical Building Drainage Swale Detail .................................................................. 3-8
Exhibit 4a: Zero Lot Line/RUE Configuration ............................................................. 3-11
Exhibit 4b: Typical Building Drainage Swale Detail ...................................................... 4-9
Exhibit 5: Conceptual Village Core Private Drive Aisle ................................................ 4-8
TABLES
Table 1: Village 8 East Zoning Districts Definitions....................................................... 1-3
Table 2: Permitted and Conditional Use Matrix – Multi-Family Residential Districts ..... 2-2
Table 3: Multi-Family Property Development Standards ............................................... 3-5
Table 4: Permitted and Conditional Use Matrix – Village Core ...................................... 4-2
Table 5: Village Core Zoning District Development Standards ...................................... 4-6
Table 6: Permitted and Conditional Use Matrix – Open Space and Parks Districts ........ 5-2
Table 7: CPF Zoning District Property Development Standards ..................................... 6-1
Table 8: Parking Standards ............................................................................................. 8-1
Table 9: Minor Administrative Modifications .............................................................. 10-2
APPENDICES
A Village 8 East Administrative Design Review Checklist
Page 1611 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
vi
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1612 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
1. General Provisions
Page 1613 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1614 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 1. General Provisions
1-1 April 2024
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.A. PURPOSE & SCOPE
The Village 8 East Planned Community District Regulations (“PC District Regulations”) are
intended to:
• Protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the people of the City of
Chula Vista.
• Safeguard and enhance the appearance and quality of development in the Village 8 East
Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (“GDP”)
area.
• Provide the social, physical and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and
orderly planned use of land resources.
• Ensure the SPA Plan is prepared and implemented in accordance with the Otay Ranch
GDP.
• Implement the Chula Vista General Plan for the East Area Plan.
• Promote the orderly planning and long-term phased development of the Village 8 East
portion of the Otay Ranch GDP area.
• Establish conditions which will enable the Village 8 East SPA to exist in harmony within
the larger Otay Ranch community.
These PC District Regulations fully supersede and replace any and all earlier versions or iterations
of the Village 8 East Planned Community District Regulations adopted and approved by the City on
December 2, 2014, or at any other time.
1.B. PRIVATE AGREEMENTS
The provisions of this ordinance are not intended to abrogate any easements, covenants, or other
existing agreements which are more restrictive than the provisions contained within this
ordinance.
1.C. CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
Whenever the provisions of this ordinance impose more, or less, restrictive regulations upon
construction or use of buildings and structures, or the use of lands/premises than are imposed or
required by other ordinances previously adopted, the provisions of this ordinance or regulations
promulgated hereunder shall control and apply.
1.D. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS
In order to classify, regulate, restrict and separate the use of land, buildings and structures, and to
regulate and limit the type, height and bulk of buildings and structures in the various districts, and
to regulate separations between buildings and structures, and to regulate the density of population,
Page 1615 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 1. General Provisions
1-2 April 2024
the Village 8 East SPA is hereby divided into the following Zoning Districts as described in Table
1: Village 8 East Zoning Districts Definitions.
Page 1616 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 1. General Provisions
1-3 April 2024
Table 1: Village 8 East Zoning Districts Definitions
SYMBOL GENERAL DESCRIPTION
RM-1
Residential Multi-Family One: District which permits housing
ranging from 11 to 18 units/acre calculated on a per parcel or per
project basis. This may include small lot detached, alley, duplex,
townhouse, row house, courtyard/cluster, stacked flats, and other
attached or detached multi-family product type configurations.
RM-2 Residential Multi-Family Two: District which permits multi-family
attached or detached housing at densities 18 to 27 units/acre
calculated on a per parcel or per project basis.
CPF
Community Purpose Facility: District which permits uses established
pursuant to the Community Purpose Facilities requirements of the
Planned Community Zone.
VC
Village Core: District which permits a single use or combination of
uses in either horizontal and/or vertical configurations. These uses may
include multi-family residential units and commercial uses such as, but
not limited to, retail shops, professional offices, and service
commercial. Configurations can vary with residential being on the
ground floor and commercial being above ground level. The VC
District permits residential densities from 18 to 45 units/acre.
P
Parks: District which permits allowable park uses including
community parks, active recreation, neighborhood parks, pedestrian
parks, town squares, and private parks.
OS
Open Space: District which permits developed or usable open space
and park uses, active recreation, trails, and may include naturalized
open space and required water quality and/or detention basins, utilities
and other infrastructure.
OSP Open Space Preserve: District located outside the development area
which permits natural, undisturbed and/or restored open space areas
which are part of the Otay Ranch Resource Management (“RMP”)
/Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan (“MSCP”) Preserve.
FD Future Development Area: District for areas designated for
development as part of future planning in Village 9. These areas do
not have specific land use entitlements as part of the Village 8 East
SPA Plan; however, they are reserved for future development. Final
land uses to be determined as part of the Village 9 SPA Plan.
CT CALTRANSs Lots: Areas designated CT are part of the future SR-
125 right-of-way. CT lots will be deeded from the Applicant to
CALTRANS; therefore, no land uses are assigned to areas designated
CT.
Page 1617 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 1. General Provisions
1-4 April 2024
1.E. ADOPTION OF ZONING DISTRICT MAP
Land Use Districts and boundaries are established and adopted as shown, delineated and
designated on the Exhibit 2: Village 8 East Zoning District Map. This map, together with all
notations, references, data, district boundaries and other information thereon, is made a part of
the Village 8 East SPA Plan and adopted concurrently herewith. The boundaries are intended to
align with physical and legal features such as property boundaries, top or toe of slopes and public
streets. Refinements to these boundaries are expected during the detailed planning, engineering
and design phases and will not require an amendment providing the refinement does not alter the
intent.
1.F. DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the purposes of this ordinance, certain words, phrases and terms used herein shall have the
meaning assigned to them by Chula Vista Municipal Code (“CVMC”) Title 19 – Planning and
Zoning.
When consistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future; words in the
singular number include the plural; and those in the plural number include the singular. The word
"shall" is mandatory; the word "may" is permissive.
Any aspect of zoning regulation within Village 8 East SPA not covered by these Planning
Community District Regulations or subsequent plan approvals shall be regulated by the applicable
section of the CVMC.
The following additional definitions are provided specifically for the Village 8 East SPA:
Accessory Dwelling Unit: Attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete
independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or
existing primary residence. An accessory dwelling unit shall have exterior access from the
proposed or existing single-family dwelling. It shall include permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily
dwelling is or will be situated.
California Room: A California room is integral to the main structure, provides a transition from
indoor to outdoor environments and may include options such as a built-in fireplace, pre-wired
lighting, or fan fixture for optimum comfort and entertainment. The California room is typically
accessed through sliding doors at the rear or side of the home, and the space acts as a transition
to the backyard and the entertaining opportunities there. The area is notched into the main
dwelling with a solid roof integral to the home. This area shall be considered to satisfy all or a
portion of the Private Usable Open Space requirement.
Hollywood Drive: A driveway which leads to a garage located behind the front elevation of the
main residence, often narrow and sometimes consisting of two paved driving strips with enhanced
hardscape or turf between.
Micro-mobility docking and charging stations: A location where such devices may be parked
and/or charged using a charging station; includes fee-based charging facilities.
Porch: A structure attached to the front, side, and/or rear of the main dwelling, has a minimum
of two open sides, is covered by a roof and oriented toward the street. This area shall be considered
Page 1618 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 1. General Provisions
1-5 April 2024
to satisfy all or a portion of the Private Usable Open Space requirement if minimum dimensions
are met.
Semi-private Courtyard/Open Space: An outdoor, or partially outdoor, seating area that may
project into the street setback, oriented to the house entry and surrounded on three sides by either
the building or low walls/fences. May be a private space for one unit or a shared space among
several units. Entire space shall count as Private Usable Open Space requirement if minimum
dimensions are met. Exhibit 1: Conceptual Semi-private Courtyard/Open Space is one example
of how a semi-private courtyard/open space or Private Usable Open Space may be designed;
however, the design and/or credit for PUOS shall not be strictly interpreted by or limited to,
Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: Conceptual Semi-private Courtyard/Open Space
Orange areas are examples of semi-private courtyard/open space
Page 1619 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 1. General Provisions
1-6 April 2024
Shared Micro Mobility Device: Any transportation device by which a person can be propelled,
moved, or drawn, including but not limited to dockless bicycles, electric-assist bicycles and
electric and motorized scooters, or similar personal mobility devices which are rented or
displayed, offered, or placed for rent in any public area or public right-of-way.
Shared Parking: When parking spaces are shared by more than one user, which allows parking
facilities to be used more efficiently. Parking can be shared among different buildings and
facilities to take advantage of different peak parking demand periods.
Neighborhood: A Neighborhood is a land use area identified on the Site Utilization Plan in the
SPA Plan as a Parcel. References to Parcel or Neighborhood are interchangeable within the
Village 8 East SPA Plan and its component documents.
Page 1620 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 1. General Provisions
1-7 April 2024
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1621 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2. Zoning District Map
Page 1622 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1623 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 2. Zoning District Map
2-1 April 2024
2. ZONING DISTRICT MAP
This chapter consists of the Zoning District Map for Village 8 East included as Exhibit 2: Village
8 East Zoning District Map. The original, official Zoning Districts Map shall be kept on file
with the City Clerk and shall constitute the original record. Copies of said map shall also be filed
with the City Development Services Department.
2.A. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT CATEGORIES/INTENT
Village 8 East offers a variety of residential unit types, including both attached and detached
homes. Residential densities within Village 8 East range from 11 to 18 dwelling units per acre
(RM-1), 18 to 27 dwelling units per acre (RM-2) and 18 to 45 dwelling units per acre (VC).
Residential configurations may include a variety of product types from small single family
detached homes to stacked flat apartment units which will provide a range of housing choices for
Otay Ranch and Chula Vista residents.
2.B. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
The Zoning District boundaries shown on the map coincide with proposed streets, alleys or lot
lines. Minor amendments to these boundaries resulting from the relocation of a boundary street,
alley or lot line by the approval of a tentative or final subdivision map shall be incorporated in
the Zoning Districts Map as an administrative matter.
Page 1624 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 2. Zoning District Map
2-2 April 2024
Exhibit 2: Village 8 East Zoning District Map
Page 1625 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
Page 1626 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1627 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-1 April 2024
3. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
3.A. PURPOSE
Residential unit types anticipated in the Village 8 East may include any configuration of attached
and detached multi-family configurations (including but not limited to small lot single family
detached homes) on a per parcel or project basis consistent with the density range established by
the applicable zoning district. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan authorizes small lot
single family detached in multi-family land use designations.
The purpose of the Village 8 East Multi-Family Residential Districts is to achieve the following:
• Implement the residential policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
• Reserve appropriately located areas for residential living at a range of dwelling unit
densities consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and with sound
standards of public health, safety and welfare.
• Ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit.
• Minimize the effects of traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of public services and
utilities by phasing construction of buildings in relation to the land area around them and
available infrastructure.
• Protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, smoke and
other objectionable influences.
• Facilitate the provision of utility service and other public facilities commensurate with
anticipated population, dwelling unit densities and service requirements.
3.B. PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
The matrix of land uses on the following pages indicates the relative permissive status using
the following symbols:
"P" = Permitted by right.
"C" = Conditional Use Permit.
A use not listed shall be subject to a use determination by the Zoning Administrator to determine
substantial conformance with the purpose, intent, and goals of this SPA Plan.
Page 1628 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-2 April 2024
Table 2: Permitted and Conditional Use Matrix – Multi-Family Residential Districts
Use RM-1 RM-2 Applicable Regulations
Residential Uses:
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P CVMC 19.58.022
Active Adult (market rate) P P
Duplex or Triplex Dwelling (all configurations) P P
Family day care home, small or large P P
Factory-built home/mobile home on any lot P P CVMC 19.58.145
Multiple dwellings (4 units and above) P P
Residential Facility as defined in CVMC 19.04 C C CVMC 19.58.268
Senior Housing (restricted) CVMC 19.58.390
Single-family dwelling (detached and attached) P P
Townhouse, Apartment, or other attached dwellings (all
configurations) P P
Accessory or Temporary Uses
Accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted use P P CVMC 19.58.020
All types of horticulture P P
Community garden P P
Day Care Facility (commercial, serving any age group), nursery or
nursery schools, and early childhood development/education facilities P P
Home occupations P P CVMC 19.04
Model homes (temporary) P P
Open space and landscape P P
Private educational facilities, including but not limited to charter
schools, elementary schools, secondary and high schools and adult
schools.
P P
Private Open Space Recreation Facility P P CVMC 19.58.100 and
19.58.270
Public safety facility such as police or fire station P P
Public utility and public service sub-stations, reservoirs, pumping
plants and similar installations P P
Recreation facility, size not limited P P CVMC 19.58.100 and
19.58.270
Retail sales for residents and guests only N P CVMC 19.58.270
Temporary tract offices and tract signs P P CVMC 19.58.320
Trails, trail amenities and pedestrian connections (publicly-accessible
or private) P P
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities C C CVMC 19.89
Other temporary uses as prescribed in Temporary Uses Section P P CVMC 15.06.040
Unclassified uses unless otherwise listed in this table C C CVMC 19.54
Page 1629 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-3 April 2024
3.B.1. Temporary Uses
The following temporary buildings, structures and uses shall be permitted during construction
and with the location of use subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator. All temporary
structures associated with residential sales and construction shall be removed no later than 60
days after the sale of the last house.
• Contractor’s Office and/or Storage – Temporary structures including the housing of tools and
equipment or that contain supervisory offices used in connection with construction projects.
• Temporary Recycling of Construction Materials – Demolition materials to be reused as part of
the construction process, subject to the conditions as may be imposed by the tentative tract
map approval and/or the development agreement.
• Temporary Tract/Sales Office/Pavilion – Temporary tract sales pavilion within a commercial
mobile home until a model home becomes available for use as a sales office and, as a permitted
temporary use, shall not require a conditional use permit.
• Model Homes – Model homes, their garages, parking lots and private recreation facilities are
temporary uses and may be used as offices for the first sale of homes within a recorded tract
and subsequent similar tracts utilizing the same architectural designs, subject to the
regulations of the City of Chula Vista governing said uses and activities. As permitted
temporary uses, Model Homes or complexes shall not require a conditional use permit.
The following temporary buildings, structures, and uses shall be permitted throughout the life of
the SPA development with the location of use subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator:
• Carnivals, Fairs, and Festivals – Temporary carnivals, fairs, and festivals shall be permitted
subject to Zoning Administrator approval and the provisions of CVMC 19.58.042.
• Seasonal Sales – Outdoor seasonal sales including Christmas tree lots, pumpkin patches and
similar uses shall be permitted subject to Zoning Administrator approval.
• Certified Farmers Market – Shall be permitted subject to Zoning Administrator approval and
the provisions of CVMC 19.58.148 and shall not require a Conditional Use Permit. Events on
private property shall be at the discretion of the property owner and/or the entity responsible
for the development of the Village 8 East SPA Plan area (“Master Developer”) or Assignee.
• Special events in parks, CPF sites, parking lots and other common gathering spaces; shall not
require a Conditional Use Permit. Events on private property shall be at the discretion of the
Master Developer or Assignee.
3.B.2. Interim Uses
Crop farming, tree farming, and nurseries shall be permitted as interim uses in any zoning district,
provided the area in which the use will occur has not been subdivided or plotted into any parcel
less than one acre in size. Any buildings, including but not limited to, farm buildings, packing
sheds and greenhouses shall be permitted by-right.
Commented [KS1]: This term “Master Developer” needs
to be defined the 1st time it is used in these PC District
Regulations.
Commented [RH2R1]: See added text
Page 1630 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-4 April 2024
3.C. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
3.C.1. Design Goals, Principals, and Guidelines
The multi-family residential property development standards are intended to implement specific
design goals and principles established in the Otay Ranch GDP. The intent of the GDP village
concept land use goals is to “produce a cohesive pedestrian friendly community that encourages
non-vehicular trips and fosters interaction amongst residents.” To implement this goal, the land
use policies encourage a pedestrian scale and a pedestrian friendly village environment.
Multi-family neighborhoods must be designed to create a “walkable,” inviting environment, both
within and outside the boundaries of the development. Pedestrian- oriented features may include
orienting the front doors toward the public streets, plotting the buildings so garages are generally
not visible from the public streets, integrating strong, well designed pedestrian connections to the
public or commonly used streets and adjacent trail networks, providing well designed, inviting
common usable open space areas and creating unique, yet compatible, architecture.
The intent of these PC District Regulations is to fully implement these types of design features
for every neighborhood within the Village. For further understanding of these goals, refer to the
Village Design Plan and the Village Core Master Precise Plan(s).
3.C.2. General Standards
The general standards found in this section are based on the Otay Ranch GDP. Where the Specific
Standards listed below are silent on an issue, the Zoning Administrator is authorized to
define a standard consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP, the Chula Vista General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Design Manual and/or Landscape Manual, as may be appropriate.
3.C.3. Specific Standards
The following Property Development Standards shall apply to all land and buildings, other than
accessory buildings, permitted in their respective residential zoning district.
Dimensions and standards are minimums unless otherwise noted, and minor variations may be
permitted subject to Minor Administrative Modifications. Refer to Section 10. Implementation
and Administration, for further information regarding processing requirements.
Projections into minimum public street setbacks and building separations shall be permitted
consistent with State Building and Fire codes, based on building design and fire rating, at the time
of application. Section 3.I provides additional details regarding specific projections and
limitations.
The SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan identifies a site (“S-1”) for an elementary school east of Del
Sueño Drive between Savoria Parkway and Calle Escuela. The S-1 site is designated RM-2 on
the Zoning District Map. If the school site is not utilized for school purposes, then the site may
be developed for Residential High-density development, consistent with the RM-2 zoning district
designation.
All multi-family residential development shall be regulated by the standards of Table 3: Multi-
Family Property Development Standards, except as modified through a Minor Administrative
Modification request. In addition to the standards of this chapter, all development within the
Page 1631 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-5 April 2024
Multi-Family zoning districts shall be consistent with Chapter 8: Parking Regulations and
Chapter 9: Comprehensive Sign Regulations.
Multi-Family Residential Districts shall not be subject to any City adopted multi-family design
standards or guidelines and shall not be required to provide enclosed storage space for residential
units. Standards not listed in Table 3 shall not be regulated for residential zones; this includes but
is not limited to minimum lot sizes, maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, minimum yard sizes,
building setback other than per State building and fire codes, building setbacks from open space,
and accessory structure setbacks.
Table 3: Multi-Family Property Development Standards
Standard(1) RM-1 RM-2 Notes
Minimum Density 11 du/ac 18 du/ac Calculated as total
dwelling units per parcel
OR project area; shall not
be calculated on a per-
product/home type basis.
Maximum Density 18 du/ac 27 du/ac
Minimum Lot Area N/A Shall not apply
Maximum Lot Coverage N/A Shall not apply
Maximum Building Height(2) 45 feet 60 feet See section 3.H Height
Exceptions
Minimum Public Street Setbacks (2)(3)
La Palmita Drive 7.5 feet(4) N/A
All setbacks are subject to
California Building Code
(“CBC”) and California
Fire Code (“CFC”)
standards based on
building design and fire
rating; see section 3.I
Permitted Building
Encroachments &
Projections
Main Street 5 feet from toe
of slope N/A
Calle Escuela 5 feet(4) ; 4 feet(4) for stoop conditions
Del Sueño Drive N/A 5 feet(4) ; 4 feet for
stoop conditions
La Media Parkway 7.5 feet(4) N/A
Savoria Parkway
5 feet(4); 4
feet(4) for stoop
conditions
facing street
5 feet(4)
Delgado Drive
5 feet(4); 4 feet
for stoop
conditions
facing street
5 feet(4)
Via Palermo 5 feet(4) N/A
From Street to porch/ patio/courtyard
walls 4 feet(4) Fences permitted at back of
ROW/property line
Minimum Private Drive / Private Drive Aisle Setbacks
Building to Private Drive 4 feet Measured from back of
sidewalk or parkway
Garage Door to Private Drive
17 feet standard; 5 feet allowed for
35% of Private Drive non-sidewalk
condition Regulates driveway aprons
Garage Door to Private Drive Aisle 3 feet; or ≥17 feet
Building Separations
Private Drive Aisle Dimension
30 foot garage door to garage door;
24 foot building separation 2nd story
and above. (See Exhibit 3)
Unless otherwise increased
or decreased by CBC/CRC
Page 1632 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-6 April 2024
Standard(1) RM-1 RM-2 Notes
All Other Building Separations
Subject to CBC, California
Residential Code (“CRC”) and CFC
standards based on building design
and fire rating
Required Open Space(2)(5)
Private Usable Open Space
Minimum Dimension 6 feet; 60 sq.
ft. to qualify
5 feet; 40 sq. ft. to
qualify
Studio/1 Bedroom/2 Bedroom Unit 80 sq. ft. per
unit 200 sq. ft. of
combined Private
and Common
Usable Open Space
per unit
No dimension shall be less
than 5’ to qualify ≥3 Bedroom Unit 120 sq. ft. per
unit
Common Usable Open Space(2)(5) 300 sq. ft. per
unit
10 foot minimum
dimension; CUOS shall be
within ¼ mile of the
residences to be served
Required Off-Street Parking(2)(5)
Studio 1.0 space per unit
1 and 2 Bedroom Units: 2.0 spaces per unit, covered or garage
space
≥3 Bedroom Units
2 spaces per unit (covered or garage
spaces) + 0.25 unassigned space for
each additional bedroom over 3
Guest Parking 1 space per 10 units
Bicycle Parking Comply with CalGreen requirements
(1) All standards are minimums unless otherwise noted.
(2) Minor Modifications to standards are permitted subject to Section 10.E : Minor Administrative Modifications.
(3) Only public street setbacks shall be regulated. Interior and rear property line setbacks shall n ot be regulated.
Across interior property lines, building separations shall comply with State building and fire codes. Where
two or more parcels are developed as a single project, setback shall not be applicable to the property line
separating the two parcels; all building separations shall be regulated per building and fire codes.
(4) Measured from back of ROW. Required setback is permitted within or to include ‘Landscape Buffer’ noted
on the TM and SPA Plan.
(5) Parking and common usable open space will be calculated for each parcel; but may be combined and
implemented as joint use facilities shared between any adjoining parcels. Requirements are permitted to be
calculated in the aggregate across two adjoining parcels per section 3.C.5.
