The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1997/06/03 II decl- 11ftdel' pentllty of perJury thøt I am employed by the ('Aty of Chule Vista in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted Tuesday, June 3, 1997 this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. the Public Services Building a~Ci~ Hall on Public Services Building DATED, 5'~" M1 SIGNED U~.. Regular Meeting of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Moot -' Padilla -' Rindone -' Salas -' and Mayor Horton -' 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Proclaiming the week of June 1 through June 7, 1997 as "Management Week." The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to Kathy Baker, President of the Rohr Chula Vista Chapter of the National Management Association. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 through 8) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on 5/27/97 in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. 6. RESOLUTION 18684 AMENDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA EMERGENCY PLAN - Chapter 2.14 (Emergency Organization Department) of the Municipal Code provides for: the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an emergency; the direction of the emergency organization; and the coordination of the emergency functions of this City with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations, and affected private persons. The Chula Vista Emergency Plan, originally adopted in June of 1992, has been amended in conjunction with the San Diego County Office of Disaster Preparedness. The Plan continues as the basis for conducting emergency operations in the greater Chula Vista area, and incorporates the Standardized Emergency Management System concepts designed to be used in any type of emergency situation. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Fire Chief) Agenda -2- June 3, 1997 7.A. RESOLUTION 18679 MAKING FINDINGS ON THE PETITION FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 97-2 - Village Development has formally petitioned the City to use assessment district financing for certain public improvement to be located in Village One of the Otay Ranch. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 5/27/97. B. RESOLUTION 18680 MAKING APPOINTMENTS IN THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 97-2 AND APPROVING THE FORM OF THE ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT THEREFOR C. RESOLUTION 18681 ADOPTING A MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF THE OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE ONE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 97-2 D. RESOLUTION 18682 DECLARING INTENTION TO ORDER THE ACQUISITION OF CERT AIN IMPROVEMENTS IN A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DECLARING THE WORK TO BE DONE TO BE OF MORE THAN LOCAL OR ORDINARY BENEFIT; DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY THE COST AND EXPENSES THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE OT A YRANCH VILLAGE ONE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 97-2 8. REPORT APPLICATION OF THE CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM FOR CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY - CALIFORNIA LIBRARY SERVICES ACT FAMILIES FOR LITERACY GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 - The Public Library has applied to the California State Library for $23,000 in Families for Literacv funding for fiscal year f997/98 to continue special family literacy services and programming. The Chula Vista Literacy Team has offered family literacy programming for the past six years. The Family Reading Program was developed to break the inter-generational cycle of illiteracy by providing training for volunteer tutors whose learners are parents of young children, special library progranuning for those learners and their families, and a home collection of quality children's books and magazines for each participating family. Staff recommends Council accept the report and ratify the application. (Library Director) * * * END DF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to adtlress the City Council on any subject matter within the Council'sjurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to adtlress the Council on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Agenda -3- June 3, 1997 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak FornI" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 9.A. PUBLIC HEARING PCM 97-20: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 1,110 ACRES SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO AND THE FUTURE SR-125 ALIGNMENT - McMillin has submitted an amendment and tentative map for the portion of SPA One owned by WCLF to subdivide 290 acres creating 1,877 residential units in Villages One and Five. The SPA Amendment proposes deleting Pedestrian Park P-5 and Santa Delphina Avenue as a promendate street in Neighborhood R-11 of Village One. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Planning) RESOLUTION 18685 ADOPTING THE THIRD ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH SECTION PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT PCM 97-20 TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON- RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT B. PUBLIC HEARING PCS 97-02: CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 290 ACRES OF THE OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT 97-02, GENERALLY LOCATED OFF THE SOUTHERN EXTENSION OF OT A Y LAKES ROAD SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD RESOLUTION 18686 ADOPTING THE THIRD ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEIR 95-01 (SCH #95021012) AND APPROVING A TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PORTIONS OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT 97-02, AND MAKING NECESSARY FINDINGS BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one of the City's Boards, Commissions, and/or Committees. None submitted. . '~-'--'--~',-,-, . Agenda -4- June 3, 1997 ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 10. REPORT PROPOSITION 218 IMPACTS ON OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FORMATION - At the 11/5/96 general election, Proposition 218 tbe "Rigbt To Vote on Taxes Act," was passed by a majority of voters. This proposition impacts the formation of Open Space Districts by the "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act." This report discusses the impacts and alternatives available to the City based on a study conducted by Berryman & Henigar, a consultant with expertise in this area. Staff recommends Council accept the report and adopt the policy. (Director of Public Works) ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. OTHER BUSINESS 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS) a. Scheduling of meetings. 12. MAYOR'S REPORT IS) 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Salas a. Consideration to oppose lifting of ban on triple trailer vehicles. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Special Meeting/Worksession on Wednesday, June 4, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room and thence to the regular City Council meeting on June 10, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council meeting. "I declare wnder penalty of perjury thet I am employed by the City of Chura Vista in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at . Tuesday, June 3, 1997 the publi~~es Building and at City Hall on Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. DATED.3jÍ',:?c, 7 SIGNED 'êY/~ -" Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council'M ng) Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are pennitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of.fi!1f1J action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of.fi!1f1J action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9 8 Bryant v. City of Chula Vista, et al. 8 Jones Intercable v. City of Chula Vista. 8 Griffin v. City of Chula Vista. 8 Wolfe v. City of Chula Vista. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 8 Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA. IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Associatioo of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION May 9, 1997 MEMO TO: Carla Griffin, City Clerk's office FROM: Patricia salvacion;'jMaYOr/councii office SUBJECT: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - JUNE 3, 1997 Please docket the following proclamation for the Council meeting of June 3, @ 4 p.m. PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 7, 1997 AS MANAGEMENT WEEK Kathy Baker, President of the Rohr Chula Vista Chapter of National Management Association will be accepting the award. Thank you. ¥a--j ~~~ ::-.-.c; ~-- OlY OF CHUlA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY A TIORNEY Date: May 29, 1997 To: The Honorable May~r and City counc~/~ From: Jo"n M. K."eny, CÜy Auorne~ Re: Report Regarding Actions Tak in Closed Session for the Meeting of 5/27/97 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss Jones Intercable v. City of Chula vista. The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. JMK: 19k C:\lt\clossess.no ~-/ 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612 tI".""....-.... -------------.-- - --. --------------~----------¡--- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: 6103/97 ITEM TITLE: Re'O'utlO~ ~~8"i:~glhe City of Ch,'e VI,.. Eme'g- Pia". SUBMITTED BY: Fire Chief \1'{ . '. /jL REVIEWED BY: City Manage¿j(1 \~(\~ ...-7 (4/5ths Vote: Yes _NolL) Chapter 2.14 (Emergency Organization Department) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code provides for: the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within the city in the event of an emergency; the direction of the emergency organization; and the coordination of the emergency functions of this city with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations, and affected private persons. The Chula Vista Emergency Plan, originally adopted in June of 1992, has been amended in conjunction with the San Diego County Office of Disaster Preparedness. The Plan continues as the basis for conducting emergency operations in the greater Chula Vista area, and incorporates the Standardized Emergency Management System concepts designed to be used in any type of emergency situation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the amendments to the Chula Vista Emergency Plan. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None DISCUSSION: Due to the fact that the Emergency Plan is quite voluminous, a single copy is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. The following discussion will briefly review the San Diego County Emergency Services Organization, and outline the amended Plan's development process, the intended use of the Plan, and the Plan's organization. Following adoption of the Plan, copies will be made and distributed appropriately. Unified San Dieao County Emergency Services Oraanization The Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization consists of the County and the cities within the Operational Area. It was established in 1961 by signed agreement. The Agreement basically provides for "preparing mutual plans for the preservation of life and property and making provision 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". It also calls upon the County to make available such services as health, medical, traffic control, public information, and radiological safety, in addition to services provided by the Office of the County Medical Examiner. The Unified Disaster Council is the policy making body of the Organization and the Office of Disaster Preparedness (ODP) serves as staff to the Council and its members. ODP maintains a list of pre- registered volunteers affiliated with volunteer organizations who have been signed up as Disaster Service Workers. (;-1 Meeting Date: 6/03/97 Page: 2 Development of the Amended Chula Vista Emeraencv Plan It is the responsibility of government to undertake an on-going comprehensive approach to emergency management, in order to mitigate the effects of hazardous events. Local government has the primary responsibility for preparedness and response activities. In 1991, the City completed its most comprehensive emergency planning document to date which was compiled largely by the newly created Disaster Preparedness division of the Fire Department. The Council formally adopted the Plan on June 16, 1992. The document was very thorough and subsequently was used as the model for plans for many other agencies in San Diego county. \/\/hen an emergency exceeds the local government's capability to respond, assistance is requested from other local jurisdictions, and State and Federal governments. In any case, the responsibility for, and command of, the incident remains with the local jurisdiction. In an effort to standardize emergency management to facilitate coordination and efficiency for those incidents which require a multi-jurisdictional approach to either the response or recovery efforts, the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) was developed pursuant to state legislation chaptered in 1992, amending the Government Code. All jurisdictions within San Diego county (known as the San Diego Operational Area) operate under SEMS. By maintaining a uniform management system, vital information can be processed from any level of responsibility within the state of California to any other level. The only change from one level to the next is the scope of responsibility. By law, state agencies must use SEMS when responding to emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions or multiple agencies. Local governments are strongly encouraged to use SEMS, and must use it in order to be eligible for state funding of response-related personnel costs. Under SEMS, Special Districts are considered local governments. As such, they are included in the emergency planning efforts throughout the Operational Area. Although the language is now standardized, most area agencies (including Chula Vista) have used this same SEMS-style system for years, known as the Incident Command System (ICS). The only "significant" changes to the existing Chula Vista Emergency Plan are those incorporating reference to and description of the new Standardized Emergency Management System. Germane to the Chula Vista Emergency Plan are a number of annexes which list responsibilities of various agencies in a number of different areas (Fire and Police Mutual Aid Operations, Public Health Operations, Care and Shelter Operations, etc.) Understanding that today's disaster preparedness efforts are less focused on civil defense measures, and that a number of "clean-up. changes needed to be made to the annexes, the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization took the lead for the county agencies and re-drafted the annexes. Representing Chula Vista, the Fire Chief was a member of this Plan Review Committee which focused its revision effort on three main points: 1.) Streamline and clarify existing content; eliminate redundancy and duplication wherever possible; 2.) Consolidate annexes where natural associations exist. Ex: the former annex dealing with Search and Rescue was consolidated within Annex B: Fire and Rescue Operations; and a former annex which dealt with Evacuation is now consolidated within Annex 'C': Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Operations; and, t1-.2 Meeting Date: 6/03/97 Page: 3 3.) IncorDorate SEMS principles and references where applicable. In all, the volume of annex material was reduced by over 300 pages. These annexes, as adopted by the County, are included in their entirety in this updated Chula Vista Emergency Plan. Use of the Plan The Plan is intended to be used as a Dre,paredness document, and as such should be read and understood by all potentially affected personnel prior to any emergency. The Chula Vista Emergency Plan, as amended, describes a comprehensive emergency management system which provides for a planned response to disaster situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear-related incidents. It delineates 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 outside support which might be provided (through mutual aid and specific statutory authorities) by other local jurisdictions, state and federal agencies, and the private sector. The objectives of the Plan are to: 1. Provide a system for the effective management of emergency situations. 2. Identify lines of authority and relationships, and assure the continuity of government. 3. Assign tasks and responsibilities. 4. Ensure adequate protection, maintenance, and use of City facilities, services, and resources. 5. Provide a framework for adequate resources for recovery operations. Plan Oraanization The Chula Vista Emergency Plan is organized into three major components, which include the Basic Plan, the Functional Annexes, and the Action Checklists for Chula Vista Emergency Operations Center personnel. The sub-sections of the amended Basic Plan and the Annexes, as they appear in the Table of Contents, are listed below: BASIC PLAN I. OVERVIEW, PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND PLAN ORGANIZATION A. Overview B. Purpose ¿--:3 C. Objectives D. Plan Organization Meeting Date: 6/03/97 Page: 4 II. AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES III. SITUATION AND PREPAREDNESS A. Description of Jurisdiction B. Hazard Identification C. Preparedness Elements D. Hazard Mitigation IV. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS A. Organizational Concepts/Standardized Emergency Management System B. State Emergency Levels V. LOCAL AND OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION A. Governmental Structure B. Citr. of Chula Vista bLocal) Emergency Management Organization/Plan Activation C. Unified San Diego ounty Emergency Services Organization VI. EMERGENCY FUNCTIONS, STAFFING AND TASKS A. Emergency Management B. Fire and Rescue ~erations C. Law Enforcement utual Aid Operations D. Multi-Casualty Operations E. Public Health Operations F. Medical Examiner Operations G. Care and Shelter O~erations H. Environmental Hea th I. Communications J. Construction and Engineering Operations K. Logistics L. Emergency Public Information M. Mental Health Operations N. Dama~e Assessment and Recovery O. Anima Control VII. CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT A. Director of Emergency Services/Alternates B. Seat of Government C. Preservation of Records VIII. TRAINING, TESTS, AND EXERCISES IX. GLOSSARY AND DEFINITIONS ATTACHMENTS A. Specific Hazards B Hazard Mit~ation C. Continuity Government D. Mutual Aid E. Functional Responsibilities of State Agencies, Federal Agencies F. Emergency Operations Center &-f Meeting Date: 6/03/97 Page: 5 ANNEXES A. Emergency Management B. Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid °d:erations C. Law Enforcement Mutual Aid perations D. Multi-Casualty Plan E. Public Health Operations F. Medical Examiner Operations G. Care and Shelter O~erations H. Environmental Hea th Operations I. Communications J. Construction and Engineering Operations K. Logistics L. Emergency Public Information M. Mental Health Operations N. Dama~e Assessment and Recovery O. Anima Control In addition, there are four stand-alone emergency plans developed at the Operational Area level that are referred to in some of the above annexes. These plans are: 1) San Diego County Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Plan; 2) San Diego County Operational Area Oil Spill Contingency Element of the Area Hazardous Materials Plan; 3) San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Water Contingencies Plan; and 4) Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Energy Shortage Response Plan. ACTION CHECKLISTS The Emergency Action Checklists were developed as a tool to be used in the first stages of the activation of the Emergency Operations Center in response to an emergency. A staff member either newly assigned or previously assigned to an EOC position could use the applicable checklist as a ready-reference guide to the position responsibilities, its chain of command, and the tasks, in order of precedence, which need to be completed, regardless of the specific nature of the emergency. A sample checklist is attached for reference. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City by the adoption of this plan, although the City is required by the state to have an emergency plan in effect which incorporates SEMS principles in order to remain eligible for disaster program funding and disaster-related reimbursements. The necessary funds for its final printing and distribution have been budgeted in the Fire Department budget for the current fiscal year. Attachments: Sample Action Checklist ¿-~ RESOLUTION NO. / ~& <;r1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA EMERGENCY PLAN WHEREAS, Chapter 2.14 (Emergency Organization Department) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code provides for: the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within the city in the event of an emergency; the direction of the emergency organization; and the coordination of the emergency functions of this city with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations and affected private persons; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Emergency Plan, originally adopted in June of 1992 by Resolution No. 16659, has been amended in conjunction with the San Diego County Office of Disaster Preparedness as the basis for conducting emergency operations in the greater Chula vista area, and incorporates the Standardized Emergency Management System concepts designed to be used in any type of emergency situation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the City of Chula Vista Emergency Plan, on file in the office of the City Clerk. Presented by Approved as to form by James B. Hardiman, Fire Chief orney c: Irslemerplan b-~ COMMAND/MANAGEMENT SECTION The Command/Management Section consists of those responsible for the overall management of an emergency or disaster. Depending on the extent of the emergency, this group may include the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Managers, City Attorney, Chief of Police, Fire Chief, Director of Public Works, and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Open Space. The Command/Manaaement Section: 1. Manages the overall disaster, including prioritizing, decision making, coordinating, tasking, and resolving conflict within the EOC. 2. Develops emergency policies. 3. Reports to the City Council. 4. Reports to the State Office of Emergency Services (OES). 5. Reports to the San Diego County Office of Disaster Preparedness (ODP). 6. Coordinates with other jurisdictions and agencies. 7. Activates and demobilizes the EOC. 8. Supervises the Command Staff comprised of: Public Information Officer - Responsible for public information, rumor control and media relations. Dependent Care Officer - Maintains liaison with the families of essential workers during the emergency by overseeing the Dependent Care Program. SafetY Officer - Monitors and assesses hazardous and unsafe situations to assure personnel safety. Leaal Officer - Provides legal advice. City Liaison Officer - Acts as a liaison between the City and other agencies and organizations to coordinate responsibilities and functions of those agencies with emergency management of the disaster. These agencies may include federal, state, and county governments; hospitals, schools, utilities, Red Cross, etc. ¿'-7 SAMPLE ACTION CHECKLIST DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES RESPONSIBLE PARTY: City Manager ALTERNATE: Assistant City Manager IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR: City Council GENERAL DUTIES: 1. Serves as Chief of Staff for the City Council. 2. Makes executive decisions. 3. Issues rules, regulations, and orders. 4. Manages and controls the emergency organization. 5. Serves as head of the Command/Management Section. ~-y DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ACTION CHECKUST YOUR RESPONSIBILITY: Overall command of the City's emergency response effort. Identify yourself as Director of Emergency Services by putting on the vest with your title. Read the entire Action Check List. Depending on the nature of the incident and the accumulation of information, effect partial or full EOC activation. Obtain briefing on the extent of the disaster from each Department. Appoint and brief Section Chiefs as needed: Operations Section Chief Planning/Intelligence Section Chief Logistics Chief Finance/Administration Chief Develop overall strategy/policy with the Command/Management Staff and Section Chiefs: Situation Assessment Problem Definition Priority Establishment Evacuation Needs Incident Duration Estimates Develop and execute an action plan with the aid of the Command Staff and Section Chiefs. Establish periodic briefing sessions with the appropriate staff in the EOC Command Room to update the overall situation. If the event is of such a nature that the civilian population must be warned, initiate warning action through the Public Information Officer. ~ -7 Notify the San Diego County Office of Disaster Preparedness (ODP), which serves as the Operational Area, of the disaster conditions and request mutual aid as deemed necessary. Establish communications to the level needed. Full mobilization of all communications resources would involve police, fire, public works, amateur radio (RACES and ARES) and other agencies such as County, schools, hospitals, etc. Coordinate all EOC functions with adjacent communities, county, state, and federal emergency organizations and request state and federal assistance if the disaster is beyond the City's capabilities. If there is little or no damage in the City of Chula Vista, be prepared to provide assistance to other mutual aid jurisdictions if the disaster is region-wide. Maintain required records and documentation of personnel and equipment used during the emergency. Precise information is essential to meet requirements for reimbursement by the state and federal governments. ¿-; -/ t? ITEM NUMBER: ?~ 8~ (! II) RESOLUTION NUMBER: 18~ '79 ORDINANCE NUMBER: OTHER: ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE WAS CONTINUED FROM DATE: (AGENDA PACKET SCANNED AT ABOVE DATE) ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO DATE: II -It) - 97 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION: tJTßý AAN~H IIILLA&E ()N~ //SSø.SS HélJ,- bISr~/t.. -r NUHßÆ.I! 9'1- L '1 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM 15 MEETING DATE 6/3/97 ITEM TITLE: Report on the application of the Chula Vista Literacy Team for California State Library - California Library Services Act ~ For Literacy grant funds for FY 1997-98. SUBMITTED BY: Lib"", D""""' ~ riliA REVIEWED BY: CityManagerJG:l (4/5ths Vote: YES _NO-1L) On May 1, 1997 the Chula Vista Public Library applied to the California State Library for $23,000 in Families For Literacy grant funds for FY 1997-98 to continue special family literacy services and programming for adult learners and their young children. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report and ratify the application. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees voted to support the Library's application for CLSA Families For Literacy funding at their April 30th meeting. DISCUSSION: The Chula Vista Literacy Team has offered family literacy programming for the past six years. The Family Reading Program was developed to break the intergenerational cycle of illiteracy by providing in-service training for volunteer tutors whose learners are parents of young children, special library programming for those learners and their families, and a home collection of quality children's books and magazines for each participating family. The program involves partnerships with South Bay Head Start, Chula Vista Elementary School District's Even Start program, and the Healthy Start Collaborative. The grant includes funds to contract with an FFL Support Coordinator, as well as to hire a .12 Program Presenter, a .35 FTE Clerical Aid, and a .02 Bilingual Library Associate. FISCAL IMPACT: If the grant funds are awarded, $23,000 will be received to implement this program through the Chula Vista Literacy Team. These funds cannot supplant funds for the regular volunteer reading program. 8"/ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.2 Meeting date: June 3. 1997 ITEM TITLE: I9.RESOLUTION No/n8'~Pting the Third Addendum to the Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 95-01) for the Otay Ranch SPA One and approving an Amendment PCM 97- 20 to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan. E RESOLUTION No. ~ r¡-¡, Approving a Tentative Subdivision . Map for portions of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chu1a Vista Tract 97-02. PUBLIC HEARING; PCM 97-20: Consideration of an Amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan on property generally located on 1,110 acres south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 97-02: Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for 290 acres of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chu1a Vista Tract 97-02, generally located off the southern extension of Otay Lakes Road south of Telegraph Canyon Road. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~ REVIEWED BY: City Mana~ 4/5 Vote:( Yes - No --X1 McMillin Companies has submitted an Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map for the portion of Otay Ranch SPA One owned by West Coast Land Fund (WCLF) to subdivide 290 acres creating 1,877 residential units in Villages One and Five. The SPA amendment makes minor adjustments to the neighborhood boundaries and dwelling units and proposes deleting Pedestrian Park P-5 and Santa Delphina Avenue as a promenade street in Neighborhood R-ll of Village One. The tentative map proposes 527 single-family residential lots, 1,350 multi-family units and a 10-acre elementary school, 15.8 acres for parks, 3.3 acres of commercial land uses and 8.1 acres of community purpose facilities (CPF) in Village Five. RECOMMENDATIQN: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. - approving the Third Addendum to the Final Second- Tier Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 95-01) for the Otay Ranch SPA One and approving an Amendment (PCM 97-20) to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan deleting Pedestrian Park P-5 and Santa Delphina Avenue as a Promenade Street. 9-/ Page 2, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 2. Adopt Resolution No. - approving a Tentative Subdivision Map for portions of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, for the WCLF portion of Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission considered the deletion of Pedestrian Park P-5 at their May 15, 1997 meeting. The Parks and Recreation Commission believed there is sufficient park acreage in the Village One neighborhood parks and voted 4-1 (Helton) to recommend that Pedestrian Park P-5 be deleted from the SPA One Plan. The Planning Commission considered the SPA One Amendment and Tentative Map at their May 21,1997 meeting. The Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution PCM 97-07 recommending the City Council approve the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan amendment deleting Santa Delphina as a promenade street but retaining Pedestrian Park P-5 in Village One and adopted Planning Commission Resolution PCS 97-02 recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the WCLF portion of Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, subject to the conditions of approval. DISCUSSION; On June 4,1996, the City Council approved the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch. The SPA One Plan was processed by Village Development for the entire 1,110 acres of Villages One and Five. In response to a foreclosure action by WCLF, Village Development excluded the 290 acres from their Tentative Subdivision Map that was subject of the foreclosure action. In August of 1996, WCLF foreclosed on 1,036 acres of the Otay Ranch. McMillin Companies is in the process of acquiring the WCLF ownership and is processing a SPA One Plan amendment and tentative map over the 290 acres of Villages One and Five. I. Background In October of 1993, the City Council and County Board of Supervisors jointly adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch. On June 4, 1996, the City Council approved the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch. The SPA One Plan was processed by Village Development for the entire 1,110 acres of Villages One and Five. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a tentative map on the entire SPA One area on July 10, 1996. As previously discussed, Village Development revised their map to exclude from the tentative map the 290 acres in the WCLF foreclosure action. In August of 1996, WCLF foreclosed on 1,036 acres of the Otay Ranch, including the 290 acres located in Villages One and Five. Subsequently, the Planning Commission OtaymchlMcspalA11363.DOC 9--.:z. Page 3, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 recommended approval of Village Development's revised tentative map. The City Council approved the majority of Village Development's map on November 19, 1996. The balance of the map in Village Five was continued to see if Village Development and WCLF could reach agreement on the Village Five land plan. When McMillin Companies filed a tentative map that was substantially consistent with the approved SPA One Plan, staff returned to the City Council recommending approval of Village Development's map. McMillin is currently in the process of acquiring the WCLF ownership and is processing a SPA One Plan amendment and tentative map over a portion of the 290 acres within Villages One and Five. The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared Initial Study IS 97-21 and concluded that the existing Program EIR for the GDP and Second-Tier ErR for the SPA One Plan provide adequate prior review of the project's environmental impacts. The Coordinator has prepared an addendum to the Second-Tier EIR substantiating this position. The addendum is attached to the City Council resolution. II. Applicant's Proposal A. SPA One Plan Amendments Except for the deletion of Park P-5 and Santa Delphina as a promenade street, McMillin Companies has submitted a tentative map that is in compliance with the approved SPA One Plan. However, specific amendments to SPA One are necessary to address these deletions. Most of the SPA amendments focus on Neighborhood R-ll in Village One. The amendments in this neighborhood delete the pedestrian park and promenade street and increase the number of lots from 116 to 125. Minor amendments are proposed to Neighborhoods R-22, R-23 and R-24 in Village Five. These amendments rearrange the single-family densities in the neighborhoods north of the Village Five Core. The Phasing Plan also changes to reflect most of McMillin's single-family homes in their first phase of development. The current SPA Phasing Plan indicates this area as Phase 3, but, with the approval of this amendment and map, this area will develop on its own schedule concurrently with Village Development's phases. The proposed changes to phasing will be reflected in the update to the Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) that is required prior to the first Final "B" map. B. Tentative Map 1. Village One McMillin Companies Tentative Subdivision Map proposes a total of 1,877 dwelling units on the 290 acres in their portion of Villages One and Five. All the streets in McMillin's map are public as opposed to the private streets approved for Village Development's portion of the SPA One Plan. In Village One, WCLF owns Neighborhoods R-11 and R- 12. The map subdivides R-11 into 1256,000 square foot single-family lots. Two options are proposed for R-12. OtaymchIMcspalAl1363.DOC 9"-3 Page 4, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 a. Neighborhood R-ll Neighborhood R-ll in Village One was allocated 118 single-family units with a density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre under the approved SPA One Plan. McMillin is proposing 125 units on 29.8 acres with a density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre under their SPA One amendment. The tentative map proposes 125 units with 6O-foot by 100-foot pads on slightly larger lots depending on the grading and slopes. The applicant proposes to delete the Pedestrian Park P-5 from the SPA One Plan. If the City Council believes the pedestrian park is needed in the neighborhood, 8 lots between Santa Delphina Avenue, Montana Drive and Bellena Avenue could be combined to form the park and a residential street. The SPA amendment is discussed fully in the issues section of this agenda statement. The applicant also proposes to reduce Santa Delphina Avenue from a promenade street to a Residential A Street. The SPA One Plan identifies a promenade street as a collector for both pedestrians and autos that brings people to village core. These streets have a wider parkway and sidewalk. The 6-foot wide sidewalk is buffered on both sides by an 8-foot wide parkways with trees. It is anticipated this double row of trees will provide an enhanced pedestrian walkway to the village core. Staff has proposed conditions to require an additional street tree easement in the front yards of the homes ftonting on Santa Delphina, providing the double row of trees similar to the promenade street but with a six-foot parkway, four-foot sidewalk and six-foot tree easement (see Exhibit A). Santa Delphina provides the access to the regional trail in Telegraph Canyon. Staff believes this design will provide a pedestrian environment similar to the promenade street, and, due to the limited area served, the revised street design is acceptable with staff. Due to the private streets in Village Development's Neighborhood R-IO to the west, Santa Delphina is the only access to Neighborhood R-ll. Emergency access is provided between R-IO and R-ll. This access will contain "grasscrete" or a similar surface and will be maintained by the master homeowners association. b. Neighborhoods R-12 and R-13 Neighborhoods R-12 and R-13 in Village One are split by the ownership of Village Development and WCLF. Only portions of Neighborhoods R-12 and R-13 were subdivided by Village Development's tentative map. The portion of Village Development's R-12 north of Santa Flora was not subdivided, and there are residual lots left in R-12 and R-13 that are adjacent to McMillin's R-12 (E). Two alternative subdivisions are proposed for R-12. Alternative A requires a landswap with Village Development and places all of R-12 in McMillin's ownership and all of R- 13 within Village Development's ownership (see Exhibit B). This alternative produces the best overall subdivision design for the two neighborhoods and is staffs recommended OtaymchlMcspalAt 1363.DOC 9-r Page 5, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 plan for this area. McMillin proposes 104 single-family lots in this alternative. Village Development's portion would be lotted for 122 units finishing out the lot pattern of their approved tentative map. Alternative B proposes a stand-alone subdivision on McMillin's portion of Village 12. It takes temporary access off Palomar Street with permanent access provided on Santa Flora when Village Development develops its portion of Village 12. McMillin's map proposes 86 lots for their portion ofR-12. Village Development has 64 lots approved on their portion of R-12 and 76 lots on R-l3 with a potential balance of 45 lots for the residual part of R-12 that was not subdivided under Village Development's map. Alternative A is the subdivision recommended by staff, and both owners support the landswap; however, McMillin is concerned about relying on the landswap with Village Development in order to record a final map on R-12. A 6-month time limit has been proposed in the conditions for completion of the landswap. If the swap has not occurred, then McMillin can record a final map using Alternative B. Staff will assist in facilitating the landswap. If the swap cannot be achieved, Alternative B is acceptable with staff. 2. Village Five The tentative map on Village Five proposes 316 single-family homes and 1,350 multi- family units, a 10-acre elementary school site, three park sites on 15.8 acres plus their portion of the paseo, 8.1 acres of CPF on three sites and two commercial sites of 3.3 acres. These land uses and densities are substantially the same as the SPA One Plan. While this portion of the tentative map is in compliance with the approved SPA One Plan, the second phase of McMillin's work program will re-evaluate the Village Five core land uses and densities. The alignment of Palomar Street, with the trolley right-of-way and the promenade streets, has not changed on the proposed tentative map. a. Neighborhood R-22 Neighborhood R-22 proposes a small lot single-family "duplex" design that McMillin has used in their Rancho del Rey Project. These houses are individual homes on zero lot-line lots that share a common wall with an adjacent unit. Since a specific product has not been proposed at this time, the future product is required by the conditions of approval to go through design review. There are 92 lots proposed, and McMillin acknowledges that a reduction in lots may be necessary to achieve an acceptable design. Due to intersection spacing standards, one entrance is proposed with a pedestrian access to Santa Cora at the north end of the neighborhood. b. Neighborhood R-23 Neighborhood R-23 proposes 55-foot by 70-foot pads on 86 lots. Two internal cul-de- sacs are proposed. Staff required the cul-de-sacs to be open for pedestrian access to Santa Cora, the promenade street to the village core. OtaymchlMcspalAt 1363.DOC '1-:5 Page 6, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 c. Neighborhood R-24 Neighborhood R-24 is a standard 5,000 square foot lot design with 138 lots proposed. The key feature here is Pedestrian Park P-9 and the Paseo to the school/park sites and the village core. The ownership boundary between McMillin and Village Development splits Pedestrian Park P-9, now called P-6.3, on McMillin's tentative map. McMillin has agreed to construct their portion of this pedestrian park and their share of the paseo. McMillin controls I acre of the pedestrian park and a IS-foot wide section of the paseo. Because of the dual ownership, the City Council decided, during Village Development's tentative map, that this pedestrian park and paseo should be publicly owned and maintained. All the cul-de-sacs open onto the paseo or park. As in Village One, the circulation pattern is limited due to private streets in Village Development's portion of Village Five. Santa Cora is the access in and out of McMillin's area of Village Five. Emergency access is provided by Bouquet Canyon to Neighborhood R-25 in Village Five. d. Neighborhood R-46 Neighborhood R-46 is the only multi-family site that is north of Palomar Street and part of the first phase of McMillin's development. The applicant proposes lIS multi-family units on the 7.2-acre lot. This site is identified in the SPA One Affordable Housing Plan as a target site for Village Five. e. Elementary School Site The elementary school site proposed on the tentative map is consistent with the location and size indicated on the SPA One Plan. The Chula Vista Elementary School District has indicated the site is acceptable and, while the site in Village One will be the first school in the two villages, they request that it be made available on demand (approximately 1,000 units into the development of Village Five). The conditions of approval reflect this requirement. f. Park P-6.6 The applicant controls 7.6 acres of this 10J-acre neighborhood park in Village Five. McMillin has proposed to construct this park as a "turn-key" park if they can adequately control the park design process with City input. Otherwise, McMillin prefers to pay Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees to the City. City staff wants to ensure that the City has adequate input into the design process since this will be a public park and needs to meet the City's park program for facilities. Staff has required in the conditions of approval that the park design comply with the City's Landscape Manual, which sets out the design process for City parks. The specifics of the design process will be refined through additional discussion between McMillin and the City. The park is required to be offered for dedication on the first "B" map and the threshold for the park will be further evaluated by the update of the PFFP. Any changes in park thresholds will require Planning Commission and City Council approval. OtaymchMcspa\A11363.DOC 9-~ Page 7, Item- Meeting Date: June 3, 1997 g. Village Core The applicant's tentative map for the Village Five Core proposes to divide the core into lots as indicated on the SPA One Plan. Staff believes the map is, therefore, consistent with the SPA One Plan. The applicant has indicated that they are planning to replan the Village Five core land uses in their next phase of development. Any amendment to the GDP or SPA will require City Council approval and will need to be compatible with the adjacent land uses of Village Development. III. ISSUES: A. SPA One Amendment Should Pedestrian Park P-5 be deleted from Neighborhood R-ll in the SPA One Plan? Applicant's Proposal McMillin Companies has proposed deleting Pedestrian Park P-5 because they believe the conventional lots proposed in this neighborhood will meet the private recreation needs of the residents. In addition, they believe, since the neighborhood park acreage of P-I and P-2 meet the parkland requirements of the GDP and SPA, the park can be deleted because the pedestrian park acreage is above the requirement. Analvsis The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) provides for park credit for neighborhood and community parks within the Otay Ranch. The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan established a standard of I acre per 1,000 residents for community parks and 2 acres per 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks. The approved neighborhood parks in SPA One satisfied the park requirement, and the pedestrian parks provided additional parks above the requirement. Pedestrian parks were proposed to provide recreational opportunities within walking distance of the single-family neighborhoods that were not adjacent to a neighborhood park. Park P-5 was approved as a 0.8-acre pedestrian park for Neighborhood R-l1 in the SPA One Plan. In the SPA One Plan, Neighborhood R-II is approved for 118 single-family lots with a density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre on the eastern side of Village One. This neighborhood is on the north side of Palomar Street. The closest neighborhood parks are Park P-2 located more than 1/4 mile for the majority of the neighborhood on the south side of Palomar Street and Park P-I in the village core, over a half mile away. Pedestrian Parks were proposed by Village Development as part of the SPA One Plan. These parks are part of the "Village Concept". The Village Concept in the GDP establishes the transit and pedestrian orientation policies for the Otay Ranch. Village Development proposed these small parks in the single-family neighborhoods outside the village cores to provide casual recreational opportunities in these neighborhoods. The OtaymchIMcspalAl1363.DOC 9" /' Page 8, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 larger neighborhood parks are centrally located in each village to provide organized sport opportunities. These parks were planned with a 1/2-mile service radius. The pedestrian parks have a smaller service radius, which is focussed on the neighborhood in which they are located. The SPA One Plan allows 118 lots in Neighborhood R-11 with the 0.8-acre Pedestrian Park P-5. McMillin is now proposing 125 lots without the park. Deletion of the park adds lots to the neighborhood with no additional amenities. The applicant's proposal to delete Pedestrian Park P-5 was reviewed by the Technical Committee. The Council will recall that the Otay Ranch Project has a specific staff review process for resolving issues that come up during the review of plans on the Otay Ranch. The Technical Committee is made up of representatives of the Planning, Engineering, Fire and Parks and Recreation Departments. The Planning Department representatives believed this park was a key pedestrian feature of the neighborhood and was opposed to its elimination. The Park and Recreation Department representative agreed with this position, even though this department expressed concerns with pedestrian parks during the SPA process. Their concerns in the past have focused on pedestrian parks receiving park credit and having maintenance financed by the General Fund. As part of the SPA One approval, the Council authorized 25% to 50% credit for pedestrian parks and maintenance by an open space maintenance district. In this case, the Parks representative believed the neighborhood was better served with the pedestrian park than without it. While not a make or break issue for the overall plan, the Committee was concerned about what can be seen as an incremental reduction in the neo-traditional features of the project, especially as it relates to this neighborhood. The physical design of the neighborhood can affect the quality of life in the neighborhood, and the Committee believed that these features need to be maintained to improve that quality in these future neighborhoods. If the pedestrian park is deleted then the closest park would be Neighborhood Park P-2 which is located over 1/4 mile away, and is on the south side of East Palomar Street. The deletion of Park P-5 would mean residents may drive to this park instead of walking because the Park P-2 is located across the collector street, which is contrary to the pedestrian concept. The Technical Committee also felt that the pedestrian parks provide visual relief within the rather dense single-family neighborhoods. Since the Technical Committee position was in conflict with the applicant, the issue was taken to the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee is comprised of the City Manager and department heads. Unresolved issues are raised to the Policy Committee for resolution. Staff Position The Policy Committee generally agreed with the applicant's position that the SPA park OtaymchIMcspaIAI1363.DOC 9-Ý Page 9, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 requirements were met by the neighborhood park acreage, location and facilities, and that the lots in R-ll were of sufficient size to satisfy the casual recreational needs of the neighborhood. However, the Policy Committee believed the deletion of the pedestrian park was a major policy decision for the City Council. If the Council believes this park is an important pedestrian feature of this neighborhood, the subdivision can be easily redesigned to include the park by modifying eight lots for the park and street. Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation The Parks and Recreation Commission believed there is sufficient park acreage in the Village One neighborhood parks and agreed with the applicant that 6,000 square foot lots would provide for the private recreation of the residents. They also expressed concerns about the maintenance cost of small parks. The Commission voted 4-1 (Helton) to recommend that Pedestrian Park P-5 be deleted from the SPA One Plan. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission followed their normal procedure in addressing issues on the Otay Ranch by taking "tentative" votes on each unresolved issue and then a final vote on the entire project. On the Pedestrian Park P-5 issue, the Commission voted 4-1 (O'Neill) to recommend that the City Council retain Pedestrian Park P-5. Several Commissioners believed Park P-5 was an important pedestrian facility, and that, without it, families would drive cars to other parks, defeating the pedestrian orientation. B. Planned Community District Regulations Amendment Should the required uumber of "Hollywood" Driveways be Reduced? Background As part of any SPA plan, Planned Community District Regulations are adopted to provide the detailed land use standards that function as a Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan District Regulations contain the design features of the Village Concept. In the residential neighborhoods, these features primarily deal with the streetscape. In order to make the streetscape more pedestrian friendly, garages are required to be set back further than the front of the house, front porches are required and sidewalks are separated from the curb with a parkway. The "Hollywood" driveway concept sets the garages back further than the other garage setback requirements (see Exhibit B-1). Wider lots are needed since the house becomes L shaped with the garage in the back of the home. The current PC regulation addressing "Hollywood" driveways is contained in a footnote to the setback requirements and reads as follows: 2 A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 deep shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (see Village Design Plan). OæyrnchlMcspalAl1363.DOC 9-9 Page 10, Item- Meeting Date: June 3, 1997 Applicant's Proposal McMillin Companies is concerned about the marketability of homes with the "Hollywood" driveways. McMillin has proposed the following changes (in bold print) to the PC District Regulations, increasing the lot size requirement for providing "Hollywood driveways" to 60-foot by lID-foot pads in order to exempt Neighborhood R-24 from the standard and provide only 25% in R-ll: 2 A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 60 feet wide by 110 deep (pads) shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (see Village Design Plan). The model homes for Parcel R-11 shall include at least one model with the option of being sited and constructed with the "Hollywood" driveway concept. Staff Position Staff is concerned about the amendment since it effects all of SPA One Plan, and changing the standard would reduce the number of "Hollywood" driveways SPA-wide. McMillin has designed their lots based on pad width as opposed to Village Development who set the standard based on lot width. Of the 138 lots in McMillin's Neighborhood R- 24, 36 qualify as being 55 feet wide producing only 12 "Hollywood" driveways in the entire 136-lot subdivision. Just 12 of these driveways will not have a significant effect on the streetscape in this neighborhood. Staff would prefer to exempt R-24 from the requirement and maintain the standard SPA-wide. In an effort to address the marketability issue, the standard could be modified to allow the Director of Planning discretion to waive the requirement if it can be demonstrated the units with "Hollywood" driveways are not marketable. Originally, the Technical Committee wanted all units on the larger lots to have "Hollywood" drives but compromised to 30 per cent because ofthe marketability issue. The Technical Committee understands the marketing issues but feels it would be desirable to maintain the standard. The following recommendation allows the Planning Director discretion with the issue. If substantial evidence is presented by the developer that the concept has not been accepted by the market, the standard can be waived by the Planning Director and an alternative plan consistent with the Village Design Plan approved in its place. The waiver would be granted on a case by case basis but once granted would eliminate "Hollywood" driveways in that neighborhood. Since it is required to be consistent with the Village Design Plan, the replacement plan would probably be similar to the house plans for the narrower lots with the front of the house closer to the street than the garage. If substantial evidence is not provided by the developer, the director can refer the issue to the Commission for resolution. Staff recommends the following amendment: 2 A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 feet deep shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (see Village Design Plan). The model home for¥ftFeel Neighborhood R-11 OtaymchlMcspalAl t363.DOC 9//0 Page 11, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 shall include at least one model with the aptian af hdng sited and eanstFHeted with "Hollywood" driveway concept. The Director of Planning may waive this requirement based on evidence from the developer that these units are not marketable and are replaced with an alternative plan that is consistent with the Village Design Plan. The Director may refer the issue to the Planning Commission resolution if, in the Director's opinion, the evidence is not adequate to make a clear determination. Neighborhood R-24 is exempt from this requirement. McMillin recently indicated their company is building a home that would satisfy the 30- foot setback requirement in their Temecula project and believe they can use that plan here in Chula Vista. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend the staff position on the "Hollywood" driveway amendment to the PC District Regulations. The Commission expressed concerns that the regulations should not be amended before they are implemented. They supported the standard and the amendment to allow the Director of Planning flexibility if the concept is not marketable. C. Tentative Map Should residential streets with parkways be used in the applicant's residential neighborhoods? Applicant's Proposal The applicant wants to use the City's standard monolithic sidewalks with walks adjacent to the curb and gutter in all but two of the residential streets in their tentative map. They are concerned about increasing the driveway distance and maintenance of the parkway. Analvsis The SPA One Plan approved two street design cross sections for residential streets in these two villages. Residential Street A provides a 6-foot parkway between the 4-foot sidewalk and the curb. Residential Street B allows the City standard 5-foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb. Street A is seen as providing a superior pedestrian environment because it separates the pedestrian from the travel lanes of the streets and will provide a tree canopy for shade on the sidewalk. The Village Design Plan requires Street A to be used predominantly throughout the residential neighborhoods. Street B is allowed in special circumstances in conjunction with alley products or small lot single-family. McMillin has proposed using Street A in only two locations: as a replacement for the promenade street on Santa Delphina Avenue in R-ll and on Lonetree Drive in R-24 in Village Five. This street is indicated on the SPA One Plan running from the promenade OtaymchlMcspalAl t363.DOC '1-/1 Page 12, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 street, Santa Cora to the Pedestrian Park P-6.3. The applicant proposes using Street B on all the other residential streets in their portion of SPA One. Village Development uses Street A except for their alley product neighborhoods. Staff Position Staff has proposed conditions requiring Street A on all neighborhoods except R-22, the "duplex" product, which qualifies as a small lot single-family product. The conditions of approval also require the applicant to landscape the parkway and provide irrigation, either by a HOA or by the individual home owner. The parkways are another key pedestrian friendly feature of neighborhood. The Village Design Plan is clear that parkways are to be the rule rather than the exception. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) of the members present to recommend that Residential Street A be used in all the single-family residential neighborhoods with the exception of R-22. The Commission indicated that Street A created a better pedestrian environment for the single-family neighborhoods. D. Tentative Map Should a Master Homeowners Association be required to maintain the open space and landscaping? Applicant Proposal McMillin prefers an open space maintenance district similar to Rancho del Rey to maintain the open space and common landscaping in the tentative map. Analvsis The Engineering Department has recommended that a Master Homeowners Associations (MHOA) be formed to maintain the slopes, parkways and other landscaped areas for this portion of SPA One. An open space maintenance district will be formed to maintain the street medians and drainage channels and back up the MHOA if it fails to maintain landscaping to City standards. The Rancho del Rey OSMD is funded by a 1972 Landscaping and Lighting District, which is now subject to Proportion 218. Proposition 218 places a number of restrictions on the use of benefit assessments by local agencies to pay for maintaining public improvements. The Engineering Department has hired a consultant to review this issue and make recommendations to the City Council on structuring open space maintenance districts. The consultant is scheduled to report to the City Council at their June 3, 1997 meeting on their recommendations. The consultants have also been hired by the City to form the OSMD for Village Development's approved portions of SPA One. They are recommending the City use Community Facility Districts to pay for on-going maintenance costs in open space maintenance districts. OtaymchIMcspalAl1363.DOC 9-/..2- Page 13, Item- Meeting Date: June 3. 1997 The Engineering Department believes the primary responsibility for maintaining landscaping belongs with the local residents. Currently, EastLake has an HOA, and Village Development has been required to form one. These communities have private facilities to maintain. There are none in McMillin's proposal. Staff Position Staff believes a MHO A is the most appropriate funding mechanism for the open space and landscaping with a backup of an open space maintenance district funded by a community finance district. City Council is scheduled to discuss this issue at their June 3, 1997 meeting under the consultant's report on open space maintenance. Planning Commission Recommendation Since this issue was moving forward to City Council for a City-wide policy decision, the Commission voted 4-1 (Tarantino) to defer this issue to the City Council for resolution under the new Council policy. However, the Commission voted 4-1 (Tarantino) to express their concern for common maintenance of the parkways in the most advantageous, efficient and economic way possible as indicated in the consultant's report on open space maintenance. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund since the McMillin Companies application has been processed under a standard deposit account with the City. There are sufficient funds in the account to cover the processing cost of the SPA One Plan Amendment and Tentative Map. A staffing agreement will be required to cover future phases of McMillin's work in the Otay Ranch. Attachments: Exhibit A: Santa Delphina Avenue street tree easement exhibitJ Exhibit B Alternative A landswap subdivision J Alternative B stand alone subdivisionJ I Exhibit B-1 Village Design Plan p. 1-81 Single Family Conceptual LotlBuilding Schematics Exhibit C: City Council Resolution Approving the SPA One Plan Amendment NQ'f;~~ Planning Commission Resolution PCM 97-20 Recommending Approv 0 iNtO City Council of the SPA One Plan Amen~~.~nt NOTSCANNEI) Exhibit D: City Council Resolution Approving Chula Vista Tract 97-02 with attached conditions of approval rNQ Planning Commission Resolutio ¡r.æ~ding Approv'al to the City Council of the Chula Vista Tract 97-02 NOT SC . AL"NED Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of May 15, 1997 meeting Planning Commission Minutes of May 21,1997 meeting h>l2',¡¡ ~':;;.'fI';1'", ""-..n.d..1 OtaymchMcspalAt 1363.DOC 9'/5 PART TWO Village One Design Plan VILLAGE INTERJOR STREETS CAPES - VILLAGE ONE . Residential Street - Conditions A & B Description: Two conditions exist in the residential area streets. Each condition provides a single row of street trees .on each side of the street. The conditions are A) a parkway for the street trees between the curb and property line; and B) a sidewalk and a curb adjacent sidewalk where the street tree is planted behind the walk. The trees should be medium scale canopy trees spaced between 25' to 30' on center. Broadleaf evergreen and deciduous trees are pennitted. Plant Palette: Trees: Bradford Pear (Pyrus calleryana), Tipu Tree (Tjpuana tipu), Evergreen Pear (Pyrus kawakizmz), Evergreen Elm (Ulmus parviofolia), and Podocarpus gracilior. ~1'Ilc.I"&.. ~Trz.ee C:(tO"$. 'Se.c. TIC .- t:o'NÞ f71ON -1 ~ ~ I3eH7ND s/æ - --- '" {NAt-tç;5.---7' . \TV f-dvV. 1 I 7-17 ~o.embe' 9 ~';;~ ~H I BIT A et w ~ ¡g~ t::~ ¡gl:l: -w :1:1- X...l wet g- É~ L ~~ ~; ~3 : /'" .- 0< - I ,~ § iJ !XI w ::: IIIJI- 1-« -z !XI a: -w :I: I- X...J w« 51 j¡ ~ .~ . . ~ - ~ '¡ L '.:'-_~.I,\ - II ___--_L \ (~-=--=- PART ONE Village Design Plall VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN FRAMEWORK SINGLE FAMILY CONCEPTUAL LOT/BUILDING SCHEMATICS POSSIBLE CONCEPTUAL FRONT LOADED OPTION of SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED GARAGE w~h or w~hout "BREEZEWAY" POSSIBLE OPTION of "HOLLYWOOD" DRIVEWAYS PULLING GARAGES to REAR of UNIT CONCEPTUAL REAR LOADED SINGLE F A1'vfIL Y POSSIBLE FRONT PORCH GARAGE SETBACK from FACADE along STREET CONCEPTUAL FRONT LOADED SINGLE FAMIL Y E)(HIß'" I-I? Ot")' 8-\ Ranch 1-81 November 9.1995 #9/t Exhibit A Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment PCM 97-20 1. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for either Neighborhood R-12 or R-13, the developer shall revise the SPA One Plan exhibits to reflect the landswap between Village Development and McMillin Companies on Neighborhoods R-12 and R-13 if the landswap is successful 2. The following amendment shall be made to the Planned Community District Regulations Table III-3 Residential Property Development Standards for Otay Ranch SPA One: 2 A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 deep shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (See Village Design Plan). The model home for Pareel Neighborhood R-ll shall include at least one model with tHe optioH ef beiag sited afld eeHstrueted ...IitH the "Hollywood" driveway concept. The Director of Planning may waive this requirement based on evidence from the developer that these units are not marketable, and are replaced with an alternative plan that is consistent with the Village Design Plan. The Director may refer the issue to the Planning Commission resolution if in the Director's opinion the evidence is not adequate to make a clear determination. Neighborhood R-24 is exempt from this requirement. 3. The proposed Otay Ranch SPA One amendment by West Coast Land Fund/McMillin dated May 14, 1997, as amended by the Planning Commission, is hereby approved with the exception of the deletion of Pedestrian Park P-5. The 0.8 acre Pedestrian Park shall be provided in Neighborhood R-l1. v1;J -------- r-' RESOLUTION PCM 97-20 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT WHEREAS, an application for an amendment of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 10, 1997 by the McMillin Companies ("Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan project area includes portions of Village One and Five. The SPA One Plan project area is comprised of approximately 1,061.2 acres of land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future alignment of SR-125 ("Project"). This amendment for 290 acres in Villages One and Five owned by West Coast Land Fund, and; WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 28, 1993, and as amended on May 14, 1996, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on May 21, 1997 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission at which time said hearing was thereafter closed, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an addendum to the Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (ElR) ElR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft ElR and Addendum, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, and; WHEREAS, this Second-tier ElR, the Recirculated ElR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior ElRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update ElR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Program ElR 90-01 was certified {S- Planning Commission May 2], ]997 Page 2 by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, ]993, and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 2],1995, and; WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely infonnational or advisol)', but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process ofimp]ementing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT TIffi PLANNING COMMISSION hereby adopts the Third Addendum to the Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report EIR 95-01 and Addendum. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT TIffi PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Reso]ution approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTIffiR RESOLVED that a copy of this resoJution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY TIffi PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 21 st day of May 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Frank Tarantino Chainnan Nancy Ripley, Secretary llb,\mcmitJin'\¡=padoc .,~~ RESOLUTION NO. /8"~ TS RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE THIRD ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) FOR THE OTA Y RANCH SECTION PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT PCM 97-20 TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON-RENEW ABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT WHEREAS, an application for an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 10, 1997 ("Project") by the McMillin Companies ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan also includes the following documents: Overall Design Plan, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan and Supporting Documents. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Phase 2 Resource Management Plan and Supporting Plans, Non-Renewable Energy Conservalion Plan. Ranch- Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report (all documents referred to herein as "Project Documents"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan project area includes all of Village Five and the portion of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero and is comprised of approximately 1,061.2 acres of land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future alignmenl of SR-I25 ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 28, 1993, and amended on May 14, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to Property Owners and tenants 9,¿J-/ ' within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on May 21,1997 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, a Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addendum, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the SPA One Plan and the Project Documents; and WHEREAS, the Second-tier EIR 95-01, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/ Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Visla City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94- 03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21. 1995: and WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinalor has reviewed the Project and determined that the Project is in substantial conformance with the original SPA One Plan and the Project Documents and the related environmental documents which would not result in any new environmental effects that were not previously identified, nor would the Project resull in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified, therefore only an Addendum to FEIR 95-01 is required in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula Vista certified EIR 95-01 as adequate in compliance with CEQA at a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 1996 and recertified said EIR on May 21, 1996 to assure compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). The City now desires to once again recertify this document as adequale in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to complement lhose measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts this resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are references in the Mitigation Moniloring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 1997 regarding the Project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: 1. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 2 9~'.2 The proceedings of all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission and City Council at their public hearings on the Addendum and this Project held on May 21 and June 3, 1997 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, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6 subdivision(s), shall comprise lhe entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. II. FEIR 95-01 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council. V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Project, on file at the City Clerk's office as Document No. , subject to the original conditions of SPA One Plan approval, adopted by the City Council, as set forth in Resolution 18286, dated June 4, 1996, and the conditions, set forth in Exhibit" A", attached hereto. VI. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A. The proposed Sectional Planning Area Plan is in conformily with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan. B. The proposed Sectional Planning Area Plan will promote the orderl y sequentialized development of the involved sectional planning area. The SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public 3 9/7 :J Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required by Otay Ranch, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. C. The proposed Sectional Planning Area Plan will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality. The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with a grade-separated open space buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch Planning Area One, four neighborhood parks will be located within the SPA One area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide a wide range of housing types for all economic levels. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report. VII. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council hereby finds that: (I) there were no changes in the Project from the Program EIR and the FEIR which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the Project has become available since the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the Project covered by the Program EIR and FEIR, and a third Addendum has been prepared (Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)). VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any CEQA claims. IX. ATTACHMENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full. X. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property Owner and/or Applicants shall execute the document attached as Exhibit "A", said execution indicating that the Property Owner and/or Applicant have each read, understand and agree to the conditions contained herein. This does not provide the Property Owner and/or Applicant with any "vesting" of entitlements to this Project or any of the corresponding documents approved herein, that is not otherwise provided by state and federal law. Said document to be placed on file in the City Clerk's office as Document No. CO96-086. C .If ~ 9/1/1 '-- ~J) 'I ~ Presented by: Approved as to form by: ú.-- ~~ Þ- Robert A. Leiter John Kaheny Planning Director City Attorney 9~~ 5 Exhibit A Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment PCM 97-20 1. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for either Neighborhood R-l2 or R-13, the developer shall revise the SPA One Plan exhibits to reflect the landswap between Village Development and McMillin Companies on Neighborhoods R-12 and R-13 if the 1andswap is successful. 2. City staff shall bring back an ordinance to the city Council to reflect the following amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations Table 111-3 Residential Property Development Standards for Otay Ranch SPA ONE: A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 deep shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (See Village Design Plan). The model home for ~ Neighborhood R-11 shall include at least one model with the option of being Gitod and conotructed \lith the "Hollywood" drive way concept. The Director of Planning may waive this requirement based on evidence from developer that these units are not marketable, and are replaced with an alternative plan that is consistent with the Village Design Plan. The Director may refer the issue to the Planning Commission resolution if in the Director's opinion the evidence is not adequate to make a clear determination. Neighborhood R-24 is exempt from this requirement. 3. The adoption of the Project is dependent upon the continued compliance with all of the planning documents that comprise the otay Ranch Project, of which the Project is but one integral part. Applicant shall comply with all of the otay Ranch Project planning documents, including but not limited to the Plan Documents and the Phase Two Resource Management Plan. ExhibitA.OR 94~ Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 (a) in the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for the West Coast Land Fund properties in Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 97-02 (Project), is in conformance with all the various elements of the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan as amended based on the following: A, Public Facilities West Coast Land Fund foreclosed on approximaIely 290 acres of Villages One and Five and, McMillin Companies has filed a tentative map thai is consistent with the amended SPA One Plan requirements for said Project, including bul nollimited to the school and park locations, SECTION 6. Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map The City Council does hereby approve the Projecl, conditioned upon the approval of the SPA One Plan Amendment PCM 97-20 and subject to the conditions, set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and based upon the findings and determinations on the record for this Projecl. SECTION 7. Adoption of Addendum The City Council does hereby adopt the Third Addendum to the Final EIR 95-01. SECTION 8. Notice of Determination City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination for the project and file the same with the Counly Clerk. SECTION 9. Consequence of Failure of Conditions If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, 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 to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condilion issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. SECTION 10. 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 anyone 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. C L ~ ,. 5 'JL3~ ,-~J ~~ Presented by: Approved as to form by: Ú--- ~~ Q ~ Robert A. Leiter John Kaheny Planning Director City Attorney H,'hom".nom'y'"un.doc 6 1ß-¡; THIRD ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-95-01 INITIAL STUDY IS-97-21 PROJECT NAME: Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, PCM-97-20, and approval of a Tentative subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 97-02 PROJECT LOCATION: South of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road (see locator map Figure 1.) PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillin Companies CASE NO: rS-97-21 DATE: May 9, 1997 I. INTRODUCTION (a) When an ErR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent ErR 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 previous ErR or Negative Declaration 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 previous ErR or Negative Declaration 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 previous ErR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a Negative Declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent ErR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. 98-7 This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis concerning impacts as a result of the applicants decision to change the project description. As a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report have not changed. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch SPA I, EIR-95-01. II. PROJECT SETTING The project site is located to the south of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road on both sides of the extension of La Media Avenue. The project involves the eastern portion of Village One and the western portion of Village Five (see attached located map Figure 1). The Otay Ranch GDP defines Village One as the land area both e~st and west of Paseo Ranchero between Telegraph Canyon Road and East Orange Avenue. The SPA One plan includes all of Village Five and the portion of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero. The SPA land plan excludes entitlements for the area west of Paseo Ranchero, with the exception of public facilities necessary to serve SPA One (e.g. roadways, transit corridor), which traverse the area west of Paseo Ranchero. The project area is surrounded on three sides by the urbanized areas of the City of Chula Vista to the east, west, and north. Villages Two and Six are south of the project area. Other adjacent properties include the Otay Water District property, the planned State Route 125 corridor to the east, and the planned Phase 2 of the Sunbow project to the west. Access to the site is currently provided via Telegraph Canyon RoadjOtay Lakes Road, an east-west arterial which forms the northern boundary of the site. The SPA One project area contains approximately 1,095.8 acres of gently rolling terrain. Past and current uses of the site include ranching, grazing, dry-farming and truck farming activities. The project site is currently vacant, unoccupied and in an unimproved condition. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (a) SPA One Amendments McMillin Companies has submitted a tentative map that is mostly in compliance with the approved SPA One Plan. However, several amendments to SPA One are necessary to find the proposed tentative map in compliance with the SPA One Plan. Most of the SPA amendments focus on Neighborhood R-11 in Village One. The amendments in this neighborhood delete the pedestrian park and promenade street and increase the number of lots from 116 to 125. Minor amendments are proposed to Neighborhoods R-22, R-23 and R-24 in Village Five. These amendments rearrange the single-family densities in the neighborhoods north of the Village Five Core. The Phasing Plan also changed to reflect all of McMillin's single-family homes in both villages in their first phase of development. (See Figure 2.) -2- 9{f-r (b) Tentative Map Village One McMillin Companies tentative subdivision map proposes a total of 1,877 dwelling units on the 290 acres in their portion of Village One and Five. In Village One, the.WCLF oWns Neighborhoods R-ll and R-12. (See Figure 3.) The map subdivides R-11 into 125, 6,000 square foot single- family lots. Two options are proposed for R-12. Neighborhood R-12 was not subdivided under Village Development's tentative map since the property line between WCLF (West Coast Land Fund) and Village Development split the neighborhood. Two alternatives are proposed by McMillin's map. Staff supports Alternative A, which requires a boundary adjustment with Village Development and creates 106 lots with access off Santa Flora. Alternative B is a stand alone subdivision of 86 lots on just WCLF property with a temporary access on Palomar. This alternative leaves several residual parcels on Village Development's property which will cause them to redesign in the future. . Village Five The tentative map on Village Five proposes 316 singl~-family homes and 1,350 multi-family units, a la-acre elementary school site, three park sites on 15.8 acres plus their portion of the paseo, 8.1 acres of CPF on three sites and two commercial sites of 3.3 acres. (See Figure 4.) These land uses and densities are substantially the same as the SPA One Plan. While.this portion of the tentative map is in compliance with the approved SPA One Plan, the second phase of McMillin's work program will re-evaluate the Village Five core land uses and densities. The alignment of Palomar Street, with the trolley right-of-way and the promenade streets, has not changed on the proposed tentative map. IV. ANALYSIS The proposed modifications to the Otay Ranch SPA I Plan and the tentative subdivision map represent only minor technical changes in the SPA I land use and operational characteristics. The proposed modifications to dwelling unit types, land use and street clasification are not of such a magnitude to warrant the preparation of a subsequent environmental document. V. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Report adequate under CEQA. -3- t1ð-i REFERENCES General Plan, City of Chula Vista Title 19., Chula Vista Municipal. Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures Otay Ranch General Development Plan OtayRanch SPA I Plan 1 3rdAdEIR.951 '7 ß -;17!5 - d-þ I ..... OJ s.. ~ '" LL I LI') ~ ! I 9 ß -/1 i N OJ '- :::J 0> u.. . 'C' ! . 1--.. ¡ I F ~ OJ I .. . 1 ; ~ ~ t.=~t U') ~ ,.. en w CJ <t ...J , q ~~ iii ... ~ m 'H ~ " 00'. ~'! ~ ! ¡ml!l! ... '",., .... 0 "-'-"- ¡....;> OB I OJ '- :::5 '" I ~ ~ :> :S C ~. ! ¡ ~ ~ Ii ~2" H ~ ~ æ e " '" ffi ~ U 1 ~ '1!l-/J I il! I ~ ¡¡: ~ :> 'd" OJ .. '" '" u.. ' .<, I ¡l....J~, ! ï ~ :1 ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ z /;; ~ 6 ~ I!: ~ 0 ~ Ii' ~ ê ~ [ I!: . ~ 1<1 ð : " ~ "<: to ~ 11 ~ ~ § ;:: ~ '" '§ ~ :::; ~. â 5 : 1ff-J'/ Case No.IS-97-21 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: West Coast Land Fund/McMillin - - 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 91955 477-1170 4. Name of Proposal: Modifications to Otay Ranch SPA I and Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map 5. Date of Checklist: May 8, 1997 Po'",.,U" Poho.oI'" s;p;n""'1 L...th.. SJoDin""" Vol... Sigoln",ot No Imp'" M""'" Imp'" 1m.... I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 0 0 0 181 or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 181 0 (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 0 0 0 181 of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The project conforms to all plans and zoning for the project site. II. POPULi\TION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 181 local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 181 directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of -- major infrastructure)" ~ ð "/J \..~om",a_g\wctL""') e,., I .,..nllon, ."mUon, SI,nlOan! Lm thon SI,nIOan! Unl", SI,nlOan! S, Impo" MIll,..... tmpo" Impo" C) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 181 affordable housing? Comments: The project is in substantial compliance with approved plans. There is no housing present; therefore, it will not affecrhousing or population. Ill. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: . a) Unstable eanh conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181 I geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 181 relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 0 181 soils, either on or off the site? 1) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as eanhquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: These issues were adequately discussed in EIR-9Q-Ol and EIR-95-01, which concluded that there would be no significant geophysical impacts. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 181 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 181 related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 181 0 0 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 0 181 any water body? 9ß-/t. ,n""m"p"'~"W'".""J y",2 P01=".II, POI=II.II, Si,ni"unl L...Ib.n Si,nlOunl Uni~. Si,ni...nl S. hop." Mill,.... Imp." Imp." e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 181 direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of.ground waters, 0 0 0 181 either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow .of flood 0 0 P 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 181 water otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-9Q-Ol and EIR-95-01. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 181 0 0 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 181 temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 181 0 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses? '1 tJ -/7 ,."..n",pl'~g,wct1.'""J P'g' , P,..nO.lly PoImO.lly S;,n,"~nl em I.on S;.nl.~nl Unl~. S;.n"~nl N, Imp." M;O."'" Imp." Imp." d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 181 site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 bicyclists? - - f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 . alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, . bicycle racks)? : g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 , h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: EIR-90-0l and EIR-95-0l adequately addressed traffic impacts: No significant change in the amount of traffic being generated is proposed. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 181 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 181 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 f) Affect regional habitat preseIVation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in ErR-90-0l and EIR-95-01. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conseIVation 0 0 0 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 181 and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? 'Iff -/Y' ,h.",omo,pJa=mg,wcl1.cM) Pogo 4 p."n"."y P""","lIy SI,n;oanl Lon Ih.n S¡,nIDanl Unt... S',n;oanl S. Imp." MIU,..... Imp... Imp." Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: - - a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 .P 181 potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 181 flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-O1 and EIR-95-01. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 181 0 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 181 0 0 Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or resul/ in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 181 0 0 c) Schools? 0 181 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 181 0 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 181 0 Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. ~tf -I? ,n'~.m"pl.~s,wcli.,,",) Y's" P.""O,II, Pnomll,lI, Sl.";n~", Lm Ihon SI."I.~nI U"I~. SI.";o~nI N. tmp'" MIO..... Imp'" Imp'" XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 0 0 0 181 the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FirelEMS 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 3-4 miles away and would be associated with a 3-minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. b) Police 0 D ! 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. c) Traffic 0 181 0 0 The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. d) ParkslRecreation 0 181 0 0 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll,OOO population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. 9ß',20 l~"om""~=""W~L""') ",." P"m"."y P"""""y Si,nmant La"'.n Si,niGan, Unt... Si,niGan' N. Imp." MiU,.... tmp." Imp." e) Drainage 0 r8I 0 0 The Threshold Standards -require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this "Thl"eshold Standard. f) Sewer 0 r8I 0 0 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not . exceed. City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. g) Water 0 r8I 0 0 The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 r8I 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 r8I 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 r8I 0 0 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 r8I 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 r8I 0 0 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 r8I Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-Ü1. 9!J--~! ("'~om.,p~=ng,wctL=) ¡"g' , Po"n".lIy Po....".lIy Si,nmanl Lm "'on "'nlOant UnlK' Si,nlOant No Imp." Mi",."" Imp." Imp." XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 181 0 0 the public or will the pr.Qp-osal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? . b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 181 0 0 ! scenic route? : c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic I 0 0 0 181 effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 181 could increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-Ol and EIR-95-01. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 181 or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 181 or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 181 cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 181 or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 181 Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 181 0 0 proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: This issue was adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. 9 !J ;- e:;2;L (~~om"p"_g,w'II,,",) P'g' , P"m"a"y P.'m"a"y S;,.Ifi~., Leu <toa. Si,.,.",., U.I... Si,...",., N. lmpa" Mm,.... lmpa" Impa" XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 181 0 0 regional parks or other re~reational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 181 0 0 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 181 0 plans or programs? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-0l and EIR-95-01. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for . mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed., this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 181 degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: Because of the developed nature of the site and the analysis and mitigation provided in EIR-90-0l and EIR-95-Ol which have been or are being implemented, none of these impacts would result. b) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 181 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The project conforms to all long-term goals/plans for this area and therefore will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 181 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 9ß-#.J ,~~.m"pja=.s,wct..""') ¡'a" 9 Po',""olly Po"".olly S¡gn'Oan' Lfi,lhon S",oJOant Unlfio S',nlOant No Import MillO"" Import Import Comments: Cumulative impact analysis was evaluated in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 g 0 0 which will cause substamial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: This issue was adequateJy addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be impJemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: . Project Proponent Date 98-:2 'f (h~omo,p"=og,wo".,oJ.) P'go JU XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below wou]d be potentially affected by this project, invo]ving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. . . . Land Use and Planning T ranspo rIa ti on/Ci rcul a ti on Public Services D D . Population and Biological Resources Utilities and Service Housing Systems D D . Geophysical Energy and Mineral Aesthetics Resources . D D Water Hazards Cultural Resources . . . Air Quality Noise Recreation . Mandatory Findings of Significance ---- 95 - ..2--> (h,"'omo."""",g,w",-=! '>go ¡¡ XXI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the D environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the D environment, there will not be a signíficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, D and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the D environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheet$, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the . environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Si~rÆL ~ 2/ /'7'77 Date ,/ Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 98 ~¿, P'g' 11 l,""'om',p"=mg"clL~J MCMILLIN Otay Ranch SPA One Tentative Subdivision Map PCS 97-02 CONDnnONSOFAPPROVAL Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a). the conditions and Code requirements set forth below shall be completed prior to the related final map as detennined by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and/or the City Engineer; (b). unless otherwise specified, 'tledicate" means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is requiTed the applicant shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the City has a first priority interest in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City. The Developer has requested "A" Maps for the first Final Map on the project. An '~" Map shall be defined as a master subdivision or parcel map, filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which shows 'Super Block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof, and which does not contain individual single or multi-family lots or a subdivision of the multi-family lots shown on the tentative map. Subsequent to the approval of any 'w' Map, the applicant may process the necessary final 'ß"Maps. A Final 'ß"Map is defined as a final subdivision or parcel map, filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which proposed to subdivide land into individual single or multi-family lots, or contains a subdivision of he multi- family lots shown on he tentative map. The 'ß'~ Map shall be in substantial conformance with the related approved final "A" Map. Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee. GENERALIPRELIMINARY I. Prior to each final applicable map, the Developer will comply with all requirements and guidelines of the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, Spa One Affordable Housing Plan, and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to approval by the City Council. 2. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. For purposes of this document, the term 'Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". 9tJ -ø2? Page No.2 3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their tenns, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their tenns, the City shaH have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived ITom the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or 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. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable SPA conditions of approval. 5. Any and all agreements that the applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a fonn approved by the City Attorney. ENVIRONMENTAL 6. Prior to approval of each final 'B" Map, the applicant shall enter into a supplemental subdivision agreement to implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01, the CEQA Findings of Fact for this Project (Exhibit *) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit *). 7. Prior to the approval of each final 'B" Map, the applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 and as may be amended ITom time to time by the City. 8. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant shaH apply for and receive a take permit ITom the appropriate resource agencies or comply with an approved MSCP or other equivalent lO(a) permit or Section 7 consultation applicable to the property. DESIGN 9. The secondary emergency access between Neighborhoods R-I0 and R-ll shall be surfaced with 'grass-crete': 'turf-block" or some other comparable material unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director and Fire Chief. BoHards shall be provided at the end of the emergency access. 10. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual, privately maintained slopes in excess of 25 feet in height shaH be landscaped and irrigated to soften their appearance as foHows: an equivalent of one 5-gaHon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one I-gaHon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shaH be planted in staggered clusters to soften MCMILCNF.DOC " (J- d--P' Printod, 5/22/97 Page No.3 and vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of the appropriate final map. 11. A comprehensive wall plan indicating color, materials, height and location shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to approval of each final 'B" Map. Materials and color used shall be compatible and all walls located in comer side-yards or rear yards facing public or private streets or pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry and/or wrought iron material. A revised acoustical analysis indicating if view fencing, such as a combination of masonry and wrought iron, is allowable at the ends of cul-de-sacs backing up to Telegraph Canyon Road, East Orange Avenue and La Media Road, shall be prepared prior to submittal of the wall plan indicated above. If such fencing is allowable per the final acoustical analysis it shall be provided at the end of Applegate Street. View fencing shall be provided at the ends of all other open cul-de-sacs where a sound wall is not required. The exposed portion of any combination tree standing/retaining wall as measured from finish grade shall not exceed 8.5 feet. The applicant shall submit a detail and/or cross section of the maximum/minimum conditions for all 'í:ombination walls" which include retaining and tree standing walls. Said detail shall be included in the grading plans submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning prior to the approval of the first grading permit. The maximum height of all retaining walls shall be 2.5 feet in height when combined with freestanding walls which are six feet in height. A 2-3 foot separation shall be provided between tree standing and retaining walls where the combined height wouJd otherwise exceed 8.5 feet. 12. Lots backing or siding onto pedestrian paseos or parks shall be provided with view fencing such as three feet of wrought iron on top of a three foot masonry wall, in accordance with the comprehensive wall plan and subject to approval by the Fire Marshal and the Planning and Parks and Recreation Directors. Where said walllfencing is located adjacent to any public park, the wall/fencing, including footing shall be located wholly within the park and maintained by the City. 13. Should the applicant propose an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan to reduce density within the Village Cores at some time in the future, the provision of alley product shall be analyzed and considered concurrently with said amendment. 14. Approval of lot widths and the final number of lots in Neighborhood 22 is subject to building design and product site plan approval by the Planning Department. A reduction in the number of currently proposed lots may occur prior to approval of actual building permits for this Neighborhood. 15. Alternative A for Neighborhood R-12 as depicted on the tentative map is the preferred alternative. The applicant and the adjacent landowner shall make all reasonable efforts to work together in order to accomplish this alternative. If, after six months from the effective date of the map, no agreement has been reached, the other alternate depicted on the map shall be acceptable. MCMILC!'F.DOC 9tJ -ø2 '1 Pr;nted, 5122/97 Page No.4 STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBliC IMPROVEMENTS 16. Dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the approval of the applicable 'B" Map as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct and guarantee the construction of all streets shown on the tentative map and all street improvements as required by the PFFP for each particular phase which could be a result of the cumulative development within SPA One. 17. Secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the construction and/or construct street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets deemed necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. Said improvements may include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, landscaping, irrigation, fencing, fire hydrants and traffic signal interconnection conduits and wiring. Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the Tentative Map. All other design criteria shall comply with the Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design Standards, the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual and the City Landscape Manual current at the time of approval of the appropriate final 'B" Map, unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein. Exhibit A indicates the relationship between the Otay Ranch SPA One roadway designations and the approved City designations in the Circulation Element of the General Plan for purposes of determining the appropriate design standards for all streets within SPA One. Should the City Engineer deem that the construction of sidewalks along the off site portions of East Orange Avenue and East Palomar Street west of Pas eo Ranchero is not necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision, their construction may be delayed. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the developer shall provide a cul-de-sac in accordance with City standards at the end of all proposed street stubs along the subdivision boundary. The City Engineer may approve the installation of a temporary turnaround or other acceptable alternative at the end of those streets that might be extended in the future to provide access to the adjacent property. 18. Include a fully activated traffic signal at the following intersections as part of the improvement plans associated with the final 'B" Map which triggers the installation of the related street improvements. a. East Palomar Street and Paseo Ranchero b. East Palomar Street and La Media Road c. East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue d. East Orange Avenue and Paseo Ranchero e. East Orange Avenue and La Media Road MCMILCXFDOC 9ft "Jo Pnnt,d, 5/22/97 Page No.5 Install underground improvements, standards and street lights with the construction of street improvements, and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined by the City Engineer 19. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans. 20. All vertical and horizontal curves and intersections of all streets shall meet the sight distance requirements of the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to comply with the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. Any conflict between the CalTrans Highway Design Manual and the City standards shall be resolved by the City Engineer. 21. Prior to the approval of the final 'B"Map containing parkways, the Developer shall agree to plant trees within all street parkways and street tree easements which have been selected fTom the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan which shall be approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director and a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. An irrigation system shall be provided fTom each individual lot to the adjacent parkway. The improvement plans, including final selection of street trees, for the street parkways shall be approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer. 22. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first final Map (including an "A:' Map), in which the developer agrees to the following: a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities (i.e., bus stops) when directed by the Director of Public Works. The improvement plans for said stops shall be prepared in accordance with the transit stop details described in the Village Design Plans and approved by the Directors of Planning and Public Works. b. Not protest the fonnation of any future regional benefit assessment district to finance the Light Rail Transit. c. Fund its fair share of the cost of construction of the two pedestrian bridges connecting Villages One to Village Two and Village Five to Village Six as determined by the City Engineer based on the proportionate benefit received fTom the improvements. The developer shall also identifY the financing mechanism to be used to fund said cost. 23. Prior to approval of the appropriate final map, the Developer shall grant in fee to the City the right-of-way for the Light Rail Transit as indicated on the typical cross section of East Palomar Street on the approved Tentative Map. Said right-of-way shall be granted to the City for open space, transportation, and other public purposes. Said right-of-way shall not extend across street intersections unless approved by the City Engineer. Include said right -of-way in an open space district. \1CMILC"iF.DOC Printodo 5/22197 <;ß-;1 / Page No.6 24. Guarantee the construction and enter into an agreement to construct the pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Five in accordance with improvement plans approved by the City prior to approval of the final map that requires construction of La Media Road between East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue. The developer shall construct said bridge, at the time when that portion of La Media Road is constructed and may seek, with the concurrence of the City, repayment ITom other benefiting property owners through a reimbursement district. 25. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as detennined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. 26. Prior to approval of the first final map for Neighborhood R-12 which requires the construction of the temporary access road to East Palomar Street, the developer shall accomplish the following: a. If required by the City Engineer, obtain a construction pemùt ITom the City approving the necessary modifications to any existing improvements, which are necessary to provide temporary access to Neighborhood R-12. b. Enter into an agreement where the developer agrees to: I. Remove to the satisfaction of the City Engineer the "Temporary Access Road" improvements, at such time as a permanent road connecting R-12 to East Palomar Street is opened for public use. 2. Construct the ultimate East Palomar Street improvements and regrade the area to be consistent with the streetscape of East Palomar Street as directed by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation at such time as a pennanent road connecting R-12 to East Palomar Street is opened for public use.. 3. Install signs as directed by the City Engineer, indicating that the "Temporary Access Road" will be closed once a pennanent road connecting R-12 to East Palomar Street is opened for public use. 4. Provide a Notice in any residential disclosure document that the "Temporary Access Road" will be closed once a pennanent road connecting R-12 to East Palomar Street is opened for public use. 5. Provide for all costs associated with the vacation of the 'Temporary Access Road"located within the proposed future residential lot. c. Provide security acceptable to the City in the amount detennined by the City Engineer to guarantee the removal of the Temporary Access Road improvements and ~1CMJLCKF.DOC ~!?- J2 P,intcd, 5/22197 Pa¡¡e No.7 construction of the ultimate East Palomar Street improvements as directed by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation 27. Include the necessary modifications to the applicable existing traffic signals at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road at Otay Lakes Road as part of the improvement plans associated with the first final 'B"Map which triggers the construction of La Media Road. Install underground improvements, standards and street lights with the construction of street improvements, and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined by the City Engineer. 28. Include the easement for the proposed "Temporary Access Road" to R-12 ITom East Palomar Street to the northern property line across the proposed future residential lot. On the appropriate final 'B" Map, as determined by the City Engineer, grant said easement to the City for open space, transportation, and other public uses. 29. Provide: (1) a minimum setback of 19.5 feet on driveways ITom the back of sidewalk to garage, (2) a minimum 7-foot parkway (face of curb to property line) around the turnaround area of the cul-de-sac, and (3) sectional roll-up type garage doors at all properties ITonting on streets which are proposed for construction in accordance with the detail of the 'typical cul-de-sac, 150 feet or less" shown on Si)eet 1 of the tentative map, except as provided for in the Planned Community District Regulations or approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Director. 30. Not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities crossing any public street. This shall include the prohibition of the installation of sleeves for future construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this requirement if the following is accomplished: a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following: 1. Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities within the public right-of-way. 2. Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service. 3. Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is performed in the area. The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the developer. b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations where private facilities traverse public streets. MCMILCNF.DOC 98-33 P,intod, 5/22/97 Page No.8 31. Include in separate lots the right-of-way required to accommodate the future grade separation at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes Road. These lots shall be granted in fee to the City for Open Space, transportation, and other public purposes on the appropriate final 'B" Map, as detennined by the City Engineer. Prior to the approval of the grading plans proposing the grading of the area that would accommodate said intersection, the developer shall submit a design study, acceptable to the City Engineer, of the grading required for said grade separated intersection. 32. Residential Street Condition A as denoted on the cover page of the tentative map is the preferred section and shall be implemented on all residential streets, excluding the alley product, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director. Following is a list of streets where Residential Street Condition A shall be implemented: Neighborhood R-ll: Santa Delfina Ave., Pacifica Ave., Colusa Drive, Ballena Ave., Ballena Court, Montana Drive, Quailsprings Drive and Coalsprings Drive. Neighborhood R-12: Carmel Avenue, Pleasanton Road, Carmel Court and Ojai Court. Neighborhood R-23: Bridlevale Drive, Ravenrock Drive, Fawntail Drive, Bouquet Canyon Drive, Strawberry Valley Road, Elk Run Court and Covey Court. Neighborhood R-24: Bouquet Canyon Drive, Femwood Drive, Lonetree Drive, Sagetree Drive, Clovertree Drive and Bramblewood Drive. Residential street Condition B may be used in Neighborhood R-22. 33. The applicant shall submit a conceptual design for the bridge connections between Village One and Village Five which indicates materials, height, location, etc. Said design plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of the final 'B" Map that requires construction of La Media Road between East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue. 34. Requested General Waivers 1,2,3 and 4 and Specific Waiver 1, as indicated on the cover sheet of the tentative map, are hereby approved. 35. Right-of-way for the light rail transit line shall provide for spiral curves as provided by MTDB and approved by the City Engineer. 36. The developer shall dedicate the right of way and easements within the boundaries of the tentative map for other land owners to pioneer public facilities in the property as required by the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP); provided, however, that such dedications shall be restricted to those reasonably necessary for the construction of the facilities identified in the PFFP. 37. The Developer shall be responsible for the construction of full improvements of that portion of East Palomar Street contained within the proposed tentative map, including the installation of full transit stop improvements at the Village Five core. In the event said portion of \1CMILCNF.DOC jß~Y P,in"d, 5/22/97 Page No.9 East Palomar Street is proposed for construction in phases, the Developer shall: (1) submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer of a construction phasing plan, which shall detennine the improvements, facilities, and/or dedications to be provided with each phase, and (2) enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the issuance of any grant of approval for the construction of the initial phase of East Palomar Street, where the Developer agrees to construct the remaining phases at such time as required by the PFFP. 38. In order to finance the construction of the backbone facilities (which include but are not limited to East Palomar Street within the tentative map, transit stops, pedestrian bridges, Telegraph Canyon detention basin and Poggi Canyon Channel and detention basin) not included within a City development fee program and which would provide benefit to areas beyond a single ownership within the Otay Ranch SPA One, the Developer may seek, with the concurrence of the City, payment of the fair share of the construction cost of said facilities from other benefiting properties through the establishment of a reimbursement mechanism, a development impact fee program, an assessment mechanism or other equitable facility financing program within the City's discretion. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 39. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer, and based on the soils engineering study, between the property lines of the proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer shall not approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback. The developer shall submit notarized letters ofpennission to grade for all off-site grading. 40. In conjunction with the as built grading plans, the applicant shall submit a list of proposed lots with the appropriate grading plan indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between the two situations. 41. Comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. 42. Provide runoff detention basins or any other facility approved by the City Engineer to reduce the peak runoff from the development to an amount equal to or less than the present lOa-year fi'equency peak runoff. 43. Prior to approval of (1) the first final 'B"Map or grading pennit whichever occurs first for land draining into the Poggi Canyon, and (2) the first final 'B" Map or grading pennit whichever occurs first for land draining into the Telegraph Canyon Channel, the developer shall: a. Guarantee the construction of the applicabJe drainage facility, unless otheIWise approved by the City Engineer as follows: MCMILCNF.DOC 9ð--yS- P,int<d, 5/22/97 Page No. 10 I. Runoff detention/desilting basin and naturalized channel in Poggi Canyon; or 2. Runoff detention Basin in Telegraph Canyon Channel The Developer may agree to construct these facilities at a later time if approved by the City Engineer and if the developer provides private temporary runoff detention basins or other facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which would reduce the peak runoff ITom the development to an amount equal to less than the present 1O0-year peak flow. Said temporary facilities shall comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which approves any temporary facility, the deveJoper shall enter into an agreement with the City to guarantee the adequate operation and maintenance (O&M) of said facility. The developer shall provide security satisfactory to the City to guarantee the O&M activities, in the event said facilities are not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and agreements with the environmental regulatOlY agencies required to perform this work. b. Prepare a maintenance program including a schedule, estimate of cost, operations manual and a financing mechanism for the maintenance of the applicable facilities. Said program shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer, the Director of Parks and Recreation, and the applicable environmental agencies. c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista and the applicable environmental agencies (Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife) wherein the parties agree to implement the mamtenance program. d. Enter into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following; I. Provide for the maintenance of the proposed detention basin in Telegraph Canyon and the proposed naturalized channel and detention basin in Poggi Canyon until such time as maintenance of such facilities is assumed by the City or an open space district. 2. Provide for the removal of siltation in (I.)the Telegraph Canyon detention basin and (2.) Poggi Canyon Channel and detention basin until all upstream grading of the area contained within the tentative map is completed and erosion protection planting is adequately established as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation. 3. Provide for the removal of any siltation in (I.)the Telegraph Canyon detention basin and (2.)Poggi Canyon Channel and detention basin attributable to the development for a minimum period of five years after City acceptance of the landscaping improvements. MCMILC!':F.DOC <J!! 'Y? Pnnt,d, 5/22'97 Page No. II 44. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first final 'B"Map or grading pennit whichever occurs first for land draining into the existing Telegraph Canyon Channel, where the developer agrees to perform the following acrivities within the portion of said existing channel extending ITom Paseo Ladera to the eastem subdivision boundary: a. Provide for the removal of siltation until all upstream grading of the area contained within the tentative map is completed and erosion protection planting is adequately established as detennined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation. b. Provide for the removal of any siltation attributable to the development for a minimum period offive years after City acceptance of the landscaping improvements. 45. Ensure that brow channels and ditches emanating ITom and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private property and vice versa. 46. Provide a graded access (12 feet minimum width) and access easements as required by the City Engineer to all public storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. Improved access as detennined by the City Engineer shall be provided to public drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 47. Provide a protective fencing system around: (1) the proposed detention basins at Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon, and (2) inlets and outlets of storm drain structures, as directed by the City Engineer. The final design and types of construction materials shall be subject to approval of the Director of Planning and the City Engineer. 48. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to the point of connection with public facilities as private. 49. Provide a 6 inch thick concrete access road to the bottom of the proposed detention basins. This access shall have a minimum width of 12 feet, a maximum slope of 8%, and a heavy broom finish on the ramp as directed by the City Engineer. 50. Obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) ITom the Federal Emergency Management Agency revising the CUITent National Flood Insurance Program maps of the Telegraph Canyon Channel to reflect the effect of the proposed drainage improvements. The LOMR shall be completed prior to acceptance by the City of the proposed detention facility. 51. Provide graded maintenance access roads along both sides of the proposed on-site and off-site portions of the Poggi Canyon Channel. The width of said roads shall be 12 feet urness otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final dimensions and location of the access roads shall be as detennined by the City Engineer. 52. Prior to the approval of the first final 'B"Map, the developer shall submit for the approval of the City Engineer, a study demonstrating that the proposed detention basin in Telegraph Canyon is capable of reducing the peak runoff from SPA One to or less than the present 100-year frequency peak MCMILC~F.DOC 9ß' 3? Printed, 5'22/97 Page No. ]2 runoff The City Engineer may require that said study be reviewed by an outside consultant to detennine the effect of the proposed detention facility on the existing naturalized channel. All costs associated with retaining said consultant shall be the responsibility of the Developer. The final design and location of the detention basin shall be approved by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Director of Parks and Recreation. 53. Prior to the installation of the regional trail, install a fence along those portions of: (1) the existing maintenance access roads along the Telegraph Canyon Channe~ and (2) the proposed maintenance access roads of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which are proposed to be incorporated into the Regional Tiail System. The fence shall be erected only at those locations where its installation will not interfere with the nonnal channel maintenance. The specific locations where the fence will be allowed and the fence details shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation 54. Prior to approval of mass grading plans, the Developer shall prepare and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Director of Parks and Recreation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans, the Developer shall obtain approval oflandscapelinigation plans. 55. Landfonn grading, similar to what has been proposed along Telegraph Canyon Road indicated on this tentative map and consistent with City policy and the approved tentative maps for the adjacent properties, shall be implemented adjacent to all off-site major roads (i.e., East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue). 56. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls which are to be maintained by open space districts or other methods shall be constructed entirely within open space lots. 57. The grading plans for the intersection at East Orange AvenuelPaseo Ranchero shall include a partial grading of the area that would accommodate the eastbound on-ramp and off- ramp and the westbound on-ramp of the future grade separated intersection. The elevations and extent of the required grading shall be detennined by the City Engineer to: (1) allow in the future the construction of any additional grading necessary for the ultimate intersection configuration, and (2) construct the Poggi Canyon Channel at its ultimate location. 58. Prior to approval of the grading and/or improvement plans proposing the construction of the culvert under La Media Road at the crossing with the Telegraph Canyon Channel, the developer shall submit a study acceptable to the City Engineer demonstrating that the proposed culvert will be capable of handling the design flow in the event said culvert needs to be extended in the future in conjunction with the grading for a grade separated intersection at Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road. 59. Prior to approval of the first final 'B"Map or first grading permit (whichever occurs first) for Neighborhood R-] 2 (Alternate A or B), the developer shall submit a study for the approval of the City Engineer demonstrating that the I OO-year peak flow proposed to be discharged !Tom said neighborhood to the adjacent properties to the west, is equal to or less than the present] OO-year 'IC'IILCNF.DOC 15 ,:?JY Pcintod, 5/22'97 Page No. 13 peak flow. The City Engineer may approve that increased flows be deposited into the adjacent properties if the developer provides: (1) verification in the form of an agreement with the owners of downstream properties indicating the acceptance of the increased flows, or (2) evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that any existing downstream drainage improvements will be capable of handling the increased flows in accordance with City standards. The developer shall limit the flows to non-erosive velocities and provide erosion control to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 60. Prior to approval of any final 'B" Map, Developer shall agree to indemnifY City for any liability, claims or actions resulting ITom the downstream property owners accepting the increased flows. SEWER 61. Provide an improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. 62. Prior to the approval of the first fina1 'B"Map for any property located within Neighborhood R-12 (Alternate A), the developer shall construct or secure the construction, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, of a gravity sewer line connecting Neighborhood R-12 (Alternate A) to an approved public sewer line. As an alternative to the gravity sewer line the developer may propose the construction of the sewage pump station shown on the tentative map at the western boundary of R-12 (Alternate A). Prior to the issuance of any grant of approval for the construction of said 'þump station" and associated improvements, the developer shall comply with all the requirernents of Council Policy No. 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy). 63. Prior to approval of any final 'B" Map for any property located within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Trunk gravity basin, the developer shall construct or secure the construction, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, ofthe Poggi Canyon Sewer Trunk improvements required to serve the properties located within said final map. As an alternative to the gravity sewer line the developer may propose the construction of the sewage pump station shown on the tentative map at the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of East Orange Avenue and La Media Road. Prior to the issuance of any grant of approval for the construction of said 'þump station" and associated improvements, the developer shall comply with all the requirements of Council Policy No. 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy). PARKS/OPEN SP ACE/WILDLIFE PRESERV A nON General 64. The project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres oflocal parks and related improvements per 1, 000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks. Pedestrian parks are an integral component of the plan and shall receive MCMILC~FDOC 9!3r37 P,inted: 5/22'97 Page No. 14 partial park credit as defined below. A minimum of two thirds (2 acres/I,OOO residents) of local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks.. The remaining requirement (I acre/I ,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment offees. 65. All local parks shall be consistent with the SPA One PFFP and shaH be instaHed by the Applicant. A construction schedule, requiring all parks to be completed in a timely manner, shall be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. 66. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related Parks and Recreation Department specifications and policies. 67. All aspects of the neighborhood parks, including the applicants fair share portion of Park P-9 and the paseo, shall be designed in accordance with the City Landscape Manual. 68. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent the combined park credit for neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks and the town square park exceeds the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized by the Applicant to satisfY local park requirements in future SPAs. 69. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee reimbursement scheduJe in coordination with the adopted construction schedule. Milestones will be established for partial reimbursement during the construction process. The City may withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park has been completed and accepted. Reimbursement of PAD fees shall include the interest accrued by the City on said PAD fees minus the City's cost of processing and administering this reimbursement program. 70. Unless otherwise specifically stated herein, Developer shall provide the City with an irrevocable offer of dedication, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for all designated public park lands prior to approval of the first final 'B" Map within the phase identified in the PFFP for said parks. 71. Pedestrian Parks (also known as mini-Darks): Pedestrian parks less than five acres, with the exception of Park P-9 and the paseo, as identified in the SPA One Plan, shall be maintained by a funding entity other than the City's General Fund. Pedestrian parks shaH receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park credit, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation pursuant to the City wide smaH park credit criteria which shall be approved by the City Council. 72. Neighborhood Parks: Developer shall provide the City with an irrevocable offer of dedication, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the park identified in the PFFP as P-6 prior to the approval of the final map in accordance with the PFFP phasing. a. In addition to those PAD fees required by Condition #83, the Applicant shaH pay PAD fees based on a formula of2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 431 ~1CMILC"F.DOC 9!f - .vb? Printed: 3/22/97 Page No. 15 dwelling units. In the City's sole discretion, PAD fees may be required for units in excess of the first 431 dwelling units. b. Prior to the approval of the first final map which creates residential lots ('B" Map), the applicant shall enter into a supplemental agreement where the applicant agrees to construct and guarantees construction of the first neighborhood park, no later than issuance of the building pennit for the 43lst dwelling unit. The agreement shall also provide the following: 1. The level of amenities required in the neighborhood park shall be determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with the park master planning effort required by the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The applicant shall complete construction of the neighborhood park within six (6) months of commencing construction of said park. 2. The timing of construction of Parks P-6, P- 7, P-8 and the regional trails shall be addressed in the revised PFFP. 3. At no time following completion of construction of the first phase of the first neighborhood park shall there be a deficit in 'constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acres/I,OOO residents. Applicant agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building pennits should said deficit occur. For purposes of this condition, the tenn 'constructed neighborhood park shall mean that construction of the park has been completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and Recreation as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the mandatory one year maintenance period. This condition is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements 4. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees for any amount above their pro-rata share for the costs of constructing a turn-key park constructed in accordance with the Parks Master Plan. c. The applicant shall grant to the City, at the "A" Map stage, an irrevocable offer of dedication for all neighborhood parks shown on the Tentative Map. 73. Community Parks: Prior to the approval of each final 'ß" Map the Applicant shall pay PAD fees for the Community Park based upon a fonnula of 1 acre per 1, 000 residents 74. Trails/ODen Space: a. All trails shall connect to adjoining existing and/or proposed trails in neighboring development projects, as detennined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. MC~lILC"F.DOC 9 ß -- ';1/ Printed: 5/22/97 Page No. 16 b The two connector trails ITom Neighborhoods R-24 and R-25 in Village Five to Telegraph Canyon Road shall be combined into one trail in Open Space Lot 37 and shall connect to the regional trail in one location. c. The maximum gradient for connector trails shall be 10%. Steeper grades of up to 12% for short runs of 50 feet may be permitted subject to the approval by the Parks and Recreation Director. d. The graded section upon which the connecting trails are constructed shall be 10 feet in width. Six feet shall be provided for the trail bed, with a 2 foot graded shoulder on either side. e. Landscape and irrigation plans for the transit right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director in conjunction with the landscape plans for East Palomar Street. 75. CommunitY Gardens: a. Community Gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines in the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, including creation of the Community Garden Committee and their responsibilities. b. Water lines shall be stubbed ITom the nearest open space water meter to the site(s) in order to facilitate development of the Community Gardens. c. Community Garden sites shall be consistent with those identified on the tentative map. d. Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by an Open Space Maintenance District, Homeowner's Association or other funding mechanism approved by the Director o(Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer. e. Community Gardens shall not receive park credit. OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS 76. Prior to the approval of the first final 'B"Map, the developer shall: a. Submit and obtain approval of the SPA One Open Space Master Plan ITom the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Open Space Master Plan shall be based upon the approved Concept and Analysis Plan, the requirements of which are outlined in the City ofChula Vista Landscape Manual and include but are not limited to elements such as final recreational trail alignments and fencing and phasing. b. Request the formation of an Open Space District. pursuant to the 1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act or other financing mechanism approved by City Council. The district ~1CMILCNF.DOC 9(J-(2. P,inl,d, 5/22/97 Page No. 17 fonnation shall be submitted to Council for consideration prior to approval ofthe first fina1 B map. Maintenance of the open space improvements shall be accomplished by the developer for a minimum period of one year or until such time as accepted into the open space district by the Director of Parks and Recreation. If Council does not approve the open space district fonnation, some other financing mechanism shall be identified and submitted to Council for consideration prior to approval of the first fina1 map. c. Submit evidence acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation of the fonnation of a Master Homeowner's Association (MHOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City, which includes all the properties within the approved tentative map prior to approval of the first 'B" Map. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of the improvements listed in Condition_. The City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation may require that some of those improvements be maintained by the Open Space District. The fina1 detennination of which improvements are to be included in the Open Space District and those to be maintained by the MHOA shall be made during the Open Space District Proceedings. The MHOA sha11 be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation require such annexation offuture tentative map areas. The MHOA fonnation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney. d. Submit a list of all Otay Ranch SPA One facilities and other items to be maintained by the proposed district. Separate lists shall be submitted for the improvements and facilities to be maintained by the Open Space District and those to be maintained by a Master Homeowner's Association. 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: 1. All facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to: walls, fences, water fountains, 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-inigated open space to aid in the estimation of a maintenance budget thereof. 2. Medians and parkways along East Orange Avenue (onsite and offsite), Paseo Ranchero, La Media Road, East Palomar Street (onsite and off site) and all other street parkways proposed for maintenance by the open space district or Homeowners' Association. 3. The proposed detention basin in Telegraph Canyon and the fair share of the maintenance of the existing naturalized Telegraph Canyon Channel east of Paseo Ladera as detennined by the City Engineer based on the proportional benefit received ITom the improvements. This includes but is not limited to the MCMILC);F DOC 9ß-~? P,int,d, 5122/97 Pa~e No. ] 8 cost of maintenance and all cost to comply with the Department of Fish and Game and Corps of Engineers pennit requirements. 4. The proposed detention basin and naturalized channel in Poggi Canyon. This includes but is not limited to the cost of maintenance and all cost to comply with the Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers pennit requIrements. 5. Community Gardens 6. Pedestrian Bridges. 7. The proportional share of the maintenance of the median and parkways along that portion of Telegraph Canyon Road adjoining the development as detennined by the City Engineer. 8. Parkways and open space lots proposed along Santa Cora Avenue within Neighborhoods R-22, R-23, and R-24. 9. Parkways along Santa Delphina Avenue within Neighborhood R -11. 10. Trees planted within the 8-foot street tree easement adjacent to (l)the western right-of-way line of Santa Delphina Avenue and (2) Lone Tree Drive to the south right of way of Park 6.3. e. Submit an initial deposit of $15,000 to begin the process of formation of the open space district. All costs of formation and other costs associated with the processing of the open space relating to this project shall be borne by the developer. f Provide all the necessary information and materials (e.g., exhibits, diagrams, etc.) as determined by the City Engineer to prepare the engineer's report for the proposed open space district. 77. Include in the CC&Rs, if applicable, the obligation of the Homeowners' Association to maintain all the facilities and improvements within the open space lots rejected by the City prior to the approval of the fina1 map containing said lots. 78. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope), along the length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured ITom face-of-wall to beginning of slope, said area as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation. 79. Ensure that all buyers oflots adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are aware that they shall not modifY or supplement the wall or encroach onto the open space lots. These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each lot. \1C\!ILCNF.DOC 7'!J -~y P,;nt<d, 5'22/97 Page No. 19 80. Agree to not protest fonnation or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridorS along streets within and adjacent to the subject subdivision. 81. If requested by the City, the Developer shaIl grant in-fee to the City on the appropriate final map, all open space lots shown on the tentative map and execute and record a deed for each of the lots to be maintained through the open space district or the HOA Provide on the finaI map a certificate, pursuant to section 66477.2(a) of the Subdivision Map Act, rejecting those open space lots to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 82. Provide docwnentation, prior to the approval of the first finaI 'B" Map, to the Director of Planning and the City Engineer that an annexable Mello-Roos District, or other financing mechanism approved by the Sweetwater High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District has been established to provide for construction of schools. 83. The update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (currently being prepared) which incorporates the public facilities proposed in the Otay Ranch SPA One shaIl be approved by City Council prior to the approval of any finaI 'B"Map. 84. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes Landscaping and Irrigation (L & I) improvements to be installed in an open space lot to be maintained by the open space district, the developer shaIl place a cash deposit with the City which will guarantee the maintenance of the L & I improvements, prior to City acceptance of said improvements, in the event the improvements are not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation. The amount of the deposit shaIl be equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining the open space lots to City standards for a period of six months as determined by the City Engineer. Any unused portion of said deposit may be incorporated into the open space district's reserve at such time as the maintenance of the open space lot is asswned by the open space district. 85. Provide an 8-foot street tree easement adjacent to the western right-of-way line of Santa Delphina Avenue (within Neighborhood R-12) and to the south right of way of Lonetree Drive. 86. Ensure that all buyers of lots ITonting residential streets constructed in accordance with Condition A sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that (1) they are aware that they will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping improvements located between the curb and the sidewalk (excepting City approved trees which shaIl be maintained by the City), and (2) they shall not replace or remove any trees planted between the curb and the sidewalk without the approval of the City. These provisions shall be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each lot. WATER 87. Provide to the City a letter ITom Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the assessments! bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s). MCMILCNF.DOC 95 -1þ- Printed, 5/22/97 Pag:e No. 20 88. Present verification to the City Engineer in the fonn of a letter ITom Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long tenn water storage facilities. EASEMENTS 89. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street ITontage of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City urness otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 90. Indicate on the appropriate 'B" Map a reselVation of easements to the future Homeowners' Association for private stonn drain and private sewer facilities within City open space lots as directed by the City Engineer. 91. Obtain, prior to approval of any final 'B" Map, all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of the required improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers, maintenance roads, and any other public facilities necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. 92. NotifY the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by City if off-site right- of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of approval. (amy off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.) After said notification, the developer shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the tentative map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as determined by the City Attorney. d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the final map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incuITed in said acquisition. The requirements of a, band c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the appropriate Final Map. MCMILCNF.DOC 15 -r-¡, P,int<do 5/22/97 Page No. 21 93. Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on any final map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as directed by the City Engineer. 94. Grant to City on the appropriate fina1 'B" Map two foot access easements along the rear and side property line oflots adjoining walls to be maintained by the open space district. The locations of these easements shall be as required by the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for maintenance of said walls. 95. Grant on the appropriate fina1 'B"Map the following: (1.) a minimum 15 foot wide drainage and access easement for stonndrains located between residential units, and (2.) a minimum 20 foot wide sewer and access easement for sewerlines located between residential units. The City Engineer may approve that a reduced (stonndrain and/or sewer) easement width be granted at those Jocations where stonndrains are proposed adjacent to sewerlines. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width. AGREEMENTSIFINANCIAL 96. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each fina1 'B" Map, where the developer agrees to the following: a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occur: 1. Regional development threshold limjts set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached. 2. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. 3. The applicant does not comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program. b. That the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (pFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One if the required facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program, have not been completed. c. Defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, ITom any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision approval. d. Hold the City harmless ITom any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting ITom this project. MCMILCNF.DOC ?13-t(l Print,d: 5/22/97 Page No. 22 e. Ensure that all fumclùsed cable television companies ("Cable Company") are pennitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cabJe television service to each lot on public streets within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franclùsed cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the fumclùse and wlùch are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista. £ Include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for the Homeowners' Association (HOA) provisions prolùbiting the HOA from dedicating or conveying for public streets, land used for private streets (i.e., in multi-family areas) without approval of 100% of all the HOA members. g. Ensure that all insurance companies are pennitted equal opportunity to go out to bid to provide a Cooperative Homeowner's Insurance Program (CHIP). h. Pay, upon Council approval of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee, the total amount of the fees for those lots of the final map which are Jocated within the area of benefit of said facility and that obtained building pennits prior to the establishment of said fee. 97. Enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first final 'B"Map, where the developer agrees to the following: a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMF). b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of COlTectÎonal facilities. 98. Prior to approval of the first final Map (including an "A" Map), or as otherwise detennined by the Director of Planning, witlùn SPA One and consistent with the City's Housing Element, Ranch-Wide and SPA One Affordable Housing Plans, the applicant shall enter into and execute with the City an Affordable Housing Agreement ('SPA One Affordable Housing Agreement') containing, but not limited to, the following provisions: (a.) The obligation to provide the total number oflow and moderate income units required under the City's Affordable Housing Program, based on the number of dwelling units contained within the Master Tentative Map for SPA One; (b.) Identify the overall number of dwelling units within the Master Tentative Map for which the applicant can receive final map approval prior to the applicant selecting and guaranteeing, to the City's satisfaction, final affordable housing site(s); (c.) The number of dwelling units within the master tentative map area which can receive building permit authorizations prior to the applicant obtaining building permits for a specified number of the required low income units; and (d.) A description of what information must be provided in \1CMILCMDOC 18 ,,/r Pnnlod, 5/22/97 Page No. 23 subsequent Project Level Affordable Housing Agreements. Upon its approval by the City, the terms and conditions of the SPA One Affordable Housing Agreement shall become conditions of this resolution, and is hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 99. The Applicant shall pay, prior to approval of the first 'B" Map, their proportional share, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation, of a collaborative study analyzing local parkneedsfortheareaeast of the 1-805 Freeway. 100. Prior to the approval of the first final 'B" Map, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of an 'improvement Phasing Schedule" which will identify the timing of construction of all backbone facilities and/or completion of the activity noted in the following table. The Improvement Phasing Schedule shall be consistent with the PFFP. COST ITEM TO BE INÇLUDED IN IMPROVEMENT PHASING SCHEDULE FACILITY *Payment of Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage For areas covered by backbone streets and all DIF common areas with include, but are not limited to, parks, schools, paseos and open space lots. * Acquisition/dedication of off-site drainage Poggi Canyon Channel (on-site and off-site) easement. and detention basin *Construction and maintenance (prior to City acceptance). *Construction and maintenance (prior to City Telegraph Canyon Channel detention basin. acceptance). Security satisfactory to the City shall be provided for the above backbone facilities when their construction or compliance is triggered as identified in the approved Improvement Phasing Schedule. In addition to the foregoing, prior to approval of the first final 'B" Map, the Developer shall provide security satisfactory to the City Engineer to guarantee the construction of the following: a. Full improvements of that portion of East Palomar Street contained within the tentative map boundaries including full improvements of the transit stop proposed in East Palomar Street at the Village Five core. b. Fair share of the improvements for the pedestrian bridges connecting Village One to Village Five, Village One to Village Two and Village Five to Village Six. The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110% times a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have been approved by the City; 150% times the approved cost estimate if improvement plans are being processed by the City or 200% 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 MCMILCNF.DOC 95 ~ ~'l Printed, 5/22/97 Page No. 24 demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. SCHOOLS 101. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located Within Village Five, prior to issuance of the SOOth residential building permit (150 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School district as based on District facility needs. MISCELLANEOUS 102. Include in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems which are private. The CC&Rs shall also include provisions requiring the HOA to obtain an encroachment permit ITom the City prior to performing work on any private easement which may disturb any existing landscaping or any other public improvements. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. The CC&R's shall also include language which states that any proposal by the HOA for dedication or conveyance for public purposes ofland used for private streets (i.e., in multi-family areas) will require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowners' Association members. 103. Submit copies of Final Maps and improvement plans and storm drain plans in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate on 5-1/4" lID or 3-1/2" disks prior to the approval of each Final Map. 104. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the Califomia System -Zone VI (1983). 105. The developer may submit and obtain the approval of the City of a master final map ('W' Map ) showing 'super block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof. Said "A" map shall also show the backbone street dedications and utility easements required to serve the 'super block" lots. All 'super" block lots created shall have access to a dedicated public street. Said 'w' map shall not be considered the first map as indicated in other conditions of approval unless said map contains single or multiple family lots or a subdivision of the multiple family lots shown on the tentative map or unless otherwise indicated in said conditions of approval:. The City shall not require improvement plans in order to approve a final map for any 'w' Map lots, but the developer shall provide security to guarantee the construction of the backbone facilities, prior to approval of any "A" Map in the following amounts: MCMILCNF.DOC 9ß-Jb P,int,do 5/22/97 Page No. 25 The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110% times a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have been approved by the City, 150% times the approved cost estimate if improvement plans are being processed by the City or 200% 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 Engineer that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. Prior to approval of the first '1\" Map, the Developer shall enter into an agreement where the Developer agrees that the subsequent development of a multiple family lot, which does not require the filing of a 'ß" Map, shall meet (prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot) all the applicable conditions of approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer. Construction of non-backbone streets adjacent to multiple family lots will not need to be bonded for with the final '1\"Map which created such lot. However, such improvements will be required to be constructed under. the Municipal Code provisions requiring construction of street improvements under the design review and building permit issuance processes. In the event of a filing of a final map which requires oversizing (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances) of the improvements necessary to serve other properties, said final map shall be required to install all necessary improvements to serve the project plus the necessary oversizing of facilities required to serve such other properties. The developer may seek repayment from other property owners through a reimbursement district. 106. Prior to approval of the first '1\" Map, the Developer shall enter into an agreement to secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village Five Core Area prior to submitting any development proposals for commercial, multi-family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the SPA Five Village Core. 107. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 19.09 of the CYMe) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall complete the following: (1.) Fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and (2.) Prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities. 108. The applicant of each master tentative map shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to MCMILCNF.DOC 9£;3/ Printed, 5122/97 Page No. 26 ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a well rounded educational background and experience, including but not limited to land use planning and architecture. 109. The applicant shall submit copies of any proposed C.c. and R's for review and approval by the Director of Planning and the City Engineer prior to approval of each final 'B"Map. 110. Fully accessible handicap access shall be provided at the ends of the following cul-de-sacs: Fawntai1 Drive, Sagetree Drive, Montana Drive. Access via stairs shall be provided at the ends of the following cul-de-sacs: Ramrock Drive, Thistlwood Avenue, Clovertree Drive, Bramblewood Drive, and Applegate Drive.. 111. If developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map but prior to recordation of the applicable fina1 'B" Map, they may do so by obtaining the required approvals and permits ITom the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final 'B" Map and improvement plans) will be approved. All work perfonned by the developer prior to approval of the applicable 'B"Map shall be at developer's own risk.. Prior to permit issuance, the developer sha11 acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., fina1 'B" Map and improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under such early permit. The developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable fina1 'B"Map does not record. PHASING 112. The applicant shall submit to the City a revised phasing for review and approval prior to approval of the first final 'B"Map. The PFFP sha11 be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing plan 113. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple fina1 maps, the developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 114. The Public Facilities Finance Plan or revisions hereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One, actual development may differ ITom the MCMILCNFDOC 9ß~;2. P,;n',d, 5/22/97 Page No. 27 assumptions contained in the PFFP. Neither the PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modifY the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. CODE REQUIREMENTS 115. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. 116. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 117. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees b. Signal Participation Fees c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to_sewer connection fees d. Interim SR-125 impact fee e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIF f. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future g. Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF h. Reimbursement District for Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2 Undergrounding i. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee. Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 118. Comply with all relevant Federal, State and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. 119. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments" pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments. Submit disclosure fonn for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. 120. Comply with Council Policy No. 570-03 if pump stations for sewer purposes are proposed. 121. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within open spaces. MCMILCNF.DOC ~ß -fJ Printodo 5/22/91 Page No. 28 122. The applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City ofChula Vista Landscape Manual. 123. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation (19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09,100). The applicant acknowledges that the City is presently in the process of amending its Growth Management Ordinance to add a proposed Section 19.09.105, to establish provisions necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards (particularly traffic) prior to construction of State Route 125. Said provisions will require the demonstration, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, of sufficient street system capacity to accommodate a proposed development as a prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the applicant hereby agrees to comply with adopted amendments tothe Growth Management Ordinance. 124. Upon submittal of building plans for small lot single family (5,000 square feet or less as defined in the City of Chula Vista Design Manual) residential development, plans shall clearly indicate that 750 square feet of private open space will be provided. 125. All proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations. MCMILCNFDOC 9!J~Y P,in"d, 5/22/97 Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Pages Proposed for Amendment by West Coast Land Fund/McMillin Draft dated: May 14, 1997 Underline = Ten proposed to be added 5trikeotrt = Text proposed to be deleted C)ß'S"þ' ~ g 0 . ü : I!::..~ ¡;¡ ¡ ....... '" w c ë c to ¡¡: .. c 0 < 11. III .c u i- a:: >- to Õ it) ~ .,... fa ~ 5 ~ ..J > >1/) . ê5 ~ :I:-¡¡¡ (J g ~ zcn~ < C'I~ II: c: ¡;: .- :s > c: ::> ~ æ ~ i Ii o~~ : ~ " I ~ . .., \ .~ \ ïS:: --ì \ ~ / \ ~ : \ 4 """"Z ¡¡; ~--J--- )3-3 f/ ~:, ò ¡ :::<¡ In ~~ ~ i ~i ~ ~ ~ ~;:¡; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;:¡; ~ ~;:¡; 2 2 ~ ~ 2 ~ :: :: 2 2 ... 2 ... ... - 121... Q @ ¡:: :: Q ¡¡ !jj .... " ... w " ¡r g ~ ~ ~ ~ a ..J!!1 2 O!!1 Qa:wxSa:x Q. a: w... Q. W ffi II I I g : CJ I , 0 : W .1 I g j ..J 0 . I iEJ ~:I 'I II , x , ¡; ~~ ~ "':5 !ò g~ I ~' ¡¡¡ ~:> ~ sh. ~m \ ~m ~~}~ HU ~£f 5'l -- ~m ~j ~ ~ w ~t -j 5 ~ ~U ~ ~ ~ w ~ ;: w z W;: 3: ~ ~ ¡,,~ ~ ~ :¡iiJJ ~ ¡:: i3~ c ~ ~ ~!!! z 0. W ~õ W II <'" c¡ wf3 ~ I §~ I ~ J:I ~' ,; Ie :! .. ~ l[~ ~~B š~ ~,; ii~~ 3W ~~.£i I!jii Ýlg ~ go.' 0/7- ~m I LJ ~ -. a.. ~ ;;;; 5 =: , ::; ¡; :;: ;: ;§.!! 1 j~ ... ¡ . ~ ... III .. . ... 0 c .2 11 f .. . '" i I¡ L :r 0.. Zw Ó ~~ ~ ~~ ~ " ~ ~ Ii ~ a: " w :r 0 ~ .q « ¡¡ w w i!i w 8 ~ ~ E ~ > ~ ~ ~ g ~: ; w ~ c" =:r c ~ ~ ø g ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ w c:d~¡;¡~!i:ß~3ãŠ z......~:g~,¡¡¡;iii~ w:..r:' - >~=iii c¡".",.,,! 1;:(1' w : . : 1.1 : ¡ ..J " I . d ~;: I' I = :: I U-~ ~~~ U"t j8-54 n¡1 I ~'š' !H~ ,I' ~~I' nH Q Z w fi! ...I x ~i ¡!;;; .~ 0 'U ~:! I! Ii L .ZI ~ t1tJ '¿'tJ \ ,. 0 - '" - z 51 ~ Ii a ~ ~~ ~, -=.. ~ ~~ --~ffi~ ð ~ !J! i3 ~ å! ~ ~ fa u ~ ~ Iii Õ CI) ~ ~ a: -- z !( >- W 0 g 5 ~ ff ~ Iii z CI) 0 0 11. W C ~ t >(;~ w I. TI ',' , ...I ), '¿' tJ ~:I .. ,¡ :¡: I UN I . ~~ >-~ . 5> , q, ~' I z ~ ~ / : \ ã ~ FB ~ i¡~ \ !!J gh~ ) -i~~ I v--' -;...~ I ',,:, ,,~h ::, W.I '-I ;~fõ fJ!f ~ ¿ ( '~~~ ¡fif Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One ImDI LAND USE PLAN II. LAND USE The following provides a detailed description of Village One and Village Five land uses, as depicted on the SPA One Land Use Plan (Exhibit 1-6). Table 1-2 provides a comparison betWeen the GDP and SPA land use plans. Differences in acres (as described in more detail below) are attributable to more precise road locations, open spaœ areas and development areas. This ponion of the document also analyzes thc SPA land plan to evaluate consistency betWeen this SPA Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The following table sumarizes the dif- ferences betWeen the GDP defined Villages One and Five and the scope of this SPA Plan. Table 1-2 Land Use Comparative Table - SPA One ACRES DUS GDP SPA GDP SPA Village One 623.6 619.3 2,880 2,880 Village Five 493.4 486 2,878 2,878 SPA One Total 1,117.0 1,105.3 5,758 5,758 AI.,. W. of Paseo Jùnchero 280.0 264.8 443 443 <heraIl Total 1,397.0 1370.1 6,201 6,201 Ora)' Ranch 7ß-¿' .1- 1.33 M" ,. 1°97 ""'" ::: ¡ ..!oJ: ':';; ;§~ ¡ ""'c ~: c 0 t s: c .. ¡: .. .. ;:) ~ c .. ... ~~ I ~1i. ~ ~ if II) ~ .... en w ~ ...J j;î ..J . '. - dl!' > . ,¡~ Z " . . ,¡, ~ ~ I:, ~ , "I' 0 ð ¡h, . !.æ. Z ~ "" ..",. III hð§ .....S; a::5 => -- >~ i:!: ~ "i tJ -~ J 05 /: Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One EmIl LAND USE PLAN A. VILLAGE ONE The following table summarizes the differences betWeen the GDP defined Village One and the scope of this document. Table 1.3 GDP Land Use Comparative. Village One ACRES DUS Village One GDP SPA GDP SPA Single Family 328.6 273.0 1,314 \,314 Multi-Family 87.0 73.8 1,566 1.566 Parks 10.0 10.0 School 10.0 10.0 CPF 13.4 14.6 Commercial 11.4 11.1 External Circulation 46.5 32.8 Internal Circulation 45.1 Open Space 116.7 Village One Subtoral 623.6 470.4 2,880 2,880 Area W. of Pasco Ranchero 280.0 237.8 443 443 School 10.0 External Circulation 17.0 Subtoral 264.8 443 443 VIllAGE ONE TOTAL 280.0 735.2 3,323 3,323 The Otay Ranch General Development Plan defines Village One as containing approximately 904 acres. However, Otay Ranch SPA One covers a smaller area of approximately 619 acres. This reduced planning area includes the land surrounded by Paseo Ranchero, Telegraph Canyon Road, La Media and East Orange Ave. and ex- cludes the area west of Pas eo Ranchero.3 Accordingly, the number of units identified in the Village One SPA plan reflects the land uses approved in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan for the areas east of Paseo Ranchero and excludes the areas west of Paseo Ranchero. Ora)' 'A detojled d,.cuss,on ,eg"d,ng the "ea west 01 Paseo Ranche'o,. p'o""ed on page 1-47 to ¡-s;:} ß ---¿if Ranch 1.37 ",' " I'" ~;;::~H:a~:~;: :;;Hg¡¡~~ ~ ¡ " ! 1.~ ." ¡¡: - r~ ,e II l " §'..'.~"~~'.'fi !;¡~§~~~!I I ~ ~:; ~5 f . - ~ ~ ... i j f a3H~~¡;;Ha;;S~;¡a¡¡:;::a:n=~n P~:H;¡iq S~gi: .;. . z 0 II ... . J! uuuuuuua HHH~H!!! 1111 ¡ ~ 5 5 ~ J ~ II J I æ > w i5 1- 1 ww> " . ~ S!II . il Jil 'h ->"'~::J I _N........;.~.I ;';.;.~;¡-I" ,I.,.. I ~:: 1- i! I ~ II. I II f ..... ~.............. ....... uu~.... .000 .It!!..,..! l" g ~ ,. :5 ¡~0, !.. . 1 d d .. z ~ z " ~ ~ ~ i ~f ß g ~~i co ;!: .~. ~ ~ ;": ""'! W < i. "'§'Ji co co h~ ~"B ~ .. t~~ §i . ~ .. iJ8~ ~iU = ~n! !d] .l~: f~!i ~~ð§ .æ~~ ~ .¡f~ 1~- J : ~~2 '" "~~~ z... -- Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One LAND USE PLAN Table 1-5 GDP Land Use Comparative - Village Five ACRES DUS Village Fm: GDP SPA GDP SPA Single Family 280.6 238.0 1,263 1,263 Multi-Family 89.7 73.8 1,615 1,615 Parks 10.0 21.3 School 10.0 10.3 CPF 11.3 11.6 Commercial 6.0 3.3 External Circulation 15.4 15.1 Internal Circulation 22.4 Open Space 70.4 90.2 Village Five Total 493.4 486.0 2,878 2,878 As depicted in Table 1-5 above, there are differences betWeen the acreages depicted in the GDP and SPA for Village Five. These dif- ferences are attributable to the more precise level of planning un- denaken to prepare the SPA One Land Use Plan. For example, the GDP included acreage for internal circulation in the single family residential acreage - the SPA identifies internal circulation acreage sepaxately. The GDP included 6.6 acres of neighborhood park land within the Village Five residential acreage, but the SPA identifies neighborhood park acreage separately. Village Five includes more open space acreage because the GDP did not include the slope areas adjacent to the Otay Water District Property in the open space to- tals - the SPA Land Use Plan includes those open space areas. I. Design Influences The primary design influence for Village Five is the pedestrian friendly village concept established in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Other influences reflect on-site conditions and characteristics such as, landforms, biological resources, drainage patterns, aesthetics, land use relationships and circularion patterns. Existing development patterns and Chula Vista's General Plan poli- cies for adjoining undeveloped land also influenced the design of Village Five. The adjacent plans and uses include the regional open Otay space system, off-sire circulation consideration, public facility con- Ranch I-54 J!?-~¡' M,y 14. "'7 Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One EmIl LAND USE PLAN nections, the Telegraph Canyon SPA and EastLake Greens. Village Five design influen= and requirements are reviewed more fully in the Village Design Plans (Appendix B). o. Site OIoracterisûcs and Visual Context Village Five is bounded on the north by Oray Lakes Road and the south by Poggi Canyon. The entire Otay Ranch Otay Valley Parcel has been farmed or grazed, leaving only isolated areas of very frag- mented habitat. The southern edge of the village consists of the undulating slopes of eastern Poggi Canyon. The northern edge of Village Five is Telegraph Canyon. Limited scenic values extend along Oray Lakes Road and East Orange Avenue, both identified in the Otay Ranch GDP as scenic corridors. The village contains views to the surrounding mountains to the northeast and east and to the Pacific Ocean to the west. The dominant features within the Village Five site include: . Telegraph Canyon . Poggi Canyon . Associated Drainage Courses . Limited Views to Mountains and Pacific Ocean Preserved open space areas within Village Five will surround resi- dential neighborhoods, public improvements and amenities, creat- ing a well-defined community. There are 90.2 acres of open space within Village Five. The largest open space area includes the slopes of Poggi and Telegraph Canyons. This area will eventually be parr of a Ranch-wide system of open space and trails. Graded slopes will be landscaped to be visually compatible with the other natural slopes. b. Transition to Existing and Proposed Surrounding Land Uses The Village Five Land Use Plan is influenced by current and planned surrounding land uses. Surrounding projects are depicted on the Regional Context Map (Exhibit 1-8). Villages One and Five are defined on their northern and southern edges by significant landscape buffers and slopes. The northern buffer is Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes Road. The southern buffer is Poggi Canyon and East Orange Avenue. These buffers separate developed areas from land uses on the opposite sides of the canyons. The existing land uses north of Telegraph Canyon are varied, ranging from a Mobilehome Park to single family homes. OlaJ' Ranch ~ð-'¿) !.55 M" '419'7 ;¡",',n";;;,,, ;,"U 0--' !:! c ; i '¡!i -. aaR- -'-Ë-' -I ~ : I r "B."'!8~"""8 8~U~ iiU!1 5 dS; II N c &! j t ~=i~'~~"::="~:i 0.:;;' ;~,~. ~:,,:,: s s ~ 3 .";:", ~ ¡¡;:., . -- "---A-.- -- - -. -.. ~ c ~ . . . ~~ uuuuunnu. HU~ UH~ J J J 11111 III S S S S !i I á J J ~ IU Ii: . N HI! I! Ii UfWiUUnU'J HU~ nH ziu zH ~ n n : 1)& I' ~u I I I I I I!. :;:5;: .:¡ 3~ - ~ i~ I ~!I, . j I: I I .... z ~ z " ~ ~ ~ õ &) ~ .... "- " 0 ~ ~ ~~E ffi ~ ttj ~ ~ ~]'Ili "- .... ..~ 3< "~j ~ ... ~!if = ii~~ 'æ"'~ g ~t~E ~ ~ ~~~ ; JfJ --6 ~ n.. ~¡ q ~~ - ¡ ~¡ '5 ~ U >- a: . ~ a:!z ~ z!zWW .. ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -za:~>- x ~ ~ w ~ a: fi" ~ ~ a:8z § æ ~~ !:: <J '" w ¡¡'" en '" :J: æ C) >-'> :i~!f!!::5 0 ¡:g¡~!¡g g .. <III 0 * . ):( ~ ,,--'- ~ \ 0 "\ ~------~.- g ì i ~ ¡¡ !:: \ \ !!;! a:~~ \ ~5 8:ñ~ ~ \ ~ æ w .... a: '" ¡§~E ~¡¡ o~3: ~~~!z ~ !,2:J:¡¡ a:z""w z ZOw "'wen~ .. wZa: wo>-z " &J~:ñ a:¡¡¡¡:g :':'w ....8a:z", ~~a:....w-_W ffiffi8::J~¡¡¡¡~~ ~ !i: !i: .. ¡: :ñ ~ ~ ::5 ë5 t~ a". """>-en~"""":!a: .. :Ow W W a: Z en en > .... 1b'!1 '" ~'" ;;¡;;¡!z< ~~~fiJ >~ >~ a:a:W~Q.""""'a: '" ¡!is Q.Q.wwwzZca: w 0 ~~C)C)C)~~zw ¡¡, ~~~~~~~§~ >- c"",,»>Q.Q.enQ. Z.cl~*..:'I'1 w.g 15= I ffi!g r,æ¡ I ~ iii 8~~.. ~it~ il~~ 9~ -/; . . un ""Q ~ -- ~~~[ ~ ,.,~; ¡¡¡ i~~.. ~ ¡ ~ ~ ..:. ¡: . :ä.. ¡ ~:6 I! " ¡¡ i II 0: ~~ g ;:)0:"'-' U 12 ;:) ~ S: z a a (! 8 !z õ! ::¡ !;! 8 N ~ Q ~ Q Q !Jj i ~ ~ !2 ¡:: ... ... a (/) a a 0: X 0: II: ... w ... ... C . as I I I; l (!JllhJ ~ ~ \ II T ci a: .. ~ ~ 0 ~~ --¡f~ a: ""j n ., ht !ht ~jh H~~ 9tJ-?õ ~ .. ;!¡ If õ. . ~~ 'j . n < O. " ' . . 5 , . ò c u ¡¡: z r5 ~~» I"""", fa ã~: ...I.'.l ...J :>:: "iI .1~ ~~ 0> EmilI X. PHASI NG 95- ?