3.C.4. Site Planning
Considerate planning for multi-family residential is critical to creating an engaging neighborhood
setting that promotes livability. Multi-family residential development in the RM-1 and RM-2
zoning districts are subject to the Village Design Plan and the following:
a) Parcels should be generally planned to engage public streets with front doors or active
architecture consistent with the Village Design Plan.
b) Each parcel or project, when adjoining parcels are planned together, is required to have at
least one ‘Private Drive’ as a central feature of the site plan as entry or spine road.
c) Parking, loading, and storage areas should be limited along ‘Pedestrian Oriented Streets’
frontage and shall be allowed to be located along streets that are not designated ‘Pedestrian
Oriented Streets’ in the Village Design Plan.
d) Private Drive Aisles shall be designed to provide a 24’ drive aisle and 30’ minimum clearance
Page 1633 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-7 April 2024
between garage doors. Planting between units is encouraged, wherever possible. See Exhibit
3a: Conceptual Multi-Family Private Drive Aisle.
Exhibit 3a: Conceptual Multi-Family Private Drive Aisle
Page 1634 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-8 April 2024
e) Private typical lot and/or building drainage swales shall be designed in accordance with the
current Building Code used by the City of Chula Vista unless otherwise modified based on
site-specific geotechnical recommendations, as approved by the Building Official. Exhibit
3b: Typical Building Drainage Swale Detail depicts the typical drainage swale design
utilized throughout Otay Ranch.
Exhibit 3b: Typical Building Drainage Swale Detail
3.D. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
Private and common usable open space shall be provided within multi-family neighborhoods
consistent with Table 3: Multi-Family Property Development Standards, by zoning district and
this Section.
3.D.1. Private Usable Open Space
Adequate usable outdoor areas are intended for daily activities such as children’s play areas and
areas for outdoor gathering, dining, landscaping and gardening.
Private Usable Open Space ("PUOS”) may include, but shall not be limited to, the following types
of spaces. PUOS shall not be regulated by location; inclusion of these types of spaces on any floor
of a building, where minimum dimensions are met, shall qualify.
• Stoop
• Porch
• Balcony
• Roof deck
• Courtyard (exterior or interior)
Page 1635 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-9 April 2024
• California Room (entire CA Room square footage qualifies as PUOS)
• Outdoor kitchens
• Patio (shaded/roofed but unenclosed permitted)
• Pool, jacuzzi, soaking tub or other water feature for an individual unit
PUOS shall meet the following requirements:
• Generally level (< 5% grade)
• PUOS may be located within a required setback.
• Landscaped and/or hardscaped spaces
All PUOS features may be located on any elevation to qualify as long as the minimum dimensions
are met. Dimensions are considered to be free of footing, railing, or encroachments; all usable
space shall be counted and door swing areas shall not be considered encroachments.
3.D.2. Common Usable Open Space
Common Usable Open Space (“CUOS”) are indoor, outdoor, or partially enclosed spaces that
provide an amenity, gathering spaces, or recreational area for a neighborhood or parcel. Required
CUOS shall be permitted to be calculated for the entire parcel or project when adjoining parcels
are planned together and not separated by a public street. Common useable open space shall not
be counted or allocated to a specific housing product when more than one housing product is
planned in a parcel or project.
CUOS may be comprised of passive (i.e., landscaping) and/or active features which may include,
but are not limited to, any of the following spaces/amenities that serve more than one (1)
residential unit and have not been counted as a PUOS:
• Amphitheater or performance space
• Balcony
• Co-working space
• Courtyard (exterior or interior)
• Game area
• Garden, community or otherwise
• Lawn area
• Outdoor kitchens
• Patio (shaded/roofed but unenclosed permitted)
• Play area/structure
• Plaza
• Pool, jacuzzi, soaking tub or other water feature
• Roof deck
Page 1636 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-10 April 2024
• Seating area
• Shade structures
CUOS shall meet following criteria:
• Within ¼ mile of the residences to be served.
• No dimension less than 10 feet, may be located within a required setback.
• Recreational building(s), including clubhouse, gyms, etc. with amenities, services, and/or
gathering spaces, shall count toward CUOS requirements.
• Generally level (< 5% grade)
3.E. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES
Accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use are allowed
subject to the requirements of CVMC Section 19.58.020 (Uses: Accessory Buildings). For
purposes of this document, attached and detached garages shall be considered an accessory
structure.
Attached and detached accessory buildings and structures (enclosed or open), except accessory
dwelling units, shall meet all of the requirements for location of the main structure as constructed
or required by the zone or as allowed by the building and fire code, whichever is less restrictive.
Such accessory buildings shall not be allowed to encroach into required street setbacks, except as
otherwise permitted herein:
a) Detached accessory buildings may be located consistent with building and fire codes and
shall not encroach into any fuel modification zones.
b) Open structures shall be permitted in any location, except they shall not encroach into
required public street setbacks.
c) Architectural features which constitute non-usable floor space such as fire places, media
niches or book shelf areas on exterior walls, eaves, awnings, chimneys, balconies, stairways,
wing walls, etc. be subject projection allowances per the building and fire code.
3.F. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (“ADU”)
ADUs shall be subject to CVMC Section 19.58.022, Accessory Dwelling Units.
Page 1637 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-11 April 2024
3.G. RECIPROCAL USE EASEMENTS
Reciprocal use easements, including ‘zero setback’ conditions are permitted on all building
configurations. Buildings may be plotted as follows consistent with building and fire code
standards:
a) Zero Lot: One building is plotted directly on a side or rear lot line with zero setback ("zero lot
line”), to allow the neighboring lot a larger private side yard space. A reciprocal use easement
(“RUE”) is granted for drainage and allows the property owner limited access to maintain
building walls, foundations, and drainage facilities when required. (See Exhibit 4.)
b) RUE Lot: Buildings are plotted with conventional setbacks from side or rear lot line but fencing
is constructed and an RUE is granted to allow the benefitting property owner utilization of the
adjacent lot’s side yard as private yard space. This configuration may be more desirable than a
zero-lot configuration for fire rating of walls in construction. (See Exhibit 4.)
Exhibit 4: Zero Lot Line/RUE Configuration
Page 1638 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-12 April 2024
3.H. HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS
Height regulations, exceptions and encroachments are permitted subject to this section. The
following shall apply to all Multi-family Residential zoning districts:
a) Height limitations specified within this SPA shall not apply to spires, belfries, cupolas, clock
towers, domes, monuments, weather vanes, windmills, chimneys, flagpoles, parapet walls
extending not more than four (4) feet above the limiting height of the buildings, elevator shafts,
stairwells accessing roofs and other similar architectural elements.
b) Height limitations shall also not apply to places of public assembly in churches, schools and
other permitted public and semi-public buildings, provided that these uses are located on the
ground floor of such buildings.
c) Height limitations shall also not apply to appurtenances such as fire and hose towers,
distribution and transmission towers, lines and poles, water tanks, masts and aerials, cellular
towers, and mechanical equipment.
d) Mezzanine floors shall not be counted as a story when determining building height.
e) Height exceptions and encroachments must be implemented in conformance with applicable
building code requirements.
3.I. PERMITTED BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS AND PROJECTIONS
Encroachments or projections into building setbacks from public right-of way, building
separations, and/or public right-of-way are permitted subject to this section. The following shall
apply to all Multi-family Residential zoning districts:
a) All above and below ground encroachments into the Public right-of-way shall require an
Encroachment Agreement. Site Plan Review shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and City Engineer that public safety will not be jeopardized or can be
mitigated by the encroachment.
b) Projections and building undulations shall be permitted consistent with the applicable building
and fire code. Projections and undulations shall be identified on architectural plans and code
standards called out.
c) Encroachments shall not conflict with public utilities, Village Pathways, and Regional Trails.
Where necessary, utility easements may be reduced or expanded to accommodate utility
infrastructure.
d) Buildings shall not encroach into intersection CVMC Vista Municipal Code Section 12.12.120,
Vision Clearance – Intersection Requirements.
e) “Outdoor living spaces” include cantilevered balconies, walled and/or raised courtyards,
porches, stoops and California Rooms are all permitted to encroach into building separations
as long as they comply with building and safety codes.
f) Subterranean parking structures shall be permitted to extend into the public right-of-way
directly under the sidewalk/Village Pathway/parking up to the back of the curb. Such structures
shall not interfere with public utilities.
Page 1639 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-13 April 2024
3.J. MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
3.J.1. Utilities
a) All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of the
site so as not to be exposed to public view except where required by the utility provider.
b) Pad mounted transformers and/or meter box locations shall be included in the site plan.
Appropriate screening treatment such as berms, walls, and/or landscaping shall be used to
screen utility appurtenances from public view to the greatest extent possible, as approved by
each utility provider.
c) Power lines and cables, except for temporary use, shall be installed underground.
d) Utility vaults shall be placed within public rights-of-way to the greatest extent practical.
e) Underground utilities may be installed in common open space areas if they do not impact use
of the open space area.
3.J.2. Noise
All uses shall comply with the provisions of CVMC Chapter 19.68, Performance Standards and
Noise Control. As a matter of practice, the City of Chula Vista also implements the noise
compatibility guidelines and CNEL thresholds of the City of San Diego.
3.J.3. Energy Conservation
a) Buildings shall be located on the site to provide adjacent buildings with adequate solar access,
when practical
b) Buildings shall be designed in accordance with the Village 8 East Non-renewable Energy
Conservation Plan
c) Buildings shall be designed to comply with the Village 8 East Air Quality Improvement Plan
3.J.4. Parking, Loading and Storage
In addition to the standard of Chapter 8. Parking Regulations, the following shall apply to all
residential zoning districts.
a) Required parking shall be permitted to be calculated for the entire parcel or entire project when
adjoining parcels are planned together and not separated by a public street. Unassigned and
guest parking spaces shall not be counted or allocated to a specific housing product when more
than one housing product is planned in a parcel or project.
b) No motorized or non-motorized vehicles shall be parked, stored, or kept in the street setback
or front yard, except in the driveway or on a paved area adjacent to the driveway.
c) No storage or display of vehicles for sale by a motor vehicle dealer is permitted in a residential
driveway or on a residential street.
d) Recreational vehicles (including campers, boats, and trailers) shall only be parked in
designated areas that are fully screened from view of the public street.
e) Loading activities shall be located and operated so that they do not disturb neighboring
Page 1640 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 3. Multi-Family Residential Districts
3-14 April 2024
residents.
f) Loading activities shall be located and operated so that they do not conflict with vehicle
movements on public streets.
g) Storage areas shall be screened from public view.
3.J.5. Access
Reciprocal ingress and egress, circulation, and parking arrangements shall be required to facilitate
the ease of vehicular movement between adjoining parcels.
3.J.6. Common Facilities
a) Conveniently located common laundry facilities shall be provided for units which do not have
individual hook-ups.
b) Conveniently located and well-screened collective enclosures for trash and recyclables shall
be provided for all dwelling units, unless provided for each unit.
c) Mailbox kiosks shall be conveniently located and distributed pursuant to the requirements of
the United States Postal Service.
3.J.7. Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials shall be subject to CVMC Chapter 8.34 Regulation of Hazardous Materials.
3.J.8. Storm Water
All development shall be reviewed and required to conform to the Development and
Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management Standards/Requirements of the City of Chula
Vista.
Page 1641 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
4. Village Core District
Page 1642 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1643 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-1 April 2024
4. VILLAGE CORE DISTRICT
4.A. PURPOSE
The Village Core area is intended to function as the social, commercial and activity center for the
village as mandated in the Otay Ranch GDP. In order to serve this function, a broad range of uses
are permitted to enable living in a setting that may include single use or combined uses such as
residential, commercial, public and quasi-public, and stand-alone commercial uses.
The Village Core District is included in the Planned Community District Regulations to achieve
the following:
• Provide areas for office, retail and service establishments offering commodities and services
required by residents of the village.
• Protect village core properties from noise, odor, smoke, unsightliness and other objectionable
influences incidental to commercial uses.
• Provide an opportunity for a mix of uses and quasi- public community support facilities.
• Encourage commercial and residential uses concentrated for the convenience of the public
and for a more mutually beneficial relationship to each other.
• Provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commercial activity, including off-street
parking and loading areas.
• Promote high standards of site planning, architectural and landscape design for office and
commercial developments within the City of Chula Vista.
4.B. PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
The Village Core (“VC”) zoning district is designed to encourage a broad mix of uses to enable
the provision of neighborhood goods and services. Uses may be combined on a single parcel or
within a single building or combination of buildings, in a horizontal or vertical configuration.
Horizontal configurations may include more than one use side by side in a building or single uses
in adjacent separate buildings. While a mix of uses is allowed within the VC zoning district, each
parcel is not required to include more than one use. Parcels, buildings and projects within the VC
zoning district shall be permitted to be single use that may or may not include non-residential
components or a mixed of permitted uses in any horizontal or vertical configuration.
The Site Utilization Plan for Village 8 East allocates 20,000 square feet of commercial/retailnon-
residential uses to the Village Core per Table 4: Permitted and Conditional Use Matrix – Village
Core; however, any one parcel or project shall not be required to include a minimum amount of
commercial non-residential uses.
Page 1644 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-2 April 2024
The matrix of land uses on the following pages indicates the relative permissive status using
the following symbols:
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditional Use Permit
A use not listed in Table 4: Permitted and Conditional Use Matrix shall be subject to a use
determination by the Zoning Administrator to determine substantial conformance with the
purpose, intent and goals of this SPA Plan.
Table 4: Permitted and Conditional Use Matrix – Village Core
Use VC Applicable Regulations
Office
Art/photography/music/maker studio P
Banks & Financial institution or office P
Business professional, sales and services office P
Educational or University offices or supportive uses P
Medical, dental & health services (all types and practices
including urgent care)
P
Pharmacy associated with medical, dental or health services P
Telework, co-working spaces, and similar uses P
Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital (small animals only) P
Parking garage or lot/shared parking facility P
Personal Services
Beauty, barber, salon, tanning establishments (and similar
services), day spa
P
Dance / Physical Fitness studio or health club, or similar P
Dry cleaner storefront (off-site processing only/no
perchloroethylene)
P
Laundry/coin-operated service P
Massage Therapy P CVMC 5.36
Palm/Psychic Reading Service P
Personal Services P
Tailor/Seamstress/Shoe Repair P
Tattoo Parlor / Body Modification P
General Retail and Service Commercial Uses
Art gallery / Library / Museum / Exhibition Space P
Arcade and electronic games P CVMC 19.58.40
Bakery / Candy / Confectioner / Deli P
Bar/Cocktail Lounge (with or without live entertainment) P CVMC 19.58.075 & 5.26
Bicycle sales and repair P
Carwash P CVMC 19.58.060
Catering establishment P
Certified Farmers’ Market (temporary use) P CVMC 19.58.148
Commercial recreation (billiard/pool hall/batting cages/bowling
alley/card room/similar)
P CVMC 19.58.040
Equipment rental (enclosed in building) P
Page 1645 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-3 April 2024
Use VC Applicable Regulations
Gasoline service station P CVMC 19.58.280 (throughput less than
3.6 million gallons/year)
General retail sales and services (enclosed in building) i.e.,
Jewelry, Sporting Goods, Music, Home Goods, Bookstore,
Camera and Video, Toys, Office Supplies, Gifts, Clothing
(New), Art and Art Supply Store, Department Store, Fabric
and Craft Store, Furniture Store, Super Market, Grocery, etc.
P
In an enclosed building; excludes
lumber
Hotel or motel P CVMC 19.58.210
Kiosk / Mobile Units P
Mobile Food Facilities P CVMC 19.58.440
Outside Sales and Display – permanent and temporary
(excluding outdoor storage)
P CVMC 19.58.370
Outdoor seating and dining, with or without alcohol P
Pet Day Care/Pet Hotel C CVMC 19.58.190
Pet store/Pet Grooming P
Restaurant, Sit Down or Take Out with or without alcohol and
/or live entertainment P
Reverse Vending Machine P
Sale of Alcohol/Liquor Store C
Social or Fraternal Organizations P CVMC 19.58.100
Theater (Motion Picture/Independent File/Live Performance) P
Other Uses
Ambulance/Emergency Services P CVMC 19.58.110 & 19.58.245
Animal Hospital P CVMC 19.58.050
Broadcasting/Recording Studio P
Day Care Facility (Commercial) P
Family day care home, small or large P
Educational Tutoring Facility P
Fire/Police Station P
Mini-storage, public storage P Fully enclosed, not adjacent to a
‘Pedestrian-Oriented Street’ per the
VDP
Private or Public School/Educational Facility P
Public Agency or Educational Facility P
Religious or Spiritual Institution C CVMC 19.58.110
Temporary Uses as prescribed in Section 4.B.1 P/C
Unclassified uses C CVMC 19.54
Water Quality Basin P
Recreational Facilities
Athletic Fields and Sport Courts P
Trails & Associated Signage P
Community garden P
Community Center/Recreation Center (public or private) P CVMC 19.58.100
Community Purpose Facilities P
Parks/Playgrounds and open space (public or private) P
Picnic Areas, Benches, Barbecue Facilities P
Swim Center / Community Pool (public or private) P
Trails, trail amenities and pedestrian connections (public -P
Page 1646 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-4 April 2024
Use VC Applicable Regulations
accessible or private)
Accessory Uses P
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling Units P
Active Adult (market rate) P
Assisted Living/Nursing Home/Convalescent Home P CVMC 19.58.110
Group Residence (Dormitories, Boarding Houses, etc.) P
Home Occupation P
Duplex or Triplex Dwelling (all configurations) P
Mixed-use residential P
Multi-Family units (4 units or more, all configurations) P
Residential Facility C CVMC 19.58.268
Senior Housing (market rate and restricted) P CVMC 19.58.390
Single-Room Occupancy P CVMC 19.58.265
Townhouse, Apartment, or other attached dwelling (all
configurations)
P
4.C. TEMPORARY USES
4.C.1. Construction and Sales
The following temporary buildings, structures and uses shall be permitted during construction
and residential unit sales with the location of use subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator.
All temporary structures associated with residential sales and construction shall be removed no
later than 60 days after the sale of the last residential unit.
a) Contractor’s Office and/or Storage – Temporary structures including the housing of tools and
equipment or that contain supervisory offices used in connection with construction projects.
b) Temporary Recycling of Construction Materials – Demolition materials to be reused as part
of the construction process, subject to the conditions as may be imposed by the tentative tract
map approval and/or the development agreement.
c) Temporary Tract/Sales Office/Pavilion – Temporary tract sales pavilion within a commercial
mobile home until a model home becomes available for use as a sales office and, as a
permitted temporary use, shall not require a conditional use permit.
d) Model Homes – Model homes, their garages, parking lots, and private recreation facilities
are temporary uses and may be used as offices for the first sale of homes within a recorded
tract and subsequent similar tracts utilizing the same architectural designs, subject to the
regulations of the City of Chula Vista governing said uses and activities. As permitted
temporary uses Model Homes or complexes shall not require a conditional use permit.
4.C.2. Permitted throughout SPA Plan Area
The following temporary buildings, structures, and uses shall be permitted throughout the life of
the SPA development with the location of use subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator:
Page 1647 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-5 April 2024
a) Carnivals, Fairs, and Festivals – Temporary carnivals, fairs, and festivals shall be permitted
subject to Zoning Administrator approval and the provisions of CVMC Section 19.58.042.
b) Seasonal Sales – Outdoor seasonal sales including Christmas tree lots, pumpkin patches, and
similar uses shall be permitted subject to Zoning Administrator approval.
c) Certified Farmers Market – Shall be subject to the provisions of CVMC Sections 19.58.148
and 19.54; shall not require a Conditional Use Permit. Events on private property shall be at
the discretion of the Master Developer or Assignee.
d) Special events in parks, CPF sites, parking lots and other common gathering spaces shall be
permitted pursuant to a separate agreement between the Applicant and the City shall not
require a Conditional Use Permit. Events on private property shall be at the discretion of the
Master Developer or Assignee.
4.C.3. Interim Uses
Crop farming, tree farming, and nurseries shall be permitted as interim uses in any zoning district,
provided the area in which the use will occur has not been subdivided or plotted into any parcel
less than one acre in size. Any buildings including but not limited to farm buildings, packing
sheds, and greenhouses shall be permitted by-right.
4.D. VILLAGE CORE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
4.D.1. Design Goals, Principals, and Guidelines
The Village Core property development standards are intended to implement specific design goals
and principles established in the Otay Ranch GDP. The intent of the GDP village concept land
use goals is to “produce a cohesive pedestrian friendly community that encourages non-vehicular
trips and fosters interaction amongst residents.” To implement this goal, the land use policies
encourage a pedestrian scale and a pedestrian friendly village environment.
Village Core parcels must be designed to create a “walkable,” inviting environment, both within
and outside the boundaries of the development. Pedestrian- oriented features may include
orienting the front doors toward the public streets, thoughtful plotting of residential and non-
residential uses to create quality relationships, plotting the buildings so garages are generally not
visible from the public streets, integrating strong, well designed pedestrian connections to the
public or commonly used streets and adjacent trail networks, providing well designed, inviting
common usable open space areas and creating unique, yet compatible, architecture.
The intent of these PC District Regulations is to fully implement these types of design features
for every neighborhood within the Village. For further understanding of these goals, refer to the
Village Design Plan and the Village Core Master Precise Plan(s).
4.D.2 General Standards
The general standards found in this section are based on the Otay Ranch GDP. Where the Specific
Standards listed below are silent on an issue, the Zoning Administrator is authorized to
define a standard consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP, the Chula Vista General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Design Manual and/or Landscape Manual, as may be appropriate.
Page 1648 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-6 April 2024
The Village Core zoning district shall be regulated by the development standards of Table 5:
Village Core Property Development Standards, except as modified in the Village Core Master
Precise Plan or through Minor Administrative Modifications. As development types and
configurations evolve, these standards may be applied to a variety of building configurations
consistent with building and fire code standards by building type and fire rating.
An approved Village Core Master Precise Plan (“MPP”) shall be prepared and include all parcels
within the Village Core zoning district prior to approval of the first Design Review Permit, as
defined in Section 10.G.1 of these PC District Regulations, within the Village Core. This MPP
shall be prepared in accordance with the Village 8 East SPA Plan, Village Design Plan and City
standards. Projects within the Village Core will be evaluated based on substantial conformance
with the intent of the MPP; updates to the MPP shall not be required.
4.D.3. Specific Standards
In addition to the standards in this chapter, all development within the Village Core zoning district
shall be consistent with the standards in Chapter 8. Parking Regulations, and Chapter 9.
Comprehensive Sign Regulations.
Development within the Village Core Zoning District shall not be subject to any City adopted
multi-family or mixed-use design standards or guidelines and shall not be required to provide
enclosed storage space for residential units. Standards not listed in Table 5 shall not be regulated
in the Village Core zoning district; including but not limited to maximum lot coverage, minimum
private yard size, building setbacks except as required by State building and fire codes, building
setbacks from open space and accessory structure setbacks. Floor Area ratio shall not be
applicable to residential development.
Minor variations to the standards in Table 5 may be permitted subject to Minor Administrative
Modification . Refer to Chapter 10. Implementation and Administration, for further information
regarding processing requirements.
Table 5: Village Core Zoning District Development Standards
Standard(1) VC Zoning District Notes
Minimum Density 18 du/ac.
Calculated as total dwelling units
per parcel or project area; shall not
be calculated on a per-product/
home type basis
Maximum Density 45 du/ac.
Maximum Building Height(2) 60 feet See section 4.H. Height Exceptions
Non-Residential Square
Footage Maximum 20,000 sq. ft. Combined maximum for all VC
parcels
Minimum Lot Area N/A No minimum lot size
Floor Area Ration (“FAR”) N/A FAR shall not be regulated
Minimum Public Street Setbacks(2)(3)
North of Main Street 5 feet(4)
All setbacks are subject to CBC and
CFC based on building type and fire
rating
South of Main Street 10 feet from toe of slope
La Palmita Drive 7.5 feet(4)
Savoria Parkway 3 feet(4)
Via Palmero 5 feet(4)
Calle Escuela 5 feet(4); 4 feet(4) for stoop conditions
Page 1649 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-7 April 2024
Standard(1) VC Zoning District Notes
From Street to porch/
patio/courtyard walls 4 feet(4) Fences allowed at back of
ROW/property line
Minimum Private Drive / Private Drive Aisle Setbacks
Building to Private Drive 4 feet Measured from back of sidewalk or
parkway
Garage Door to Private Drive ≤5 feet, or ≥17 feet
Garage Door to Private Drive
Aisle 3 feet; or ≥17 feet
Building Separations
Private Drive Aisle
Dimensions
30 foot garage door to garage door; 24
foot building separation 2nd story and
above. See Exhibit 5
Unless otherwise increased or
decreased by CBC/CRC; see
Section 4.I Permitted Building
Encroachments & Projections
All Other Building
Separations
Subject to CBC and CFC standards
based on building design and fire rating
Required Open Space(2)(5)
Non-Residential Use None required
Residential Uses
Private & Common Open
Space
200 sq. ft. of combined Private and
Common Open Space per unit
CUOS shall be within ¼ mile of the
residences to be served
PUOS Minimum
Dimension
5 feet minimum width or depth;
minimum of 40 sq. ft.
CUOS Minimum
Dimension
10 foot minimum dimension;
no minimum sq. ft. requirement
Required Off-Street Parking(2)(5)
Attached & Detached
Residential Per Unit Parking Covered space may be a garage or
other covered space
See section 4.J.3 and Chapter 8 Studio 1 space per unit
1 and 2 Bedroom Units: 1.5 spaces per unit
(1 covered assigned)
≥3 Bedroom Units:
2.0 spaces per unit (1 covered and
assigned) + 0.25 unassigned space for
each additional bedroom over 3
Guest Parking 1 space per 12 units
Non-Residential In addition to the above, each
commercial use shall provide parking
consistent with current ITE standards, or
as reduced through a shared parking plan
with residential in any zone.
(1) All standards are minimums unless otherwise noted.
(2) Minor modifications to standards are permitted subject to Section 10.E Minor Administrative Modifications.
(3) Only public street setbacks shall be regulated. Interior and rear property line setbacks shall not be regulated. Across inter ior
property lines, building separations shall comply with State building and fire codes. Where two or more parcels a re
developed as a single project, setback shall not be applicable to the property line separating the two parcels; all building
separations shall be regulated per building and fire codes.
(4) Measured from back of ROW, setback is permitted within or to include ‘Landscape Buffer’ noted on the TM and SPA
Plan.
(5) Parking and common usable open space may be joint use facilities shared between parcels. Requirements are permitted to
be calculated in aggregate across two adjoining parcels consistent with Section 4.E and 4.J.3.
Page 1650 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-8 April 2024
4.D.4. Site Planning
Considerate planning for the Village is critical to creating an engaging neighborhood setting that
promotes livability. All development in the Village Core zone is subject to the following:
a) Parcels shall be planned to engage public streets with front doors, pedestrian pathways, plazas
or gathering spaces, or active architecture (may be side-on conditions) consistent with the
Village Design Plan.
b) Parking, loading, and storage areas should be limited along ‘Pedestrian Oriented Streets’
frontage and shall be allowed to be located along streets that are not designated ‘Pedestrian
Oriented Streets’ in the Village Design Plan.
c) Private Drive Aisles shall be designed to provide a 24’ drive aisle and 30’ minimum clearance
between garage doors. Planting between units is encouraged, wherever possible. See Exhibit
5a: Conceptual Village Core Private Drive Aisle.
Exhibit 5a: Conceptual Village Core Private Drive Aisle
Page 1651 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-9 April 2024
d) Private typical lot and/or building drainage swales shall be designed in accordance with the
current Building Code used by the City of Chula Vista unless otherwise modified based on
site-specific geotechnical recommendations, as approved by the Building Official. Exhibit
5b: Typical Building Drainage Swale Detail depicts the typical drainage swale design
utilized throughout Otay Ranch.
Exhibit 5b: Typical Building Drainage Swale Detail
4.E. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
Private and common usable open space, for residential units, shall be provided consistent with
Table 5: Village Core Zoning District Development Standards for development within the
Village Core that includes residential units. A total of 200 square feet of combined Private and
Common Usable Open Space is required per unit.
4.E.1. Private Usable Open Space
Private Usable Open Space (“PUOS”) may include, but shall not be limited to, the following types
of spaces.
• Stoop
• Porch
• Balcony
• Roof deck
• Courtyard (exterior or interior)
• California Room
• Outdoor kitchens
Page 1652 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-10 April 2024
• Patio (shaded/roofed but unenclosed permitted)
• Pool, jacuzzi, soaking tub or other water feature for a single unit
PUOS shall meet the following criteria:
a) PUOS shall not be regulated by location; inclusion of these types of spaces on any
floor of a building, where minimum dimensions are met, shall qualify.
b) All PUOS features may be located on any elevation to qualify as long as the minimum
dimensions are met. Dimensions are considered to be free of footing, railing, or
encroachments; all usable space shall be counted, door swing areas shall not be
considered encroachments.
c) PUOS shall meet the following requirements:
• Generally level (< 5% grade)
• PUOS may be located within a required setback
• Street setback areas landscaped and/or hardscaped spaces
d) Non-residential uses and components of buildings or parcels containing a mix of uses
(residential and non-residential) shall not be required to provide PUOS.
4.E.2. Common Usable Open Space
Common Usable Open Space (“CUOS”) may be indoor, outdoor or partially enclosed spaces that
provide a developed amenity, gathering space or recreational area for a neighborhood or parcel.
Required common useable open space shall be permitted to be calculated for the entire parcel or
entire project when adjoining parcels are planned together and not separated by a public street.
Common useable open space shall not be counted or allocated to a specific housing product type
when more than one housing product type is planned in a parcel or project.
CUOS may be comprised of passive (landscaping) and/or active features which may include, but
is not limited to any of the following that serve more than one (1) unit and has not been counted
as a PUOS:
• Amphitheater or performance
space
• Balcony
• Co-working space
• Courtyard (exterior or interior)
• Game area
• Garden, community or otherwise
• Lawn area
• Outdoor kitchens
• Patio (shaded/roofed but
unenclosed permitted)
• Play area/structure
• Plaza
• Pool, jacuzzi, soaking tub or other
water feature
• Roof deck
• Seating area
• Shade structures
Page 1653 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-11 April 2024
CUOS shall meet following criteria:
a) Within ¼ mile of the residences to be served;
b) No dimension less than 10 feet, may be located within a required setback.
c) Recreational building(s) with amenities, services, and/or gathering spaces shall count
toward CUOS.
d) Generally level (< 5% grade)
e) Non-residential uses and components of mixed-use building or parcels shall not be
required to provide CUOS.
4.F. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES
Accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use are allowed
subject to the requirements of CVMC Section 19.58.020 Uses: Accessory Buildings. For purposes
of this document, attached and detached garages shall be considered an accessory structure.
Attached and detached accessory buildings and structures (enclosed or open), except ADUs, shall
meet all of the requirements for location of the main structure as constructed or required by the
zone or as allowed by the CBC, RBC and CFC, whichever is less restrictive. Such accessory
buildings shall not be allowed to encroach into required street setbacks, except as otherwise
permitted herein:
a) Detached accessory buildings may be located consistent with the CBC, RBC, and CFC, and
shall not encroach into any fuel modification zones.
b) Open structures shall be permitted in any location, except they shall not encroach into
required public street setbacks.
c) Architectural features which constitute non-usable floor space such as fire places, media
niches or book shelf areas on exterior walls, eaves, awnings, chimneys, balconies, stairways,
wing walls, etc. be subject to projection allowances per the CBC, RBC and CFC.
4.G. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
ADUs shall be subject to the CVMC Section 19.58.022 Accessory Dwelling Units.
4.H. HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS
Height regulations, exceptions and encroachments are permitted subject to this section. The
following shall apply to the Village Core zoning district:
a) Height limitations specified within this SPA shall not apply to spires, belfries, cupolas, clock
towers, domes, monuments, weather vanes, windmills, chimneys, flagpoles, parapet walls
extending not more than 4 feet above the limiting height of the buildings, elevator shafts,
stairwells accessing roofs and other similar architectural elements.
b) Height limitations shall also not apply to places of public assembly in churches, schools and
other permitted public and semi-public buildings, provided that these uses are located on the
ground floor of such buildings.
c) Also including appurtenances such as fire and hose towers, distribution and transmission
Page 1654 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-12 April 2024
towers, lines and poles, water tanks, masts and aerials, cellular towers, and mechanical
equipment.
d) Mezzanine floors shall not be counted as a story when determining building height.
e) Height exceptions and encroachments must be implemented in conformance with applicable
building code requirements.
4.I. PERMITTED BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS AND PROJECTIONS
Encroachments into building setbacks from public right-of-way, building separations, and/or
public right-of-way are permitted subject to this section. The following shall apply to the Village
Core zoning district:
a) All above and below ground encroachments into the Public right-of-way shall require an
Encroachment Agreement. Design Review shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and City Engineer that the public safety will not be jeopardized or can
be mitigated by the encroachment.
b) Projections and building undulations shall be permitted consistent with the applicable
building and fire code. Projections and undulations shall be identified on architectural plans
and code standards called out.
c) Encroachments shall not conflict with public utilities, Village Pathways, and Regional
Trails. Where necessary, utility easements may be reduced or expanded to accommodate
utility infrastructure.
d) Buildings shall not encroach into intersection visibility triangle setbacks for corner
conditions as defined in CVMC Section 12.12.120, Vision Clearance - Intersection
Requirements.
e) “Outdoor living spaces” include cantilevered balconies, walled and/or raised courtyards,
porches, stoops and California Rooms are all permitted to encroach into building separations
as long as they comply with building and safety codes.
f) Encroachments for first floor awnings: An awning adjacent to a commercial use on the first
floor may extend into the public right-of-way/adjacent pedestrian corridor, subject to an
Encroachment Agreement.
g) Subterranean parking structures shall be permitted to extend into the public right-of-way
directly under the sidewalk/Village Pathway/parking up to the back of the curb. Such
structures shall not interfere with public utilities.
4.J. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4.J.1. Utilities
a) All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of
the site so as not to be exposed to public view except where required by the utility provider.
b) Pad mounted transformers and/or meter box locations shall be included in the site plan with
an appropriate screening treatment such as berms, walls, and/or landscaping as approved
by each utility provider.
Page 1655 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-13 April 2024
c) Power lines and cables, except for temporary use, shall be installed underground.
d) Utility vaults shall be placed within public rights-of-way to the greatest extent practical.
e) Underground utilities may be installed in common open space areas if they do not impact
use of the open space area.
4.J.2. Noise
All uses shall comply with the provisions of CVMC Chapter 19.68, Performance Standards and
Noise Control. As a matter of practice, the City of Chula Vista also implements the noise
compatibility guidelines and CNEL thresholds of the City of San Diego.
4.J.3. Energy Conservation
a) Buildings shall be located on the site to provide adjacent buildings with adequate solar
access, when practical
b) Buildings shall be designed in accordance with the Village 8 East Non-renewable Energy
Conservation Plan
c) Buildings shall be designed to comply with the Village 8 East Air Quality Improvement
Plan
4.J.4. Parking, Loading And Storage
In addition to the standard of Chapter 8. Parking Regulations, the following shall apply to all
Village Core zones.
a) Required parking shall be permitted to be calculated for the entire parcel or entire project
when adjoining parcels are planned together and not separated by a public street.
Unassigned resident and guest parking spaces shall not be counted or allocated to a
specific housing product when more than one housing product is planned in a parcel or
project.
b) No motorized or non-motorized vehicles shall be parked, stored, or kept in the street
setback or front yard, except in the driveway or on a paved area adjacent to the driveway.
c) No storage or display of vehicles for sale by a motor vehicle dealer is permitted in a
residential driveway or on a residential street.
d) Recreational vehicles (including campers, boats, and trailers) shall only be parked in
designated areas that are fully screened from view of the public street.
e) Loading activities shall be located and operated so that they do not disturb neighboring
residents.
f) Loading activities shall be located and operated so that they do not conflict with vehicle
movements on public streets.
g) Storage areas shall be screened from public view.
4.J.5. Access
Reciprocal ingress and egress, circulation, and parking arrangements shall be required to facilitate
Page 1656 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Village Core District
4-14 April 2024
the ease of vehicular movement between adjoining properties.
Common Facilities
a) Conveniently located common laundry facilities shall be provided for units which do not
have individual hook-ups.
b) Conveniently located and well-screened collective enclosures for trash and recyclables
shall be provided for all dwelling units, unless provided for each unit.
c) Mailbox kiosks shall be conveniently located and distributed pursuant to the requirements
of the United States Postal Service.
4.J.6. Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials shall be subject to CVMC 8.34 Regulation of Hazardous Materials.
4.J.7. Storm Water
All development shall be reviewed and required to conform to the Development and
Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management Standards/Requirements of the City of Chula
Vista.
Page 1657 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
5. Open Space and Parks Districts
Page 1658 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1659 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Open Space and Parks Districts
5-1 April 2024
5. OPEN SPACE AND PARKS ZONING DISTRICTS
5.A. PURPOSE
The Parks (“P”), Open Space (“OS”) and Open Space Preserve (“OSP”) zoning districts are
intended for natural open space areas, manufactured/developed open space areas, landscaping,
recreation and public uses within the SPA Plan area. There is no lot size requirement or other
size limitation in the P, OSP and OS zoning districts.
The OS and P districts are included in the Planned Community District Regulations to achieve
the following purposes:
• Provide focal points for community and neighborhood activities.
• Provide for sustainable public/quasi-public and recreational uses.
• Provide recreation and public use opportunities, such as trails and pathways.
The OSP district is exclusively for the MSCP area to achieve the following purposes:
• Promote natural community linkages among Otay Ranch villages and the University.
• Preserve, enhance and manage natural resources.
• Preserve vistas and conserve viewpoint areas for the enjoyment of future generations.
• Establish edges to help define communities.
• Promote public health and safety.
5.B. PERMITTED & CONDITIONAL USES
Park spaces in Village 8 East may be privately owned, operated and maintained consistent with
the Village 8 East Parks Agreement and/or Development Agreement. Private operators and public
or private special events by reservations and/or leases shall be permitted in the neighborhood park
and community park within Village 8 East. Any recreation center (including buildings or roof
structures of any kind) within a park in Village 8 East shall qualify as eligible for sale or serving
of alcoholic beverages pursuant to CVMC 2.66.040.
Parks and recreational facilities within Village 8 East that are privately owned and maintained
shall be permitted to host temporary events, including events that allow sale or solicitation for
sale of merchandise, food and beverages.
Vending vehicles, including but not limited to mobile food trucks, shall be allowed on privately
owned and maintained park property and the streets adjacent to such property pursuant to CVMC
19.58.440. Other use allowances, restrictions, or CVMC exemptions are addressed in a separate
agreement between the applicant/developer and the City.
Active recreation uses are permitted within the Open Space Preserve designated areas, consistent
with the Otay Ranch GDP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Page 1660 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Open Space and Parks Districts
5-2 April 2024
The matrix of land uses below indicates the relative permissive status using the following
symbols:
“P” = Permitted.
“C” = Conditional Use Permit
“N” = Use Not Permitted.
A use not listed shall be subject to a use determination by the Zoning Administrator to determine
substantial conformance with the purpose, intent and goals of this SPA Plan.
Table 6 : Permitted and Conditional Use Matrix – Open Space and Parks Districts
1 Essential public facilities permitted per requirements of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, including planned and future facilities.
Schools, Libraries, public works facilities, cultural arts and other civic uses are considered non-utility uses and are not permitted.
2 Subject to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan requirements. The Chula Vista
Greenbelt Trail located within the OSP Zoning District is a multi-use trail that accommodates pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian
use.
3Permitted consistent with separate agreement between the Applicant and the City.
4Limited to OS-7 in conjunction with trails and/or publicly accessible open space.
ZONING DISTRICT
Use P OS(2) OSP
Agricultural Uses
All types of horticulture P P N
Arboreta - horticultural garden P P N
Agricultural corps P P N
Community gardens P P N
Public and Semi-public Uses
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails and Associated Signage P P P2
Active Recreation P N P2
Essential public services, including but not limited to: schools, libraries,
museums, public libraries, public works facilities, cultural arts,
interpretive centers and other civic uses(1)
P N N
Facilities per Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master
Plan P P N
Commercial Recreation(3) P N P2
Sale of merchandise, food and beverages(3) P N N
Unclassified uses N P(4) N
Water Quality/Detention Basins P P P2
Temporary uses P N N
Special events P P(4) N
Incidental concessions P P(4) N
Page 1661 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Open Space and Parks Districts
5-3 April 2024
5.C. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
5.C.1. Site Planning
All development proposals in the Open Space and Park Districts shall be reviewed on a case-by-
case basis to determine appropriate buffering and setbacks. All permanent signs, including any
required signs (such as monument and dedication signage, etc.), shall be included in the review
and specifically approved. Neighborhood and community-level signs included in the Village 8
East SPA Plan shall be permitted in areas designated in the SPA Plan. Chula Vista Greenbelt
Trail signage shall meet the requirements of the Greenbelt Master Plan.
5.C.2. Landscaping
All landscaping shall meet the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and
the Chula Vista Landscape Water Ordinance.
5.C.3. Accessory Uses & Buildings
Accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use are allowed
subject to the requirements of Chapter 19.58 CVMC (Uses).
5.D. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
All uses in the Open Space and Parks zoning districts shall conform to the performance standards
provided in CVMC Chapters 19.66 (Uses: Performance Standards) and 19.68 (Uses: Performance
Standards and Noise Control) and other pertinent City ordinances and policies.
1) Hiking and biking trails and related facilities, including signage, are permitted within the
P and OS zoning districts; and are permitted, subject to Administrative Approval, in the
OSP zoning district.
2) All uses within the “P” zoning district shall be subject to compliance with the following:
• Village 8 East SPA Plan, Chapter V, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Master Plan
• The final park design pursuant to a separate agreement between the Applicant and the
City.
• Signage shall be provided in areas adjacent to the MSCP to the satisfaction of the
Development Services Director and/or Preserve Owner Manager.
Page 1662 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 5. Open Space and Parks Districts
5-4 April 2024
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1663 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
6. Community Purpose Facility District
Page 1664 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1665 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 6. Community Purpose Facility District
6-1 April 2024
6. COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY ZONING DISTRICT
6.A. PURPOSE
CVMC Section 19.04.055 (Definitions: Community Purpose Facility) defines “Community
Purpose Facility” as “…a structure or site for certain non-profit assembly, or recreation purposes,
as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot within a planned community.”
The Village 8 East Community Purpose Facility (“CPF”) obligation shall be partially satisfied
through a private recreation facility designated CPF site within the CPF zoning district. The
balance of the CPF obligation shall be satisfied pursuant to a separate agreement between the
Applicant and the City of Chula Vista.
Alternative Compliance is subject to the discretion of the Development Services Director. An
alternative compliance mechanism (e.g. providing square footage within a building that will
accommodate CPF uses or constructing a facility for CPF uses) may be approved, provided such
alternative mechanism meets all the requirements of CVMC Section 19.48.025.
6.B. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All development in the CPF zoning district shall be regulated by the standards of Table 7, except
as modified through Minor Administrative Modification.
Table 7: CPF Zoning District Property Development Standards
Standard CPF Zoning District
Maximum Building
Height(1) 36 feet
Setbacks (1) Per California building and fire code requirements; however, in no
case shall a setback of more than 10 feet be required, except as
required for compliance with California building and fire code
Required Parking Not required for private recreation
1 Standards are subject to Section 10.E Minor Administrative Modifications.
Page 1666 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 6. Community Purpose Facility District
6-2 April 2024
6.C. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1) Setback areas adjacent to the public street shall be landscaped and/or hardscaped. All
planting and irrigation shall be in accordance with the City’s Landscape Manual and the
Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. All landscaping shall be maintained in a
healthy thriving condition, free from weeds, trash and debris.
2) All ground mounted mechanical equipment, including heating and air conditions units and
trash receptacle areas, shall be completely screened from surrounding properties by a wall
or fence, or shall be enclosed within a building. No material or equipment so screened
shall have a height greater than the enclosing wall, fence or building. Structural and
design plans for any screening required under the provisions of this section shall be
approved by the Development Services Director.
3) All roof appurtenances including, but not limited to, air conditioning units, and
mechanical equipment shall be shielded and architecturally screened from view from
adjacent public streets and residential uses on adjacent parcels, to the greatest extent
feasible.
4) All light sources shall be shielded in such a manner that the light is directed away from
streets or adjoining properties. Illuminators should be integrated within the architecture of
the building, wherever possible.
5) All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of
the site so as not to be exposed except where required by utility providers. Pad mounted
transformers and/or meter box locations shall be included in the site plan with an
appropriate screening treatment.
6) No use shall be permitted which creates odor in such quantities as to be readily detectable
beyond the boundaries of the site
Page 1667 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
7. Other Zoning Districts
Page 1668 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1669 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 7. Other Zoning Districts
7-1 April 2024
7. OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS
7.A. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOTS
Properties within the Future Development (“FD”) zoning district are located east of SR-125. The
development regulations and land uses proposed for properties designated FD will be established
at the time of application.
7.B. CALTRANS LOTS
Properties within the CALTRANS Lots (“CT”) zoning district are located west of SR-125 within
the future SR-125 ROW. Upon completion of the CALTRANS Right-of-way Decertification
Process, the CALTRANS Lots will be deeded by the Applicant to CALTRANS. There are no
land uses assigned to these areas.
Page 1670 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1671 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
8. PARKING REGULATIONS
Page 1672 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1673 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 8. Parking Regulations
8-1 April 2024
8. PARKING REGULATIONS
8.A. PURPOSE
All regulations set forth in this section are for the purpose of providing convenient parking spaces
for vehicles. These parking requirements are to be considered as the minimum necessary for such
uses permitted by the respective zoning district.