~ EmIl Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PHASING PLAN Otay Ranch 1-192 9ß-?;J M'y".1997 Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One -- PHASING PLAN X. PHASING PLAN The development of Oray Ranch SPA One will be completed in several phases to ensure construction of necessary infrastructure and amenities for each phase as the project progresses. The Phasing Plan (Exhibit 1-32) reflects anticipated market demand for a variety of housing types and commercial development. The purpose of this plan is to demonstrate one way to phase the development in order to satisfy anticipated market, facility and amenity demands. Howevet, it is understood that changes in the marketplace or the need for facilities will result in changes in projeCt phasing. Further. the fact that tWo ownerships within SPA One will be developing concurrently adds complexi(y to the phasing plan. In this regard, creating a phasing plan for SPA One has proven to be a challenge because it is exceedingly difficult to forecast, with any confidence, future market conditions. It is recognized that upon adoption of a SPA One Plan, the current marketplace will not sup- pOrt the development of multi-family homes or non-residencial uses. It is further recognized that the current market for single family homes is depressed compared to recent experiences. These market realities constrain Otay Ranch SPA One phasing options. Specifi- cally, early phases must rely almost exclusively on the development of single family detached neighborhoods. However, consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista General Plan and Oray Ranch General Development Plan, it is desirable to develop Oray Ranch villages with greater variety than conventional single family detached neighborhoods. Specifically, it is desirable to introduce multi-family homes and commercial uses into SPA One as soon as the marketplace will permit. It is further desirable to initially focus on development of only one of the SPA One vil- lage cores to increase the feasibility of the core. However, this should not be done at the detriment of providing basic public services in Villages One and Five. In order to permit phasing consistent with current market realities, bur to ensure the timely development of diverse and balanced com- munities, the following policy shall apply to the phasing of SPA One: Review and update of the SPA One Phasing Plan shall commence prior to the issuance of a building permit within SPA One for the Dray 1, 150th unit, and be completed prior to the issuance of a building Rancb ¿LJ,- ?( 1-193 ~'" ,4 ,oc- EmIl Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PHASING PLAN permit within SPA One for the lAOOth unit, adhering to the fol- lowing objectives: . Provide economically and physically feasible access to a high school site, community park site and neighborhood park. . Identify rc:sidenrial phasing to complement the east-west access selection (E. Palomar Street or E. Orange Avenue). . Promote build-out of an entire village. . Promote acceleration of a village core area. . Consider market conditions, product absorprion and location of appropriate product to meet demand. . Consider the provision of public services in the village which is not the focus of accc:lerated development. . Consider the provision of affordable housing opportunities. Vd4ge One West & Vill~ Five East Phase IA Phase lA, cl... ;,.;,;..1 SPA A,... pk..... is to be developed in Village Five. The phase consists of approximately 260 single family units. Phase lA includes the extension of St. Clair Drive from Telegraph Canyon Road into the nonheast portion of Village Five and a 1.2 acre pedestrian park (P-I0). Phase IB Phase 1B consists of approximately 485 single-family units and a 168 unit multi-family site within Village One. Depending on mar- ket condirions, Phase 1 B may be construCted concurrently with Phase lA or may be deferred until a future phase. Access to Phase 1 B will be provided through the construction of a tWo lane access road from Telegraph Canyon Road into Village One. A 10 acre elementary school site will be provided in Phase lB. Construction of the first SPA One elementary school must be pro- vided consistent with the provisions of the PFFP. A 2.1 acre neigh- borhood park (P-3) is also included in Phase lB. Phase 2A Phase 2A is located in the northern portion of Village Five, soUth of Dray Otay Lakes Road. Phase 2A consists of 542 single family units and Ranch a 90 unit multi-family site. Access to Phase 2A will be provided via 1.194 St. Clair Drive, from Telegraph Canyon Road. This phase is slated M" 14, 1997 95-?f Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One EmIl PHASING PLAN for development early in the construcrion of SPA One because ir is anticipated that marke:t conditions will be: more: favorable: for single:- family detached homes. A pedestrian oriented paseo connectS Vù- lage Five, through the Otay Water District property, into the EastLake project. :A Approximate:ly one:-half of the: 2.0 acre: neigh- ; borhood park (P-9) is included within the single-family residential area northeast of the village core. The 10.6 acre: Village Five neigh- borhood park site (P-G) must be provided consistent with the pro- visions of the PFFp, most likely during the developme:nt of this phase and Vill~ Five: West. Phase 1 The initial park improve- mentS will be e:qui"!Ùe:nt to 5 acres of park development. Construc- tion of the first SPA One elementary school will need to be com- pleted during this phase, consistent with the PFFP. Phas~2B Phase 2B is located in the north west ponion of Village One, east of Paseo Ranchero and north of East Palomar Street. This phase con- sists of 433 single family unitS and a 140 unit multi-family site. &œss to the Phase 2B area is provide:d from Tele:graph Canyon Road. It is also envisioned that a pedestrian oriented Paseo would be included as pan of the western edge of Phase 2B. An 11.1 acre: neighborhood park (P-l) is included within the Village One core area. Park improvementS will be phased to meet SPA One demand. A .8 acre: pedestrian park (P-4) is also included in this phase, in the residential area north of the village core. Phase 3 PI,~, 3 ;. 1"~,,.1 ;" .1" "u,.1,"~"", pu,,;u.. uf'l,HAI;' r;" A".1 ;..,1...1,.316 .;"151- f~..a, huw~ ~,.1 A 177 ....;lw«l,; f~,,;ly .;". :. pu,,;u.. "f d" \<;HAI;' r;" ~" ~~ ;. ;..J..d,d ;.. .1.:. pI,...., ~""';";"I; d" 1.8 A'" .un.. .'"~' (P 8), ).6 A"'. U[ ~..u..",;.d, .nu cpr .;". ,u,.d;"1; 4.7 4"'. ~,.1 4 184", ,1""""4'y .,huul .;". Cu...;."... n;,l, .1" pw,;.;u". "f .1" prrp ~,.1 Ch.J4 Vi....'. ".Æ, d",.I,uld., d~"I"p.."'" uf d';.pl~, '..4Y "'I";" ~...".., l;u" ufL.,1\,I-.1;4 Ru4.1,u:c..., P:d"..-, S""" pw,;.1;"1; wu" .1; "" 4"~. <u j" ,;1141;' ~". ~ Phase -! .2 is generally located in the southeast portion of Village One, south of East Palomar Streer and easr of the village core. Phase Otay -t .2 contains approximarely 3% ill single family homes and 129 Ranch multi-family homes. A 7.3 acre neighborhood park (P-2) is 10- 1-195 cared adjacent to the multi-family sire. II. .8 4'" p,.1'.";~'p~1. (P j.!l-?~ M,.14 1997 DDII Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PHASING PLAN 5) ;. ;u...1ud~d:'. d.~ .;u¡¡k [<uuíl) <u....;u d.~ uv.d.~..., I'vü;vu vf ~ Phasd~ Phase 5 i is located in the southeastern portion of Village Five, adjacent to the Oray Water District property. This phase contains approximately 145 single f.unily homes and 175 multi-family homes. A .6 acre pedestrian park (P-l1) is included in the Phase 51 single family area. Access to Phase 5' i will be provided via the extension of East Palomar Street through Village Five. The second SPA One elementary school located in the Village Five core area willlikdy be constructed during Phase 5' 1. consistent with the provisions of the PFFP. Phasdi.5. Pl~~ 6 ;. d.~ f....J Y¡¡¡A¡;~ r;.~ ¡Å....~. Pl~~ 6 ;. lv.....~d ;u d.~ .vud>n~.~u yv.';uu u[Yi&..¡;~ r;.~ <u.d """'..:.w Ayyw"';u_.~ly 1,17J .....d,;[<uu:i] uu;~ uu .:.. .;,~ .uuu~..1iU¡; A 5.2. A~'~ u~;g!. bu.huud y<u1.. (P 7). I, ;. AU';~;YA,~d ,I'A' tl.. .YU~'5Y ~'~A,~d duuuJ.uu. d.~ d~.~lvl""~'" u[ d.~ .;u¡;k [<uu';i) ,~.;d~u~~. ';u ..... l;~. yl....~ n,ll ~...bl;.h .uffi~;~", """ A~';';'y ,u b~5;u .u A~""'" ...uJ..,~ .....d';[<uu;!) d~.~lvy...~",. I,;. .:I.u <U";~;YA,~d d_, u....l.." A~y~'~~ fu. .u..d.;[<uull, d~.~luy,u~", nllll_.~ ;'uyw.~d by d.. ,;.u~ P!....~ 6';. ""uuu~u~d. I. .I.u..dd b~ uu,~d d'A' ""u.uu~,;uu u[ .....d,;[<u,';I, l.uu.~ ;u Pl,...~ 6 nu..dd u~~~ u.~. AU ~M~ud..d ,;...~ y~,;ud, ~.y~";.:Ily uU d.~ lv~ d'->;5uA,~d fv. h;¡;I.~. d~u.;,;~.. Su...~ d~,..;,;~. u_y uu, b~ L..;bl~ uu,ll d,~ l;¡;I" .":1 UA,..;. ;. vy ~'A';vu..:l. Cvu.uu~,;vu u[PI....~ 6 ""...yk,~ d.. ':;HA5~ [;" "".~ <U~A n;d. ."ul,;f<uu;!y d~.~lvy...~m <u.d A 3.2 A~" cpr .;,~. J,~~~.. ,u Pl....~ 6 ;. y.u.;d~d f.u... L..., Nuu= Su~~,. -Phrari Phase 75. is the last SPA One phase and includes the western most portion of Village One, including the village core and most of Vi 1- lage One's multi-family units. This phase also includes site prepa- ration for all of the Village One CPF sires and the commercial sites. It is anticipated that this phase will be developed last because the demand for significant commercial activity will not occur until there is a sufficient population base within Village One and the surround- ing community to support such uses. A similar rationale applies to Otay the larger CPF sires. Ranch 1.196 A. d;>~uo>~d Abv.~, ;u """,..~,;vu n;d. PI....~ 6, ;,11 is anticipated M" 14.1997 9tS'?? Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One -- PHASING PLAN that the market acceptance for attached units will be improved by the time Phase T 2 is construCted. It is also anticipated that devel- opment of higher density multi-family lots will significantly lag de- velopment of the remainder of SPA One and may require that the light rail transit is in operation to be feasible. The third SPA One elementary schoolloc:ated west ofPaseo Ranchero will be construCted during Phase T.2. depending upon the absorption and stUdent popu- lation associated with the build-out of SPA One homes. Vill~ One East & V~ Five West Both of these development areas are accessed &om Tel~g:r:q1h Can- yon Road via the construction of La M~dia Road These areas a", Phas~d indep~ndently of the areas described abov~ and a", subi~Ct to a s~parat~ PFFP. However as with th~ areas d~scrib~d abov~ this proieCt area will initially develop with single family housing prod- UCts with multifamilv homes and commercial uses developing: later. as the market allows £hm.l This Pha.e include. all ofVilla~ One East and the portion of Vil- lage Fiv~ locat~d north of East Palomar St",et. It includes approxi- mately 125 sin¡;Je family units west of La Media and approximately 316 SF units in Villau Five West It also includes a multifamily Parcel (R-46\. a CPF parcel. school site and Park Parcel P-6 6 in Villa~ Five West. Although these public facililY sites a", within the Phase 1 boundaQ'. the timing: of construction of these public facili- ties will be derermined by PFFP provisions flwû This Phase includes all ofVilla¡;e Five West located south of East Palomar Street. includir¡g the commercial. park. CPF and multi- family sites which define the villa~ co", for Vìlla~ Five This area includes approximately 1 235 multifamilv units. Development of this area will be partially dependenr on development progress in other areas which will provide the population necessaQ' to support commercial and CPF aCtivities in the core. Development of the multifamily units will be determined by mar- ket demand. Multifamily developmenr mav occur over an extended period of time even laggir¡g sir¡gle fami]v development in other villages outside of SPA One. Otay 95-?r' Ranch 1-197 M.", "" Table 1.13.1 Phasing Summary Village One NEIGHBORHOOD ~2B I~ ARM I 3 I 4 I 5 Village One East R-II 125 R-12E 86 Village One East Subtotal 125 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 Village One R-1 103 R-2 74 R-3 81 R-4 96 R-5 79 R-6 85 R-7 136 R-8 65 R-9 74 R-10 125 R-12 64 R-l3 121 Vd One SF Subtotal 0 0 0 485 0 433 185 0 0 1,103 R-14 129 R-15 215 R-16 280 R-17 200 R-18 230 . R-19 204 R-20 140 R-21 168 V.I. One MF Subtotal 0 0 0 168 0 140 129 0 1,129 1,566 V.I. One Subtotal 2669 Village One Totals 2,880 Otay Ram::b 1-198 ~£l-?I M,y 1<.'997 Table 1-13.2 Phasing Summary Village Five NEIGHBORHOOD ~ AREA Village Five R-25 73 R-26 78 R-27 58 R-28 82 R-30 145 R-31 83 R-32 1\3 R-33 55 R-34 40 R-35 40 R-36 69 R-37 66 R-38 45 Vill. Five SF Subtotal 0 0 260 0 542 0 0 145 0 947 R-29 90 R-39 175 ViI!. Five MF Subtotal 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 175 0 265 Vill. Five Subtotal 0 260 0 632 0 0 320 0 1212 Vulage Five West R-22 92 R-23 86 R-24 138 Vu!. Five West SF Subtotal 316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316 R-40 266 R-41 127 R-42 175 R-43 241 R-44 261 R-45 165 R-46 115 ViII. Five Wesr MF Subtotal 115 1235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1350 Vill. Five West Subtotal 431 1235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1656 Village Five Totals 2878 Ora)' SPA One Totals 5758 Ranch 9ß - 3iJ- 1-199 M" 14. 19" \:! '" ~ ~~"" N c: ...'fi'"' ¿ "'-, ::1..!! ij! w §~~".., ", """ -I 1!:Ö '"~"" ;;,:~""""'" :E!" ~Z ~_,':<.d;/';¿"""-' .1\- eel) ¡jj dì,:,-'~'~",I'!",'7-z.,~:»- ] Z ~ :i ¡¡; ¡, <t I,d; ~\!¡ ~$è' ... W Q. Q. I ,;; ~ "óo ~~/ ". "'",,:,,,:::z-/I!! ,-,/:I$' \J I e I' , "7 '-.'-'!: "'-~ WIlt) (;""" ,~,,'a:, r",,=,-- ...JI ,,--""""J~o,', ~~ w~;¡:¡ i'.!)~;,/' . ~¿:d:,d:"!I;¡;~t;'",I!1",,,'ï ~~, ¡ 12; "e:::>õ "':,1 ~§I gì.J:!!i~:No\,"',,:i s ::> .;, -' N' ,', ~ , - I J C:'lo,d:/I!i,'íi",~!!!-' .. ~,"""",f'_;¡"'",,":: a: :",,~!!,'a:Nm"'.""""'.,'¡;¡,'Ð,"'%\, d I ,-..¡-- " ,,~;¡:a:,O\ .4 , ,ifc ""'..--),' "~I' g¡ """ ' . ž J " .. ~ --..", á:,""':~ " 1 ;!'~ d: ,~~:-:~~.y;o,on,.., \ , ¡S, 0:::-- ,~',' ,- ¿ " , ., - ~' ",;Z }1/?1'r- . 4- " "';, ~~' &""/j:\~- ~ [, ,,_.._,~ . ~:: "',""- '1\'" ,", . ~ ~~\ -",,_...'_~,~,I,l~ -~~\[,,-t,,'\\ffi !: '! ~ ,\~>~"':" """",:\"""",x.~",',,~-:"',,'" ,IZ,J~","" '~, i' ~ b 'i\\"iJi; :;:'~"/ S~ N ,'\)'" , \ ~! ° ~"~ a: ,/",-..~~~:\ >0«5 ~ -'\- /,.~" :f',:;:;/''; ::18'" :-....!,~'-',.!"_-'",..a:'"'í- - "'\\' --;'¿'d:w, ""°,°1'" .e- !: :0 \~' ~~-.. ~'---"- -,'" :;c .c ~-~: d:/"-""- ",- ::::5)6 f! \i'-'\,,'ß',", 51 '"/",°;<:;', -,-ß,'-"t11' ",.,~ ! ~\"""«" ~"::::I s ~ " ",,'..,,~"'ch\ 0 ~ -::::t5'\~," ':\ Y ,,::') : ~! I' v----.;:~, ~\ \,)1- ~i\' f,\\1i: \~~i ", " I t", ~ ' \' ' "" " 0. I", , " '""~'\," \,'" ; ,,' '!' a: \',,;'" '" ~\\,;, :E !:! "'. \<8 a: ~\\;t\\:!!)ì~::!£ ~ ~~! æ;¡;t¡! i\\"'"...."",-"""""ch,þ.!~' ,L<=',I,I",i!!O ..--.... ,.\\.., "....~/ -""! <:~\~"'<'."-_I_í if ID !"'~,,'a:,Ii:"'¡"II~h¡ ~ ::° -",0 ~* ~\ 'I, ',Ii: ,~:Jr~¥/~ ,i !'" Ñ-~¡I:: ¡t\'ß" /,../"tt~i!it ,! !" "'- -:!! ~\\, ¿:"~",,l~,,;t, tl---;ì"~I__,",,,' 1: <0, \ " .... ," ¡II-,,\.. " / ,'" ,-'-"\ " ~ < :!,~:~N , '¡-'~~' I -=",8$""" ~,';/ "",i' ,,' ~:c:::!?=è!;æÑi ',' \J,/""",_""l!",~',:::,"j,,"'â;!~ :!! ¡ .. -<'> o£ :t5, .,II,1i: a:\ 013 .. ~ "'<C' "" I \' , , ' I Õ ~ ji§ «=d .,;.;.;.-...L:::-n.'-f :.... '- / , ---< \ -' >0 ~~! 2-2- - ~ I - 'I" '-"', ,,' ... EEo Ë~Ë!I II !I ;¡; 11"'"<.' ~ ",¡:~.. '¡:.!J!~!,' ¡',' " ¡// CI~."'~.=~' ,,' E a'2'~ i1:'2"S! ",-! ,:,' Ii § ~ ¡¡; i!, ¡¡; ;:¡; 0 .' L ,r-;---/ : tf) ~ ~ f, I,'. /----;;-" J í; I! \ .. /1;;, ~/ \ :/-..:.J ! " \ Õo~ , ' " 'i-Jj '~,'/ \ §"J , ~i ' I ¡r:c ' .~ ~.' t'J:7 \ ' ~ i It ,::;~,J ,: §t=;; "", r:c \ " ",- . ~ . ,,~- ~'.!!. ~,', '" '" /' ',oio! ,'"'" ! ,;ælõ ~ ----r--J ' :f~i ~ ~ß-~I ~ ~;!n Planned Community District Regulations IŒŒII GENERAL PROVISIONS between buildings and struCtures, and to regulate the density of population, Otay Ranch SPA One is hereby divided into the following Land Use Districts. Table 111-1 SPA One Zoning Districts Definitions SYMBOL DEFINITION SFE Single Family Estate: Zoning DistriCT which permiTS single fåmily housing located on lots larger than 2 acres. SFI Single Family One: Zoning DistriCT which permits single family housing located on lotS with average sizes of 15,100 square feet to 2 acres. SF2 Single Family Two: Zoning DistriCT which permitS single family housing located on lotS with aver- age sizes of8,100 square feet to 15,000 square feet. SF3 Single Family Three: Zoning DistriCt which permitS single fåmily housing located on lotS with average sizes of 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. SF4 Single Family Four: Zoning DistriCt which permits atTached and detached single fåmily housing located on lotS with average sizes of 3,000 square feet to 4,900 square feet. RM1 Residential Multi-Family One: Zoning DistriCt which permitS housing ranging hom 8 unitS/acre up ro 14.9 units/acre including small lor single family, alley and duplex producr types. RM2 Residential Multi-Family Two: Zoning DiStriCT which permitS housingar densities above 15 unitS/ acre. CPF Community Purpose Facility: Zoning DistriCT which permitS uses which may be established pur- suanr to the Community Purpose Facilities section of the City ofChula ViSta Planned Community Zone Ordinance. C Commercial: Zoning DistriCT which permitS commercial uses such as, but nor limited to, rerail shops, professional offices and service commercial, as further defined and delineated by rhe Permir- ted Use Matrix. Residential uses may be permitTed above or connected ro the commercial uses. as/PI Open Space/Park One: Zoning DistriCT which permits allowable open space and park uses. and may include naturalized open space. OS/P2 Open Space/Park Two: Zoning DiStricr which includes the Otay Ranch Resource Preserve area and native open space. AAdoption of Zoning District Map Land Use Districts and boundaries are established and adopted as shown, delineated and designated on the Oray Ranch SPA One Zoning Disrricr Map (see Exhibir III- 1) of rhe City of Chula Vista and San Diego County. These maps, tOgether with all norarions, references, dara, disrricr boundaries and other informarion thereon, are made a parr of the Oray Ranch SPA One Plan and adopted concurrently herewirh. Olay Ranch 98"- ff';L 111-7 M"" 199" EmIlI Planned Community District Regulations RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 8. Specific Standards Table 111-3 Residential Property Development Standards NEIGHBORHOOD sa SF4 RMI RM2 Lot aiteria: Average Lot area (squatt feet) 5000 3000' SP SP Minimum lot area (squatt feet) 4000 2800' SP SP Minimum lot depth (feer) 90 60 SP SP Maximum lot coverage (%) 50 55 SP SP Minimum lot width (feet): Measured at setback line 45 25 SP SP Flag lotS frontage 20 20 SP SP Knuckle or cui-de-sac 30 25 SP SP Minimum front yard setback (feet from back of front sidewa1k): To direct entry garage' 19.5' 19.5' SF' SF' To side entry garage or house 10 10 SP SP To main residence 15 15 SP SP To porch 9' 9' SP SP Minimum side yard setback (feet): To adjacent residenriallot 5' 5' SP SP Distance between detached unitS 10 8 SP' SP Residentia1 sneer from building to back of adjacenr sidewalk (comer lor) 13 13 SP SP Promenade Street from building to back of adjacent sidewalk (comer lot) 13' 13' SF' SF' To garage with minimum 30 0 0 0 0 foor driveway May be ,educed to, attached units with SIte plan app",vaJ A mlmmum of 30% of the ga'ages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 feet deep (¡¡.oóJ shoJI be set back a minimum of 30 leet and Inco'po'ate a "Hollywood" d'iveway ~~ :~I~~~n~~:;~:~;A:":n':c":~s~="I:iI~~~':~~~;'::Z:~";::~::: ~~n~A';'.P modAl 30% 01 d'iveways may be 'educed to 17 feet II ","-up type ga'age doo, p,ovlded and a hke pe'eontage IS ",ovlded al 22 feet", gleatel Po,ches ale encoulaged: a maximum 01 30% of the po,ches w;U be palmltted at this mInImum setback 019 feet Otay May be 'edueod 101 ze", lot hoe concepts Ranch Reduced to 10 feet on non-feaMed SIde of pmmenade 111-18 J!l-tf) , MInimum 9 feet on featu..d SIde mInImum 5 leet on non.featu..d SIde of p'amensde Ju"e<. 1996 Detached alley p'oduct shall malnta," an 8 toot minImum and 12 foot ave'age SIde yOld set back fo' zelo fot hne p'oducts "- ~ ~ t:n ùJ =~&. .~ .. . ~OO ~b . ~ ~ -g ~~S ~ ~oo~ ë >,~ ~ 8¡S~ ~ Ji uU ~§! 00 ! . J m n ~~ü w ~ ~ ¡:¡;.. w ~ u: ¡:¡; w:o ~ 0'" ¡:; ¡:; ~~ >-...5'-"'-'" ~~:::;~§5 ~~;¡¡!;¡¡!"-~ ...~~¡::~co"' Q~~~a¡~ '9;0 (! (! - 0:::; Z ~;;:; æ ¡¡j i!J ~ OO~~<.> W ~~il:! II- ...I1I)1I)a:~13 il Ii if ('i i~'1 ! .' . Ii !-!JI/ ".- I'. I. 0( , ... "', II .~" I' ~.. iJ?!¡~ 'i, -. I..!f~ \ ' '7ß ~g-F j¡}f Ii ~ ----.r-J ! ~ ~ EmIlI Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PHASING PLAN Otay Ranch 1!J-if 1-200 M,y 14, "" Otay Ranch Village One Design Plan Pages Proposed for Amendment by West Coast Land Fund/McMillin Draft dated: May 8, 1997 9ß-Y¡' PART TWO Village 0 ne Design Plan l.. - 5!?-~? Otay Ranch 11-101 April 29.1997 ~ß RESOLUTION NO. PCS 97-02 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ClillLA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TIIE TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP FOR A PORTION OF VILLAGE ONE AND FIVE OF THE OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 97-02 WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified and described on ChuIa Vista Tract 97-02 and is commonly known as Neighborhood R-ll and R-12 of Villages One and Five of the OtayRanch SPA One ("Property"), and; WHEREAS, McMillin Companies filed a dilly verified application for the subdivision of the Property in the fonn of the tentative subdivision map known as Otay Ranch SPA One, ChuIa Vista Tract 97-02, with the Planning Department of the City of Chwa Vista on April 10, 1997 ("Project"), and; WHEREAS, said application requests the approval for the subdivision of approximately 290 acres located south of Telegraph Canyon Road along the extension of Otay Lakes Road known as La Media into 1,877 residential lots, one 10-acre schooL 15.8 acres of neighborhood parks, 8.1 acres of community purpose facility lots and two commercial sites on 3.3 acres, and; WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286 ("SPA Plan Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA Plan, relied in part on the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #95021012 ("FEIR 95-01"), and; WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01 and the addendum thereto, that is virtually identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said fonner environmental evaluations, and; WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Tentative Map and determined that it is in substantial confonnance with the SPA Plan and the related environmental documents therefore, no new environmental documents are necessary, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the tentative map 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 and tenants within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least] 0 days prior to the hearing, and; .!2"! Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously considered EIR 95-01 and the proposed tentative map is consistent with the project described therein and creates no additional environmental impacts as indicated in the Addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution adopting the Third Addendum to EIR 95-oí and approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for a portion of Village One and Five only ofChula Vista Tract 97-02 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy oftrus resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 21 st day of May, 1997 by the following vote: YES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Frank Tarantino Chainnan Nancy Ripley Secretary IIb"mcm;lIio,'¡>c1mdoc ~v Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Thursday 6:30 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 & 3 May 17.1997 Public Services Building ................... CALL TO ORDER Chair Palma calIed the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair Palma, Commissioners: Dennison, Rude, Helton, Cochran, and Radcliffe Members Excused; Commissioner Vaccaro Also Present; Jerry Foncerrada, Deputy Director of Parks Commissioners present constituted a quorum. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSCU (HeltoD/Rude) moved and seconded to approve the March 20, 1997 Minutes. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS OR REMARKS Mr. David Gerdom, President of American Little League reported on the progress made to obtain an area for their organization. He arranged a meeting with Sweetwater School District's, Andy CampbelI on May 2,1997 to explore the playground area at Hilltop Middle School. 4. REPORTS .. FOR INFORMATION ONLY An information memo regarding the Sunbow II Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement was distributed. The agreement confirms the previous tentative map "park conditions", but provide language to "meet and confer" to discuss other possible amenities that the Department feels is more pertinent. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Proposed FY 97/98 Budget - Mr. Foncerrada provided an overview of the Department's FY 1997-98 proposed budget. Chair Palma and Commissioner Helton expressed concern that the Department Administrative Secretary was not in the proposed budget. They requested the Administrative Secretary position moved off the "wish list" into the proposed budget. [H. \home\parkHec\P&Rcomm\Minutes - PRMTS97 .May] /11 CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PAGE 2 May 17, 1997 B. CIP - Proposed Projects from FY 97/98 - Mr. Foncerrada reported on the six (6) new CIP projects that are proposed for FY 97/98. NEW BUSINESS A. Otay Ranch SPA I Amendment - Ric Rosaler, Planning Department presented a summary of the Otay Ranch SPA I, and the process that was used to develop the SPA I pJan. Mr. Rosaler informed the Commission that McMillin Development is in the process of acquiring property in the middle of Village 1 & 5. Mr. Rosaler reiterated the McMillin reasons for requesting deletion ofP-5 in the parcel acquired. Mr. CraigFukuyama, representing McMillin Developer, presented McMillin's reasons for deleting (P-5). MSCU 4-1-1 (RadclitTe/Rude) to accept deletion of (P-5). Helton opposed, Palma abstained. B. Boys and Girls Complaint (item pulled by staff until next month). 6. COMMUNICATIONS A. Written Correspondence - Commission received a thank-you letter from Mrs. Susan McHale-Renk of Lower Sweetwater Valley Community Action Committee. B. Commissioners' Comments 1. Commissioner Dennison stated her term of office was due to expire at the end of June. She has not made up her mind whether to seek another term. 2. Commissioner Helton expressed concern about continued amendments to the development plans after many hours of planning efforts by citizen groups. 3. Chair Palma, requested Commission members to contact the City Manager's Office and City Council to express support for the Department Administrative Secretary. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jerry Foncerrada, Deputy Director of Parks [H. \home\pa~ksrec\?&Rcomm\Minutes - PRMTS97. May] Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 5/21/97 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-97-20; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 1,110 ACRES SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN P ASEO RANCHERO AND THE FUTURE SR-125 ALIGNMENT - McMillin Companies PCS-97-02; CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 290 ACRES OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 97- 02, GENERALLY LOCATED OFF THE SOUTHERN EXTENSION OF OTA Y LAKES ROAD SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - McMillin Companies Commissioner Davis stated that she was leaving the dais, because of her affiliation with McMillin in the past and a potential conflict of interest. Senior Planner Rosaler, the Otay Ranch Project Manager, gave an overview of the proposed SPA One Amendment, which included a proposal to delete Pedestrian Park P-S, delete Santa Delphina as a promenade street, and modify the Hollywood driveway cõnditions. He noted that the map was generally consistent with the SPA, except for the modifications proposed. There were no changes proposed south of Palomar and Village 5. The issues dealt with the deletion of Park P-5, the Hollywood driveways, the use of parkways on the residential streets, and maintaining of all the landscaping by a master homeowners association. The Parks & Recreation Commission had recommended 4-1 to support the deletion of the Pedestrian Park P-5. For the new Commissioners, Mr. Rosaler then gave a brief history of the Otay Ranch Project. Mr. Rosaler then discussed each issue, beginning with the deletion of Pedestrian Park P-5. McMillin believed that was additional park acreage over the requirements of the SPA for the neighborhood parks. They also believe that because the lots are larger in this area, that those lots will provide for the private recreation needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Rosaler noted the other parks in the area. He stated that there had been a previous issue that these parks would not be able to provide for sufficient recreation uses for the neighborhood. Mr. Rosaler provided a recent example of a pedestrian park design proposed by Village Development which included an area set aside for children's play equipment, a grass picnic area, a shade trellis structure, and an open amphitheater which steps down to a hard court area with a half basketball court, and over 9,000 sq. ft. of grass play area. Staff had asked Village Development to install a full-sized basketball court. Staff feJt this was a legitimate use of the pedestrian park and would qualify for the 50% park credit. This proposal to de let Park P-5 had been taken before the Technical Committee and the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee was generally supportive of McMillin's position; however, they recognized this as a significant policy issue and asked staff to bring it before both the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission so their individual recommendations could be made to the City Council. Mr. Rosaler then showed the Commission some slides taken of similar pedestrian-type parks. Ijl Regarding Issue 2, the Hollywood driveways, Mr. Rosaler stated that the McMillin representatives now fInd the Hollywood driveways to be acceptable; however, the 30% requirement is still a concern. McMillin had found the possible gated auto court plan to be acceptable, but they were a little concerned about the landscaping strip in the Hollywood driveways and its maintenance. In the opinion of staff, it did not have to be landscaped, pointing out that an alternative hardscape material could be used. From a staff perspective, it was important that the garage be moved back off the street. McMillin was concerned about the marketability of those types of homes. Staff had proposed that language be added to the PC Regulations in the footnote that deals with Hollywood driveways giving the Planning Director the discretion to detennine that if they were not marketable that McMillin could corne in with an alternative plan that would meet the guidelines in the Village Design plan, and that he could approve that or refer it to the Planning Commission. In addition, the lot sizes being discussed were 55 x 105. In Neighborhood R-24, about 36 of those lots qualified, which at 30% would produce just 12 lots with Hollywood drives. That would not achieve what staff was looking for in that neighborhood. However, staff did not want to lose the standard for the entire SPA and, therefore, recommended that Neighborhood R-24 be exempt from the requirement, but apply the standard to Neighborhood R-Il. Issue 3 dealt with the Tentative Map and the type of parkways being proposed. Street Section A included a parkway with a 6' wide landscaping area with a tree in it,-a 4' wide sidewalk, and then the property line. The curb to curb width would remain at 32'. Street Section B uses the City standard, where the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb and the property line is 5' back from the sidewalk. McMillin has proposed to use the Residential B on all but two streets in their project; staff is requesting that Residential A be required as the predominant street as outlined in the Village Design Plan and the SPA plan. Staff requested and had proposed conditions that would require Residential Street Condition A on all the single-family residential streets, except in R-22 (duplex units) where the B condition would be acceptable. Regarding Issue 4, maintenance of the open space and landscaping, the Engineering Department believes that most all of the landscaping involved in the project should be maintained by the residents living there. A homeowners association exists in EastLake and Village Development located on both sides of the project. As recommended by staff, there would be an open space maintenance district fonned to maintain the street medians and the drainage channel bottoms. Because of Proposition 218, the City may be moving toward community facility districts or requiring the fonnation of a homeowners association to insure the maintenance of common land areas. The various alternatives are scheduled for City Council consideration in early June. The Engineering Department and the Technical Committee recommended the fonnation of a Master Homeowners Association, and the conditions of approval had been prepared to be consistent with that recommendation. McMillin prefers not to have a Master Homeowners Association; they believe all the landscaping should be maintained through an open space maintenance district. The SPA Amendment with the revised conditions in Exhibit A clarifying the Hollywood driveway was placed on the dais with a recommendation that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rosaler stated that staff is recommending deletion of Pedestrian Park P-5, or that the subdivision for that area be modified to put the park back in; that Santa Delphina be deleted as 1;;2 ì ¿/ a promenade street; however, that the tree easement, as required in the conditions of approval on the tentative map, be included to insure a double row of trees; the approval of the tentative map with the conditions with Street A on all of the neighborhoods except R-22; and that a Master Homeowners Association be required to insure landscape maintenance. Commissioner Aguilar asked if this would be the first development actually constructed in Otay Ranch. Mr. Rosaler stated that Village Development already had their tentative map approved; staff had reviewed the mass grading plans for Village One and the precise grading plans. Staff had been informed that Village Development was anticipating pulling the grading permit within the next several weeks. McMillin expects to record maps in June 1998. Commissioner Aguilar asked if only Santa Delphina was required to have additional street trees in front of the homes. Mr. Rosaler stated that the SPA Amendment only dealt with Santa Delphina. McMillin had requested that Santa Delphina be deleted as a promenade street. Staff suggested that Santa Delphina be developed as a Street A condition which would result in a 6' wide parkway, 4' wide sidewalk, and a 6' wide tree easement in the yards of the homes on the west side of the street, thus achieving a similar effect as the promenade street but not having the same right-of-way or improvements. McMillin would like to apply Street B standards to R-12, R-23, and R-24. Staff was convinced that the SPA Plan and the Village Design Plan required Condition A in all the single-family neighborhoods. Staff was proposing the Neighborhoods R- 11, R-12, R-23, and R-24 all use the Street A condition which would introduce parkways into those neighborhoods. Commissioner Aguilar stated that with respect to Santa Delphina staff had proposed a compromise, and with respect to the other streets staff would require Condition A. Mr. Rosalar concurred. Referring to the staff report, Commissioner Aguilar noted that the City Council was to have a discussion on the open space maintenance issue at their meeting the day before. Mr. Rosaler stated that discussion was scheduJe for June 3. Commissioner Aguilar asked if the park requirements referred to apply just to Otay Ranch, Citywide, or east of 1-5. Mr. Rosaler stated that the City requirements were 3 acres per 1,000, for both community and neighborhood parks. At the SPA level, it was decided that 1 acre would be devoted to community parks and 2 acres would be devoted to neighborhood parks. The two neighborhood parks that were proposed in each village met that 2-acre-per-thousand- residents requirement. The pedestrian parks were above that requirement. Commissioner Aguilar asked if the 2-acre requirement was just a requirement for Otay Ranch or citywide. Mr. Rosaler stated it was just for Otay Ranch SPA One. Commissioner O'Neill questioned who watered and maintained the landscaped parkways for the A-type streets. Mr. Rosaler said that in Village Development's case, the master homeowners association would be responsible. Staff was also looking for a master homeowners association as a method to maintain them in this case. If not, staff believed it was an important enough pedestrian feature in the neighborhood that the individual homeowners would maintain it even . F; /2? it there was not a master homeowners association. There were conditions that required that irrigation be connected to the house and that the owners would be required to maintain the standards as outlined in the CC&Rs. Commissioner Thomas, regarding the percentages for the Hollywood driveways, asked if there was not an agreement and it had to go back to the Planning Commission, would that stop construction. Mr. Rosaler replied that they would have to construct at least the fITst phase to see if it was marketable. If not, staff would look for a very short turnaround, from a couple of weeks to a month, to return to the Planning Commission for a decision. Civil Engineer DeTrinidad, regarding the maintenance of the parkways for Condition A, clarified that one of the conditions of approval that the tentative map required was that the property owner maintain the landscaping and improvements, with the exception of the trees and the sidewalk that are to be maintained by the City, as any other residential street. Mr. Rosaler stated that the groundcover or shrubs would be the responsibility of the homeowners. The trees and sidewalk would be the responsibility of the City. Chair Tarantino questioned who would be the enforcer, lacking a homeowners association. Mr. Rosaler stated that the City would, through the CC&Rs. Commissioner Ray, referencing narrowness of the lots in R-22, noted that in the past when the Commissioners were not sure how things would work out, he was not sure if they took a vote or had the item brought back when there was more information. Assistant Planning Director Lee said it had varied. Staff had indicated, in this instance, that the concept was valid; the lot width was in question in terms of product types available today and in the past. Staff felt comfortable that there had to be some increase in lot width. The applicants had concurred with that and had indicated and agreed that they would likely lose lots with added width required in fmal design. Also some density would most likely be lost. The duplex units would come back through design process, either at staff level or through the Committee, depending on the design issues and could be brought back to the Commission. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the basic Jayout and recognize that the exact density would probably not be achieved, but some reduction, then the Commission could vote in favor. Commissioner Ray was concerned that the OIÙY place the density was in question was the interior of the neighborhood on the inside of the street as it looped around, as opposed to the entire neighborhood. He was concerned that as the interior lot size was increased, McMillin may ask for a decrease on some of the exterior lots in order to compensate for the total number of units. Mr. Lee said they could not do that without coming back before the Commission. In terms of the maintenance of the parkway areas, Mr. Lee clarified that typically the City is not a party to enforcing CC&Rs. If there was not a master homeowners association, the individual homeowner would be responsible. However, staff thought it was an important design element. The bulk of Village I is under a master homeowners association and a different developer and would be built in that manner, and staff thought it was very important to carry out that theme between the two villages. ,1,;: l/j'/ Regarding the application of the Hollywood concept, Commissioner Ray surmised that the issue, as far as the Planning Commission was concerned, would not have to do with the land use; it was more of a design feature. Mr. Rosaler concurred. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chair Tarantino noted that the applicant could take 15 minutes. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, representing the buyers of the property, McMillin Companies, said they were in the process of purchasing the entire approximately 1,000 acres from the West Coast Land Fund. The amount dealing with SPA One is approximately 290 acres. Mr. Fukuyama said they believed this project was in substantial conformance with the SPA, GDP, and the design guidelines. They had made no land use changes to the village core. One of the issues raised by West Coast Land Fund during their participation in the hearing process was the location of the park and school. McMillin had left the park and school intact. Based on their experience and product preferences, they had changed the single-family product slightly, which had necessitated some changes to the plan; however, the single-family areas remained as proposed before. Regarding the elimination of Pedestrian Park P-5, the Parks & Recreation Commission felt there were adequate facilities in the balance of the project that would accommodate and make up for the loss of that park. The policy committee had considered this on two occasions and had arrived at the conclusion that this amendment would be appropriate. The neighborhood parks were generally established to augment small lot development. Mr. Fukuyama stated that the lots in this area were the largest lots in the project and had larger yards, and did not need the park. There would be one other neighborhood park in the project, and McMillin did not feel the maintenance of the park, which benefited one neighborhood, should be a burden on all of the residents of SPA One. The City Council in the approval of the Village Development tentative map for that area had made that a public park and a part of the larger P-6 park near the school. They had reduced some multi-family residential acreage to expand Park P-6. Mr. Fukuyama said that, regarding Hollywood driveways, staff had recommended that it be applicable to only R-ll and that they were not far from reaching a compromise; however, McMillin did not want to be obligated to do 30%. With 125 units, they would probably do a four-product development and would commit to one model having the Hollywood driveway concept. It wouJd be about 25%. If there was a high market demand, they would do more; less, if not. They wouJd prefer to make that decision without having to come back to the City for permission. Regarding the parkway streets, Santa Delphina was to serve a singular service connecting the regional trail system. For that reason, staff felt that moving to a Condition A street was acceptable and that the promenade type arrangement would be overkill and the intervening driveways would be impractical. Mr. Fukuyama stated that if this condition was imposed on them, they would have HaAs. They would probably install the irrigation systems initially. The City has a right, but not the obligation, to enforce CC&Rs. There was no uniformity of enforcement policed by an HOA. They wanted to continue using the maintenance district system as in the past. Mr. Fukuyama showed slides highlighting the differences in the placement of the . /J /-- / ,.i, -> sidewalk in the Type A and Type B conditions. Mr. Fukuyama asked that they be allowed to do the Type B condition except for the two areas where they had agreed to install the Type A condition. The Village Design Plan had only set aside two streets that were required to have the Type A condition. Commissioner Ray asked who would pay for the maintenance for the tree easement in the Type B condition. Mr. Fukuyama replied that the homeowner would pay for it since it was an r easement in the front yard. r Mr. Fukuyama asked that if the Commission required that only the two streets have Type A . condition, that condition no. 32 be modified. He noted they preferred to use the same method of maintenance as they presently used in Rancho del Rey, which was to use open space maintenance districts. Mr. Fukuyama stated they supported staffs position for approval. They had no objections to any of the conditions other than condition no. 32, which was tied to the Type A and B street situation. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Fukuyama to give them an update on the success or lack of success on other duplex projects. Mr. Fukuyama replied that the project in Rancho del Rey was doing phenomenally. It was priced right, and there was a tremendous demand for entry-level housing in the South County marketplace. Commissioner Thomas asked if the desired effect was to have a tree-lined street. With Condition B, a homeowner could cut down their tree. Mr. Fukuyama answered negatively, stating that it was in the City's tree easement and the City had control over the type of tree that was there and demands that it be there and be replaced. Commissioner Aguilar stated that in the staff report, there was reference to a consultant who had been hired to review the issue of open space maintenance. It was recommended that the City use commuruty facility districts to pay for ongoing maintenance costs. She inquired as to what a facility district was and how it differed from an HOA or an open space maintenance district. Mr. Fukuyama replied that an HOA was privately managed; the commuruty facilities district was a Mello Roos; and generally the open space maintenance districts were funded under the auspices of the 1972 Lighting Act and enaction of Proposition 218. There was some question of the applicability of that as a mecharusm to collect the tax. An alternative method to collect the tax was through the Mello Roos, which avoided just general public benefit. Commissioner O'Neill asked if in the absence of an HOA, the CC&Rs were enforced by the City. Mr. Fukuyama replied that they could be. Generally, the CC&Rs were private contracts and enforcement was dealt through either coercion or a lawsuit. There was not an authority to step in and enforce them, other than the City. Mr. O'Neill was concerned that the second or third owner may not get a copy of the CC&Rs and would not have any knowledge of it. Kent Aden, 11975 EI Camino Real, S.D., representing Village Development, regarding the parcel R-12 land swap which indicated that both owners supported the landswap, clarified that ¡.liP ,P, - Village Development conceptually supported it; however, they had not yet gotten into the details relative to acreage and units. Secondly, relative to the Hollywood driveway condition, he asked if both McMillin and staff now support staffs proposal for the condition. Senior Planner Rosaler replied that staff is recommending 30% and have the ability, if it is not marketable, to go back to the Planning Director; McMillin is proposing one in four, or 25% of their models. Mr. Aden said he wanted to clarify that Village Development was in support of the condition as currently written, or the condition as staff would like to change it. They would like to see : it equally applied across the entire SPA. He clarified that they did support the language that R- I 24 in McMillin's property be exempted, which he understood was a 5,000 sq. ft. lot of 50' wide product. It was never the intention that the Hollywood driveway be applied to 50' wide lots; research had shown it would take at least a 55' wide pad in order to accommodate it. Mr. Aden stated Village Development was extremely proud of the award that the SPA plan had just won, and that McMillin was looking to be involved in the project. He commended both McMillin and staff on continuing to implement the vision of the General Development Plan. Responding to Mr. Fukuyama, Senior Planner RosaIer clarified that, iIrthis case, the pedestrian park could be public, could be maintained by the open space maintenance district, and would be a benefit zone that would be made up of only those residents of R-ll that would pay for the maintenance of that park. Secondly, in going from the SPA to the tentative map design, regarding R-29 and the adjacent park, on the SPA plan there was a comer that came out of R-29 that showed it as residential. In translating the SPA to the tentative map, the change in acreage actually decreased. Chair Tarantino asked Mr. Rosaler to speak to the inequity of condition no. 32; how many gates there were on Village Development's property; and, as of today, how many owners there were on the Otay Ranch. Regarding condition no. 32, Mr. Rosaler stated staff had gone through each one of the neighborhoods and listed the streets in that neighborhood that they believed should have the Condition A streets. If the Planning Commission wished to use Condition B, they could go through each neighborhood to detennine whether they wanted to use "A" or "B" in that neighborhood. In Condition 32, residential street condition B may be used in neighborhood R- 22; all the others require the A condition. RegarØing gates, the Council's final decision was to not gate the project but to guard the entrances during dusk to dawn. There would be no physical barriers across the entrances, but there would be a guard there during the evening who could restrict access. Mr. Rosaler indicated the locations of the gates. Mr. Rosaler stated there were 10 to 12 owners on the Clay Ranch; however. some of them were subsidiaries of each other. {/7 /¡~ / Chair Tarantino was concerned that whatever the Planning Commission decided could open the door for other owners to come in with the same kinds of requests. Mr. Rosaler stated that was true; they would set a precedence. Ann Levin, 1505-C Apache Drive, CV, asked how far back the development was set from TeJegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Rosaler stated that the average setback was required to be 70 feet, but when translated in the tentative map, it was more like 100 to 120 feet back. ,- " Commissioner Ray asked for another clarification on condition 32. Would condition A be " applied SPA-wide, or just to certain streets. Mr. Rosaler answered that condition A would only 11 be applied to certain residential streets, where applicable. The other streets were promenade streets and no changes were proposed. Commissioner Ray asked if that did not constitute the balance of what was in the proposed development. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered affmnatively, except for the duplex area wlùch had been identified. Chair Tarantino asked if staff felt that was an unfair burden being borne by McMillin as opposed to Village Development. Mr. Rosaler did not feel it was an unfair burden, but was a pedestrian design feature that was significant to village and to the neighborhoods;- Staff thought condition A was the superior pedestrian environment. Chair Tarantino asked for the rationale for not requiring as many streets in the Village Development SPA with condition A as opposed to the McMillin parcel. Mr. Rosaler said the same condition applied to Village Development,. and even more so. All of their residential streets would have residential condition A, except for the alley product. Commissioner Ray asked if anyone had analyzed the cost trade-off for a type A versus a type B as far as non-recurring and recurring costs, and if it was significant. He noted that McMillin would rather make that incumbent upon the homeowners as opposed to the open space maintenance district or the HOA. Mr. Fukuyama said it was initially about the same. Maintenance was the overriding consideration. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Thomas did not have a problem eliminating the park. He preferred the type A streets throughout. Regarding the question of the ongoing quality of street A, whether the open space could take care of it or an HOA, he was flexible on that. In regard to the 30%, he favored putting the responsibility on the developer, since they were the ones making the product. He did not think it would be necessary for them to come back to staff, if they had a product that was not working, to get approval to move forward. He would be comfortable with one of the four models having the Honywood driveway. He favored the elimination of the condition that the developer be required to come back to the Planning Director for a change in percentage. ~ / Ji/ Jr" Commissioner O'Neill felt the park could be deleted without adversely affecting the whole village; he was strongly in favor of the type A streets with maintenance through an HOA. He thought CC&Rs became useless in short order and that inter-neighbor lawsuits were only effective in the most blatant of changes. He thought it was important to the whole village concept or the neighborhood concept to have the street trees in a parkway, not in a front lawn which would be difficult to control and maintain. He supported the Hollywood driveways, and would leave it up to the developer to decide whether or not it would work. He agreed with a minimum of 25 % in the first phase, and the market would take care of it. Chair Tarantino noted that Mr. Fukuyama had said he was fearful that the Hollywood driveways would be an experiment and he did not wish to have it be such. Mr. Tarantino felt the entire Otay Ranch was an experiment and he had bought into the experimentation. He said he was excited about the neo-traditional concept and loved the idea of pocket neighborhood parks, although the Parks & Recreation Commission did not agree. He loved Rancho del Rey but did not want to see it leap frog across Telegraph Canyon Road into the Ranch, because the Ranch was something different. He wanted the retention of the Pedestrian Park P-5, 30% Hollywood drives, and the master homeowners association. He was concerned that with 10-12 owners and with the prospect of the number increasing, everybody would come back and want to change their area, and there would be no Otay Ranch, but just business as usual. That was not what he envisioned for the Otay Ranch. He also liked type A streets. Commissioner Aguilar agreed with Chair Tarantino. Regarding the park, she felt it was an important element of the project for the same reason that staff believed that the type A condition was an important element of Otay Ranch in general, this project in particular, that being pedestrian orientation. The deletion of Park P-5 would mean residents would drive to the other parks instead of walking, which was contrary to the pedestrian concept. She would support keeping the park as part of the project in order to reinforce the residential nature and pedestrian orientation of the overall community. The technical committee believed the park was a key pedestrian feature to the neighborhood and was opposed to elimination. The committee was concerned with what could be seen as an incremental reduction in the neo-traditional features of the project, and Ms. Aguilar felt that was what Chair Tarantino was alluding to, that it was supposed to be something different and something new. Although it apparently met the park requirements in the sense there were adequate acreages devoted to park uses, nevertheless, the elimination of this particular park in this particular area, Commissioner Aguilar felt went to the heart of the Otay Ranch concept, which was the idea of pedestrian access. Regarding condition A or condition B, the Commissioners who had spoken were in favor of condition A and felt it made a far superior environment, and Commissioner Aguilar agreed with that. With respect to Hollywood driveways, she preferred to stick with the 30% requirement. There appeared that there would be other development prior to the McMillin development within Otay Ranch, and she felt they would learn from what happened with that development that went in first whether or not the 30% would or would not work. If it was shown that it was not marketable and did not work, the Commission or the Planning Director, or whoever was appropriate could make changes that would then affect the McMillin project. She said her general impression was that they should start out with what they wanted. There had been a Jot of discussion and the 30% was part of the package. and rather than back down before anything ",C;' ¿{I had been built, she felt it was more appropriate to stick with their goal and see if it would work; if it did not work, then they could back off at a later time. With respect to maintenance of the open space, in general, and with the parkways, in particular, Commissioner Aguilar felt it was important that the parkways be maintained. She would like to see whatever mechanism that is most likely to result in the maintenance of the parkways and of the open space. She was not exactly sure what mechanism that might be, although she f thought it might be the homeowners association mechanism. She felt the overall issue was the f substantial confonnance, whether or not the changes the applicant was proposing were minor r enough so that the project would still be in substantial confonnance with the concept for Otay t Ranch. She believed the changes were not in substantial confonnance and thought they would lead to a more traditional product, which was not wanted in Otay Ranch. Commissioner Ray, regarding the homeowners association versus the open space maintenance district, asked if anything was actually sent to the City Council relative to what the consultant's position would be long-tenn for the entire ranch or just for SPA One, or did they actually come back with a recommendation? Civil Engineer DeTrinidad replied that the report would address the general fonnation of the district citywide, not specifically for the Otay Ranch. It would study the 1972 Act, Mello Roos, HOA, and would identify the pros and cons and a recommendation would be provided to Council on the preferred mechanism for this open space district. The report would not address specific solutions for the Otay Ranch. Commissioner Ray concurred with Commissioners Aguilar and Tarantino in that he would not be easily swayed from the original concept for Otay Ranch. Regarding the parkway streets, he felt the type A was preferable primarily because of the aesthetics. He had heard of other homeowners in other districts cutting down the trees and removing them, so he would like to see that covered. He was not sure which way was the best. He wanted to pull this item until they had a recommendation from the consultant as to which way was the best way to go. He had very negative experiences as a property owner with HOAs and the fees continuing to escalate and it was hard to control. An open space management district would leave it more under the control of the entire community as opposed to a small group. They needed to vote for what was best for the homeowners and what they thought should be applied to the entire ranch, as opposed to just SPA One. Regarding the Hollywood drives, he would go with the staff recommendation as delineated on Exhibit A, which was on the dais. He did not have a problem with initially leaving it at the 30 %, letting the Director and the developer come to some kind of agreement. If they disagree, he would like for the Planning Commission to see it again. Regarding the park, after listening to Commissioner Aguilar, he was leaning more towards keeping it. There were compelling reasons why they wanted to keep the feel of the neighborhoods, and they wanted to reduce traffic. He would go against the deletion of the park, trying to retain as much as possible the original plan. For the new Commissioners, Commissioner Ray stated that there had been very lengthy discussions about the probability that this property would be diversified as far as ownership. The Commissioners had wanted to come up with one plan that would be a constant. It had been stated in the minutes as a part of the ,/'0/ /:5[.. public record. They wanted to come up with a plan that was best for Chula Vista, something that could be applied and looked at in the future with pride as the vision the City and County had. Chair Tarantino asked the City Attorney how they should vote on these items, since they included both item 1 and item 2. Attorney Googins gave the Commissioners their options, noting that no single item had four votes either for or against in order to bring forward a recommendation. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that in order to have a recommendation move on to City Council, it required a majority of the membership. With seven members, it required at least four votes either in favor or against an item. Mr. Rosaler reminded the Commission that they had in the past taken tentative votes on the issues and then an overall vote on the project, once they had identified their positions on their individual issues. Commissioners Thomas and Aguilar agreed with Commissioner Ray's suggestion that the open space maintenance portion be pulled out until the consultant gave his report. Chair Tarantino asked when the consultant would be giving his report to the Council, and if the Council took a vote, why would the Commission be considering it? Mr. Rosaler said that, based on what Mr. DeTrinidad had told them, this project and the consultant's report wouJd reach the Council on the same evening of June 3. The Council would have all the information in front of them, the consultant's recommendation for fInancing open space maintenance districts, and the open space maintenance district on this project. Chair Tarantino concluded then that it would not be back before the Commission. When Commissioner Ray said he would like to have more information, Mr. Tarantino had assumed the information would be going back to the Commission and they would be able to take action. Commissioner Thomas felt all the Commission had to explain in their recommendation was why they were not taking action, but saying that based upon what was available, the Commissioners felt they needed additional information, but because of the timeframe the Council would get the additional information and would make the policy decision. Commissioner Aguilar said they could state their objective, which was to adopt whatever mechanism provided the greatest likelihood that the parkways and the other open space would be appropriately maintained. That could be stated as their goal, but without all the information, they did not know which mechanism best achieved that goal. MS (Ray/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) to adopt the Otay Ranch SPA I PCM 97-20 and Tentative Subdivision Map PCS- 97-02 as presented, with the exceptions of Pedestrian Park P-5; the parkway streets, Type A versus some other type for promenade streets; also removing the item relative to Hollywood drives and the percentages; and also removing the item relative to the funding /3/ mechanism for maintenance, the homeowners association or open space maintenance districts, and handle those as separate items. MSC (Ray/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) to adopt the standards for Type A streets. Commissioner Thomas commented that he would feel comfortable to support other Planning Commission members on retaining the park if they could loosen up on the 30% requirement for the Hollywood driveways. Keeping the park would keep the ambiance the Commission had been looking for at the beginning on the Otay Ranch. He felt the developer would police himself on the mix, and he did not think they needed to require him to come back if the product did not sell. He would make his own corrections. He would delete having the developer come back to the City. Commissioner Ray concluded that if Exhibit A was retained, less the Director of Planning needing to waive that, what happens if in subsequent developments it was decided they did not want the product at all? Commissioner Thomas did not think freedom was given to do that, because at least one of the models would have the Hollywood driveway. They would still have to offer it. Because of that, he could support keeping the park in for the overall effect. Commissioner Ray commented that the standard for Hollywood drives only applied to lots of at least 55 x 105. Commissioner Aguilar said it appeared that there would be some product built prior to the McMillin product. Once that product is built and starts selling, but prior to the time the models for the McMillin are built, the Planning Commission could have a report from staff as to the marketability of the Hollywood driveway issue and at that point make a decision as to whether or not they would want to require McMillin to keep the 30%. Commissioner O'Neill was not in favor of putting them off until later. He thought the Hollywood drive was a good design and was important. Whether or not it sells remains to be seen. He asked if the project before would have Hollywood drives. Mr. RosaJer believed R-l had large enough pads to require that, and staff would be looking for 30% of R-l to have Hollywood driveways in it. Mr. O'Neill asked if that would actually be constructed and marketed prior to the plans being made for this project. Mr. Rosaler stated that this standard applied SPA-wide. MSC (Ray/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) to adopt Exhibit A as presented by staff, amending PCM-97-2, with regard to the Hollywood driveway issue, with 30% on lots that are 55xl05, that those types of Jots or pads shall be a minimum of a 30' setback and incorporate a Hollywood driveway. The Director of Planning may waive this requirement based on evidence from the developer that these units are not marketable. If they can't come to a resolution, it would be brought back before the Planning Commission. Neighborhood R-24 wouJd be exempt as presented by staff. /--7'7 / J "'Î.. MSC (Ray/Thomas) 4-1 (O'Neill against)(Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) to include Pedestrian Park P-5 as opposed to the deletion of it. MS (Ray/Thomas) to not take any formal action on HOA versus open space management district, and instead take a straw vote and send the message to the City Council that the Planning Commission could not take a formal vote due to the lack of information, because the consultant would not be making the report until the evening the Council would be voting on it. Commissioner Aguilar asked for an addition to the motion that the Planning Commission's goal was to establish whatever mechanism would best maintain the open space, as well as the parkways, in the long term. Commissioner Ray felt the mechanism used should also be Ranch-wide, not just SPA to SPA, as kind of a gate keeper. Commissioner Aguilar wanted to make clear to the Council that, although the Commission was not taking action, they had a position and did not know what action to take which would best support that position. The maker and the second to the motion concurred with the additions. REVISED MOTION: MS (Ray/Thomas) to not take any formal action on HOA versus open space management district, and instead take a straw vote and send the message to the City Council that the Planning Commission could not take a formal vote due to the lack of information, because the consultant would not be making the report until the evening the Council would be voting on it. Commission's goal was to establish whatever mechanism would best maintain the open space, as well as the parkways, in the long-term, and that it should be Ranch- wide, not just SPA to SPA. Although the Commission was not taking action, they had a position and did not know what action to take which would best support that position. VOTE: 4-1 (Tarantino against) There was some confusion over the previous motion. Some of the Commissioners realized it was to take a straw vote; others thought it was a "no recommendation" because the Planning Commission was deferring to the Council because they would get the report. MSUC (Ray/Thomas) 5-0 to reconsider the last item. Commissioner Ray stated that his intent was to actually take a straw vote, which would not be binding because the Planning Commission did not have enough information. He did not like homeowners associations. Commissioner Thomas noted that the Commissioners wanted to send forward a message that they wanted long-term maintenance and integrity of that area. whatever option was best. /'i--o /.:1-:5 Commissioner Tarantino did not feel they had enough infonnation to take a straw vote. He liked the way the landscaping was maintained at Rancho del Rey; his concern was that they were dealing more with McMillin than this swath of land; they were dealing with the entire Ranch. He would vote for a homeowners association, basically, because it goes with the project. Commissioner Aguilar felt it would be very difficult to vote on something without having all the infonnation. However she voted would be just a best guess, because she did not really know , which would best serve the objective. ~ Commissioner O'Neill favored a straw vote, whether it be an HOA or something else. A report c , may come out ambivalent, or may come back saying each of these are equally good. He felt it would be good to give some infonnation. There were two basic differences between an HOA and another forum. The HOA was a more macro organization with the locals having control. The other difference is that one is private and the other would go on to the City. Whether you know one is going to be better or not, you could have an opinion about which one would be better in the absence of a complete report. Open space required a different level of maintenance than parkways. Commissioner Ray clarified that the motion sent no preference either way; it was just a back-up to the Council to show what the Planning Commission would have done if there was ambivalence in the report. Commissioner Thomas stated that the only reason he was for the HOA was because of the maintenance of the trees in the parkway. He did not know what was the best mode. He would vote for it if the consultant came back and said the best mode was the homeowners. He couldn't say at the moment he was for the homeowners association. Commissioner Ray said one was more encompassing than the other and that was the reason he would prefer the open space maintenance district as opposed to an HOA. Commissioner Thomas clarified that if the Commissioners voted for an HOA, that would basically as a back-up to say they were more concerned with the ongoing quality. Commissioner Ray stated that the intent of his motion was to send a clear message that the Commissioners wanted to do whatever was best for the residents of Otay Ranch in total, and this would be a precedent because it was the first development, along with Village Development. Commissioner Aguilar asked the City Attorney to comment on whether there should be a straw vote. City Attorney Googins stated that the Planning Commission had a lot of discretion as to the fonn that the recommendation to the final approving body. MS (Ray/Thomas) to not take a formal vote, but where there is ambivalence on the report that will be presented to Council, have the straw vote be considered. /3¿¿ VOTE: 3-2 (Tarantino and Aguilar against) - NO ACTION; Needed four votes either for or against to constitute action. MS (O'Neill/Thomas) 4-1 (Tarantino against) to convey to the Council that the Planning Commissioners' concern was that the parkways be maintained in the most advantageous way, both from efficiency and economics, as recommended in the report that the City Council would be receiving the same evening from this consultant. MS (O'Neill/Ray) that the Commission take a straw vote, or an advisory vote, that their preferred method of maintenance and funding would be an HOA as opposed to a community facilities district. VOTE: 2-2-1 (Commissioners O'Neill and Ray voted for; Commissioners Aguilar and Thomas against; Commissioner Ray abstained) Commissioner Ray noted he had abstained because he had no idea as to the merits or detriments of either one. RESOLUTION NO. l8"ø~ø RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE THIRD ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEIR 95- 01 (SCH #95021012) AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PORTIONS OF THE OTA Y RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 97-02, AND MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified and described on Chula Vista Tract 97-02 and is commonly known as Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One ("Property"); and WHEREAS, McMillin Companies ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application for the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 97-02 ("Project"), with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on April 10. 1997; and WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision of approximately 290 acres located south of the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road into 1,877 residential lots, 67 acres of open space, one 10-acre school site and, 15.8 acres of parks, 8.1 acres of community purpose facility lots and two commercial sites on 3.3 acres; and WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298 and as amended on May 14, 1996 by Resolution No. 18285 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH #9010154 ("Program EIR 90-01 "); and WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286 ("SPA Plan Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA Plan, relied in part on the Otay Ranch SPA Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #95021012 ("FEIR 95-01"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, PCM 97-20, consistent with the Project, and said amendment was adopted by the City Council on June 3, 1997 by Resolution No. ; and WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-0 I, FEIR 95-0 I, and addendum thereto, that is virtually identical in all relevant respects, including lot size. lot numbers, lot configuralions, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental 1 9ß-1 evaluations; and WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project as part ofIS-97-21 and determined that they are in substantial conformance with the SPA Plan and the related environmental documents and that the Project would not result in any new environmental effects that were not previously identified, nor would the proposed Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified; therefore only an a Addendum to FEIR 95-01 is required in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May 21, 1997 at which time the Planning Commission voted to adopt the Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and recommend that the City Council approve the Project in accordance with staff's recommendation and the findings and conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on June 3, 1997 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL finds, determines, and resolves as follows: SECTION I. CEQA Finding Regarding Previously Examined Effects The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Program ErR 90-01, Second-tier FEIR 95-01, and addendum therelo, would have no new effects that were not examined in the preceding Program EIR 90-01 and subsequent Second-tier FEIR 95-01 (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)); and SECTION 2, CEQA Finding Regarding Project within Scope of Prior Program EIR The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from the Program ErR and the FEIR which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the Projecl has become available since the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore. no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to Ihose already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation, Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the Program ErR and FEIR, and a third Addendum has been prepared (Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)). SECTION 3, Notice with Later Activities The City Council does hereby give notice, to the exlent required by law, that this Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the GOP EIR (90-01) and the SPA Plan EIR (95-01) and the Final EIR with first, second and third addendum's adequately describes 7'ß-dL ~ and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA (Guideline 15168 (e)). Notice on the SPA EIR was given on June 4, 1996. SECTION 4. Tentative Map Findings A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the revised tenlative subdivision map for the Applicants portion of Village One and Five as conditioned herein for Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, is in conformance with all the various elements of the City's General Plan. the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan as amended. based on the following: 1. Land Use - The Project is a planned community which provides a variety of land uses and residential densities ranging between 4.1 and 36.5 dwelling units per acre. The project is also consistent with General Plan policies related to grading and landforms. 2. Circulation - All of the on-site and off-site public and private streets required to serve the subdivision consist of Circulation Element roads and local streets in locations required by said Elemenl. The Applicant shall construct those facilities in accordance with City standards or pay in-lieu fees in accordance with the Transportalion Development Impact Fee program. 3. Housing - The Applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide and implement a low and moderate income program within the Project prior to the approval of any Final Map for the Project. 4. Parks and Recreation Open Space - The Project will provide 15.8 acres (gross) of neighborhood parks and the payment of PAD fees or additional improvements as approved by the Di rector of Parks and Recreation. In addition. a recreational trail system will be provided throughout the Project, ultimately connecting with other open space areas and trail systems in the region. Open Space - The Project provides 67.0 acres of open space, 23 % of the total 290 acres recommended for approval. A program to preserve 83% of slopes greater than 25 % has been established ranch-wide and is detailed in the recirculated FEIR 95-01. 5. Conservation - The Program EIR and FEIR addressed the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and found development of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies. 6. Seismic Safety - The proposed subdivision is in conformance wit the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. No seismic faults have been identified in the vicinity of the Project. 7. Public Safety - All public and private facilities are expected to be reachable within the threshold response times for fire and police services. :\ 9ß-;> -no '-o-'~"'" vuu",may IUI ""'" "'.nrl 0 I IIp,,plnn~ÓM 8. Public Facilities - The Applicant will provide all on-site and off-site streets. sewers and water facilities necessary to serve this Project. The developer will also contribute to the Otay Water District's improvement requirements to provide terminal water storage for this Project as well as other major project in the eastern territories. 9. Noise - The Project will include noise attenuation walls as required by an acoustic study dated June 6, 1995 prepared for the Project. In addition, all units are required to meet the standards of the UBC with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. 10. Scenic Highway - The roadway design provides wide landscaped buffers along the two scenic highways, Telegraph Canyon Road and East Orange Avenue (Olympic Parkway). II. Bicycle Routes - Bicycle paths are provided throughout the Project. 12. Public Buildings - The Project provides one elementary school site to serve the area. The Project will also be subject to Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. B. Balance of Housing Needs and Public Service Needs Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies thai it 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. The development will provide for a variety of housing types from single family detached homes to attached single-family and multiple" family housing and will provide low and moderate priced housing consislent with regional goals. C. Opportunities for Natural Heating and Cooling Incorporated The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Government Code Section 66473.1. D. Finding regarding Suitability for Residential Development The Village One and Five sites are physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development. SECTION 5. Tentative Map Findings In Support Of Approval Of The Tentative Map Alternatives 4 '1£>-ý ,-- :fie¡' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL for the purpose of considering an amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, PCM 97-20, and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, for property located south of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road. The application, filed by McMillin Companies, requests the approval ofa SPA Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map to create 1,876 units on 290 acres in portions of Villages One and Five ofOtay Ranch SPA One. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that, although .the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in earlier environmental impact reports and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to those earlier EIRs (Otay Ranch Program EIR, EIR 90-01; Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR, EIR 94-03; and the SPA One EIR, EIR 95-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination and is available at the address noted below. All written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council must be received in the Otay Ranch Project Office, 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Rick Rosaler at the Otay Ranch Project Office at (619) 476-5394. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission and/or City Council at or prior to the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans are on file and available for inspection and review at the Otay Ranch Project Office. SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON: Wednesday, May 21,1997, at 7:00 p.m. AND BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON: Tuesday, June 3, 1997, at 4:00 p.m. Both hearings will be held in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. Date: May 9, 1997 Case No: PCS 97-02 Hb:\SP A:lœpcspa.doc I C HULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Lë) ~~I&k McMillin Development PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INITIAL STUDY ~~JWs. ViIlB~1I1 & 5 of Request: Proposal for Tentative Map. . Otay anch SCALE: I ALE NUMBER: Related Cases: PCS-97-02 & PCM-97-20 NORTH No Scale 15-97.,.21 h:\homelplanning\carlos\locatorslis9721.cdr 4/22/97 'E H L 'lliÞ~ dt9 NDANGERED ABITATS EA~,.. '=':-2i~ U \j i~õ r:=::: Dedicated to the Protection of Coastll! Sage Saub and Oth;t ~tened Ecosystems - '". - -" !'!\ f . Dan Silver - Coordinator I, '," - . - 2 1997 8424A Santa Monica Blvd. #592 ' i Los Angeles, CA 90069-4210 L--- TEL/FAX 213-654-1456 May 27,1997 Mayor Shirley Horton and Councilmembers City of Chula 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Proposed Amendment (PCM97-20) and TerdBlive Tract Map (PCS 97-02) forOay Raneh SPA 1 (Hearing Date: June 3, 1997) Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: The Endangered Habitats League (EHL) is an organization of Southern California conservation groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and collaborative conflict resolution. EHL participated intensively in the original public review process for the Otay Ranch project While we did not agree with some aspects of the project, we wish to convey our strong support for retaining "Neotraditional" design features and 1ransit-enabling densities in the Otay Ranch Villages on the western parcel. Our group recognizes the needs for sustainable patterns of development, which accommodate human needs and create "livable" communities. It is also clear that only innovation in planning will allow the region to maintain its quality of life in the face of population growth and skyrocketing transportation demand. Back in 1993, 1ransit and pedestriaIH>riented "urban villages" were a major "selling point" for the project. In fact, only the maÙztenance of such planning features would be consistent with the terms under which the project was approved. To illustrate this linkage, the City's "Statement of Overriding Considerations"-findings made to override unmitigated environmental impacts under CEQA -states, "Designed to encourage walking, biking and use of transit and reduce reliance on automobile, the Project clusters high density, high intensity development in villages near 1ransit and light rail terminals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks and commercial centers are loæ by and linked by pedestrian and bicycle routes." If vital community design features such as pedestrian parks were eliminated-as is now being sought by the McMillin Companies-promises made to the public would be broken. Furthermore, if densities are later lowered at all from the original 18.5 units/acre in village cores, this would seriously compromise the success of a future 1ransit system, and do nothing less than undermine the ability of the San Diego region to compete in the world-wide economy. The City of Chula Vista is in the enviable position of being a natianalleader in building sustainable, pedestrian-oriented, people-friendly, and transportation-efficient communities. Recent surveys have also shown a marked shift in consumer preferences away from standard suburbs toward these new features (see "Changing Consumer Preferences in Community Features and Amenities," American UVES, available upon request). Please do not abandon this path. Therefore, please reject the "after-the-fact" amendments now being proposed. Thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, '\ .<1: ~ Dan Silver, Coordinator Attachment Excerpts from Otay Ranch General Development Plan "Statement of Overriding Considerations," Oct. 28, 1993. .:r~ :ttc; ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAG Dedicated to the Protection of COQSta¡ Sage Scrub and Oth<r Dan Silver - Coordinator 8424A Santa Monica Blvd. #592 Los Angeles, CA 90069-4210 TEL/FAX 213-654-1456 May 27,1997 Mayor Shirley Horton and Council members City of Chula 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Proposed Amendment (PCM 97-20) and Tenlalive Tract Map (PCS 97-02) for Oay Ranch SPA 1 (Hearing Dáe: June 3, 1997) Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: The Endangered Habitats League (EHL) is an organization of Southern California conservation groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and collaborative conflict resolution. EHL participated intensively in the original public review process for the Otay Ranch project While we did not agree with some aspects of the project, we wish to convey our strong support for retaining "NeotraditionaI" design features and transit-enabling densities in the Otay Ranch Villages on the western parcel. Our group recognizes the needs for sustainable patterns of development, which accommodate human needs and create "livable" communities. It is also clear that only innovation in planning will alJow the region to maintain its quality of life in the face of population growth and skyrocketing transportation demand. Back in 1993, transit and pedestrian-oriented "u~ban villages" were a major "selling point" for the project In fact, only the mainJeTllUlCe of such planning features would be consistent with the terms under which the project was approved. To illustrate this linkage, the City's "Statement of Oveniding Considerations"-findings made to ovenide unmitigated environmental impacts under CEQA -states, "Designed to encourage walking, biking and use of transit and reduce reliance on automobile, the Project clusters high density, high intensity development in villages near transit and light rail terminals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks and commercial centers are lose by and linked by pedestrian and bicycle routes." If vital community design features such as pedestrian parks were eliminated-as is now being sought by the McMillin Companies-promises made to the public would be broken. Furthennore, if densities are later lowered at all from the original 18.5 units/acre in village cores, this would seriously compromise the success of a future transit system, and do nothing Jess than undennine the ability of the San Diego region to compete in the world-wide economy. The City of Chula Vista is in the enviable position of being a national leader in building sustainable, pedestrian-oriented, peopl~friendJy, and transportation-efficient communities. Recent surveys have also shown a marked shift in consumer preferences away from standard suburbs toward these new features (see "Changing Consumer Preferences in Community Features and Amenities," American LIVES, available upon request). Please do not abandon this path. Therefore, please reject the "after-th~fact" amendments now being proposed. Thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, "\ ~~ Dan Silver, Coordinator Attachment Excerpts from Otay Ranch General Development Plan "Statement of Overriding Considerations," Oct. 28, 1993. I .. 