The intent of these regulations is to provide adequately designed parking areas with sufficient
capacity and adequate circulation to minimize traffic congestion and promote public safety. It
shall be the responsibility of the developer, owner or operator of the specific use to provide and
maintain adequate parking.
8.B. GENERAL PROVISIONS
All parking shall be provided as specified by the applicable building configuration. Additional
parking standards are identified in Table 8: Parking Standards and as follows:
Table 8: Parking Standards
Standard All Zones Notes
Driveway Apron (Private
Drive Aisle)
3 feet minimum or 17
feet or greater
Dimensions between 3 feet and 17 feet
prohibited
Driveway Apron (from
public street)
Prohibited Private driveways shall not take access from
public streets
Single Residential Garage /
Carport Space
10 feet wide x
20 feet deep
Free of any obstructions
Tandem Garage
(counts as 2 spaces)
10 feet wide x
40 feet deep
Free of any obstructions
Non-Residential Parking
Space
9 feet wide x
19 feet deep
Spaces with a depth of 17 feet and 2 feet of
overhang onto curb are permitted to fulfill
this requirement. Wherever a 2-foot
overhang occurs, a minimum 48-inch
pedestrian walkway shall be maintained
with minimal impacts to planting areas.
Parallel Parking Space 23 feet x 9 feet
Compact Parking Space 7.5 feet wide x 15 feet
deep
Compact spaces may be used to fulfill up to
25% of the required parking for commercial
and unassigned attached residential spaces.
Page 1674 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 8. Parking Regulations
8-2 April 2024
8.C. RESIDENTIAL GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS
a) All garage doors shall be automatic roll up doors.
b) All parking configurations are permitted including tandem, underground, interior car
lifts (parking stacked vertically by mechanical device) and other innovative parking
configurations designed to maximize space. All parking spaces that provide parking for
a vehicle, including these configurations or similar configurations, shall count as one
space toward required parking.
c) Each parking space that meets the minimum dimension shall count as one space; tandem
configurations shall count as two spaces.
d) Parking spaces beyond those required per zone property development standards (garage,
enclosed, covered, or unenclosed spaces) may be sized to accommodate standard cars,
compact cars, or Neighborhood Elective Vehicles (“NEVs”).
8.D. PRIVATE DRIVES & PRIVATE DRIVE AISLES
a) Private Drives interior to RM-1 and RM-2 zoning districts shall be required to have, at
minimum, a 4-foot sidewalk on one side and a 6-foot parkway on both sides. On-street
parking along Private Drives is encouraged but not required; 6 foot wide parallel parking
permitted. See Private Drive cross section in Village Design Plan
b) All Private Drive Aisles shall be two way and have a minimum width of 24 feet clear
for travel and fire access; see Exhibit 4.
c) All parking spaces, drive approaches, and Private Drive Aisles shall be designed for
adequate maneuverability with a minimum back-up distance of 24 feet. See Exhibit 4.
8.E. VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
a) Parking spaces shall not obstruct access to other units or their designated parking
space(s).
b) Handicapped parking shall be provided in accordance with Title 24, California
Handicap Accessibility Requirements.
c) Parking spaces shall not obstruct sidewalks, trails, or other pedestrian corridors.
d) Parking aisles shall meet the minimum widths specified in the City of Chula Vista
Parking Table.
8.F. BICYCLE PARKING
a) Bicycle parking located within buildings, garages or private yard spaces that are not
accessible to the public shall be considered secure spaces and do not require additional
security devices. All other bicycle parking shall be permanently anchored with the
ability to secure both the wheels and the frame and shall meet the requirements of
CalGreen.
Page 1675 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 8. Parking Regulations
8-3 April 2024
b) Bicycle parking facilities shall be located pursuant to the requirements of CalGreen and
in highly visible areas to the greatest extent feasible in order to minimize theft and
vandalism and encourage use.
c) Bicycle parking shall be located to prevent parked bicycles from blocking sidewalks and
other pedestrian corridors, maintaining a minimum of 4 feet for pedestrians to pass.
d) Bicycle parking provided in garage spaces shall not encroach into required vehicle
parking areas.
8.G. PAVING
a) All off-street parking areas, including driveways and parking lots, shall be constructed
with a durable and dustless surface.
b) Porous paving is permitted for surface lots if properly engineered.
c) All surface parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the Village 8 East
SWQMP.
8.H. PARKING AREA LIGHTING
a) Lighting shall be provided in all parking areas for safety.
b) Lighting shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties.
c) Lighting shall meet the requirements of CVMC Section 19.62.120 Parking Areas-
Lighting Arrangements.
8.I. SURFACE PARKING LOT SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING
a) Provide a minimum 5-foot setback with landscape and/or hardscape between parking
lots and adjacent buildings.
b) Provide a 6-foot minimum landscape buffer setback between parking areas and public
streets.
c) Any approved combination of planting, walls, and/or decorative features, which are
visually compatible with the community aesthetic values, may be utilized to screen
parking from public view.
d) The total non-garage parking area shall be landscaped in accordance with the City’s
Landscape Manual and Shade Tree Policy #576-19.
e) All planting areas, walls, fences and services areas shall be separated from parking
areas by one-foot horizontal concrete curb or step out consistent with City standards.
8.J. PARKING STRUCTURES
a) Stand-alone above-ground parking structures are only permitted in the VC Zoning
District.
b) Subterranean parking structures are permitted in any zoning district provided they do
not encroach into public rights-of-way.
Page 1676 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 8. Parking Regulations
8-4 April 2024
8.K. PARKING LOT AND PARKING STRUCTURE ACCESS
a) Entries into parking lots and structures shall be designed to be convenient and easy to
find through location and/or signage.
b) Adequate vehicle stacking distance at entrances to paid or gated parking facilities shall
be provided to reduce traffic impacts on adjacent public streets. The maximum
driveway width along public streets is 24 feet.
c) Parking lot/structure entry design, including stacking and secondary access, shall be
reviewed at the site plan level.
Page 1677 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
9. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REGULATIONS
Page 1678 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1679 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 9. Comprehensive Sign Regulations
9-1 April 2024
9. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REGULATIONS
9.A. PURPOSE
The purpose of these regulations is to establish a coordinated exterior signage program achieving
a unified and cohesive overall appearance. Identity signage is a major factor in creating and
preserving the character of Village 8 East. In addition to the requirements of this section, all
signage shall comply with applicable portions of CVMC Sections 19.60.005-300,19.60.500 and
19.600-930. In instances where these regulations conflict with the CVMC, the regulations
contained herein shall take precedent.
Most signage will occur within the Village Core zoning district but there will be a need for
additional identifying signs on multi-family neighborhoods and other uses located outside of the
Village Core. The signage design of Village 8 East must be respectful of the surrounding area yet
have a distinctive character that reflects the mix of uses and village setting. Signage within
residential areas shall complement the adjacent architecture and surrounding neighborhood.
All signage shall require a sign permit issued by the City of Chula Vista.
9.B. GENERAL SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS
High quality, imaginative and innovative sign design is encouraged. Each sign shall be
proportional in size and scale to its location and designed to integrate with the surrounding site
architecture through the selection of location, materials, style, color, details, and elements. Signs
shall be subordinate to the overall building composition. Sign copy or content shall be brief,
utilizing logos and symbols where possible. Coordinated sign programs are required for multiple
tenant sites. Signs shall be constructed of permanent exterior sign materials (except for awnings).
Signs shall be non-moving, stationary structures in all components.
9.C. MAJOR AND MINOR IDENTIFICATION
The purpose of identification signs is to identify places such as neighborhoods and districts as well
as specific tenants. There are typically three (3) different types of signs utilized for identification:
9.C.1. Freestanding Signs
Freestanding signs are typically used to identify an entire community, neighborhood or site.
Freestanding signs may be pylon or monument style. The sign structure shall be designed to
incorporate similar architectural details, materials, and colors as the associated buildings or
community.
The following apply to all Freestanding Signs:
a) Pylon signs are vertically oriented signs where the width of the sign panels shall not extend
beyond the width of the architectural support elements. Single support (pole) signs are not
allowed.
Page 1680 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 9. Comprehensive Sign Regulations
9-2 April 2024
b) Monument signs are low profile signs where the sign width is mounted on the ground as a
solid architectural element. Monument signs shall be designed with the width of the base of
the sign equal to or more than the width of the sign face. They shall be located within a
landscape area whenever possible and the signs shall be in proportion to the size of the area
where they are located.
When used for major tenant identification in commercial areas, a single freestanding sign may
display up to 6 individual tenant signs or 5 tenant signs and the name of the site along each street
frontage. Individual tenant signs shall be uniform in size, with the exception made for a slightly
larger site name or major tenant sign panel. The sign copy is the only part that is allowed to be
illuminated.
9.C.2. Gateway Signs
Gateway signs are signs that span pedestrian or vehicle travel ways to announce entry into special
areas such as commercial districts, paseos, linear green courts, and shopping center entries. A
minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet over vehicle travel ways and 10 feet over pedestrian travel
ways is required. Gateway signs shall require an Encroachment Agreement.
9.C.3. Wall and Projecting Signs
Typically, projecting signs, awnings, and wall and window graphics are used to identify individual
tenants. They are especially effective in areas of high pedestrian traffic.
a) Wall signs shall consist of individual letters attached to a building without visible supports
or raceways. They shall be securely attached to the building while not obscuring the
building’s ornamental features.
b) Projecting or blade signs shall be placed perpendicular to the first floor building wall with
a minimum vertical clearance of eight feet. In an arcade situation, the sign shall be hung
from the ceiling. One blade sign will be allowed per business along each street frontage.
Illumination shall be limited to external (spot lights) or decorative (gooseneck, etc.) types.
Projecting signs shall be securely attached to the building fascia or canopy with an attractive
and decorative support.
c) Window signs are permanent signs placed directly on or behind the glass. Signage shall not
cover more than 25% of the window area of each street frontage, excluding glass doors, or
one square foot per one foot of frontage, whichever is less. One window sign is permitted
per framed first floor window area of each street frontage. Illumination shall be limited to
external (spot lights) or decorative (gooseneck, etc.) types.
d) Awning signs are painted or printed directly onto a cloth, glass, or metal awning. Metal or
glass awnings shall have a matte finish and fabric awnings shall be a solid color. Awnings
shall be designed to project over doors and windows – not as a continuous feature extending
over multiple windows, doors, and architectural piers. Shed style awnings without end
panels are preferred. Limit signage awnings to business name, logo, and/or address
numbers. Backlit awnings are not permitted.
Page 1681 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 9. Comprehensive Sign Regulations
9-3 April 2024
9.D. CHANGEAGE SIGNAGE
The purpose of changeable signs is to identify uses, events, and activities that may change over
time. All changeable signs shall also be required to obtain a sign permit. The following changeable
signs are permitted:
9.D.1. Temporary Signs
Temporary signage is used to identify and direct traffic to special events or specific products during
construction and sales periods. These signs will be subject to sign permit approval for specified
periods of time. Types of temporary signs include product identification signs, secondary
directional signs, future facility signs, and flags.
Paper, cardboard, Styrofoam, stickers, and decals are not acceptable forms of temporary signage.
9.D.2. Marquee Signs
Marquee signs are typically used to provide information about current showings or events for
theaters, casinos, ticket outlets, live entertainment uses, schools, and CPF. These types of signs
will only be allowed within the Village Core Zone or at school and CPF sites. Marquee signs may
be manual or electronic.
9.D.3. Pageantry
Pageantry signage includes flags, kiosks, banners, and similar temporary or permanent (but
changeable) elements. Pageantry signage is only permitted in the Village Core and shall be subject
to approval of the Planning Director.
The intent is to allow regular changes to the pageantry in terms of content for a variety of
purposes including special events and other community information. Pageantry may be located
within the right-of-way, within setbacks, or on private lots.
a) Pageantry shall not conflict with public sidewalks.
b) Pageantry shall not include flashing, flickering, rotating or moving lights.
c) Pageantry shall be limited to locations identified by the Master Developer.
d) Signs located within the public right-of-way shall require an Encroachment Agreement from
the City of Chula Vista. The Encroachment Agreement shall include a signage program
which complies with CVMC and SPA requirements. The program shall be managed by a
responsible sign contractor and contain provisions for insurance, permit fees, bonds, and
maintenance to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director/City Engineer.
e) Flags and banners are not permitted as permanent signage but can be approved on a
temporary basis with a special event permit.
Page 1682 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 9. Comprehensive Sign Regulations
9-4 April 2024
9.D.4. PORTABLE SIGNS
Portable signs, including A-frame (sandwich board) and T-frame signs, are moveable, non-
illuminated signs that are not attached to a structure or the ground and are used to advertise the
location, goods, or services offered by an adjacent business. A Temporary sign permit is required
for any portable sign.
Portable signs on private property shall comply with the following standards:
a) Only one portable sign shall be permitted for each storefront within the Village Core.
b) Portable signs shall not exceed 4 square feet per side and shall not exceed 3 feet in height.
c) Portable signs shall be located directly in front of the establishment it identifies and within
ten (10) feet of the primary entrance; exceptions may be granted by the Zoning
Administrator or his/her designee if warranted due to physical conditions of the site.
d) Portable signs may only be placed outside during the hours of the establishment’s operation.
e) Portable signs may be placed within front setbacks but shall not conflict with sidewalks,
pathways, or trails; on-street parking; handicap accessible pathways; vehicle travel ways;
or building entrances, exits, and fire escapes; signs shall not be placed in center medians.
f) Portable signs shall not interfere with the sight distance of traffic passing the site, pursuant
to the determination of the City Engineer.
g) The design theme (color, fixed lettering style, font, symbols, and materials) shall be
compatible with the establishment’s main identification sign.
h) Signs shall be constructed of durable, rigid material such as wood, plastic, metal, or similar
material and shall be stable and windproof.
i) Signs shall be freestanding and shall not be affixed or secured in any way to other objects
such as parking meters, trees, fire hydrants, railings, or other structures.
Temporary portable signs in the public rights-of-way shall comply with CVMC 12.50 “Temporary
placement of signs in designated portions of the public rights-of-way.”
This section does not apply to real-estate open house signs, which shall be subject to the
requirements of CVMC Section 19.60.600, Specialty signs.
9.E. DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
Directional signs are used to guide visitors to specific destinations within a site such as parking or
loading zones, individual tenants, etc. The project name may be located on the sign but be
subordinate to the directional components. Vehicular directional signs shall have no more than 6
listings with arrows. All parking garages that serve more than one business or residential unit shall
have illuminated signs identifying entrances.
Page 1683 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 9. Comprehensive Sign Regulations
9-5 April 2024
9.F. ILLUMINATION OF SIGNS
Limit the use of Illuminated signs. Preferred lighting types are as follows:
a) External or projected light source (spot light, pendant light, gooseneck).
b) Individual letters with internal illumination or back lighting (channel letter, reverse channel
letter).
c) Cabinet or ‘can’ type signs with interior illumination will only be allowed if the face panels
are opaque with a flat (as opposed to glossy or reflective) finish and it is part of a
freestanding sign.
d) Only constant, non-flashing lighting shall be allowed.
e) Exposed neon is permitted for themed restaurants and other entertainment uses only and
shall not be visible from outside the Village Core areas.
f) Sign conduits, transformers, junction boxes, etc. must be concealed from view.
Page 1684 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 9. Comprehensive Sign Regulations
9-6 April 2024
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1685 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
10. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Page 1686 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1687 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 10. Implementation and Administration
10-1 April 2024
10. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
10.A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to define certain implementation and administrative procedures to
provide clear instructions and notice to Village 8 East property owners and builders regarding
permit and plan approvals. These PC District Rregulations use the standard procedures
provided in CVMC Chapter 19.14, except where special procedures are required or defined
herein.
The administration of the Village 8 East SPA Plan shall be as provided for in CVMC Section
19.48.090 et. sSeq. Whenever the provisions of theseis PC District RegulationsSPA conflict with
or provide different rules, standards, or procedures from those in CVMC Titles 12 (Streets and
Sidewalks), 18 (Subdivisions), or 19 (Zoning and Specific Plans), the provisions of theseis PC
District Regulations chapter shall prevail. On matters within those CVMC titles on which theseis
PC District Regulationschapter is silent, the existing CVMC titles shall apply and control.
10.B. AMENDMENTS
Changes to the boundaries of the zoning districts shall be made by ordinance and shall be reflected
on the official Village 8 East Zoning District Map as provided in Exhibit 2. Minor changes
resulting from the approval of a tentative or final map shall be made to the Zoning District Map
as an administrative matter. Approval of a zone change requires affirmative action following a
public hearing by both the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the
provisions of CVMC Chapter 19.12 (Legislative Zoning Procedure).
10.C. EFFECTS OF REGULATIONS
The provisions of Chapter III, Multi-Family Residential Districts, Chapter IV Village Core
Districts, Chapter V Open Space & Parks Districts, Chapter VI, Community Purpose Facility,
Chapter VII Future Development District governing the use of land, buildings, structures,
building setbacks, building height, performance standards and other provisions are hereby
declared to be in effect upon and shall apply to all land included within the boundaries of each
and every zoning district established by these PClanned Community District Regulations.
10.D. MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS
When an applicant applies for more than one permit or other approval for a single development,
the applications shall be consolidated for processing and shall be reviewed by a single decision
maker or decision-making body pursuant to the requirements of CVMC Section 19.14.050.
10.E. MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION
The development standards herein are intended to promote quality development within Village 8
East. In order to support adaptability to development, design, and market standards, Minor
Administrative Modifications to development standards may be permitted pursuant to this section.
As identified in Table 9: Minor Administrative Modifications, specific property and
development standards of each zoning district may be modified administratively by the Zoning
Administrator.
Page 1688 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 10. Implementation and Administration
10-2 April 2024
Minor Administrative Modifications shall be identified as part of the Design Review Permit
Application for a parcel or project.
10.E.1. Minor Modification Requirements
a) Upon determination by the Zoning Administrator that the modification(s), as authorized by
Table 9: Minor Administrative Modifications, is consistent with the intent of the Village
8 East SPA Plan, the identified standards may be modified administratively through a
Design Review Permit.
b) The project description for the Design Review submittal shall include a description of any
Minor Administrative Modification including the standard for modification, percent
modification and applicable SPA Plan section references.
c) The Minor Administrative Modification shall be submitted to the Master Developer for
review and approval. The Master Developer Approval Letter shall include specific approval
or denial of the requested Minor Administrative Modification.
Table 9: Minor Administrative Modifications
Applications that exceed the limits identified in Table 9 shall be subject to a Variance or SPA Plan
Amendment.
10.F. SPA PLAN INTERPRETATION
10.F.1. Substantial Conformance
The Zoning Administrator may determine an application is in substantial conformance with the
adopted SPA document, subject to the following findings:
a) The proposed project or use is substantially consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan
and adopted City policies.
b) The proposed project or use is substantially consistent with the Village 8 East SPA Plan and
its purpose and intent. Land use and circulation patterns are generally consistent. Statistical
variations such as site area calculations shall be less than 10%.
c) The proposed project or use meets the provisions of these PC District Regulations governing
the use of land, buildings, structures, building setbacks, building height, performance
standards and other provisions.
d) The proposed project or use substantially complies with the Village 8 East Landscape
Master Plan and Village Core Master Precise Plan, as applicable. Some deviation from
standards and guidelines are permitted as long as the project meets the overall design intent
Standard Administrative Modification
Building Height 10% of height by feet
Building to Street Setback 15% from minimum
Open Space (private or common usable) 15%
Guest Parking 5%
Required Parking 5%
Wall/Fence Height 10% consistent with safety standards
Page 1689 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 10. Implementation and Administration
10-3 April 2024
and vision specified in the Village 8 East Design Plan, as applicable.
e) The proposed project or use will not, under circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
f) The proposed project or use is substantially consistent with the principles and overall quality
of design established for the Otay Ranch Planned Community.
The Zoning Administrator shall set a reasonable time for the consideration of each application to
the applicant and to other interested persons as defined in CVMC 19.14 – Administrative
Procedures – Permits – Applicants – Hearings – Appeals. In the event objections or protests are
received, the Zoning Administrator shall set the matter for public hearing as provided therein.
10.F.2. Clarification of Ambiguity
If ambiguity arises concerning the proper classification of a particular parcel within the meaning
and intent these PC District Regulations or the Village Design Plan, or if ambiguity exists with
respect to height, setbacks/building separation, lot area requirement or zoning district boundaries
as set forth herein, the Development Services Director shall make a determination clarifying said
ambiguity based upon the pertinent facts and the intent of the SPA. For ambiguities that arise
from applications requiring a decision by the Zoning Administrator or public hearing by a
decision-making body other than the Zoning Administrator, the determination of the Zoning
Administrator shall be forwarded to the appropriate decision-making body as a recommendation.
10.F.3. Site Utilization and Mapping Refinements
The SPA Plan and these PC District Regulations provide guidance for development at the
subdivision and improvement levels and are the basic reference for determining permitted land
uses, densities, total units and required public facilities. The SPA Plan does not intend to be used
in a manner that predetermines the development solution for each and every parcel. It is intended
to reflect the City’s intent for determining the intensity, design and desired character of use for
Village 8 East. The development parcels, open space parcels and internal circulation indicated on
the Site Utilization Plan are conceptual. Adjustments to these configurations may occur as part of
the tentative map and final map approval process. Modifications to the SPA Plan exhibits and
text, to reflect adjustments based on an approved tentative or final map, may be accomplished
without a formal SPA Amendment.
Further, the SPA Plan is not a guarantee that a certain dwelling unit yield will be achieved on each
parcel. Parcels are not required to achieve the ‘Estimated Density’ identified in the Site Utilization
Summary Table. However, the minimum and maximum density specified in the land use district
designation for each parcel shall apply. The final dwelling unit yield of any parcel shall be
determined by field conditions, site plan and Design Review Permit, and a number of external
factors that influence the design and density of individual projects; submittal of an updated Unit
Tracking Table shall be required.
10.G. REVIEW PROCESS
This section includes the unique administrative procedures for Master Developer and City
Page 1690 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 10. Implementation and Administration
10-4 April 2024
Administrative Design Review of the design and development of new buildings and uses within
the Village 8 East SPA Plan area. Additional permits may be required and shall be subject to and
processed in accordance with the CVMC.
10.G.1. Administrative Design Review
The purpose of Administrative Design Review, as defined herein, is to evaluate an application for
consistency with the use regulations and property development standards of the zoning district
per these PC District Regulations. It is not a purpose of the Design Review process to control
design character in a manner that individual initiative is constrained in the layout of any particular
building or parcel(s) and substantial additional expense incurred; rather, it is the intent of Design
Review to achieve the overall objectives and standards of these PC District Regulations and
CVMC, as applicable.
The development standards contained in these PC District Regulations, combined with the Village
Design Plan, Village Core Master Precise Plan (if applicable) and the CVMC set an appropriate
level of regulations and objective design standards to ensure quality development of Village 8
East and approval of a Design Review Permit. Therefore, within Village 8 East, Design Review
shall be an administrative process applicable to all development in the Multi-Family, Village Core
and Community Purpose Facility zoning districts, and the City Zoning Administrator is
authorized to review and issue a design review permit where the application for such a permit is
consistent with the following:
• Village 8 East SPA Plan
• PC District Regulations, including Minor Administrative Modification
• Master Developer Approval Letter
10.G.2. Administrative Design Review Process
Master Developer Review: Prior to filing a Design Review Permit application with the City,
the builder/applicant shall submit all application materials to the Master Developer for review,
comment and potentially modification. The Master Developer shall review the materials for
compliance with the design guidelines found in the Village Design Plan and Village Core Master
Precise Plan (applicable to VC zoning district only). The Master Developer shall prepare a letter
indicating Master Developer approval, requirement for modification or denial of the proposed
project. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the Master Developer Approval Letter to the City
with the Design Review Permit application package. No Design Review Permit application shall
be submitted to the City without a Master Developer Approval Letter.
Page 1691 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 10. Implementation and Administration
10-5 April 2024
City of Chula Vista Review: The Administrative Design Review is intended to ensure a proposed
project complies with the minimum requirements set forth in the Village 8 East development
regulations and to ensure a high-quality community is implemented. The Design Review Permit
is not intended to control design character in a manner that stifles individual initiative or creativity
during preparation of the site plan or that results in substantial additional processing time or
expense; but rather the City’s review is intended to confirm that the proposed project meets the
minimum objectives and standards of these PC District Regulations, Village 8 East SPA Plan,
Village Design Plan, Village Core Master Precise Plan (VC zoning district only) and CVMC.
Village 8 East Administrative Design Review Permit applications shall be subject to the standard
City Master Fee Schedule (Chapter 14-100 Planning Fees), as may be revised by the City annually
each October.
Administrative Design Review Permit shall:
a) Be implemented through the Zoning Administrator and processed consistent with CVMC
Section 19.14.583 through 19.14.600, except as modified by these PC District
Regulations; other sections of CVMC Chapter 19.14 shall not apply unless specifically
noted in this chapter.
b) Not be subject to Planning Commission or City Council review, unless an appeal is
timely and properly filed per CVMC 19.14.588 with the City of Chula Vista.
c) Not include review of architectural design, color and materials information. Black and
white architectural elevations shall be included in the Design Review submittal package
to demonstrate compliance with applicable CBC, CRC and CFC only. See Appendix A
for specific Design Review requirements.
10.G.3. Administrative Design Review Permit Submittal Requirements
In addition to the Design Review Permit application, all Design Review applications shall include
the following information/materials and all items outlined in Appendix A:
• Completed Design Review submittal checklist, see Appendix A, to facilitate City review
• Master Developer Approval Letter
• Updated Unit Tracking Matrix (Attachment A of the SPA Plan)
10.G.4. Parcel Unit Count (Unit Tracking Table)
The Village 8 East Site Utilization Plan and Tentative Map provide the general design intent of
the Village 8 East SPA Plan; however, the SPA Plan recognizes the need for flexibility in planning
to accommodate future development constraints and changing market demands. The SPA Site
Utilization Summary and the Village 8 East Tentative Map Site Utilization Table (Sheet 1) provide
‘Estimated Units’ for each parcel. Estimated Units are provided for planning purposes only, do not
represent the final unit count for each parcel and shall not be a factor in establishing the final unit
count for any parcel. The final unit count for any given parcel shall only be regulated by the
minimum and maximum density established for the applicable zoning district, shall be reviewed
as part of the Administrative Design Review process and documented in the Unit Tracking Table
as part of the application.
Page 1692 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 10. Implementation and Administration
10-6 April 2024
Any unit count consistent with the following shall be considered consistent with the SPA Plan and
these PC District Regulations; a unit transfer or reallocation process shall not be required.
1. Unit count is consistent with the permitted density range of the applicable zoning district;
density shall be calculated as total units per project acreage, density shall not be calculated
on a per product or home type basis.
2. The cumulative unit count of the application and all previous approvals does not exceed the
3,276 residential units or 20,000 square feet of non-residential space as approved for Village
8 East.
The Unit Tracking Table, as updated for each approved project, shall be part of the SPA Plan
administrative record to maintain an accurate count of approved units.
If the S-1 school site is accepted by the school district, then the residential units associated with
the school site per the Village 8 East Site Utilization Summary table are permitted to be
reallocated to any parcel in Village 8 East.
Establishing the unit count for any parcel during project application shall not be subject to review
by the Planning Commission or City Council unless the total number of authorized units within
Village 8 East is exceeded.
10.H. INTENSITY TRANSFERS BETWEEN VILLAGES
Residential units, non-residential square footage and CPF obligations may be transferred among
Otay Ranch villages and planning areas (e.g. Villages 2 West, 3, a portion of 4, 8 West, 8 East, 9
and 10 and Planning Areas 10/University and 20), as permitted by the City Council pursuant to
the expressed terms set forth by agreement, ordinance or such other manner approved by City
Council. No transfer shall result in exceeding the maximum number of residential units or non-
residential square footage shown in an approved SPA Plan or tentative map without a revised
SPA Plan and tentative map approved by the City Council.
The following findings are required:
1) The units transfer between villages is consistent with the village design policies and the
Entitlements for the village into which the units are being transferred;
2) The total number of entitled units among the villages is not exceeded;
3) Public facilities and infrastructure including schools and parks are provided based on the
final number of units within each village or parcel and the Applicant shall agree to pay any
additional fees resulting from said transfer;
4) The planned identity of the villages is preserved including the creation of pedestrian
friendly and transit- oriented development, as applicable;
5) Preserve conveyance obligations shall be based on the final map development area;
6) The Intensity Transfer application is supported by the minimum necessary technical study
to establish the applicable capacities of the project EIR have not been exceeded, if
necessary, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and that substantiate
adequate infrastructure exists to support the intensity transfer.
7) The Master Developer approves of the unit count as documented in the Master Developer
Page 1693 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 10. Implementation and Administration
10-7 April 2024
review letter.
8) The resulting density of both the granting and receiving parcels shall be consistent with the
applicable zoning district density range specified for each parcel.
10.I. PERMITS, VARIANCES AND ZONING APPLICATIONS
The following permits, variances and zoning applications shall be subject to the applicable
procedures described in CVMC Section 19.14:
• Conditional Use Permits1:;
• Variances;
• Home Occupations
10.J. SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
Tentative maps, parcel maps and final maps shall be consistent with the development standards
set forth in the Village 8 East SPA Plan, and these PClanned Community District Regulations
and shall be processed in accordance with the procedures and submittal requirements set forth in
CVMC Title 18.
10.K. VILLAGE 8 EAST LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN
The Master Developer shall submit a Village 8 East Landscape Master Plan (“LMPP”) to the City
for review and approval. The purpose of the Landscape Master Plan is to provide an overall basis
for reviewing specific landscape design at the site planning and public improvements stages.
Except for the provisions set forth herein, the requirements for the application, review and
approval process shall comply with CVMC Section 19.14.485.
10.L. VILLAGE CORE MASTER PRECISE PLAN
The Master Developer shall submit a Village Core Master Precise Plan to the City for review
prior to or concurrent with submittal of the first Design Review application within the Village
Core Zoning District. The MPP shall be subject to Administrative Design Review and must be
approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to approval of the first Administrative Design
Review in the VC Zoning District.
The purpose of the MPP is to coordinate the spatial relationships between buildings, structures,
landscaping and public spaces as well as to ensure a unified design theme for signage, lighting
and street furnishings within the Village Core in order to implement the vision of creating a
pedestrian friendly Village 8 East core. The MPP provides an overall basis for reviewing Design
Review applications and proposed public improvements within the Village Core. Except for the
provisions set forth herein, the requirements for the applicant, review and approval process of the
MPP shall comply with the Otay Ranch GDP, Page II-63. No other Master Precise Plans shall be
required within the Village 8 East SPA Plan area.
1 See Tables 2, 4 and 6 for a list of uses by zoning district subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
Commented [KS3]: What land use proposal would trigger
a CUP within this SPA?
Some additional text and explanation may be required here..
Commented [RH4R3]: Please refer to Tables 2, 4 and 6
for uses per zoning district. Added footnote for clarity
Page 1694 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 10. Implementation and Administration
10-8 April 2024
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1695 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
11. Enforcement
Page 1696 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1697 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 11. Enforcement
11-1 April 2024
11. ENFORCEMENT
11.A. ENFORCEMENT
The City shall enforce the Planned Community District Regulations contained herein in accordance
with the Implementation & Administration authority provided by the City’s Charter and the CVMC.
11.B. MONITORING AND UPDATES
As provided in the Village 8 East SPA Plan, a range of residential densities are planned within the
Village 8 East SPA. As provided in Section 10.G.3. of these PC District Regulations, Unit
Reallocation between parcels may occur during development. These changes must be monitored to
ensure compliance with the overall approvals of the project and the provision of certain population-
based public facilities. Changes that include an increase in the number of residential units may
require a corresponding increase in such facilities and a decrease in residential units may require a
corresponding decrease in facility requirements.
In order to ensure continuing compliance with required standards, the Master Developer and
Development Services Director shall maintain an administrative record including the Unit Tracking
Table beginning with the initial SPA Plan approval. The administrative record documents the
assignment of residential units and non-residential square feet to the various Village 8 East parcels
and the intended compliance strategy for population based public facilities. This record shall be
updated with each Administrative Design Review approval as an administrative action following
such approval.
The Unit Tracking Table reflecting approved or pending unit counts shall be provided by the Master
Developer to the Zoning Administrator at the time of each Administrative Design Review
application. After approval, the Development Services DirectorCity of Chula Vista shall maintain
the Unit Tracking Table as the official monitoring records in both written and in digital form,
accessible to other City departments and the Village 8 East Master Developer and Builders.
Page 1698 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST
Planned Community District Regulations 11. Enforcement
11-2 April 2024
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1699 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Appendix A: Village 8 East Administrative Design Review
Submittal Checklist
Page 1700 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 1701 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
A-1 April 2024
Administrative Design Review
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
Please review and indicate items included in your submission (Y = Yes, N = No, N/A = Not
Applicable). Only items listed below are required to complete Design Review.
Y N N/A ITEM
☐ ☐ ☐ Review Fees/Deposits - See Master Fee Schedule
☐ ☐ ☐ Completed Application Form (check Variance if applicable)
☐ ☐ ☐ Sewer Intake Form
☐ ☐ ☐ Project Information Form 6-2020
☐ ☐ ☐ Master Developer Approval Letter
☐ ☐ ☐ Village 8 East Unit Tracking Table
☐ ☐ ☐ Minor Administrative Modification (if any)
☐ ☐ ☐ Civil Site Plan (provided on a flash drive AND an online link to all
documents)
☐ ☐ ☐ A. Project location, legal description, and Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)
☐ ☐ ☐ B. Lot size (square footage, acres)
☐ ☐ ☐ C. Property owner’s name and address
☐ ☐ ☐ D Name of person/firm (Architect/Engineer) that prepared the plans &
preparation date
☐ ☐ ☐ D. Provide a Vicinity Map & North Arrow
☐ ☐ ☐ E. Boundaries of subject property with dimensions and setbacks between
public right-of-way & edge buildings (Per Village 8 East PC District Regulations)
☐ ☐ ☐ F. All existing & proposed buildings/structures
☐ ☐ ☐ G. Distance between buildings & structures per applicable Building / Fire
Code. Include applicable Building / Fire Code utilized, standards and
effective building separations
☐ ☐ ☐ H. Provide property zoning/land use and adjacent zoning/land use per the
applicable Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan(s)
☐ ☐ ☐ I. Provide use and square footage for each building
☐ ☐ ☐ J. List number of existing/proposed dwelling units, types of dwelling units
(Multi-Family attached, detached), number of bedrooms, density of all units
within the project.
☐ ☐ ☐ K. Show existing and proposed retaining walls (indicate height and materials)
☐ ☐ ☐ L. Parking Layout: existing parking, required parking calculations (residential
per Village 8 East PC District Regs and non-residential per ITE Parking
standards), dimensions of parking spaces, pedestrian pathways, and loading
area(s)
Page 1702 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
A-2 April 2024
Y N N/A ITEM
☐ ☐ ☐ M. Floor area ratio (FAR) (Commercial uses only)
☐ ☐ ☐ N. Label adjacent streets, alleys, properties and structures
☐ ☐ ☐ O. Fire Truck Turning and Access Exhibit
☐ ☐ ☐ P. Trash enclosure with screening and dimensions for common trash service
and trash bin and types for individual trash service. Trash Truck Turning
and Access Exhibit (Refer to Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Manual)
☐ ☐ ☐ Q. Provide conceptual on-site utility layout
☐ ☐ ☐ R. Provide calculations for Common Usable Open Space and Private Usable
Open space and show conceptual locations
S. Provide proposed cubic yards of earthwork (required for > 250 CY)
T. One (1) cross section for each boundary edge (public ROW, open space,
adjacent parcel boundary if applicable); maximum of 4 cross sections
☐ ☐ ☐ Conceptual Architectural Site Plan
☐ ☐ ☐ A. Provide square footage for each unit & total building area
☐ ☐ ☐ B. Label interior use and square footage of each area or room of the building
☐ ☐ ☐ C. Trash enclosure(s) detail including building materials, design and
dimensions, type and size of bins
☐ ☐ ☐ D. Provide black and white elevations for all four sides of each new building
(N/S/E/W) for Building / Fire Code consistency
☐ ☐ ☐ E. Provide Building height(s) - existing and proposed
☐ ☐ ☐ F. Provide all exterior building materials - on each elevation to demonstrate
compliance with applicable Building and Fire Codes only
☐ ☐ ☐ Conceptual Landscape Site Plan
☐ ☐ ☐ A. Provide a landscape plan with exterior lighting, planting, accessory
structures
☐ ☐ ☐ B. Provide lot coverage for proposed landscape (minimum 15% required for
new construction or any proposed site improvements)
☐ ☐ ☐ C. For minor changes to the site, provide any landscape improvements,
existing/proposed planting, or note there will be no changes to the
landscaping of the site
☐ ☐ ☐ D. Provide all walls, fences, etc. (indicating height, design and materials)
☐ ☐ ☐ E. Provide existing and proposed freestanding signs
☐ ☐ ☐ F. Provide conceptual site lighting plan / photometric analysis for sport
courts, parks areas adjacent to sensitive habitat, etc.)
☐ ☐ ☐ G. Provide common open space conceptual design plan
☐ ☐ ☐ H. Provide a concept statement of Compliance with Chula Vista Landscape
Water Conservation Ordinance
Page 1703 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
A-3 April 2024
Y N N/A ITEM
☐ ☐ ☐ I. Provide a conceptual Design Statement w/ “Landscape Design Objective”
☐ ☐ ☐ J. Provide a conceptual Irrigation Statement
☐ ☐ ☐ Environmental/Technical Studies (based upon project scope)
☐ ☐ ☐ A. Noise/Acoustical Study (i.e. carwashes, mixed-use, major roadway
adjacent)
☐ ☐ ☐ B. Lighting/Photometric Plan (sports fields, parks adjacent to sensitive habitat,
etc.)
☐ ☐ ☐ C. Phase 1 Environmental Analysis (vacant land, former gas stations, etc.)
☐ ☐ ☐ D. Other (specify)
☐ ☐ ☐ Engineering Reports (for new construction)
☐ ☐ ☐ A. Geotechnical Report/Soils Report
☐ ☐ ☐ B. Stormwater Quality Compliance Memo
Note: Sewer, water, and storm drain sizing shall be reviewed during final engineering and shall not be
required for design review.
Page 1704 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1705 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1706 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
TYPICAL WALL/FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE
SHELF ROUNDINGUPPER PROP. LINE
TYPICAL BERM DETAIL
MULTI-PURPOSE/GREENBELT TRAIL WALL @ CORNER LOTTYPICAL SIDEYARD RETAINING
DIAGONAL PARKING
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL
ROUNDABOUT DETAIL
LA PALMITA DRIVE AND SAVORIA PARKWAY
ROUNDABOUT DETAIL
LA PALMITA DRIVE AND CALLE DE ESCUELA
ROUNDABOUT TYPICAL SECTION
LA PALMITA DRIVE AND CALLE DE ESCUELA
LA PALMITA DRIVE AND SAVORIA PARKWAY
MULTI-MODAL BRIDGE
SOUTHBOUND ON-RAMP DETAIL
COMMUNITY PARK TRAIL/
MAINTENANCE & EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD
(EAST SIDE OF P-2)
SAVOR I A PA RKW AY
LA
P
A
L
M
I
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
LA
P
A
L
M
I
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
3
2
ACCESS ROAD/ MULTI-RECREATIONAL TRAIL
1
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT *4
EDGE TRAIL/PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT *5
COMMUNITY PARK ACCESS TRAIL *
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAIL *
6
7
PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD
(WEST BOUNDARY SOUTH OF LA MEDIA PARKWAY)13
*THESE TRAILS ARE DESIGNED TO BE ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH"TRAILS HANDBOOK STATE OF CALIFORNIA- CHAPTER 8 ACCESSIBLE TRAIL DESIGN"
EDGE TRAIL/WATER EASEMENT/
(EXISTING PER CV DWG. NO. 14011-05)
3
10
OF
SHEET
City Of Chula Vista, California
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8EAST
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES
PREPARED BY:
TRAILS, WALLS, GRADING & TRAFFIC DETAILS
TE
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
M
A
P
O
T
A
Y
R
A
N
C
H
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
8
E
A
S
T
TENTATIVE MAP CVT-22-0005
CVT-22-0005
Page 1707 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1708 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1709 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1710 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1711 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1712 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
9
10
OF
SHEET
City Of Chula Vista, California
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8EAST
PREPARED BY:
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES
TE
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
M
A
P
O
T
A
Y
R
A
N
C
H
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
8
E
A
S
T
TENTATIVE MAP CVT-22-0005
CVT-22-0005
“”
“”
–
–
–
’”’’”’
’”
’”
’”’”
’”’”’”’”’”
’”
’”’”’”’”
’”’”’”’”’”
’”
“”
“”
“
”
“”
“”
’
“
“”
“”
EXISTING BOUNDARY, EASEMENTS & ENCUMBRANCES
Page 1713 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
EXISTING BOUNDARY, EASEMENTS & ENCUMBRANCES
10
10
OF
SHEET
City Of Chula Vista, California
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8EAST
PREPARED BY:
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES
TE
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
M
A
P
O
T
A
Y
R
A
N
C
H
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
8
E
A
S
T
TENTATIVE MAP CVT-22-0005
CVT-22-0005
Page 1714 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-1-
COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITIES AGREEMENT
[OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST]
This COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITIES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made as
of _______________, 2024 (“Effective Date”), by and between HOMEFED OTAY LAND II,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“HomeFed”), FLAT ROCK LAND COMPANY,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Flat Rock”), and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a
California municipal corporation and charter city (“City”).
RECITALS
A. HomeFed owns certain real property generally known as Otay Ranch Village 8 East
(the “Project”) and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto.
B. Flat Rock owns certain real property generally known as Otay Ranch Planning Area
20 (“PA 20”) and depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto.
C. SSBT LCRE V, LLC (“SSBT”) is the prior owner of property generally known as
Otay Ranch Village 8 East.
D. The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (“CVMC”) Section 19.48.025 requires
that all development within the Planned Community (“PC”) Zone provide adequate land
designated as Community Purpose Facility (“CPF”).
E. The City and SSBT entered into a Restated and Amended Land Offer Agreement
dated July 8, 2014 (“Land Offer Agreement”). The Land Offer Agreement provides that the
obligation to provide CPF is deemed satisfied with respect to the Project [Village 8 East] except
that, subject to the approval of the Development Services Director, four (4) acres of CPF uses will
be provided within the Project. SSBT subsequently transferred its interest in the Land Offer
Agreement to HomeFed.
F. Pursuant to CVMC 19.48.040 (B) 6. d, “Recreational facility land uses shall not
utilize more than 35 percent of the overall CPF acreage…” or, as to the Village 8 East CPF
requirement, no more than 1.4 acres.
G. HomeFed proposes to satisfy the Village 8 East CPF requirement by providing a
1.2-acre CPF site in Village 8 East and shall satisfy the remaining Village 8 East CPF requirement
of 2.8 acres within the western portion of PA 20.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises described herein, the Parties agree
as follows:
1. HomeFed shall satisfy a portion of the Villag e 8 East CPF requirement by
designating and constructing a 1.2-acre CPF site in Village 8 East (“CPF-1”). CPF-1 shall be
Page 1715 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-2-
planned as a Private Recreation Facility as defined in CVMC Section 19.48.025(H), identified in
the Village 8 East Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan and Village 8 East Tentative Map (CVT
No. 22-0005) and depicted in Exhibit C attached hereto.
2. HomeFed shall ensure that the CPF-1 Private Recreation Facility is privately owned
and maintained by the Village 8 East Homeowners Association established in connection with
implementation of the SPA.
3. HomeFed shall ensure that the remaining 2.8-acre CPF requirement is transferred
from Village 8 East to the western portion of PA 20, with the intent to provide a CPF site
complementary to the active recreation uses in PA 20.
4. Flat Rock shall designate a 2.8-acre CPF site within PA 20 as part of any PA 20
future discretionary approval sought by Flat Rock. Such CPF site shall be in addition to other land
uses proposed within the western portion of PA 20.
5. Flat Rock shall ensure that the PA 20 CPF site is used in perpetuity for the CPF
purposes permitted by CVMC Section 19.48.025(C), unless an alternative use consistent with the
intent of CVMC 19.48.025(C) and compatible with the PA 20 land uses is approved by the Director
of Development Services.
6. Flat Rock shall, prior to conveyance of the PA 20 CPF site to a third party, record
in the official Records of San Diego County an instrument approved by the Director of
Development Services that restricts the use of the CPF site in perpetuity and shall provide the City
with a conformed copy of such instrument.
7. CVMC Section 19.48.025(B)(3) allows, subject to the discretion of the Director of
Development Services and recommendation from the Planning Commission, an alternative
compliance mechanism to provide CPF, provided such alternative compliance mechanism meets
all of the following requirements:
a) The City Council finds that the alternative compliance mechanism proposed is
equivalent to the provision of the CPF acreage otherwise required by CVMC
19.48.025(B);
b) The proposed alternative compliance mechanism meets the definition of a CPF use
per CVMC Section 19.48.025(C);
c) The proposed alternative compliance mechanism is guaranteed in perpetuity; and
d) At the time of Planning Commission consideration, the Owner has executed a
binding agreement, reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney, which
ensures the availability of the alternative compliance mechanism in perpetuity.
8. If Flat Rock proposes to provide an equivalent of 2.8 acres of CPF land in the western
portion of PA 20 in lieu of providing 2.8 acres of CPF land in PA 20, as permitted in CVMC
Page 1716 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-3-
Section 19.48.025 (C) Alternative Compliance, then Flat Rock shall provide the City with
a CPF Alternative Compliance Financial Analysis consisting of the costs of land, grading,
utilities, infrastructure, building construction and private site improvements, including
landscape, hardscape and parking improvements. Such analysis shall demonstrate
compliance with CVMC Section 19.48.025(B) Alternative Compliance.
9. General Provisions.
(a) Authority of Signatories. The individual signing this Agreement on behalf
of the City warrant that (i) he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver this Agreement on behalf
of the City in accordance with a duly adopted resolution of the City Council of the City and (ii)
this Agreement is binding upon the City in accordance with its terms. The individuals signing this
Agreement on behalf of HomeFed and Flat Rock are duly authorized to sign and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of each party; and this Agreement is binding upon HomeFed and Flat Rock
in accordance with its terms.
(b) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constitute
one instrument.
(c) Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California. The venue for any and all causes of actions or
claims shall be the state or federal courts, as applicable, in San Diego County closest to the City
of Chula Vista, unless the cause of action or claim is filed by the City of Chula Vista or Housing
Authority for the City of Chula Vista, in which case, the City retains its discretion as to venue or
otherwise agreed upon by the City of Chula Vista and/or Housing Authority for the City of Chula
Vista.
(d) Successors. All terms of this Agreement will be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the parties and their respective administrators or executors, successors and assigns.
(e) Modifications. No modification, waiver or discharge of this Agreement will
be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the parties to this Agreement.
(f) Entire Agreement and No Presumption Against the Drafter. This Agreement
contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the transaction contemplated hereby
and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral
or written, are merged herein. Furthermore, for purposes of this Agreement, each Party waives any
rule of construction that requires ambiguities in the Agreement be construed against the drafter.
Both parties reviewed and prepared this Agreement.
(g) Attorney’s Fees and Costs. If either party commences litigation for the
judicial interpretation, reformation, enforcement or rescission hereof, the prevailing party will be
entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney’s fees and court
costs incurred. The “prevailing party” shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially
the relief sought.
Page 1717 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-4-
(h) Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached and are a
part of this Agreement.
(i) Captions. Captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of
reference only and do not define, describe or limit the scope or intent of this Agreement.
(j) No Third Party Beneficiary. No claim as a third-party beneficiary under this
Agreement by any person, corporation or any other entity shall be made or be valid against the
City, HomeFed or Flat Rock.
(k) Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth herein are part of this
Agreement.
(l) Assignment. HomeFed and/or Flat Rock may assign this Agreement in
whole or in part to any fee owner of all or any portion of Village 8 East or PA 20, respectively, so
long as such assignee agrees in writing to assume the obligations of HomeFed and Flat Rock with
respect to the portion of Village 8 East or PA 20 acquired by the assignee.
(m) Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision
of this Agreement shall be render any other provision of this Agreement unenforceable, invalid or
illegal.
(n) Administrative Claims Requirements and 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 CVMC Chapter 1.34, 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 the City,
HomeFed and/or Flat Rock shall meet and confer in good faith with the City for the purpose
resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
[Next page is Signature Page]
Page 1718 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-5-
SIGNATURE PAGE TO THE COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY AGREEMENT [OTAY
RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City, HomeFed and Flat Rock have executed this agreement as of the
date first written above.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political
subdivision of the State of California
By:
John McCann, Mayor
Attested By:
Kerry K. Bigelow, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Jill D. S. Maland, Lounsbery Ferguson Altona
& Peak, LLP, Acting City Attorney
HOMEFED OTAY LAND II, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
By:
Name: Erin N. Ruhe
Title: Chief Operating Officer
FLATROCK LAND COMPANY, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
By:
Name: Erin N. Ruhe
Title: Chief Operating Officer
Page 1719 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-6-
ATTACHMENT A
VILLAGE 8 EAST
Page 1720 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-7-
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING AREA 20 (WEST)
Source: Otay Ranch General Development Plan; Exhibit 79: Planning Area 20 (Otay River Valley) Land Use Map –
Western Portion
Page 1721 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
-8-
ATTACHMENT C
VILLAGE 8 EAST CPF-1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Page 1722 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Attachment 9
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-07
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION
OF A THIRD ADDENDUM TO FEIR 13-01 FOR THE OTAY
RANCH UNIVERSITY VILLAGES (IS22-0003) AND
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA22-0002), THE OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP22-0002), AND THE
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA PLAN AND OTHER ASSOCIATED
REGULATORY DOCUMENTS (SPA22-0006), AND
APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE (ZC22-0003), THE
TENTATIVE MAP FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT
EAST (TM22-0005), AND A COMMUNITY PURPOSE
FACILITY AGREEMENT
WHEREAS the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is, for the purpose of
general description, located south of the eastern extension of Main Street, east of Otay Ranch
Village Eight West, west of State Route 125 (“SR-125”), and north of the Otay River Valley known
as Otay Ranch Village Eight East (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2022, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Development Services Department by HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (“Applicant” or
“Developer”) requesting approval of amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan
(GPA22-0002), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP22-0002), and the Otay Ranch
Village Eight East Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan (SPA22-0006), including the Planned
Community District Regulations, and approval of a Zoning Change (ZC22-0003) from single-
family residential to multifamily residential, allowing for a redistribution of density throughout the
Project Site, and a Tentative Map (TM22-0005), all to reflect a change in zoning from single-
family residential to multifamily residential, allow for a redistribution of density throughout the
Project Site and realignment of internal streets, and accommodate the SR-125 interchange design
(“Project”); and
WHEREAS the Project Site has been the subject of amendments to the City’s General Plan
and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (“GDP”) (approved December 2, 2014, by City
Council Resolution No. 2014-233), the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan and associated
regulatory documents (approved December 2, 2014, by City Council Resolution No. 2014-235 and
amended February 18, 2020, by City Council Resolution No. 2020-036), Tentative Map CVT 13-
03 (approved December 2, 2014, by City Council Resolution No. 2014-238 and amended February
18, 2020, by City Council Resolution No. 2020-037), and the Otay Ranch Village Eight East
Planned Community District Regulations (approved December 16, 2014, by Ordinance No. 2014-
3331); and
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined that the
Page 1723 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024-07
Page 2
Project is adequately covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report
(“FEIR”) for the Otay Ranch University Villages (FEIR 13-01; SCH #2013071077; and adopted
by City Council Resolution No. 2014-232 on December 2, 2014, with an Addendum adopted by
City Council Resolution No. 2016-254 on December 6, 2016; and a Second Addendum adopted
by City Council Resolution No. 2021-120 on June 15, 2021), that only minor technical changes or
additions to the document are necessary to account for the expected Project impacts, and that none
of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation
of a subsequent document exist; therefore, a Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 was prepared for the
proposed Project; and
WHEREAS City Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that it approve and certify the Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01, approve and process
amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, and Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan
relating to the Project, and approve and process a Zoning Change, Community Purpose Facility
Agreement, and Tentative Map (TM22-0005); and
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing
before the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to consider City Staff’s recommendation to
recommend to the City Council that it approve and certify the Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01,
approve and process amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, Otay Ranch Village Eight
East SPA Plan (with associated regulatory documents, including the Planned Community District
Regulations), and approve and process a Zoning Change, Community Purpose Facility Agreement,
and Tentative Map (TM22-0005), and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten (10) days prior to
the hearing; and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for
this matter, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
recommendation to the City Council that it certify the Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 and approve
and process amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, Otay Ranch Village Eight East
SPA Plan (with associated regulatory documents, including the Planned Community District
Regulations), and approve and process a Zoning Change, Community Purpose Facility Agreement,
and Tentative Map on April ___, 2024, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Chula Vista that it hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopt a
Resolution (Attachment 10 to the Staff Report) approving and certifying the Third Addendum to
FEIR 13-01 (Attachment 2 to the Staff Report); and amending the General Plan (Attachment 3 to
the Staff Report), Otay Ranch GDP (Attachment 4 to the Staff Report), and Otay Ranch Village
Eight East SPA Plan (Attachment 5, with associated regulatory documents, to the Staff Report);
approving the Tentative Map (TM22-0005) (Attachment 7 to the Staff Report); approving the
Community Purpose Facility Agreement (Attachment 8 to the Staff Report); adopting an
Ordinance amending the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Planned Community District Regulations
(Attachment 11 to the Staff Report); and adopting a second Ordinance approving the proposed
zone changes within the village (Attachment 12 to the Staff Report).
Page 1724 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No.
Page 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Laura C. Black, AICP for Jill D.S. Maland
Director of Development Services Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
Acting City Attorney
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this ____ day of April 2024, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Michael De La Rosa, Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________
Mariluz Zepeda, Secretary
Page 1725 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Attachment 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING A THIRD ADDENDUM TO FEIR 13-01 FOR THE OTAY
RANCH UNIVERSITY VILLAGES (IS22 -0003) AND APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA22-
0002), THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP22-
0002), THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA PLAN AND OTHER ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS
(SPA22-0006), AND APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE (ZC22-0003), THE
TENATIVE MAP FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST (TM22-0005),
AND THE COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY AGREEMENT FOR THE
PROJECT
WHEREAS the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is, for the purpose of general
description, located south of the eastern extension of Main Street, east of Otay Ranch Village Eight
West, west of State Route 125 (“SR-125”), and north of the Otay River Valley known as Otay Ranch
Village Eight East (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2022, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Development Services Department by HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (“Applicant” or
“Developer”) requesting approval of amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA22-
0002), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP22-0002), and the Otay Ranch Village Eight
East Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan (SPA22-0006), including the Planned Community
District Regulations, to reflect a change in zoning from single-family residential to multifamily
residential, and approving a Zoning Change (ZC22-0003) and a Tentative Map (TM22-0005), all to
allow for a redistribution of density throughout the Project Site and realignment of internal streets,
and accommodate the SR-125 interchange design (“Project”); and
WHEREAS the property has been the subject of amendments to the City’s General Plan and
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (“GDP”) (approved December 2, 2014, by City Council
Resolution No. 2014-233), the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan and associated regulatory
documents (approved December 2, 2014, by City Council Resolution No. 2014-235 and amended
February 18, 2020, by City Council Resolution No. 2020-036), Tentative Map CVT 13-03 (approved
December 2, 2014, by City Council Resolution No. 2014-238 and amended February 18, 2020, by
City Council Resolution No. 2020-037), and the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Planned Community
District Regulations (approved December 16, 2014, by Ordinance No. 2014-3331); and
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined that the
Project is adequately covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”)
and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Otay Ranch
University Villages (FEIR 13-01; SCH #2013071077; and adopted by City Council Resolution No.
2014-232 on December 2, 2014, with an Addendum adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2016-
254 on December 6, 2016 and a Second Addendum adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2021-
Page 1726 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 2 of 26
120 on June 15, 2021), that only minor technical changes or additions to the document are necessary
to account for the expected Project impacts, and that none of the conditions described in Section
15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document exist; therefore,
a Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 was prepared for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS City Staff recommended that the City Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve and certify the Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01, and approve and adopt actions
to amend the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA22-0002), the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP22-0002), and the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan
(SPA22-0006), including the Planned Community District Regulations, to reflect a change in zoning
from single-family residential to multifamily residential, and to approve a Zoning Change, a
Tentative Map (TM22-0005), and a Community Purpose Facility Agreement for the Project; and
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing before
the Planning Commission, 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 ten (10) days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for the
Project, the hearing on the Project was held at the time and place as advertised in the City Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and the Planning Commission voted _______ to recommend to the
City Council ________ of the subject amendments; and
WHEREAS the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
the public hearing on the Project held on April 10, 2024, and the Minutes and Resolution resulting
therefrom are incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
WHEREAS City Staff and the City Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve and certify the Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01, approve and adopt actions to amend the
City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA22-0002), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP22-0002), and the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan
(SPA22-0006), including related regulatory documents, and approve a Tentative Map (TM22-0005)
and a Community Purpose Facility Agreement for the Project; and
WHEREAS the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing before the City Council 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 ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for the
Project, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council
in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, to hear public testimony with regard to the same,
and the proceedings and any documents submitted to the City Council as the decision-makers shall
comprise the entire record of the proceedings,
Page 1727 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 3 of 26
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
after hearing public testimony and staff’s presentation and after reviewing all of the subject
documents, does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
I. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines the City Council finds the proposed
modifications to the Otay Ranch University Villages FEIR (13-01) will result in only minor
technical changes and additions which are necessary to make the document adequate under
CEQA. The City Council, in the exercise of its independent review and judgment, therefore
certifies the Third Addendum to FEIR-13-01 as represented in Exhibit 2 to the Staff Report,
which is incorporated herein by this reference and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
II. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan, as amended, is internally
consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments thereof by this
Resolution as discussed and determined in the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Chula Vista
General Plan Amendment Justification Report for the Project.
III. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the General Plan amendments, specifically eliminating the
Medium Residential land use designation within Otay Ranch Village Eight East and
implementing Mixed Use Residential within the Village Core of Otay Ranch Village Eight
East and High and Medium High Residential surrounding the Village Core, as well as other
modifications to land use and village circulation, are hereby approved and adopted in
substantially the form presented in Exhibit 3 attached to the Staff Report and incorporated
herein and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
IV. OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Otay Ranch GDP, as amended, is
internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendment thereof by
this Resolution as discussed and determined in the Otay Ranch Village Eight East General
Development Plan Amendment Report for the Project.
V. ADOPTION OF OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the Otay Ranch GDP amendments are hereby approved and
adopted in the form as presented in Exhibit 4 attached to the Staff Report and incorporated
herein by this reference and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
VI. SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA FINDINGS AND RELATED ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS
Page 1728 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 4 of 26
A. The proposed SPA Plan amendments are hereby approved and adopted in substantially
the form presented in the amended Otay Ranch Village Eight East Sectional Planning
Area Plan attached as Exhibit 5 to the Staff Report and incorporated herein and on file in
the office of the City Clerk. Such SPA Plan amendments are in conformity with the Otay
Ranch GDP, as amended, any adopted specific plans, and the Chula Vista General Plan,
as amended, and its several elements as discussed and determined in the amended Otay
Ranch Village Eight East Sectional Planning Area Plan for the Project.
The proposed amendments to the Village Eight East SPA Plan reflect land use
designations, circulation, and public facilities that are consistent with the Otay Ranch
GDP and the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The proposed amendments are compatible
with previously approved plans and regulations applicable to surrounding sites; thus, the
proposed amendments can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial
compatibility with surrounding development.
B. The proposed SPA Plan amendments would promote the orderly and sequential
development of Otay Ranch Village Eight East.
The proposed Project will be developed in a manner that is consistent with its Planned
Community District Regulations, Conceptual Phasing Plan, and Public Facilities
Financing Plan. Development of the SPA will be completed in phases to ensure
construction of necessary infrastructure and amenities for each phase as the Project
progresses.
The Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan’s Supplemental Public Facilities Finance
Plan (“Supplemental PFFP”) approved and adopted for this Project establishes a
circulation phasing plan that identifies the timing of specific improvements necessary to
serve the Project. The Conceptual Phasing Plan is non-sequential because the SPA Plan
and Supplemental PFFP permit non-sequential phasing by imposing specific facilities
requirements for each phase to ensure the SPA is adequately served and City requirements
are met. Public parks and schools shall be phased as needed. The Conceptual Phasing
Plan is consistent with the Supplemental PFFP, and the proposed phasing and actual
construction timing of the SPA may be modified subject to compliance with provisions
of the Supplemental PFFP.
C. The proposed amendments would not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential
enjoyment, circulation, or environmental quality.
The proposed modifications to land use and development standards within the Project
Site have been fully analyzed and will not adversely affect the circulation system and
overall land uses as previously envisioned in the Otay Ranch GDP and Otay Ranch
Village Eight East SPA Plan. The planned infrastructure (sewer, water, public services
and facilities) has been deemed adequate to serve the proposed Project, as described in
the Supplemental PFFP. Additionally, a Water Quality/Hydrology Report, Trip
Generation Analysis / Comprehensive Project Information Form, Noise Assessment, Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gas Evaluation, Sewer Service Technical Study, Health Risk
Page 1729 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 5 of 26
Screening Letter, Biological Review, Archeological and Paleontological Memorandum,
Drainage Study, Geotechnical Analysis, and Water Service Technical Study have all been
prepared, reviewed, and approved by City staff. A Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 has
been prepared to analyze the Project’s impacts. No additional or more severe
environmental impacts were identified in the Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01.
VII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS AND APPROVAL
A. Tentative Subdivision Map (TM22-0005) for the Project is approved and adopted, subject
to the conditions stated herein. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map (TM22-
0005), as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the elements of the City’s General
Plan, based on the following:
1. Land Use and Circulation
The proposed Project is in a community that provides a variety of residential,
commercial, parks, open space, and school uses, as well as public and private
improvements to serve the community. The proposed Project is consistent with the
policies and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP, and
the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan related to land use and circulation.
2. Economic Development
Otay Ranch Village Eight East is designed to help achieve the General Plan’s
objectives that seek to promote a variety of job and housing opportunities to improve
the City’s jobs/housing balance, provide a diverse economic base, and encourage the
growth of small businesses. The proposed Project is consistent with those objectives.
3. Public Facilities and Services
Schools
In accordance with the Project’s Supplemental PFFP and the conditions of approval
of the original Tentative Map, an elementary school site of approximately 10.8 acres
is required to be offered for acquisition by the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Sewer
Sewer capacity needs are conditioned under this Resolution.
Parks
Parks, recreation, and open space obligations are conditioned under this Resolution
and other regulatory documents for this Project. Construction of park, recreation and
open space identified in this Resolution are the responsibility of the Applicant.
4. Housing
Otay Ranch Village Eight East remains consistent with the Housing Element of the
City’s General Plan by providing for high-quality multifamily residential
opportunities in the southeastern portion of the City.
Page 1730 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 6 of 26
5. Environmental
FEIR-13-01 addressed the goals and policies of the Environmental Element of the
General Plan and found development of this site to be consistent with those goals and
policies. The proposed Project is a minor amendment to the Tentative Map and does
not propose material changes to the approved Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA
Plan. Accordingly, The City Council, in the exercise of its independent review and
judgment, certifies the Third Addendum to FEIR-13-01 as represented in Exhibit 2 to
the Staff Report, which is incorporated herein by this reference and on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
configuration, orientation, and topography of the site allows for the optimum siting of lots
for natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities. Development of the Project Site
will be subject to site plan and architectural review to ensure the maximum utilization of
natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and
has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and
the available fiscal and environmental resources.
D. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 (a-g) of the Subdivision Map Act, the
proposed Project meets the following requirements:
1. The proposed Project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
specified in Section 65451 because the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan is
consistent with the General Plan’s land use designations for Otay Ranch.
2. Project design or improvement is consistent with applicable general and specific plans
because the proposed Project’s design is consistent with the General Plan, the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, and the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan
land use designations and intended circulation for Otay Ranch.
3. The Project Site is suitable for the proposed density of development. The proposed
Project does not contain an increase or reduction in the overall 3,276 residential
dwelling units previously approved in the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan.
4. The Project Site is physically suitable for the type of development. The proposed
Project is surrounded by existing and entitled (future) planned community
developments with available access and infrastructure to serve the proposed Project.
5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitats. The proposed Project has been designed to minimize
Page 1731 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 7 of 26
landform disturbance with cut and fill slopes balance on a disturbed site that avoids
permanent disturbance or injury to wildlife or their habitats.
6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems because the proposed Project has been designed to have
suitable separation between structures and parcels and is able to be served by fire and
emergency services.
7. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property, within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if
it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these
will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a
legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed Project’s
roadways and utilities are within and are not in conflict with existing easements.
E. The Project Site is physically suited for development and will be developed in
conformance with the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan and FEIR-13-01 and its
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) and Addendums, which
ensure that the Project Site is developed in a manner consistent with the standards
established by the City for a master-planned community.
F. The conditions herein imposed on the proposed Project are approximately proportional
both in nature and extent to the impacts created by the Project, based upon the City’s
police powers and evidence provided by the record of the proceedings of the Third
Addendum to FEIR-13-01.
VIII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Map
1. Unless otherwise specified herein or required by law, the conditions and Code
requirements set forth below shall be completed prior to recordation of any related
Final Map or other trigger as determined by the Director of Development Services
and the City Engineer, or their designees. Unless otherwise specified, “dedicate”
means granting the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is
required, the Applicant shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien
and easement holders to ensure that the City has a first-priority interest and rights in
such land except CALTRANS or City of San Diego waterlines, or as otherwise
waived by the City Manager or his/her designee otherwise waived by the City
Manager or his/her designee. Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said
Page 1732 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 8 of 26
fee title shall be free and clear of all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the
City.
2. Should conflicting wording or standards, or questions about interpretation or
implementation, occur between these conditions of approval for this Project, or with
respect to TM No. CVT-13-03, any conflict shall be resolved by the City Manager, or
their designee.
3. The Applicant, or his/her successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with
the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, TM22-0005, generally
located south of Main Street, east of Otay Ranch Village Eight West, west of State
Route-125 (“SR-125”), and north of the Otay River Valley.
4. The Project shall comply with General Plan Amendment No. GPA22-0002 and GDP
Amendment No. GDP22-0002, approved _________, SPA Plan Amendment No.
SPA22-0006, approved ________, and all supporting documents including but not
limited to the Public Facilities Finance Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and
Trails Plan; Affordable Housing Program; Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan;
and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Section 5: Standard Conditions of Approval
(“STMC”) and Otay Ranch STMCs 53 and 55, incorporated herein, or as excepted or
modified below.
5. The following clarifications to City STMCs and Otay Ranch STMCs shall apply:
a. City STMC 2 shall be amended to exclude the reference to the City’s Gro wth
Management Ordinance.
b. Otay Ranch STMCs 54 and 58 are not applicable.
c. Otay Ranch STMC 59 shall be replaced with Conditions of Approval 21, 22, 23,
and 24.
6. The Applicant shall timely and fully implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services and the City Engineer, or their designees, the associated
Mitigation Measures and associated MMRP identified in FEIR-13-01 and EIR
Addendum IS22-0003 for Amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan (GPA22-
0002), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP22-0002), the Otay Ranch
Village Eight East Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA22-0006), and Tentative Map
(TM22-0005) for the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Project, consistent with the
MMRP.
7. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&R”) for each Homeowners
Association (“HOA”) within the Project shall contain a provision that provides all
new residents with an overflight notification disclosure document (“Airport
Overflight Agreement”) that discloses the following information during any real
Page 1733 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 9 of 26
estate transaction or prior to lease signing as required by the Brown Field Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”):
a. NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the
vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that
reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences
associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or
odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to
person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated
with the property before you complete your purchase or lease and determine
whether they are acceptable to you.
b. A copy of the Airport Overflight Agreement shall be recorded with the County
of San Diego County Recorder’s Office prior to approval of the first Final Map.
Each prospective homeowner shall sign the disclosure document confirming they
have been informed of the vicinity of the airport prior to the purchase of a home.
8. The Applicant shall submit CC&Rs for review and written approval by the City prior
to the first Final Map of the Project. In addition to the requirements of STMC 34, said
CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Indemnification of City for private sewer spillage.
b. Indemnification of City-General.
c. List of facilities to be maintained privately.
d. The City’s right, but not obligation, to enforce the CC&Rs.
e. Provision that no private facilities shall be requested to become public unless all
homeowners and 100 percent of the first mortgage obliges have signed a written
petition.
f. The CC&Rs shall include provisions assuring the timely and proper maintenance
of all open space lots, slopes, walls, fences, private streets, private driveways,
paths, recreational amenities and structures, private sewerage facilities, private
drainage facilities, landscaping, and onsite improvements of neighborhoods
parks.
g. Implement education and enforcement program to prevent the discharge of
pollutants from all on-site sources to the storm water conveyance system.
h. Said CC&Rs, which must be approved in writing by the City, shall be consistent
with Chula Vista Municipal Code (“CVMC”) 18.44 and shall be recorded
concurrently with the first Final Map.
Page 1734 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 10 of 26
9. During any real estate transaction, or prior to lease-signing of any property within the
Otay Ranch Village Eight East Project, the prospective owners or residents shall be
notified of the following information in a disclosure document and in the CC&Rs for
each HOA within the Village:
a. NOTICE OF FUTURE EXPANSION OF STATE ROUTE 125: Be advised that
Caltrans has a long-term plan (per SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan) for
the widening of SR-125 to improve traffic flows. This property may be subject
to some of the annoyances related to the construction and operation of the road.
b. Prior to approval of the first Final Map of the Project, the CC&Rs, including this
disclosure, shall be recorded against the property. Each prospective homeowner
shall sign the disclosure document confirming they have been informed of the
vicinity of Brownfield Municipal Airport prior to the purchase of a home.
10. The Applicant shall obtain approval of a subsequent Final Map showing
condominium ownership prior to development of condominiums within any Planning
Area proposing mixed for-sale residential/commercial or for-sale multifamily
residential uses.
11. The Applicant shall timely, fully, and properly construct public facilities in
compliance with the Otay Ranch Village Eight East Supplemental PFFP for this
Project (as may be amended from time to time). At the Applicant’s request, the City
Engineer and the Director of Development Services, or their designees, may, at their
sole discretion, modify the sequence, schedule, alignment, and design of improvement
construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
12. City STMC 17 shall be replaced with Condition 12.b. below. With each Final Map of
the Project, the Applicant shall dedicate as fee interest for public use all public streets
shown within the boundary of the Final Map as shown on the Tentative Map. The
Applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure all street
and intersection improvements as necessary to mitigate the impacts of the Project.
The Applicant shall construct the public improvements and provide security
satisfactory to the Director of Development Services, City Engineer, and City
Attorney, or their designees.
a. The Applicant shall secure and agree to construct all backbone roadway
improvements shown on the approved Tentative Map prior to approval of each
applicable Final Map of the Project, satisfactory to the City Engineer and City
Attorney. The amount of the security for required improvements shall be 100
percent times a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if
improvement plans have been approved by the City, 150 percent times the
approved cost estimate if improvement plans are being processed by the City, or
200 percent times the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer
if improvement plans have not been submitted for City review. A lesser
percentage may be required if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City
Page 1735 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 11 of 26
Engineer that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such
reduction.
b. The Applicant shall secure and agree to construct all local bus stop shelters within
the Project Site per the current Otay Ranch Metropolitan Transit System
(“MTS”) local transit map effective at the time of construction adjacent to bus
stop shelters. The bus shelters shall be constructed in conjunction with the
vertical construction adjacent to the public street improvements. Bus stop shelters
shall include the concrete bus pad/boarding area, a shelter, bench, and other
improvements consistent with MTS requirements as determined by the City
Engineer, or their designee.
c. The Applicant shall fully design traffic signals in conjunction with the
improvement plans for the public streets listed below. The Applicant shall install
underground improvements, standards, and luminaries in conjunction with the
construction of the applicable street improvements. In addition, the Applicant
shall install mast arm, signal heads, and associated equipment when traffic
signals are warranted, as determined by the City Engineer, or their designee.
PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF
EACH MAP FOR PHASE INTERSECTIONS
1
• Main Street and La Palmita Drive
• Main Street and Magdalena Avenue
• La Media Parkway and Delgado
Drive
2
• Savoria Parkway and Via Palmero
• Main Street and Via Palmero
• La Media Parkway and Via
Palmero
d. Prior to issuance of a construction permit and concurrent with the submittal of
associated improvement plans, the Applicant shall submit striping plans for all
collector or higher classification streets for approval from the City Engineer.
e. The Applicant shall agree to install temporary street name signs prior to the
issuance of the first building permit for the applicable lot or parcel. The Applicant
shall agree to install permanent street name signs prior to final inspections for the
applicable lot(s).
13. In accordance with STMC 40, the Applicant shall notify the City at least 60 days prior
to consideration of the first Final Map of the Project if any off-site right-of-way or
any interest in real property needed to construct or install offsite improvements cannot
be obtained as required by these conditions of approval. After said notification, the
Applicant shall comply with the requirements set forth in Subdivision Manual
Condition 40.
Page 1736 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 12 of 26
14. Prior to approval of the first Final Map authorizing dwelling units within any Village
Core parcel, the Applicant shall submit and obtain approval by the City of a Village
Core Master Precise Plan.
15. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a Planned Sign
Program, which shall include all signs proposed within the public right-of-way. The
Applicant shall obtain approval of the Planned Sign Program and a Master
Encroachment Permit prior to construction of signage within the public right-of-way
or a public easement in the Project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Director of Development Services, or their designees.
16. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a multifamily lot that does not require the
filing of a “B” Map, the Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of
approval of the Tentative Map, as determined by the City Engineer.
Public Facilities:
17. The Final Map containing parcels adjacent to SR-125 shall include Parcels CT-1, CT-
2, and CT-3, which are necessary for the SR-125 interchange at Main Street and at La
Media Parkway, as shown on the Tentative Map. Said legal lots shall be deeded to
CALTRANS pursuant to CALTRANS requirements and specifications consistent
with the final adopted SR-125 interchange design.
18. Prior to approval of the first Final Map containing parcels CT-1, CT-2, and CT-3 as
shown on the Tentative Map, which are adjacent to SR-125 and/or the storm water
quality basin and maintenance access road, the Applicant shall obtain approval of an
encroachment permit from CALTRANS to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services and City Engineer.
19. Prior to approval of the first Final Map containing the storm water quality basin and
its appurtenances and maintenance/emergency vehicle access road adjacent to and
within the SR-125 right-of-way, the Applicant shall obtain from CALTRANS a
maintenance/emergency vehicle and community park trail easement, an
encroachment permit, or other form acceptable to the City of Chula Vista for the
benefit of the City of Chula Vista and to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services and the City Engineer.
20. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall fund the processing of a
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Ordinance (which will include Otay
Ranch Village Eight East and designate Otay Ranch Village Nine as a future
annexable area). The fee calculation shall include the cost of designing and
constructing the multi-modal bridge, which may include but is not limited to an
encroachment permit (if required), conceptual plans, environmental review,
construction documents (which include grading, paving, walls (if any), landscape and
lighting, approach ramps, and abutments), and all other items necessary for the
complete construction of the multi-modal bridge. Village Eight East shall be
Page 1737 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 13 of 26
responsible for funding 50 percent of the total multi-modal bridge cost, as required in
the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. Alternatively,
if the multi-modal bridge is included in an alternative City of Chula Vista
Transportation Fee Program, this condition shall not be applicable.
21. The multi-modal bridge facility shall be designed in the location shown on the
Tentative Map, with a deck width of 17 feet (15-foot total travel lane width) to
accommodate safe two-way passage of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (“NEV”),
bicycles, and pedestrian users, consistent with the Tentative Map and City of Chula
Vista and CALTRANS standards and to the satisfaction of the Directors of
Development Services and Public Works, or their designees.
22. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,948th dwelling unit, the City and the
Applicant shall meet to discuss the timing of construction of the multi-modal bridge
between Otay Ranch Village Eight East and Otay Ranch Village Nine. A number of
factors, including the progress of the Main Street/La Media Parkway interchange
approvals for SR-125, phasing and construction, development of Otay Ranch Village
Nine (including a developed landing location east of SR-125), and changes to the
assumed land uses may affect the timing and location of the facility.
23. The Applicant shall be eligible for fee credits or reimbursement in excess of 50
percent of the total cost of the facility, provided that the facility is incorporated into a
future City Development Impact Fee (“DIF”) or other Transportation Fee Program,
should the Applicant construct the facility.
24. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, or their designee, that the Otay
Ranch Village Eight East school site has been determined by the Chula Vista
Elementary School District (“CVESD”) to be suitable for school use.
25. City STMC 17 shall be replaced with the following Condition. Prior to approval of
the first applicable Final Map of the Project, the Applicant shall construct and secure,
or agree to construct and secure, the transit stop facilities shown on the current Otay
Ranch MTS local transit map and within the Project Site effective at the time of
construction adjacent to bus stop shelters. . The schedule for constructing the transit
stops shall be approved or determined by the City Engineer, or their designee, prior
to the issuance of the construction permit for related vertical construction adjacent to
the public street improvements. The Applicant shall design said transit stops
consistent with MTS requirements, subject to the approval of the City Engineer in
conjunction with the improvement plans for the related public street(s).
26. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Applicant shall provide
all of the following:
a. Evidence satisfactory to the Director of Development Services, or their designee,
that the Applicant has entered into a binding and properly executed agreement
Page 1738 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 14 of 26
with the City of San Diego to construct the new City of San Diego waterlines at
a location that has been approved by the City of Chula Vista (“Waterline
Agreement”), as depicted on the Tentative Map (TM22-0005), to replace the
existing City of San Diego waterlines located within the Project Site. The
pipeline relocation work contemplated by said Waterline Agreement shall be
secured with the City of Chula Vista listed as a third-party beneficiary of the
bonds.
b. Evidence that the City of San Diego has abandoned or has agreed to abandon any
water main easements not needed as a consequence of the relocation of its
waterlines within the Project Site and has entered into a Joint Use Agreement for
the new location of its water lines within the City of Chula Vista right-of-way of
future La Media Parkway.
c. Grading and improvement plans for review, including security for completion of
said work (or proof of security to which the City of Chula Vista has a right), for
the construction of new City of San Diego waterlines in accordance with the
provisions of the Waterline Agreement. The improvement plans shall depict the
closure or abandonment of the existing water lines in accordance with standard
engineering practices.
d. An agreement with the City of Chula Vista to obtain City approval of a SPA
amendment and/or any other documentation, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services, or their designee, if the relocation of the City of San
Diego waterline is not completed in accordance with the Waterline Agreement.
e. An agreement with the City of Chula Vista to fully and timely reimburse, defend
(with counsel approved by the City in writing), indemnify, and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees from and against any and
all claims, causes of action, demands, suits, actions, or proceedings, judicial or
administrative, for writs, orders, injunction, or other relief, damages, liability,
cost, and expense (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees) arising from,
connected with, or incidental to the construction of the new City of San Diego
waterlines and the closure and abandonment of the old waterlines, or from any
and all City action, conduct, or matter related thereto.
If the above requirements are not completed prior to issuance of a rough grading
plan for the Project, Applicant shall provide the City with a letter of permission
from the City of San Diego for any grading or improvements within the existing
City of San Diego waterline easement.
27. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Applicant shall provide the
City with a Village Eight East Subarea Master Plan (“SAMP”) for potable water,
recycled water, and fire flow as approved by the Otay Water District (“OWD”). The
Applicant shall agree to participate in the pro rata share of the cost of facilities to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, or their designee.
Page 1739 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 15 of 26
Affordable Housing:
28. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Applicant shall enter into
a Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement in compliance with
applicable City and State of California regulations. This agreement shall identify
potential affordable housing sites, schedules, and the following building permit
threshold requirements described in the Affordable Housing Program: (i) Prior to the
City’s issuance of the 1,966th building permit within Village Eight East, the Applicant
shall commence construction of the Initial Phase of the low- and moderate-income
housing units, and (ii) prior to the City’s issuance of the 3,276th building permit, the
Applicant shall commence construction of the Final Phase of the required low- and
moderate-income housing units. “Initial Phase” shall mean 60 percent of the total
number of qualified low- and moderate-income housing units, unless otherwise
modified by the Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement.
Grading/Improvements:
29. The Applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to beginning any earthwork
activities at the site and before issuance of building permits in accordance with CVMC
15.04. The Applicant shall submit grading plans in conformance with the City’s
Subdivision Manual and the City’s Development Storm Water Manual requirements.
30. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall ensure that all
earthwork shall balance to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and the City Engineer, or their designees.
31. City STMC 18 shall be replaced with the following Condition. Grading plans that
include freestanding walls or sound walls more than six (6) feet in height adjacent to
slopes 2:1 or greater shall include a minimum two-foot-wide level bench for
landscaping and maintenance access adjacent to the wall unless otherwise shown on
the approved Tentative Map.
32. Prior to issuance of any construction permit for a public street located adjacent to a
downslope, the Applicant shall obtain the City Engineer’s approval of a study to
determine the necessity of providing guard rail improvements at these locations. The
Applicant shall construct and secure any required guard rail improvements in
conjunction with the associated construction permit as determined by and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, or their designee. The guard rail shall be installed
per the CALTRANS Traffic Manual and Roadside Design Guide requirements and
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”)
standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or their designee.
33. The Applicant shall ensure that all private lot drainage and slopes comply with the
current Building Code or geotechnical recommendations as approved by the Building
Official.
Page 1740 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 16 of 26
34. Prior to issuance of any grading permit and/or construction permit that includes any
off-site work, the Applicant shall provide the City with notarized letters of permission
for all off-site work (including slopes, roads, utilities, etc.) to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services, or their designee. If the letter of permission for
off-site work is unavailable at the time of permit issuance, then the off-site area(s) can
be excluded from the plans until the letter of permission for off-site work is provided
to the City.
35. Prior to issuance of each grading or construction permit, the Applicant shall provide
approval for all proposed work or installation of facilities within external entities’
easements or rights-of-way.
36. Prior to approval of any Final Map or Grading Plan, the Engineer of Work shall submit
a waiver request for all subdivision design items not specifically waived on the
Tentative Map or specifically addressed in the Village Eight East SPA Plan and not
conforming to adopted City standards. The request shall outline the requested
subdivision design deviations from adopted City standards and state that in his/her
professional opinion, no safety issues will arise as a result of such deviations. The
waiver request is subject to approval by the City Engineer at the City Engineer’s sole
discretion, or their designee.
37. Prior to approval of any construction permit, the Applicant shall ensure that all
emergency access roads are designed with a Traffic Index of 5 and constructed with
concrete or other material approved by the City Engineer, or their designee.
38. The Applicant shall agree to remain in compliance with the City’s Storm Water
Manual, or as modified under Alternative Compliance, as determined by the Director
of Development Services and the City Engineer, or their designees.
39. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement
shall be required to perpetually maintain all permanent Best Management Practices
(“BMP”) located within the Project Site. All proposed BMPs for the Project shall be
privately funded, owned, and maintained by the Applicant or its successor/assigns and
at no cost to the City. The timing of the Stormwater Maintenance Agreement approval
shall be at the discretion of the Director of Development Services, or their designee.
40. Prior to approval of any grading permit, the permanent storm water BMP design(s)
must be approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and the
City Engineer, or their designees. The permanent storm water BMPs presented in
Tentative Map TM22-0005 may have additional requirements including but not
limited to quantity, size, type, and location of said BMPs.
41. The Applicant shall submit a construction change to address any modifications to
signage and striping plans on the public streets surrounding the S-1 School Site
Page 1741 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 17 of 26
necessary to address the final school site design, if as built plans have not been
approved by the City.
42. Prior to the first Final B Map for VC-2, VC-3A, and VC-3B, the Applicant shall
provide for reciprocal private access between VC-3A and VC-2 or VC-3B to Savoria
Parkway to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, or their
designee.
Parks:
43. Applicant shall timely and fully pay any parks-related fees, or construct and/or
dedicate any parkland or park facilities as discussed and required under the
Supplemental PFFP for the Project, Mitigation Measures PUB-8 through PUB-13
contained in the MMRP for FEIR-13-01 (adopted in 2014), the General Plan
Amendment Justification Report and Sectional Planning Area Plan for the Project, as
well as under any future Parks Agreement for the Project. If Applicant fails to timely
and fully meet its parks-related obligations for the Project, then the City may, in
addition to other applicable remedies, take the actions and pursue the remedies stated
in Section IX.5 of this Resolution below.
44. On the Final Map containing the Neighborhood Park (P-1) site, the Applicant shall
grant to the City a public access easement over the park site, in satisfaction of a portion
of the Village Eight East parkland obligation (approximately 6.5 net useable acres, or
4.6 net useable acres if the Tentative Alternative is optioned by the CVESD).
45. The Applicant shall grant an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (“IOD”) to the City on
the Final Map containing the Community Park (P-2) site, in satisfaction of the
remaining Village Eight East parkland obligation, subject to review and approval by
the Director of Development Services or their designee.
46. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall enter into a Parks
Agreement with the City for the purpose of addressing Parkland Acquisition and
Development (“PAD”) obligations, including but not limited to parkland acreage, its
distribution, park construction budgets, and construction timing.
47. The Park Master Plans for P-1 shall comply with the provisions of the City of Chula
Vista’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as amended by the Village Eight East SPA
Plan, and Landscape Manual as adopted and as may be amended from time to time,
and as it affects facility and other related requirements for the Neighborhood Park (P-
1) parks. PAD improvement fee credit for parks facilities designed within the
Neighborhood Park (P-1) shall be as stated in the Project’s Parks Agreement.
48. The Applicant shall rough grade, provide all-weather access to, and install all
underground utilities to the property line of the Neighborhood Park (P-1) to the
satisfaction of the Directors of Development Services, Engineering, Community
Services, Public Works, and the Fire Marshall, or their respective designees,
Page 1742 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 18 of 26
concurrent with the installation of Project backbone streets for any portion of the
Project adjacent to the Neighborhood Park (P-1) site or upon request of the Director
of Development Services or their designee, whichever occurs earlier.
49. At the time that the City of Chula Vista initiates construction of the Community park
(P-2), the Applicant shall rough grade, provide all-weather access to, and install
underground utilities to the property line of the Community Park (P-2). The Applicant
shall construct an underground recycled water line as depicted on the Village Eight
East Tentative Map within the Community Park Trail to the eastern property line of
the Community Park (P-2). The Applicant shall construct an underground potable
water line within the existing Avenida Caprise right-of-way from the point of
connection in Village Eight West to the western property line of the Community Park
(P-2). All required improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the Direct ors of
Development Services, Community Services, Engineering, Public Works, and the
Fire Marshall, or their respective designees, or upon request of the Director of
Development Services.
Trails:
50. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall obtain approval of and
record an easement for public trail purposes for the segment of the Chula Vista
Greenbelt Trail within the boundaries of Village Eight East on any portion of the Salt
Creek Sewer Easement owned by the Applicant, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services or their designee.
51. Prior to approval of the building permit for the 2,500th dwelling unit, the Applicant
shall submit a Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail Improvement Plan for the segment of the
Greenbelt Trail within the Village Eight East Tentative Map boundary to the City of
Chula Vista for review and approval. The Trail Improvement Plan shall include
fencing and signage consistent with the Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan. The
Applicant shall construct the Greenbelt Trail as directed by the Director of
Development Services or their designee.
52. The Applicant shall construct the Regional Trail improvements along the east side of
existing Avenida Caprise from the Project Site boundary to the Community Park (P-
2) as depicted in the Village Eight East SPA Plan and Tentative Map. The Applicant
shall construct trail improvements concurrent with City of Chula Vista construction
of the Community Park (P-2), as determined by the Director of Development Services
or their designee.
Landscaping/Walls/Fences:
53. Footings and geosynthetic reinforcement grid for retaining walls shall not encroach
into adjacent public rights-of-way, subject to approval of the Director of Development
Services or their designee.
Page 1743 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 19 of 26
54. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall provide bonds for
Landscape and Irrigation (“L&I”) Improvement Plans related to erosion control,
backbone and neighborhood streets, trail improvements, and trail signage. The
amount of the security for any required improvements not constructed at the time of
the Final Map shall be based on a construction cost estimate approved by the Director
of Development Services or their designee as follows: 1) 100 percent times the
approved estimate if improvement plans have been approved by the City; 2) 150
percent times the approved estimate if the improvement plans are being processed by
the City; and 3) 200 percent times the approved estimate if improvement plans have
not yet been submitted for City review.
55. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape
Master Plan for the entire Project Site in accordance with the Landscape and
Subdivision Manual. The Landscape Master Plan shall include, but is not limited to,
a comprehensive community and village entry monumentation signage plan, a
hardscape concept and trail plan, a conceptual wall and fence plan, a master irrigation
plan, a master planting plan, a brush management plan, a utility coordination plan,
and a maintenance responsibility plan.
56. Prior to the issuance of each grading permit for the Project, the Applicant shall
prepare, submit, and secure, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services or their designee, all landscape and irrigation slope erosion control plans. All
plans shall be prepared in accordance with the current Chula Vista Landscape Manual
and Grading Ordinance, as may be amended from time to time.
57. The Applicant shall submit a detailed wall/fencing plan with the Administrative
Design Review submittal for each planning area showing that all project walls and
fences comply with the approved SPA Plan Village Design Plan, Landscape Master
Plan, and other applicable City of Chula Vista requirements. Plans shall indicate color,
materials, height, and location of freestanding walls, retaining walls, and fences. The
plan shall also include details such as accurate dimensions, complete cross-sections
showing required walls, adjacent grading, landscaping, and sidewalk improvements.
Open Space/Assessment:
58. City STMC 33 shall be replaced with the following Condition. Prior to approval of
the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit evidence acceptable to the City
Engineer and Director of Development Services of the formation of a Master
Homeowners Association (“MHOA”) or another financial mechanism acceptable to
the City Manager. The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of future
Tentative Map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Development
Services require such annexation. The MHOA formation documents shall be subject
to the approval of the City Attorney.
a. The Applicant shall submit the CC&Rs and grant of easements and maintenance
standards and responsibility of the MHOA for the Open Space Areas within the
Page 1744 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 20 of 26
Project Site. The Applicant shall acknowledge that the MHOA’s maintenance of
public open space, trails, etc. may expose the City to liability. The Applicant
agrees to establish an MHOA that will indemnify and hold the City harmless
from any actions of the MHOA in the maintenance of such areas.
b. The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a list of all facilities and other
items to be maintained by the proposed district or MHOA, to be reviewed by the
City Engineer and the Director of Development Services, or their designee.
Separate lists shall be submitted for the improvements and facilities to be
maintained by the Open Space District or some other financing mechanism and
those to be maintained by the MHOA. The lists shall include a description,
quantity, and cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of said improvements.
These lists shall include but are not limited to the following facilities and
improvements:
i. All facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to walls,
fences, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage structures,
and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the
number of acres of turf, irrigated, and non-irrigated open space to aid in
estimation of a maintenance budget thereof.
ii. The proportional share of the maintenance costs of any medians and
parkways along the applicable roadways as identified in the Supplemental
PFFP adjoining the development as determined by the City Engineer.
iii. All water quality basins serving the Project.
59. City STMC 36 shall be replaced with the following Condition. If the Applicant fails
to comply with Condition No. 58, the Applicant shall agree not to protest formation
of or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone for the maintenance of landscape
medians, pedestrian bridges, and scenic corridors along streets within or adjacent to
the subject subdivision.
60. Prior to issuance of the first building permit within a parcel containing perimeter open
space slopes to be maintained by the MHOA or a Sub-Association, the Applicant shall
record an open space easement over the applicable slope(s).
61. Otay Ranch STMC 56 shall be replaced with the following Condition. Prior to the
approval of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall annex the Project area into Otay
Ranch Preserve Community Facilities District No. 97-2, Improvement Area "C".
62. Otay Ranch STMC 57 shall be replaced with the following Condition. Prior to
recordation of each Final Map, the Applicant shall convey fee title to land within the
Otay Ranch Preserve to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner Manager or its designee at a
ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of development area, as defined in the Otay Ranch
Resource Management Plan. Access to the property for maintenance purposes shall
Page 1745 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 21 of 26
also be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, or their
designee.
63. Prior to issuance of the first building permit or other discretionary permits for mixed-
use, multifamily, or non-residential developments within the Project Site, the
Applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of CVMC 8.24, concerning solid
waste and litter, and CVMC 8.25, concerning recycling, related to development
projects, to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Environmental
Services Division. These requirements include but are not limited to the following
design requirements:
a. The Applicant shall design mixed-use, multifamily, and commercial
development projects to comply with the Recycling and Solid Waste Standards
for central collection bin services or as otherwise determined during the
Administrative Design Review process defined in the Village Eight East SPA
Plan.
64. The Applicant is advised that there may be additional requirements set at the time the
Project’s development takes place, depending upon final plans submitted for grading,
improvements, and/or building permits. These conditions of approval are based solely
on the materials that were submitted for City review.
Fire:
65. The Project design shall be in accordance with California Title 24 (Building
Standards) and City of Chula Vista Fire Ordinances.
Environmental/University Site Mitigation:
66. Applicant shall be responsible for securing mitigation sufficient to satisfy all
applicable permitting requirements for impacts to aquatic resources (which include
related habitat types and resources within the Otay River Valley) in connection with
the future development of the University Sectional Planning Area (“University
Project”) from US Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board
and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (hereafter collectively, “Resource
Agency” or “Resource Agencies”). Applicant shall diligently pursue Resource
Agency approvals and permits for the Otay River Restoration Project Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (“HMMP”), and mitigation bank associated therewith
(“Otay River Valley Mitigation Bank”), as the primary means of securing aquatic
habitat(s) mitigation for the University Project.
In the event, for whatever reason, the Otay River Valley Mitigation Bank is not
approved by Resource Agencies either at all or with sufficient credits or acreage, in
the City’s reasonable determination, available to mitigate the reasonably anticipated
aquatic habitat resource impacts of the University Project by December 31, 2024, with
an option of up to two, six-month extensions at the discretion of the City Manager
Page 1746 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 22 of 26
(which discretion will consider and factor in the Applicant’s good faith efforts and
actions to diligently obtain the Resource Agencies’ approval of the Otay River Valley
Mitigation Bank), consistent with the requirements stated in Section 7 of the May 17,
2016, Agreement Regarding Otay River Valley Restoration entered into between the
City and Applicant, the Applicant shall promptly implement the following actions to
the City’s reasonable satisfaction:
a. Engage with applicable Resource Agencies and propose mitigation for the
University Project which the Applicant and City believe, after good faith
consultation, will be acceptable to the Resource Agencies. First priority for
such University Project mitigation credits or acreage shall be land located
within the Otay River Valley; or
b. If such proposed mitigation credits or land is not available or acceptable to
the Resource Agencies in the Otay River Valley, then Applicant shall
propose to secure University Project mitigation credits or acreage from an
approved mitigation bank acceptable to the Resource Agencies; and
c. In the event the Resource Agencies indicate that such University Project
mitigation credits or land would be acceptable under either scenario (1) or
(2) above, Applicant shall post a cash bond or letter of credit of appropriate
type and amount with the City sufficient, in the City’s reasonable discretion,
to secure such mitigation credits or land not later than thirty (30) days
following written notice from the City. Such bond or letter of credit shall be
in an amount sufficient to ensure acquisition of land and implementation of
all restoration work or activities required by the Resource Agencies to
mitigate for applicable anticipated aquatic resource impacts from the
University Project (if a mitigation site is proposed within the Otay River
Valley), or be in an amount sufficient to ensure acquisition of existing
required mitigation land or credits (if a mitigation site is proposed outside
of the Otay River Valley). City shall promptly release the cash bond or letter
of credit upon either Applicant’s delivery to the City of fully restored land
or acreage required by the Resource Agencies to mitigate for applicable
anticipated aquatic resource impacts from the University Project (if a
mitigation site is proposed within the Otay River Valley), or acquisition of
existing mitigation credits or land sufficient to mitigate applicable aquatic
resource impacts from for the University Project (if a mitigation site is
proposed outside of the Otay River Valley). Applicant and City
acknowledge that such early consultation with Resource Agencies is not
binding upon the Resource Agencies, and only after applications have been
submitted and accepted by the Resource Agencies will they make a formal
determination on the acceptability of mitigation credits or land for the
University Project.
Federal Aviation Administration:
Page 1747 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 23 of 26
67. All future Design Review applications for Otay Ranch Village Eight East must
include evidence of submission to the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) for
verification that the Design Review project’s planned structure location(s) and
height(s) do not interfere with the FAA’s Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range Station and Tactical Air Navigation System (VORTAC) signal and equipment.
IX. CITY IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT OF PROJECT CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL AND CVMC, AND DEFENSE OF PROJECT APPROVALS.
The following ongoing conditions shall apply to the Project Site for as long as it relies upon
this approval:
1. Approval of the Project shall not waive compliance with any provisions of the CVMC
nor any other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of permit issuance.
2. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to fully and completely
reimburse, indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel approved by the City in writing)
and hold harmless the City, its City Council members, Planning Commission
members, officers, employees, and representatives, at its sole cost and with separate
and independent counsel identified by the City, from and against any and all liabilities,
judgment, losses, damages, demands, claims, and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees (collectively, liabilities), (including any costs and expenses to prepare
the administrative record for any challenge to the Project Entitlements and/or
compiling a response to a California Public Records Act request(s) to provide the
record of proceedings materials for the Project Entitlements), incurred by the City
arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) the City’s approval of the Project, (b) the City’s
actions on any environmental document concerning this Project, and (c) the City’s
approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use(s) contemplated on the Project Site. The
Property Owner and Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision
by executing a copy of this Resolution where indicated below. The Property Owner’s
and Applicant’s compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the
Property Owner’s and Applicant’s successors and assigns.
3. All terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns, and representatives of the Applicant as
to any or all of the property.
4. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula
Vista General Plan, the CVMC, the Chula Vista Landscape Manual, the Chula Vista
Subdivision Manual, the Chula Vista Design and Construction Standards, the Chula
Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Otay
Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan and relevant Precise Plan(s), the relevant
Supplemental PFFP and Air Quality Improvement Plan, the Chula Vista Development
Storm Water Manual, the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Water
Conservation Ordinance, and applicable Chula Vista City Council policies, all as
amended from time to time, unless specifically modified by the Director of
Page 1748 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 24 of 26
Development Services, except as otherwise provided by the Amended and Restated
Pre-Annexation Development Agreement, as subsequently amended, applicable to the
Project site.
5. If any of the terms, covenants, or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur timely,
or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of
such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms,
the City shall have the right, in its sole discretion and notwithstanding any other
provisions or holding of the law, to immediately stop or cease the inspection or
issuance of any form or type of permits or certificates of occupancy relating to the
Project; to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, including issuance of
building permits; to deny or further condition the subsequent approvals that are
derived from the approvals herein granted; to institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions; and/or to seek damages for their
violation. The Applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to any of the above
actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any
deficiencies identified by the City.
6. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Otay Ranch Village
Eight East SPA Plan and Planned Community District Regulations, as may be
amended from time to time, except as otherwise provided by the Amended and
Restated Pre-Annexation Development Agreement, as subsequently amended,
applicable to the Project site.
X. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
90-day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other
exaction described in this Resolution begins on the effective date of this Resolution and any
such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section 66020(a).
Failure to timely follow this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, set
aside, void, or annul imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or
other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application
processing fees or service fees in connection with the Project, and it does not apply to any
fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions that have been given notice similar to this,
nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously
expired.
XI. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided
below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read, understood, and
agreed to the conditions contained herein and will implement same. Upon execution, this
document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole
expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the
City Clerk. Failure to return the signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within
Page 1749 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 25 of 26
10 days of recordation shall indicate the Property Owner/Applicant’s desire that the Project
and subsequent permit applications be held in abeyance without approval.
________________________________ _______________
Erin Ruhe, Chief Operating Officer Date
HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC
XII. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY SUBDIVISION MANUAL
The City Council does hereby find that the Project is in conformance with the City of Chula
Vista’s Subdivision Manual, CVMC 18.12, and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
XIII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that any one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this Resolution shall be deemed
to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Laura C. Black, AICP Jill D. S. Maland
Director of Development Services Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
Acting City Attorney
Page 1750 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Resolution No. 2024- Page 26 of 26
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of May, 2024, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________
John McCann, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. ______ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista at a regular meeting of the City held on the _____ day of May 2024.
Executed this _____ day of May 2024.
Page 1751 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Attachment 11
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY
RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS
WHEREAS the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is, for the purpose of general
description, located south of the eastern extension of Main Street, east of Otay Ranch Village Eight
West, west of State Route 125 (“SR-125”), and north of the Otay River Valley, known as Otay Ranch
Village Eight East (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2022, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Development Services Department by HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (“Applicant” or
“Developer”) requesting approval of amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA22-
0002), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP22-0002), and the Otay Ranch Village Eight
East Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan (SPA22-0006), including the Planned Community
District Regulations, and approval of a Zone Change (ZC22-0003) and a Tentative Map (TM22-
0005), all to reflect a change in zoning from single-family residential to multifamily residential, allow
for a redistribution of density throughout the Project Site and realignment of internal streets, and
accommodate the SR-125 interchange design (“Project”); and
WHEREAS the Project is intended to ensure that the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA
Plan is prepared in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan to implement the
City of Chula Vista General Plan for eastern Chula Vista to promote the orderly planning and long-
term phased development of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and to establish conditions
that will enable the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA to exist in harmony within the community;
and
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined that the
Project is adequately covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”)
for the Otay Ranch University Villages (FEIR 13-01; SCH #2013071077; and adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 2014-232 on December 2, 2014, with an Addendum adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 2016-254 on December 6, 2016; and a Second Addendum adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 2021-120 on June 15, 2021), that only minor technical changes or additions to the
document are necessary to account for the expected Project impacts, and that none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent
document exist; therefore, a Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 was prepared for the proposed Project;
and
WHEREAS City Staff recommended that the City Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve and adopt the amendments to the Planned Community District Regulations for
the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA; and
Page 1752 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Ordinance No. 2024- Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing before
the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista on the Project, including as to the amendments
to the Planned Community District Regulations for the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA, on April
___, 2024, 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 ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for the
Project, the hearing on the Project was held at the time and place as advertised in the City Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and the Planning Commission voted _______ to recommend to the
City Council ________ of the subject amendments; and
WHEREAS City Staff and the City Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve and adopt the amendments to the Planned Community District Regulations for the Otay
Ranch Village Eight East SPA; and
WHEREAS the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing before the City Council on
the Project, including the amendments to the Planned Community District Regulations for the Otay
Ranch Village Eight East SPA 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 ten (10) days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for the
Project, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council to consider the Project,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby order
and ordain as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at its April
___, 2024, public hearing on the Project 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.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
Immediately prior to this action, the City Council reviewed, considered, and certified the
Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 regarding the Project.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The City Council hereby finds that the amendments to the Planned Community District
Regulations for the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA are consistent with the City’s General Plan
Page 1753 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Ordinance No. 2024- Page 3 of 6
and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (“GDP”), both as amended. The zoning changes, in
conjunction with the approved amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan and
Planned Community District Regulations, implement the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP by
providing a comprehensive program to implement the Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment
and Tentative Map. The plans provide design incorporating a mixture of land uses connected by a
walkable system of public streets and pedestrian paths, parks and plazas, retail opportunities, and
commercial activities designed to promote a safe pedestrian environment.
IV. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving the amended Otay Ranch Village
Eight East Planned Community District Regulations on file at the office of the City Clerk, finding
that they are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan, and all other applicable plans as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 2024-
_______ adopting the Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan amendments and that the public
necessity, convenience, and general welfare, as well as good planning and zoning practice support
their approval and implementation.
V. 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.
VI. CONSTRUCTION
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinanc e to supplement, not to
duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law, and this Ordinance shall be construed in
light of that intent.
VII. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
VIII. 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.
Page 1754 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Ordinance No. 2024- Page 4 of 6
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Laura C. Black, AICP Jill D.S. Maland
Director of Development Services Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
Acting City Attorney
Exhibits:
1. Otay Ranch Village Eight East Planned Community District Regulations
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of April, 2024, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________
John McCann, Mayor
ATTEST:
Page 1755 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Ordinance No. 2024- Page 5 of 6
_______________________
Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. ______ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista at a regular meeting of the City held on the _____ day of April 2024.
Executed this _____ day of April 2024.
Page 1756 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Ordinance No. 2024- Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT 1
Otay Ranch Village Eight East Planned Community District
Regulations
Page 1757 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Attachment 12
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE (ZC22-0003) FOR THE
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT EAST SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA
WHEREAS the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is, for the purpose of general
description, located south of the eastern extension of Main Street, east of Otay Ranch Village Eight
West, west of State Route 125 (“SR-125”), and north of the Otay River Valley known as Otay Ranch
Village Eight East (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2022, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Development Services Department by HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC (“Applicant” or
“Developer”) requesting approval of amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA22-
0002), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP22-0002), and the Otay Ranch Village Eight
East Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan (SPA22-0006), including the Planned Community
District Regulations, and approval of a Zoning Change (ZC22-0003) and a Tentative Map (TM22-
0005), all to reflect a change in zoning from single-family residential to multifamily residential, allow
for a redistribution of density throughout the Project Site and realignment of internal streets, and
accommodate the SR-125 interchange design (“Project”); and
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined that the
Project is adequately covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”)
for the Otay Ranch University Villages (FEIR 13-01; SCH #2013071077; and adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 2014-232 on December 2, 2014, with an Addendum adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 2016-254 on December 6, 2016; and a Second Addendum adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 2021-120 on June 15, 2021), that only minor technical changes or additions to the
document are necessary to account for the expected Project impacts, and that none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent
document exist; therefore, a Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 was prepared for the proposed Project;
and
WHEREAS City Staff recommended that the City Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve and adopt the Zoning Change from single-family residential to multifamily
residential, allowing for a redistribution of density throughout the Project Site; and
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing before
the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista on the Project, including as to a Zoning Change
from single-family residential to multifamily residential, allowing for a redistribution of density
throughout the Project Site, on March 27, 2024, 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 ten (10) days
prior to the hearing; and
Page 1758 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Ordinance No. 2024- Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for the
Project, the hearing on the Project was held at the time and place as advertised in the City Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and the Planning Commission voted _______ to recommend to the
City Council ________ of the subject zoning change; and
WHEREAS City Staff and the City Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve and adopt the Zoning Change from single-family residential to multifamily residential,
allowing for a redistribution of density throughout the Project Site; and
WHEREAS the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, including a
Zoning Change from single-family residential to multifamily residential, allowing for a
redistribution of density throughout the Project Site, 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 ten (10) days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for the
Project, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to
consider the Project, including a Zoning Change from single-family residential to multifamily
residential, allowing for a redistribution of density throughout the Project Site.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby order
and ordain as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their April
_____, 2024, public hearing on the Project, 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.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
Immediately prior to this action, the City Council reviewed, considered, approved and
certified the Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01 regarding the Project.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed zoning changes are consistent with the
City’s General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (“GDP”), both as amended. The
zoning changes, in conjunction with the approved amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Eight East
SPA Plan and Planned Community District Regulations, implement the General Plan and the Otay
Ranch GDP by providing a comprehensive program to implement the Sectional Planning Area Plan
Amendment and Tentative Map. The plans provide design incorporating a mixture of land uses
connected by a walkable system of public streets and pedestrian paths, parks and plazas, retail
Page 1759 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Ordinance No. 2024- Page 3 of 4
opportunities, and commercial activities designed to promote a safe pedestrian environment. The
Village Eight East SPA Plan, including the number of residential units, park and plaza acreages, and
commercial mixed-use area, is consistent with the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP, as
amended.
IV. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving the Zoning Change for the Otay
Ranch Village Eight East SPA as reflected in the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, and Otay Ranch
Village Eight East SPA Plan and Planned Community District Regulations, as amended to allow
change from single-family residential to multifamily residential uses, allowing for a redistribution
of density throughout the Project Site (copies of which are on file in the City Clerk’s office). The
City Council also finds the zoning change consistent with the California Government Code, adopted
City policies, the General Plan, and the Otay Ranch GDP, as amended.
V. 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 i ts
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.
VI. 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.
VII. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
VIII. 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.
Page 1760 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Ordinance No. 2024- Page 4 of 4
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Laura C. Black, AICP Jill D.S. Maland
Director of Development Services Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
Acting City Attorney
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of April, 2024, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________
John McCann, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. ______ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista at a regular meeting of the City held on the _____ day of April 2024.
Executed this _____ day of April 2024.
Page 1761 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1762 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Page 1763 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Otay Ranch Village Eight East
Amendments
Planning Commission
Item 5.1
April 10, 2024
Page 1764 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
2PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT SITE
Village 8
East
Village 8
WestVillage 4Village 3
Village 2
Village 1
Village 1
West
Sunbow II
Village 6
Village 7
Eastern Urban
Center (Millenia)
Village 11
University
Village 9 Village 10
Planning Area 20
Page 1765 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
SPA PLAN TIMELINE
December 2014:Otay Ranch Village Eight
East SPA Plan and Tentative Map
adopted
February 2020:Amendment transferring
284 multifamily units
from Village Eight East to
Village Eight West
November 2022:Current application
deemed complete
3Page 1766 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Proposed Zoning District Map 4Page 1767 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PROPOSED TENTATIVE MAP 5Page 1768 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
LAND USE COMPARISON 6Page 1769 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 7
•Rezone existing single-family residential use(s)to
multi-family
•Realignment of internal street network:
SR-125 interchange design
Multi-modal bridge to
Village Nine
•Density calculations: total
dwelling units per parcel
or project area
Page 1770 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 8
•Use CA Building and Fire Codes to
determine building separations
•Use Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) to determine parking
•Allow parking and common open
space to be combined and
implemented as joint-use facilities
Page 1771 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 9
•Unit Tracking Table
Determines final unit
count for parcels
Managed by Master Developer and CV Staff
Required for Design Review submittal
•Authorizes Zoning Administrator to review and
approve projects requiring Design Review
and minor administrative modifications
Page 1772 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITIES 10
Community Purpose Facility (“CPF”) Agreement
•Authorizes transfer of 2.8 acres of the 4.0-acre
Village Eight East CPF obligation from
Village Eight East to Otay Ranch Planning Area 20
Page 1773 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Council Policy No. 400-02
October 12, 2023 -Community Meeting held at Cota
Vera Welcome Center (Village Eight West)
Questions/Concerns
•Timing of SR-125 interchange
•Reasoning behind proposed
changes to housing types
•Plans for affordable housing
•Transit and parking
•Proposed trail connection(s) between Village Eight
West and Village Eight East
11PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Page 1774 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01
Identifies circumstances within the
proposed project not analyzed
in FEIR 13-01:
•Proposed project maintains no. of residential units
(3,276)
•Residential Land Use Change:
Decreases anticipated household size
Lowers impacts to schools, traffic, other public
facilities
Decreases daily external traffic trips by approx.
4,000
•No new significant environmental impacts
12ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Page 1775 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council:
1.Pass a resolution approving Third Addendum to FEIR 13-01,
and amendments to the General Plan, GDP, CPF Agreement,
proposed Tentative Map, and Village Eight East SPA Plan;
2.Place an Ordinance on first reading to modify the
development regulations for Village Eight East;
3.Place an Ordinance on first reading to change the zoning
from single-family residential to multifamily residential.
Page 1776 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda
Request for Excused Absence Form – 6/19
REQUEST FOR EXCUSED ABSENCE
City of Chula Vista Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Name: _________________________________________________ Date of Absence: _________________________________
Board/Commission/Committee: _________________________________________________________________________________
Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.25.110 (C) allows board/commission/committee members, by a
majority vote, to excuse a fellow board, commission, or committee member’s absence from a meeting for any
of the reasons listed below. A member who is absent from three consecutive, regular meetings will be
deemed to have vacated his or her membership, unless the member’s absence is excused by a
majority vote of the other members. An absence is only recorded as “excused” upon receipt of a member’s
request and majority vote of the board/commission/committee to excuse the absence. Accordingly, if you
have been absent from a regular meeting, please complete and submit this form to the chair or secretary.
Please indicate the reason for the absence:
1. Illness of the member, family member of the member, or personal friend of the member;
2. Business commitment of the member that interferes with the attendance of the member at a meeting;
3. Previously scheduled vacation of the member, notice of which was provided to the respective board
or commission in advance of the meeting;
4. Attendance of the member at a funeral, religious service or ceremony, wedding, or other similarly
significant event;
5. Unexpected, emergency situation that prohibits the member’s attendance; or
6. Other reason for which the member has given notice to the secretary of his or her unavailability at
least seven days in advance of the meeting.
OR
The absence was not for any of the above-listed reasons. I understand that the absence will be recorded
as unexcused.
I certify the reason for the absence indicated above is true and correct.
Member’s Signature: __________________________________________________________ Date: _____________________________
If completed by secretary or staff to board/commission/committee:
Completed on member’s behalf by: _____________________________, per member’s Verbal Written request
on: _________________.
(date)
(secretary/liaison’s name) 3/27/24
03/27/24
Planning Commission
Mariluz Zepeda
Krista Burroughs
4
4
Page 1777 of 1777
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 10, 2024 Agenda