1 ~~~ CTAY RAnCH ""NT "'-"'.... _OCT cowm" OF SAN DIEGO . CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVEWPMENT PLAN "CTIY COUNCIL FINAL PLAN" (MITIGATED PHASE n - PROGRESS PLAN) FINDINGS OF FACT and STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS October 28, 1993 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157. FAX: (619) 422-7690 . , . 108 acres of alkali meadow . 479 acres of floodplain scrub Community Planning and Develo.pment . Development Patterns Which Minimize the Adverse Impacts of Development on Air Quality and Congestion The Project area currently exceeds Federal and State air quality standards for a number of emissions factors, including ozone and carbon monoxide. A substantial majority of these emissions are attributable to motor vehicles. In order to comply with the Federal and California Clean Air Acts, the San Diego region must reduce these sources. The Project is designed to reduce the adverse impact to air quality and automobile congestion that would otherwise result if jobs and housing were provided for in a typical suburban development pattern. The Project accomplishes this goal through its location and design. The Otay Ranch parcel is located close to the urban core of the San Diego region, which will reduce the length of commuter trips. In addition, the Project's location adjacent to the Otay Mesa industrial area will provide housing proximate to this planned employment center. A mixed-use development, the Project will promote linkage of trips, reduced trip length and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as biking, walking and use of transit. The Project creates a multi-modal transportation network which minimizes the number and length of single passenger vehicle trips. Designed to encourage walking, biking and use of transit and reduce reliance on automobile, the Project clusters high density, high intensity development in villages near transit and light rail terminals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks and commercial centers are close by and linked by pedestrian and bicycle routes. The San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDA G) 1991 .South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study, " (Exhibit C) which examined the feasibility of providing additional rail transit to the South County area by connecting the existing trolley system to Otay Mesa, concluded that the alternative trolley alignment, through Otay Ranch, resulted in the largest increase in regional new trips of the alternatives studied. (South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study, SANDAG, February 5, 1991, Exhibit C.) Additionally, the Project limits development to 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial use unless funding for light rail is assured. . Social Benefits of Transit and Pedestrian-Oriented Development Pattern In addition to the improvement to air quality and congestion resulting from a reduced need for automobile trips, the Project's unique land plan will result in Page 177 . .. social benefits as well. Because most of the activities of daily living are within walking distance for most of the Otay Ranch population (particularly on the Otay VaIley parcel), residents will benefit from the opportunity for increased mobility, particularly for those segments of the population who do not have the ability to drive, including the young, elderly and disable, and a sense of community. ComDrehensive Resrional Plannin~ The Project provides the opportunity to comprehensively plan development which meets the region's needs for housing, jobs, infrastructure and environmental preservation. These benefits are made possible by the Project's size and scope, and the fact that it has at least been initially planned for development under a single owner. The General Development Plan for Otay Ranch includes a provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that are typically not undertaken for smaller development projects. The regional planning process undertaken for the Project involved long-range inter-jurisdictional coordination, ensuring maximum achievement of policies and regulations of both the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County. The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the Project include the following: . Comprehensive consideration of the Project's cumulative effects . Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation, air quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure and public services planning. . Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities. The General Development Plan includes a provision for designating land for regional purpose facilities. The City's requirement for community purpose facilities (for uses such as social and human services, senior care, day care, etc.) to include facilities to house regional services such as offices, courts, detention facilities, medical facilities and public common areas. These facilities are provided by the County and are currently housed in County-owned facilities, where available, but are more commonly located in leased or rented space. Designation of land for regional purposes will facilitate the provision of these services and provide better locational opportunities for users of these uses than is currently available with new development. Reeional Housin~ Needs The Project will help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing by providing a wide variety of housing types and prices. Recent SANDAG housing capacity studies indicate a significant shortfall of housing will occur in the Project area within the next 20 years. For example, the SANDAG Series VII population growth forecast, published in January 1987, estimates that within the South Suburban MSA, in which the Project site lies, employment will grow more substantially than housing or population (South County Land Use Analysis, Alfred Page 178 soG/' .,.",~ San Diego Gas & Electric PO BOX "" . SAN DIEGO, CA """",0' ""696-2000 June 3,1997 FIlE Nn Honorable Members of the City Council City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Otay Ranch-McMIllin Dear Mayor Horton and Council Members: This letter represents a response by San Diego Gas & Electric to the McMillin Tentative Map, specifically, and to the entire Otay Ranch project in general. We typically review all tentative maps for general land uses and conflicts with transmission facilities,and will comment accordingly regarding those major items. However, it has recently come to our attention that the staff at the City of Chula Vista is requiring that streets with detached sidewalks and parkway trees be utilized for local subdivision streets. This is a departure from the street standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista and requires that new standards be developed for the placement of utilities under this new configuration. Our experience in other developments is that the design considerations and modifications are not insurmountable, but require coordination and cooperation from the engineers and planners from the respective municipalities. Specifically, detached sidewalks in a ten-foot parkway forces all of SDG&E's above-ground facilities out of the franchise area and onto private property. The proximity of the street trees and their roots further jeopardize the joint utility package, pushing it to the outside edge of the dedicated right-of-way. As a result, a five-foot easement would have to be taken by SDG&E behind the dedicated right-of-way and across the front of the private lots in order to preserve our ability to access and service our distribution facilities. Such an easement may conflict with the City of Chula Vista's current requirement of a five and one half foot tree planting and maintenance easement in the same location. ---~~---~--_.._.. -'-~--~--~"-- -..-.---- - . ---------- Honorable Members of the City Council 2 June 3, 1997 We thank you in advance for this opportunity to comment on the potential effects of a City policy to modify the currently accepted street sections. It should be pointed out, that SDG&E is not the only utility impacted by this change. Since telephone and cable TV jointly occupy the gas and electric trench, their concerns are similar to ours. We look forward to the opportunity to work with your staff in an effort to establish new design criteria in the event this new standard is adopted. If you have any particular questions or require additional information, please contact me directly at 482-3352. q Patricia Barnes Senior Public Affairs Representative cc: City Manager, Chula Vista Cliff Swanson, Chula Vista City Engineer JUN 03 '97 02: 07PM VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT P.2/2 Villag~ " DEVELOPMENT Quality ,"4<'" pt.nnrd «..n,,",unl,l.. .In.", 1974 June 3,1997 Via r"lqax The Honorable Shirley Horton and City Counci!mem.bers CITYOFCHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Re: Agenda Item Numbe, J- 7 Dear Mayor Horton and Councilmembers: 7 Village Development respectfully requests that item §:. regarding the Otay Ranch Assessment District #97-2, be continued one week until the City Council meeting of June 10,1997. Thank: you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT ~ Vice President KAlmdrn " C:\Mon.\KontlMayn, Horton &-3 ,"75 ElC=ino ""J.Sulœ 10<' S~,Di.go, CA" "n Tcl. 6\?-lSS-',93' . F=. 019-1S'-"" COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /ð Meeting Date 6/3/97 ITEM TITLE: Report on Proposition 218 Impacts on Open Space District Formation. SUBMITTED BY: DiredMofPubli, wmk"~ REVIEWED BY: CitYManager.J1Iê)'~) (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX) At the November 5,1996 general election, Proposition 218 the "Right To Vote on Taxes Act", was passed by a majority of voters. This proposition impacts the formation of Open Space Districts by the "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act". This report discusses the impacts and alternatives available to the City based on a study conducted by Berryman & Henigar, a consultant with expertise in this area for formation of new open space maintenance districts. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council accept staffs report and direct staff to prepare a policy to; 1) Suspend the formation of Open Space Districts via the "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act" and; 2) Express a clear preference for maintenance of open space areas by a Home Owner's Association (HOA). However, that a determination be made on a case by case basis for each development project as to whether an HOA would best serve the needs of the property owners and the City and; 3) Express a clear preference for maintenance of medians by a Community Facilities District (CFD) based maintenance district. 4) In consultation with the developer, in cases where it is undesirable to form an HOA, and for median maintenance, the City utilize the provisions of Chapter 2.5 of the Government Code to form Community Facilities District to provide an on-going source of funding for the operation and maintenance of eligible improvements in new developments where the City wants to ensure the improvements in new developments. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Back¡¡:round At the November 5,1996 general election, Proposition 218 was approved by a 56% to 44% margin. Proposition 218, "The Right To Vote On Taxes Act", severely impacts the formation of Open Space Districts via the previous procedure of utilizing the "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act" ('72 Act), /¿)-! Page 2, Item- Meeting Date 6/3/97 since the City has the burden to show that parcels to be assessed receive a "special benefit" and all publicly owned parcels are now required to be included in the assessment of the overall costs. Also, any future increase in the amount of the assessment must be approved by the property owners by a ballot procedure, although this apparently does not preclude the use of an initial inflation fonnula, although this is open to future interpretation by the courts. Staff has hired a consultant, Berryman & Henigar, based on their expertise and experience in working with other agencies, to provide an analysis of the impacts of Proposition 218. The consultant made recommendations to staff to provide guidance for establishing future Open Space Districts and to provide for the on-going financing of open space district improvements which will not expose the City to additional costs. Based on this study, the City will then be better able to develop a policy for financing the on-going maintenance and operations of improvements constructed in conjunction with new development within Open Space Districts. Proposition 218 places a number of restrictions on the use of special benefit assessments by local agencies to pay for the operation and maintenance of public improvements which may not be applicable to CFD's. Charter cities such as Chula Vista are not exempt from this proposition. The City needs to find an alternative to the 1972 Act to establish Open Space Districts so that maintenance can be guaranteed without increasing the financial burden on the City. Several alternatives will be discussed below such as establishing districts by "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act", Mello-Roos Districts, and Home Owner's Association. At the core of the issue regarding these districts is the definitions of "General Benefit" and "Special Benefit". A "General Benefit" is something which is available to the public without regard to their property, such as public libraries, fire and police protection, electrical and water service, to name a few. A "Special Benefit" is derIDed as a particular benefit over and above general benefits to parcels or the public at large. Proposition 218 only allows cities to assess for special benefits. Benefitted public parcels, such as fire stations, libraries, parks and school sites are not exempt. Further, in the past courts have traditionally allowed local governments significant flexibility in detennining the amount of fees and assessments. Prior to the passage of Prop 218, in a lawsuit the challenging party had the burden of proof to show that the fees and assessments were not legal. Proposition 218 shifts the burden onto the local government to prove that the fees and assessment are legal. Prior to Proposition 218, an area which was to be developed adjacent to an already developed area could have annexed into the existing open space district. Now this is not possible without placing the matter to a ballot before the affected property owners within the existing district. The voting is based on the ballots returned and weighted by the assessment amount. The passage of Proposition 218 adds a new layer of procedural requirements to the majority protest provisions related to assessments to a "ballot box" election for either fonning a new district or increasing assessments for either a '72 Act district or a CFD. To disapprove an assessment, previous law required a majority protest of property owners owning more than 50% of the area of assessable /~.;2 Page 3, Item- Meeting Date~ land but did not require an election. Proposition 218 now requires the agency to mail a ballot to each property owner of record and when the ballots are counted, the determination of a majority protest is based on the number of voters actually submitting ballots. Significantly, in contrast to prior law, the legislative body cannot override a protest. This proposition requires that a ballot be included in the notice. If at the public hearing majority protest exists, the agency shall not impose an assessment or an assessment increase. A majority protest exists, if upon the conclusion of the public hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. Therefore, it is probable that only a relatively few interested voters submitting protests can defeat the assessment even if the majority of eligible voters favor the assessment but do not return their ballot. Once again, it is important to realize that only those submittin~ ballots are considered. "1972 Landsc&¡!ing & Li¡¡htin¡¡ Act" Most of the existing Open Space districts within the city were established by the "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act". Due to the passage of Proposition 218, this process may no longer work for the City because of two issues. First, all parcels whether publicly owned or not are subject to assessment if they receive the same benefit as the adjoining parcels. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency must separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Second, parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from an assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that such publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. Also, City owned parcels will also have to be assessed under this proposition if new districts are formed under this act. City owned land subject to be assessed would include fire stations, libraries and possibly parks for open space district assessments. A preliminary cost estimate for additional costs associated with City owned parcels being assessed has been roughly estimated at $66,200 based on Fiscal Year's 1996/1997 assessment of parks and fire station sites. If legal counsel determines that improvements not contained in the "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act" cannot be maintained by the levying of assessments, then the City could no longer include funding for those improvements in any new '72 Act district. New '72 Act districts would be subject to the majority protest and notification requirements of Proposition 218. These requirements should not pose any difficulty, since it is the landowner/developer who is requesting to subdivide the property. There would be no cost to the City for the additional processing with formation of the district because all formation costs are paid for by the developer/applicant. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 /t?,J Page 4, Item- Meeting Date~ The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows for the creation of a special district called a Community Facilities District (CFD), and the issuance of bonds to provide for the financing of a broad range of public facilities needed by that district. Any public facilities having a useful life of five or more years is eligible to be financed through a CFD, including fire, flood control maintenance, landscaping, library, open-space facilities, parks, parkways, recreational services and school facilities maintenance. CFD's were established as a way to finance infrastructure by the authorization for the levy of the special tax and/or the issuance of bonds which were issued for construction of much needed facilities such as schools and roadways. Unlike other jurisdictions which have run into problems with CFD's on bond sales for financing capital improvements, the City does not intend to sell bonds. The maintenance and operation ofthe CFD based open space districts does not require that bonds be sold. A CFD based open space maintenance district will function identically to the existing '72 Act based open space maintenance districts after formation is complete. A CFD may include areas that are non-contiguous, and does not require Local Agency Fonnation Commission (LAFCO) approval. The benefit of a CFD is that the publicly owned parcels are exempt from any assessment since the assessment is considered to be a tax and there does not have to be proof of a specific benefit shown as is now required by Prop. 218 for the '72 Act. This mechanism allows the City to establish and maintain open space districts much like the existing ones in the city. There is some flexibility on what the city can call a district established by this mechanism. One suggestion would be to call it a Community Facilities District (CFD), Chula Vista Open Space Maintenance District # 40. Thus, on the property tax bill it could show up as "CFD CV -OSD # 40". A disclosure fonn would have to be provided by the developer to the buyer at the time the buyer is given the escrow documentation. The advantage of this mechanism is that it allows the City to maintain a seamless continuity in the way the Open Space districts are managed and budgeted. Since a CFD is considered a special tax instead of a general tax, it takes 2/3rds vote to approve it and, possibly a 2/3rds vote to call a referendum as opposed to a 50% majority needed with the "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act". So far as fonnation of a district is concerned, the 2/3rds requirement is not a problem since one developer owns all the land or has made arrangements with guest builders to not protest. For future increase in the assessment beyond the initial inflator the 2/3 requirement could be a problem, however, the initial inflator should keep these situations to a minimum. With regards to the 2/3rds vote minimum requirement to call a referendum, Mr. Warren Diven, Bond and Special Assessment Counsel to the City has indicated that while this issue would have to be settled by case law, he would argue the "Rule of Equal Dignity", or whatever action is required to put something into effect, should also apply to take it out. A developer's attorney has suggested that a CFD tax can be reduced or repealed by a simple majority ofthe electorate voting on the matter, even though the special tax requires a 2/3rds vote of the electorate to be enacted or increased. This point illustrates how there is differing legal opinion on the requirements of Proposition 218 and how the courts will have to clarify this and other legal interpretations of the proposition's requirements. /¿; ., if Page 5, Item- Meeting Date~ Proposition 218 has two other potential impacts on CFD's, which still must be addressed in the California judicial system. These impacts relate to the initiative power of the public to reduce or repeal an assessment, charge, fee or local tax that is used to pay debt service for outstanding bonds and also where the special tax is not collected for debt service. The disadvantages of a CFD is that there is a negative connotation associated with the name "Mello- Roos District". Developers are typically against the imposition of additional taxes and CFD's are no exception. Over the last few years, there has been less and less of these CFD's approved by the general public, but the trend seems to be reversing. The maximum term of a CFD bond issue is forty years and it requires a two-thirds vote of the landowners in the district, based on land area. '72 Act and CFD Assessments and Collectibles The City currently utilizes an "Assessment" and a "Collectible" amount on the existing open space districts. The assessment amount is based upon the estimated future maintenance costs once all improvements have been constructed and accepted by the City for maintenance. The City can collect a lessor amount in any year based upon the actual level of funding needed for that year. This practice appears to be consistent with Proposition 218's intent so long as the property owners are noticed based on the assessment amount at the time the district is formed. It is important to include in the Engineer's Report a methodology which would allow for the future or perpetual annual increase in the assessment, based on an appropriate method of spread to all benefitting properties. In this way, any future increase in the assessment amount would not have to be approved by the majority of the property owners, since there is no change or modification in the originally approved methodology contained within the Engineer's Report. However, as with many issues connected to Prop 218, this issue could have a different interpretation by the courts. Home Owner's Association Staffhas considered establishing open space districts via a Home Owner's Association (HOA), such as Canyon View Homes, Chapala, Charter Point, Corona Vista and EastLake currently does. This allows the HOA to maintain certain areas of the landscaping and the open space district to maintain the slopes and other landscaped areas adjacent to and within roadways such as the parkways and medians. The City could then establish areas to be maintained by HOA's along with a "ghost open space district" if the HOA does not perform to the satisfaction of the City. Therefore the open space lots that are maintained by the HOA would be designated on the subdivision map as an "Open Space Lot" but would not be accepted by the City. Then these lots would be privately owned and maintained. The advantage to an HOA is that the property owners have a sense of seeing that the funds collected are being spent in the neighborhood as opposed to a large area. Formerly, if the HOA did not perform up to the City's expectations, the City could take over the maintenance through a "ghost open space district" which was set up coincident to the HOA. While the ability to set up a "ghost district" is still a possibility, there are potential problems with that approach. First, if only the "ghost district is set up without an assessment, the ability to impose an assessment in the future would face the same problems as setting up a new district in getting /¿; -,5' Page 6, Item- Meeting DateßJL21.. approval through the ballot process. If an assessment is set up, in order to keep it valid, the City may have to go through the process each year of reviewing it and setting the collectible to zero because there would be no expenses. This would be additional staff work without a corresponding increase in revenue. For these reasons staff does not recommend use of a "ghost district". Without the "ghost district", the City would have to have the ability to require the HOA to maintain the open space district, including court action, if the maintenance is not satisfactory. The City has not experienced any significant problems or dissatisfaction with any of the 5 existing HOA's. Proposition 218 does not impact the assessment or collection ofHOA fees and HOA fees are more difficult to repeal or reduce than either assessments or taxes. The developer of the Salt Creek Ranch project has indicated that they do not want any fonn ofCFD for their project and that they want the medians maintained by an HOA. There are a number of issues to be resolved with respect to allowing HOA's to maintain open space areas and, particularly, roadway medians. First, in order for the HOA's to maintain these areas, the HOA would need to have an ownership interest in such lands, either an easement or fee title. For instance, the open space areas should be owned in fee by the HOA, while the medians would require that the HOA have an easement for maintenance purposes. In addition, the joint interest shared by the City and the HOA in the median areas could create a complex web of liability. For example, what if the HOA negligently maintains the medians creating a dangerous road condition? Naturally, the City would want the HOA to hold harmless the City under such circumstances. Second, establishing maintenance standards and enforcing such standards is also an issue that would need to be resolved. The Developer would have to establish maintenance standards, with the City's approval, for each particular Project's CCR's. In addition, if the City would have to enforce these standards against the HOA, if the HOA failed to maintain the median areas, by either acting as a third party beneficiary to the CC&R's or by establishing an ordinance that would make failure to maintain such areas a violation of the Municipal Code subject to criminal action. Finally, the developer will be responsible for establishing the HOA at the initial phase of the Project. As control of the HOA is taken over by the individual homeowners, the HOA could become less amenable towards maintaining such areas. This could raise issues in the future with respect to the HOA's continued maintenance of such areas, especially the roadway medians. According to one developer's attorney master CC&R's can be structured to require an HOA to fund the maintenance of offsite or median landscaping. As indicated above, City staff has concerns over liability ofHOA's maintaining the medians. The HOA's fees would need to be set at a rate which is high enough to cover the maintenance and the liability insurance. If the cost of the liability insurance becomes too high, there may be a tendency for the HOA to desire that the City take over the offsite or median areas which the City needs to ensure that no transfer of responsibility could occur. It appears possible that the CC&Rs, or a separate instrument, could have the HOA contract with the City the actual off site or median maintenance activities. Lastly, as indicated above, the City could also consider fonning a "ghost" CFD which would not be in effect until such time as the HOA could not provide a satisfactory service to the medians. The same problems exist with setting up a /¿J;-t, Page 7, Item- Meeting Date.M3L21.. "ghost" CFD to maintain the medians as discussed above. Therefore, staff also does not recommend a "ghost" district be set up to cover maintenance of medians by HOA's. Because of the concerns staff has with potential liabilities and other issues regarding maintenance of medians, staff recommends that the City Council express a clear preference for maintenance of medians being the responsibility of the City and accomplished through the formation of a CFD strictly for that purpose. Since the final maps for Salt Creek Ranch will be before the Council in the near future, this issue will probably be discussed in more detail in connection with that item. Comments From DeveloDers On April 29th, staff met with the following developers to discuss the implications of future Open Space District formation: Ayres Land Company (Sunbow II), EastLake, McMillan, Pacific Bay Homes (Salt Creek Ranch), United Enterprises and, Village Development (Otay Ranch). Baldwin Builders and Emerald Properties Corporation (San Miguel Ranch) were also notified but did not attend. The comments received were varied in that the Otay Ranch is concerned about the Preserve Open Space area, some developers do not prefer CFD's, while others do not prefer HOA's. A consensus was reached that the most efficient alternative would be to work with the developers and allow them to choose either a CFD or a HOA, depending on the economics of a project, and vice versa. There may be some instances where a CFD makes more sense to a developer than a HOA. The developers understand that the City's preference is to establish Open Space Districts via HOA's, since it transfers the administration responsibility to a property management company. Staff received two letters (attached as Exhibits C & D), one ITom McMillan Development Company and one ITom Pacific Bay Homes, regarding their comments on the consultant's report and how it impacts them. Developers desire to be left with choosing the preferred funding mechanism for each project based on each project's criteria. Therefore, the City would have to work with the developer on a case-by- case basis and agree on the appropriate funding mechanism, especially since they have looked at the costs and determined that the costs are relatively similar. It is the developer's opinion that the more funding mechanisms, or levels, on a project, the more inefficient the landscaping district is run, costing the property owner's more in the long run. Another opinion expressed by the developers is that due to the City's full cost recovery factor, an HOA's property management fee is more likely cheaper. Also, if a project already has a CFD for the schools, then an additional CFD for landscaping maintenance is not looked on as a detriment. Future Actions If directed by Council, staff will prepare a formal Council policy on the procedures to follow when establishing a new Open Space district. The policy will ensure that the City's financial obligation for the maintenance of the publicly owned parcels is mitigated through a funding source or through the formation mechanism which is not affected or minimally impacted by Proposition 218. As an /¿J,? Page 8, Item- Meeting Date 6/3/97 alternative to bringing the fonnal policy back for Council review, Council could authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare the policy to be consistent with Council actions on this issue. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The developers will be paying for the establishment of the open space districts as a condition of approval of their subdivision maps. Attachments: A - Proposition 218 Text B - Report on Open Space District Fonnation by Berryman & Henigar ~ C - McMillan Open Space Report comments dated May 1,1997 ,; D - Pacific Bay Homes Open Space Report comments dated May 1, 199~ E - Ayres Land Company comments Dated May 14, 1997 D~ ~ FILE, 072'-30-0SOOO May 28. t997: 12:17pm H, \II 0 MEIEN GINEER \A GEND A 10SD B HFtN.FXR /¿J-r EXHffiIT "A" Non- ($70,000) Employee Anticipated city-wide salary savings were Departmental Services placed in this budget. These salary savings were offset by actual salary saving in the other departments. Pub. Wks. $70,000 Employee Savings due to vacant positions and higher Operations Services level of turnover. Filling of new positions were staggered to allow for internal promotional opportunities. Parks, Rec ($60,000) Employee Over-expenditure in hourly wages for hourly as Services staff working to support rentals. This was offset by Rental revenue of $57,245. Proposed 1997-98 budget has added this expenditure. Pub. Wks. $60,000 Employee Savings because of turnover and delay in Engineering Services hiring new positions. Police ($64,000) Supplies and Primary problems in Equipment Maintenance Services costs which exceeded original estimates and printing which was sent outside due to close of print shop. Police $64,000 Equip. Savings from delayed implementation of jail Outlay remodel and vehicle outfitting. Funds are included in the coming year to completed these projects. Parks. Rec. ($29,000) Supplies and Over-expenditure due to increased usage of as Services water. Finance $29,000 Employee Savings due to closing of Print Shop. Services Non- ($200,000) Supplies and Anticipated city-wide supplies and services Departmental Services savings were placed in this budget. These supplies and services savings were offset by actual saving in the other departments. Comm Dev. $150,000 Supplies and Savings from delayed implementation of BECA Services project. Funds are included in the proposed fiscal year to continue implementation. /éJ-3 Pub. Wks. - $50,000 Supplies and Savings due to reduced need due to crews not Operations Services fully staffed for full year. Attorney ($58,600) Employee Settlement of claim. Services Attorney $8,600 Supplies and Savings from professional services and Service microfilming. Pub. Wks. - $50,000 Employee Savings due to turnover and delay filling Engineering Services vacant positions. Total $0 Balance between negative amounts (Over expenditures) and positive amounts (Savings) /tJ-t VI. AttaebmeD" A-3 ~/¿;J ATTACHMENT -1i.- PROPosmON 218 TAXATION-VOTER APPROVAL OF LOCAL TAXES, ETC.-JNITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article IT, Section 8 of the ConstitUtion. PROPOSED ADOmON OF ARTICLE xm C AND ARTICLE xm 0 RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES ACT SECTION 1. TITLE. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act." : SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. The people of the State of California hen:by find and declare that Proposition 13 was intended to provide effective tax relief and to require voter approval of tax increases. However, local governments have subjected taxpayers to excessive tax, assessment, fee and charge increases that not only frustrate the purposes of voter approval for tax increases, but also threaten the economic security of all Californians and the California economy itself. This measure protects taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent SECTION 3. VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES. AItic1e xm C is added to the California Constitution to read: CONST Prec. AIl xm C, § 1 ARTICLE xm C SECfION 1. Definitions. As used in this article: " (a) "General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (b) "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity. (c) "Special district" means an agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. (d) "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax,imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund. PROPOSmON 218 -1 League Df Califoraia Cities /1 -I Propositi.. Z181mplemeD..tioD Guide JaD"ry 1997 i A4 n ^~._.. ! .1 SEC. .2. ~o~ Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 'ct',"'.', , Consntunon. " (a) All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or, special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including schOl?\ disnicts, shall have no '~ power to levy general taxes. :; (b) No local govc.rnment may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that , tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be ". deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so ff approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly Ii scheduled general election for membm of the governing body of the local government, except in t': cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. ; (c) Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without voter approval, by any local " government on or after January I, 1995, and prior to the effective date of this article, shall ; """"'" w b, ""- "'" if .",...", by . ",,;ori. "'" or," - ...... ;" m """'" ~ .. the issue of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective date of ,~ this article and in compliance with subdivision (b). ~ (d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that f tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be " deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so i¡ approved. ¡~ ~ SEC. 3. Initiative Power for Local Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges. Notwithstanding :-/, any other provision of this Constitution, including, but not limited to, Sections 8 and 9 of Article II, the initiative power shall not be prohibited or othèrwise limited in matters of reducing or ,- repcaling any local tax, assessment, fee or :harge. The power of initiative to affc:=t local taxes, ,~ J assessments, fees and charges shal1 be applicable to all local governments and neither the '", Legislature nor any local government charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than J that applicable to statewide statuto!)' initiatives. 'Î;' ,j ,; SECTION 4. ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY RELATED FEE REFORM. ,~, ~ Article XIII D is added to the California Constitution to read: ] I ~ PROPOSmON218-2:¡ I . 1 /I - 2-1 League of California Cities Proposition 218 Implementation Guide :~ January 1997 :: J VI. Attachmeots A-5 ARTICLE XIII D SECTION 1. AppIiC2tion. NotWithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this article shall apply to all assessments, fees and charges, whether imposed pursuant to state statUte or local government charter authority. Nothing in this article or Article ~ C shall be constrUed to: ' (a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a taX, assessment, fee, or charge. ' (b) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition offees or charges as a condition of property development (c) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield =. SEC. 2. Definitions. As used in this article: (a)" Agency" means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article xmC. (b) .. Assessment" means any levy or charge upon real property by an ågency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. "Assessment" includes, but is not limited to, "special assessment," "benefit assessment," "maintenance assessment" and "special assessment tax." ( c) "Capital cost" means the cost of acquisition, installation, constrUCtion, recOnstIUction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency. (d) "District" means an area determined by an agency to contam all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service. (e) "Fcc" or "charge" means any levy other than an ad valorem taX, a special taX, or an ; assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a petSOn as an incident of property ownership, including a user fcc or charge for a property related service. (f) "Maintenance and operation expenses" means the cost ofren!, repan-, replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessaxy to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement. (g) "Property ownership" shall be deemed to include tenancies ofreal property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment, fcc, or charge in question. PROPOSITION 218 - 3 Lugue of C.tifunli. Cities /1- 3 Propositioo 1181mplemeotatioo Guide Jaouar)' 1997 A-6 VI. Attachments (h) "Property-related service" means a public service having a direct relationship to property ownCIShip. (i) "Special benefit" means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits confCITcd on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit"', , SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited. (a) No tax, assessment, .~ fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as ' an incident of property ownership except; t. (1) The ad valo= property tax imposed pursuant to Article xm and Article xm A. I t (2) AIJy special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to Section 4 of Article xm A. ~ 1 (3) Assessments as provided by this article. iI ~ t (4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. t (b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provisjon of electrical or gas service shall not be ~ deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership. SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments. (a) An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conf=d upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit confCITcd on that parceL Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits confCITcd on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be èxempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit (b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California. PROPOSmON 218 -4 Leag.e of Califoruia Cities 4-'( Propositioo 218 Implementatioo Guide January 1997 VI. AtI2cbments A-7 (C) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given writ!Ct1 notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the toral amount thereof chargeable to the enúre district, the amount chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the duraúon of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessmeat was calculated. tOgether with the date, time. and locaúon of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return, and tabulaúon of the ballots required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure . statement that the existence ora majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e), will result in !he assessment not being imposed. (d) Each notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the district pursuant to subdivision (c) shall contain a ballot which includes the agency's address for receipt of the ballot once completed by any owner receiving the notice whereby the owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her suppon or opposition to the proposed assessment. (e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parce\. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing. ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. (f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the property or properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred on the public at large and that the amount of any contested assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on the property or properties in question. (g) Because only special benefits are assessable, electors residing within the district who do not own property within the district shall not be deemed under this Constitution to have been deprived of the right to vote for any assessment If a court determines that the çonstitution of the United States or other federa1law requires otherwise, the assessment sha!1 not be imposed unless approved by a tWo-thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to being approved by the property owners as required by subdivision (e). SEC. 5. Effective Date. Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article IT, the provisions of this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. I I PROPOSmON 218 - 5 teague nf California Ciri.. ,A-cç Propo,irioo 2t8 Implementarioo Guide I January 1997 - A-8 VI. AnachmentS BegiDning July I, 1997, all exisring, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing. the following assessments existing on the effective date of this anicle shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process sel forth in Section 4: (a) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital cflsts or maintenance and opCI1!tion expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, dninage systems or vector controL Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to' the procedures and ~ approval process set forth in Section 4. (b) Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the , parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent ¡ increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in .1 > Section 4. J .1 ~ (c) Any assessment the proceeds of which arc exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States. (d) Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment Subsequent increases in those assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. SEe. 6. Property Related Fees and Charges. (a) Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article; including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide wrinen notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition, the amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the basis upon whiCh the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated. the reason for the fee or charge, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge. (2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. Ifwrincn protests against PROPOSmON 218 - 6 /1- (p Lea(Ue of California Citi... Proposition 218 Implementation Guide January t997 VI. Alt2chmeDts A-9 the proposed fee or charge arc presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels. the agency shall not impose the fee or charge. (b) Requirements for Existing, New or Increased Fees and Charges. A fee or charge shall not be extended, imposed, or increased by any agency unless it meets all of the following requirements: (1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds req~ to provide the property related service. (2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed. (3) The amount ofa fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. (4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actUally used by, or \ immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on ~ potential or futUIC use of a service arc not pcnnitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as . t - OC ~_m" """ '" ,",""", æ ~-- "" """ 00' b, ;",po" .-- I r compliance with Section 4. . I (5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not I, limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public f at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. Reliance by an agency on t any parcel map, including, but not limited to, an assessor's parcel map, may be considered a I~. significant factor in determining whether a fee or charge is imposed as an incident of property 1 ownership for purposes of this article. In any legal action contcstÏng the validity of a fee or ~ charge, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate compliance with this article. I¡" (c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges. Except for fees or charges for ~ sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property related fee or charge shall be imposed or .. increased unless and-until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the 't property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a t tWo-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area. The election shaI1 be conducted not t. less than 4S days after the public hearing. An. agency may adopt procedures similar to those for . increases in assessments in the conduct of elections under this subdivision. f (d) Beginning July 1, 1997, all fees or charges shall comply with this section. ( SEcnON s. LmERAL CONSTRUcnON. The provisions of this act shall be liber<tlly ~ constrUed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taXpayer consent. PROPOSmON 218 - 7 Lug" Dr California Cities Il - 7 PropDsitioD 2181mpl.meDtatiDD GDlde JaD.a'! 1997 A-10 VI. AtI1Ichments SECTION 6. SEVERABn.ITY. If any provision of this act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitUtional, the =aining sections shall not be affected, but shaH =ain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. PROpOSmON 218 - 8 A-g League nfCalifnrnia Cities Proposition 2181mplementatinn Guide January 1997 .B~:::~,:~n .& ~9:7R:~n~' Review of the City of Chula Vista Policy on the Use of Open Space Districts to Maintain Improvements within New Development This report has been prepared by Berryman & Henigar to assist the City in understanding the impacts which Proposition 218 will have on the City's policy of requiring new development to assume the ongoing financial responsibility through the use of Open Space Districts for funding the maintenance of public improvements such as median or entrance landscaping, open space areas and parklands which are primarily to benefit the community in which they are located. Recognizing Proposition 218 may change the way in which the City is able to levy assessments on properties for the maintenance of these facilities in the future, this report reviews the City's current policies and presents recommended changes where needed to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218 while still ensuring that the financial responsibility for maintaining these types of improvements remains with the property owners who receive the primary benefit from them. Background Under direction of the City Council, the City has required (as a condition of approval of development entitlements) that such developments within the City which are required to install landscaping within the public right-of-way, or to install park, recreational or open- space improvements, also be incorporated within new Open Space Districts or annex to an existing district. This requirement has been imposed by the City Council to ensure that developer installed improvements will be maintained at a level acceptable to the City, that the responsibility for providing the funds for the maintenance of those improvements will come from those property owners who receive the greatest benefit from them, and that the City will not be required to use General Fund monies to maintain improvements which are not of Citywide benefit. Until the passage of Proposition 218, as a charter city Chula Vista utilized its own Open Space District Procedural Ordinance (Chapter 17.07 of the Municipal Code) which adopted the legal process set forth in the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 ('72 Act) to form the districts. Impacts of Proposition 218 Proposition 218 places a number of restrictions on the imposition of benefit assessments embodied within the '72 Act by local agencies to pay for the operation and maintenance of public improvements. With regards to the City ofChula Vista's current practice of requiring new development to form new or annex to existing Open Space Districts, the impacts of Proposition 218 include: (3- 11590 W Bernardo ourl, Suite 100 . San Diego, C 92127 tel: 619-451-6100 fax: 619-451-2846 An Equal Opportunily Employe' ~-----~u_--------~--~_._-- - ..__._-~--~~--- 1. The City must be able to show that the parcels to be assessed receive a "special benefit" which is particular and distinct over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or the public at large, and the assessments to be levied may be no greater than the costs of the special benefit conferred on each parcel. Proposition 218 provides that only "special benefits" are assessable, and that an agency must separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Prior law provided that only those parcels which specially benefit from the improvements or maintenance to be funded from the proceeds of assessments may be assessed. However, so long as the method of actually allocating the costs of the improvements or maintenance was reasonable, the courts would not set aside an assessment which would fund the full costs of such improvements or maintenance and which levied only upon those parcels receiving a special benefit even though such improvements or maintenance also conferred some measure of incidental general benefit. Under Proposition 218, this practice will no longer be permissible. Additionally, the City will now have the burden of proving that only the special benefits are being assessed. Determining special benefit or distinguishing between general and special benefit to properties from landscape maintenance is not an exact science. Additionally, we do not have any substantive judicial precedence which establishes a bright line test for distinguishing between general and special benefit for improvements or maintenance. Consequently, while special benefit to properties ¡¡-om such improvements or maintenance may well exist, the determination of amount and allocation of speciaJ benefit and general benefit may be difficult to calculate to the satisfaction of both the City and the owners of the properties assessed. For example, while one might conclude that the maintenance of parkway landscaping within the public right-of way specially benefits the property within the specific development where the landscaping is installed because it increases the marketability of homes, results in improved neighborhood aesthetics, etc., opponents to the use of benefit assessments to pay for such maintenance would argue that properties outside the development also generally benefit from the maintenance as does any through traffic that uses the roadway. The arguments become much more complex when you start talking about large areas of open -space that are required as a condition of development such as the planned Otay Ranch PreselVe Maintenance District. Clearly there is some general benefit associated with those areas as a result of their use by individuals who do not live within the development or potentially, even within the City. However, others would argue that since the City required the dedication and ongoing maintenance of those lands as a condition of development, that the property that specially benefits is only that property which was conditioned with the requirement to dedicate the land and it would be unfair to assess any other property for its maintenance. Because of the uncertainty regarding what is "special benefit" and mlpmjects/chulavi,/prop218/report ß - 2 .B~:~~~",:::n .& H':.9~~~;':' . -------.--..-----.----.. the allocation of general and special benefit, there most certainly will be litigation involving the use of benefit assessments to pay for the maintenance of improvements that cannot be shown to benefit only very specific properties. Depending on the outcome of that litigation, agencies may lose their funding source for the maintenance of some improvements and therefore be forced to use General Fund monies to fund the ongoing maintenance of certain improvements. 2. All assessments must be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer. While the City's Open Space District ordinance does not specifically require that the assessment report be prepared by a registered professional engineer, the City has generally had such reports prepared by a registered professional engineer. This change as imposed by Proposition 218 will have little financial impact on the City. 3. Assessments must be levied upon any publicly owned parcel within the assessment district which receives special benefit. The requirement that assessments also be levied upon publicly owned parcels which receive "special benefit" is probably the second key issue that may cause major problems for those agencies that continue to use benefit assessments. As already discussed above, it will be all but impossible to define what constitutes "special benefit" and therefore to allocate special benefit man general benefit with precision until case law has been established to help define "special benefit". When you add to the uncertainty as to what represents "special benefit" to public parcels it becomes that much more difficult. For example, if one assumes that median and parkway landscaping constitutes "special benefit" for the residential parcels within a development, does the school located within the project also receive "special benefit" and therefore must it be assessed? Ifit is assessed, who will be responsible for payment of the assessment? How about assessments for parklands or open-space lands? Here again, depending on the result of almost certain litigation to determine what constitutes "special benefit", agencies that rely on an overly broad interpretation will find themselves in a position of having to, at the very least, try and levy assessments on property owned by a public agency or having to make a contribution for the "special benefit" received by parcels owned by a pubic agency ITom their General Fund. The level of defining a "special benefit" would also require a study to the depth oflooking at each individual parcel. This has the potential to create a situation where each parcel has a different assessment or a range of assessments within one subdivision. 4. Property owners can no longer consent to be annexed to an existing assessment district or form a new district and waive the requirement for preparation of an engineer's report and public hearing. Under Proposition 218 parcels may be included in an assessment district only after preparation of an engineer's report, provision of mailed notice of a public hearing accompanied by an assessment mIprojects/chutavi,/pmp2 t 8/rcport ß~3 .B~:::~",:,~n .& H'!,g~~~;':' . ---.-----"---""'--- protest ballot, completion of the public hearing and tabulation of the ballots which reveal that there is less than a majority protest based upon the ballots returned weighed by assessment amount. Like the requirement that the engineer's report must be prepared by a registered professional engineer, this requirement represents a change in the process and will have minimal impact on the City in that sense. However, it will slow down the process offorming new Open Space districts as part of the approval process since the City will now have to comply with the requirements for preparation of an engineer's report, providing a 45 day noticing period and holding a pubic hearing. 5. Any future increase in the amount of the assessment must be approved by the property owners after receiving mailed notice and a ballot, however this requirement may not preclude the use of an assessment methodology which contains an escalator or formula that allows assessments to be increased annually so long as that is disclosed to and approved by the property owners at the time the district is formed. The City's Open Space District ordinance currently distinguishes between the "amount of the assessment" levied upon a parcel and the "amount which may be collected against the assessment" (Section 17.07.035 A). This allows the City to establish an assessment amount at the time an Open Space District is formed, or when an area is annexed to an existing district, based upon the estimated future maintenance costs once all improvements have been constructed and accepted by the City for maintenance and to collect a lessor amount in any year based upon the actual level of funding needed for that year. This would appear to be consistent with the requirements of Proposition 218 so long as property owners are noticed based on the assessment amount at the time the district is formed. Any future increase in the assessment amount in excess of the "amount of the assessment" established at the time the district was formed would require approval by a majority of the property owners under the procedural requirements as contained in Article XIII D, Section 4 of the California Constitution. 6. The initiative power may be used to reduce or repeal any assessment. Another important provision of Proposition 218 is that it gives voters the right to use the initiative power to repeal any Jocal assessment or tax. While Proposition 218 is not clear as to how this would apply to assessments where the proceeds are pledged to the repayment of bonds it most likely will be determined that the initiative process cannot be used in that instance. However, where the assessment is used to fund the annual or ongoing maintenance of pubic improvements the levy of the assessment could be stopped by the use of the initiative process. This could result in the Joss of maintenance funding and force the City to use General Fund monies to maintain improvements that were intended to be the responsibility of property owners. mIprojectsJchuiavisiprop2181report ß-4 .B~:::~':,~n .& H~g~~~;'::' ------.-...---- Also, since Chula Vista is a charter city it has adopted a local ordinance which modifies the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 by allowing assessments to be used for the maintenance of "native plantings and open space areas, including natural drainage facilities" (Section 17.07.040 (d» and "pavement associated with parking for mixed use projects within a Redevelopment Area where private ownership and operation is impractical or not feasible" (Section 17.07.040 (g». It would appear that the City may continue to levy assessments for these improvements so long as the special benefit test could be met and the procedural requirements for the imposition of the assessment were met. The following section looks at the continued use ofthe'72 Act to provide a funding source for the ongoing maintenance of eligible improvements as well as the use of Community Facilities Districts and Home Owner Associations. It should be noted that a lot of the impacts of Proposition 218 are not absolutely clear and that the issues are still being discussed and analyzed. Many of the final determinations will probably have to be settled by legislation or court action. Analysis of Funding Alternatives Landscape and Lil!htinl! Act of 1972 Districts - The City of Chula Vista under its authority as a Charter City has adopted Chapter 17.07 of the City Code which allows the formation of Open Space Districts within the City. To date, the City has formed 25 districts which will provide a total of$2.0 million in assessment for fiscal year 1997-98 for the maintenance of local improvements benefitting each development. While there is nothing within Proposition 218 which prohibits the formation of new '72 Act Districts, Proposition 218 will limit the types of improvements which can be fully funded by the levying of assessments on parcels within new developments because of the requirement that assessments may only be levied for "special benefit". As a result, the major problem with the continued use of'72 Act Districts as a funding mechanism to provide an on-going source of funding for the maintenance oflocal improvements is the limitation that assessments can only be levied for "special benefit" and the difficulty in determining what constitutes "special benefit" and the allocation between special benefit and general benefit. In reviewing the types of improvements being maintained within several of the City's existing' 72 Act Districts it would probably be possible to show that the maintenance of at least some types of improvements (ie: entrance landscaping, omamentallighting or similar features) were oflocal benefit and conveyed "special benefit" to only those parcels to be assessed. In those instances the City could form a '72 Act District and levy assessment on those parcels which received "special benefit". However, it may be difficult to show that the maintenance oflarge open space areas, such as the proposed Otay Ranch Preserve Maintenance District, conveyed only special benefit to only those parceJs within a specific development which were being assessed and that there was not a benefit to the "public at large" or to parcels that were not subject to assessment. In this instance, if it could not be shown that only those parcels to be assessed received "special benefit", the m/proj,cto/chulov¡,/pmp218/rrport J3 - 5 . Berryman & Henigar 8S/Cel""/"""./"< . H,"/gòl&R'y/"" ------~-~---------_.__. --- ----.--------------- City would be required to either include all other parcels which specially benefited including parcels in an adjacent development for example, or the City would be required to make a contribution from its General Fund or other funding source for the general or special benefit received by those parcels not being assessed. Based upon the requirement that the City must be able to show "special benefit" in order to levy assessments to fully fund the maintenance of improvements, and the fact that the City would be required to make a contribution for benefits received by any parcel which received general or special benefit but was not assessed including public parcels, the City should discontinue the use of '72 Act based districts to fund the maintenance ofJocal improvements and look for an alternative funding mechanism to provide funds for the maintenance of such improvements. Community Facilities District - One option available to the City which would allow the City to continue to require that new development pay the full cost for the on-going maintenance of the public open space, park and other improvements which those developments are required to construct as a condition of approval, would be to form Community Facilities Districts rather than '72 Act based districts. Since a Community Facilities District levies a special tax rather than an assessment, the impacts of Proposition 218 on the use of Community Facilities District special taxes as a funding mechanism for the on-going maintenance of such installed improvements which have traditionally been funded by assessments are different than on '72 Act based districts. As a special tax there is no statutory or Proposition 218 requirement that the tax be imposed proportional to the special benefit received or that only those parcels which specially benefit may be taxed. In addition, publicly owned parcels are generally exempt from the levy of a special tax. Because of these differences, in the case where there is a requirement to dedicate and maintain open space areas that may have a general benefit to parcels outside the specific development required to provide for the maintenance of such open space, the Community Facilities District Special Tax could be levied upon only those parcels within the specific development which was required to dedicate the open space to fund its maintenance of the open space areas. With a '72 Act District, the assessment would have to be levied on all parcels, including publicly owned parcels, that specially benefit from the maintenance or the City would have to make a contribution for those parcels which benefit but were not assessed. Additionally, the actual amount assessed would be limited to the special benefit received by the assessed parcels. Another funding source would be required to fund that portion of the maintenance cost allocated to general benefit. In reviewing those services which may be funded by the levy of a Community Facilities District tax, it would appear that all of the improvements and services which are currently or anticipated in the future to be maintained within Open Space Districts would be eligible for funding by a Community Facilities District. Section 53313( d) specifically states that a district may fund the "maintenance of parks, parkways and open space". mIprojectslchuiavis/prop218/report ð ~ 6 .B~:~:~"':/~n .& H':,g~~R~;',"~' .---_u. .-.--. The requirements or procedure for the formation of a Community Facilities District are similar in many respects to those for the establishment of a '72 Act District, with the added requirement that since a Community Facilities District is a type of special taxing district there is a need to conduct an election. However, since the City is typically dealing with a limited number of property owners at the time the Community Facilities District would be established, the requirement that 2/3 voter approval be obtained would probably not be an issue. The only exception to this would be if there were more that 12 registered voters in the proposed district boundaries, then the vote for the formation of the Community Facilities District would be by registered voters rather than by landowners voting on an acreage basis. Another added advantage in the use of Community Facilities Districts to fund local improvements is that if property owners wished to use the intiative process to reduce or repeal a special tax, it would require the approval of2/3 of the voters rather than a simple majority. While the use of Community Facilities Districts to provide a stable and ongoing source of revenue to fund the types of improvements currently being funded within Open Space Districts eliminates many of the disadvantages associated with the use of assessments, there are also several drawbacks associated with Community Facilities Districts. Since Community Facilities Districts, also known as Mello-Roos districts, have traditionally been used to fund capital improvements within new developments such as schools and streets, there may be a misconception by property buyers about what the funds are being used for. However, the resolution offormation would state how the district's funds could be used. Also since there is a requirement to disclose the existence of the Community Facilities District to potential purchasers, there may be a reluctance among the development community to accept the use of Community Facilities Districts as a funding mechanism for the maintenance oflocal i'!1provements. Finally, since a Community Facilities District is a type of special tax, any future increase in the maximum tax rate permitted would require two-third voter approval. This would require that the maximum tax rate be set high enough to cover any anticipated increases in maintenance costs over the life of the district which may have an adverse impact on the marketing of a project. The Community Facilities District Act provides for agencies to establish such districts for maintenance and operation of several items, including parks, parkways and open space. The Act also permits such a district to finance Capital facilities and to sell bonds for the construction of those facilities. The Act further specifies that upon establishment of such a district, only the types of public facilities and services specified in the resolution of formation may be financed by the district. In some agencies where problems have arisen, those agencies have enacted Community Facilities Districts for construction of public facilities. Then, before the development was complete, the developer went bankrupt and the agency had to meet the bond payments. In the case of maintenance of open space areas as is being considered by Chula Vista, the resolution off ormation would limit the services and assessments to maintain the open space and there would be no bond sales. Without bond sales, the City would not be liable for insuring the payment on outstanding mIprojectslchulavisiprop218/r'Port ß-7 .B~~~~~",::~n .& H'!,9~~R~'~"~' ._----_~~.__m_.~ - bonds. As a result, the use of a Community Facilities District as funding mechanism should not be materially different than using the '72 Act for either the future homebuyer or the City. Home Owner Associations (HOA) - The third alternative that the City would have for requiring that property owners pay for the on-going maintenance and servicing oflocal improvements would be through the establishment ofHOA's. An advantage ofHOA's is that the association takes direct responsibility for the maintenance oflocal improvements out of the hands of the City and places it with local property owners. As a result there is more accountability to those being asked to pay for the maintenance of the improvements. Also, there is no restriction on HOA's regarding who can be charged for the maintenance of improvements which benefit publicly owned parcels, or for improvements which benefit properties outside of the development like there is with assessments. A further advantage, to the City at least, is that the City Council does not have to deal with maintenance and funding issues and, especially, dissatisfied homeowners. Another advantage ofHOA's is that since it is not an assessment or tax in the "legal" sense, it is not subject to the procedural requirements of Proposition 218. This means that it would not be subject to the initiative process although most CC&R's can be modified to reduce or eliminate on HOA fee. Most CC&R's require either unanimous or a super majority vote of the property owners. The greatest potential disadvantage with the use ofHOA's as the mechanism for maintaining local improvements is the fact the City would need to enter into agreements with the HOA's to maintain improvements on property dedicated to the City. An HOA may not work well where there are improvements that are the responsibility of several developments, such as with Otay Ranch Preserve or major drainage channels unless all properties were part of a master HOA. Other drawbacks include potential liability issues, need for the City to establish maintenance standards and to potentially enforce those standards to protect publicly owned facilities, and no means for the public agency to enforce collection offees other than thru legal action. Most of the developers are also reluctant to allow the formation ofHOA's within their development because of the buyers' preferences for having as few encumbrances such as HOA's and special districts as possible. An additional reason which occasionally has been alluded to is because of the power of the HOA to levy charges upon lands still controlled by the developer at some point in the future, and the fact that it may make it easier for property owners to sue the developer for a host of reasons. In cases where the developers are providing private facilities to their future residents, the developer is willing to use an HOA to maintain common open space. If private facilities are not being provided, most developers are strongly opposed to the formation of an HOA. If the City were to require that public improvements be maintained by HOA's it should make certain that it is a named party in the CC&R's and as such can take enforcement action against the HOA and the property owners if the improvements are not maintained to the required levels. Also, the City should require that it receive an irrevocable offer of dedication for all lands to be owned by the HOA should it desire to acquire and maintain mIprojectslchulavi'¡prop218/report l> - 8 .8~:::~"'::,':cn .& H'!mg~~R~;'"~' them in the future. Lastly, the City should require that the CC&R's will provide an adequate funding stream for the maintenance of the improvements and require that an annual report be submitted to the City regarding the finances of the HOA with regards to the maintenance of public improvements. While there are potential problems associated with relying on HOA's to adequately maintain public improvements, especially in smaller developments such as was seen with the Canyon View Homes development, the use ofHOA's has also worked well in Chula Vista as seen in the case of the EastLake development. Recommendations Based upon the above and the desire of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista to continue to require that property owners within newly developed areas be responsible for providing funding for the on-going maintenance of those public improvements (ie: parkway landscaping, lighting, slope maintenance, open space areas and other improvements) it is recommended that: 1. The City discontinue the formation of new '72 Act Districts because of the problems associated with identifying who receives "special benefit" from the improvements and the high probability that the City would be required to make a contribution for either general benefit or benefit received by publicly owned parcels 2. That the City express a clear preference for maintenance of open space areas by an HOA because of the potential impacts of Proposition 218 on City maintenance districts and the limited involvement of City staff and the Council in maintenance and funding issues. However, that a determination be made on a case by case basis for each development project as to whether a HOA would best serve the needs of the property owners and the City in providing a funding mechanism based upon the specific types of improvements to be maintained. If a developer provides private facilities for the use of their future residents and an HOA to maintain those facilities, the open space should be maintained by the HOA. 3. In consultation with the developer, and in cases where it is undesirable to form an HOA, the City utilize the provisions of Chapter 2.5 of the Government Code to form Community Facilities Districts to provide an going source of funding for the operation and maintenance of eligible improvements in new developments where the city wants to ensure that there is stable and long term funding source for the maintenance of eligible improvements through the levy of a special tax. mlprojectslchulavislp,op2 t 8!'eport ¿J- 9 .B~:~~~,:~n .& H~g~~~;'"~' ---_...._~-----_._-_._.__. 8 - /0 HAY 01 '9712:19 TO-6915171 FROH-HCHIlLIN COHPANIES T-527 P,Ol/03 F-O96 McMILLIN ATTACHMENT c:-.- COMPANIES'" I Date May 1, 1997 FAX TRANSMITTAL I NlJmbN of pages including cover sheet 3 TO: FROM: Craig Fukuyama McMillin CompanIes 2727 Hoover Avenue National City. CA 91950 Phone (619) 477-4170 ext.212 Phone Far Phone 619 336-1587 Fax Phone 691-5171 I CC: REMARKS: 0 Urgent t8I Foryo/Jrrelliew 0 ReplyASAP 0 Ple~lSe Comment Enclosed are our comments to the Draft Open Space Report. Œ-( ,~AY 01 '9ï 12:19 TO-6915H1 fROM-MCMILLIN COMPANIES T -52ï P,O2!O3 f-O36 "" n~~V.' ..ve"ue National Gty, CA 91950 (619) 477-4117 A~\McMillin wmpanies May I, 1997 Mr. CliffSwiUlson City Engineer/Asst. Director of Public Works CITY OF CHULA VISTA 246 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista CA 91910 Re: Report to Council OD OpeD Space DIstrIcts Dear Cliff: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed mechanisms for fun dine open space maintenance districts. Per your request, the following are the McMillin Companies' comments on your draft report to the Council regarding the formation of open space maintenance districts for new development. Tmoacts of ProDosition 218 This section provides a seemingly conclusive analysis of the impacts of Proposition 218. However, it is our understandin¡¡ that a lot of the issues are still being debated throughout the state and there is a lot of gray area with regard to implementation. We suggest that language be added to this section which discusses this fact. It is our opinion that staff should continue to monitor how other cities address the issues and leave open the possibility for continued , use or 1972 Act districts If some or the major Issues can be rcsolved. CommunitY Facilities Districts Add lan¡¡ua¡¡e which descnòes that it is the City's intention not to sell bonds for open space maintenance districts. This will diffuse some of the Council's concerns about their role: and perceived liabilities as an issuer. The City's role in using a CFD as a funding mechanism should not be materially different than with the current 1972 Aet districts. In fact, given the current annual balloting requirements under Prop. 218, the City's annual administration requirements should be much less using CFDs. Add language to explain that the CFD provides additional flexibility in the method of apportionment. Square footage of homes is a commonly used method within CFD's. The school districts in southbay use square footage. This method is more closely rell1ted to the value of the home and is perceived by some buyers as being more equitable. The existing method using a flat "'te for different land use types (sf, mf, sfa, commercial, induStrial, etc.) could also be used with a CFD. It is not our opinion that the use of CFD' s for maintenance versus capital improvements will be a point of confusion for homebuyers (last paragraph of this section of your draft.). This is merely a diliClosure issue and the CFD disclosure requirements are very specific reguding the amount and the type of improvements Q! maintenance the tax is paying for. The report (!-¿ ,rlAY01'9ï12:20 ¡0-69151ï1 fROH-HCHllllN COHPANI[S 1-52ï P,03/03 F-096 / Mr. Cliff Swanson May I, 1997 Page 2 states that the requirements to 'disclose' the CFD might cau«: developers tD be reluctant tD using this financing mechanism. Because the disclosure requirements for developers are so stringent, I am certain that all developers arc eWTcntly disclosing all spccial taxes and assessments, including current open space districts. This would be a different format but not a new disclosure to homebuyers and is probably not a major reason that developers would not want to use CFDs. In J:eneral. CFDs have ¡otten a bad reputation for a variety of reasons. As Kent Aden mentioned in our meeting, the development community has done a poor job of supporting CFDs DS D finønoing tool with the use of "ND MeIlD-RoDs" edvcrtïsing. AdditiDnaUy, there is a tremendous amount of publicity over troubled districts when in fact the majority of districts in existence throughout the state are alive and well. There appears to be a need for some education in this area. ofhuyers and elected officials, to diffuse the mllny myths associated with CFDs. Homeowners Associations As we discussed in the meeting, the use of homeowner associations for public facilities should be considered on a case by case basis. For projects where a homeowners association may already be planned it may makc sense. It is probably not accurate that developers are reluctant to form homeowner association. because of the fees that would be charged on unsold land. The State DepartInent of Real Estate is very specific on the requirement for developers tD P"y HOA f"". on unsold hDm"s and developers who fonn HOA's are awllTC of this requirement. Additionally, developers are already paying for open space assessments on unsold lots, so this would not be a new requirement. It is probably more accurate to say that developers are reluctant to fonn homeowner associations solely for the purpose of open space maintenance ifthe project is not already classified as a common interest subdivision. Fonnation of an HOA requires the drafting of CC&Rs, preparation ofbudg~ts, approvals from the State Department of Real Bstate (DRE), and diselosure doeument5 gene/'1lted by the DRE for ""ch construction phase. We are nol certain how the DRE (wbich is a consumer protection agency) would respond to the City's requirement to have HOA's maintain public improvements. Such things as statutory levcls of insurance, liability issues, etc. would need to be addressed. Thank you for allowing us to comment. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, C-3 h:\IÕ n wordldata lsrvIki m I<y open sp C!-'f MA~-~1-S7 15.53 FROM,JM DEVELOPMENT ¡D.6'S 656 4306 PAGE '/6 ATTACHMENT - b Pacific Bay Homes 2300 Boswell Road Suite 209 Chula Vista, California 91914 619/656-4300 619/65&-4306 Fax Date: Kay 1, 1997 No. of Pages: 5 TO: Name: Cliff Swanson Company: City of Chula Vista Telephone: FAX: (619) 691-5171 FROM: Name: Liz Jackson Telephone: (619) 656-4300 FAX: (619) 656-4306 Enclosed please find a letter from our at~orney, Ru~an & Tucker which provides our comments on the City's Open Space District recommendation. Should you have any questions feel free to contact,me. Z;J- ( -' ,- MAY~01-97 15-54 FROM-JM DEVELOPMENT 10,619 656 4306 PAGE 2/6 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP """"0""£:"5 ,,:r ~..w ." --.-no. -""u..... -......- ~_.n... --- --~- "".om>o ..ULcu....sun,,-. _..~ _c_- ::::::--::-..,.:;;;: ::=...'=. CqsT.~"""COU-"""""""'- =::.=- =:.:--- :-...:.:::;-,- ~----=-- "'.EerAU. u~....... . ... .."" =-..:::.:::::. =-.=...., =:~_.=~=- C."'Ua...COL'.o:.-:..~&-O""" ~~~~~ ~..- --- .--- ._~~ ~_c- --- TC~-.""""'-"oo ~..- -..- ----- --- -,,- --.- =~ ~~ ....__035 =~= =.:~ --c-- --- -.- --.- ~ -:-- =- :r ~- -::' .:';;.~>.. :=T-":= =- =?:- ==-- ..:;,::::- ~ ~ ".:"'=:. ~ .::=' =... "':":.- =.;;. -=-- =-:.~ ==-- ~ =:..-:.=- --- -.- _L_- --- --- ___a --- _r.- -.- Kay ]., 1997 -.;=-- VJ:J. PERSOlOL DELIVERY Liz Jackson pacific Bay Hames 2300 Boswell Road, suite 209 Cbula Vista., CA 91914 Re; Review of consultant 1tepO:r:t to city of Chula Vista. Re Open Space Kaihtenance Kecbanism and Developer DDpacts Dear Liz: AS you requested, 1: bave revieved IIWo.rki.nc¡ Draft version 3" of the consultant ReþO:r:t to the City of Chula Vista. regarðiDq that City's policy on the usa. of open space districts ~O maintain public 'iJDþrovements within new deveJ.op:taents. On the wha1.e, 1: found the draft report ~ be we1.1 written and well reasoned, and :r generally agree with its analysis of- the iJIIpacts of Proposition 218 on mainteimnce and open space aS$essments. r 1ikewise have no major disagreements vim the ana~ysis er the use of community facility districts (ftcrnsW) and haIIIecnmer associa~i.ons (WHOAs.,) to perfer:m copen space }llaintenance oblic¡ations, or te fund the performance of those obligations by other parties. øovever, I: believe the draft: report sb.culd be augJaml.ted in four respects. First, the draft report does not: discuss the Proposition 218 iJIIpact upon CPD maintenance fiDancinq if the oriqi.J>a1 tax rate proves 'to .be inadeqg.ate to cover the costs of the mairrt:ø"",nr-.p obliqat1oDS. second, whi1.e the draft report appropriately d.iScu,s&e5 i:he Preposition 218 impact. of' potentia]. i:n.itiatives on an exigtb,q assessment district fi.nanc:iJ:tg st:ructure, the draft report does not similarly discuss the fact that CFD taxes would likewise. be sulJject to the initiative power. Third, the draft report implies that BOAs: Cannot e£fectively fund offsite or median maintenance ob1iqations, whi1e 1: believe that at least two structures exist UDder which Qffsi~ Qr :¡¡t;reet median maintenance. 13~. -.-n j)-¿ MA"-,,,.-S7 '5,5Q FROM,JM DEVELOPMENT 'D,6'S 656 Q306 PAGE 3/6 .RUTAN & TuCKER. L.L.P ...TTO....e:...S "'T....- ._--- Liz Jackson Kay 1., 1997 Page 2 f'unIting ob~ÌlJations can effectively be borne by BOAs. Finally, while DOt :!U1 aftalyt:1.ca.1 issue, I question the propriety of the reporf; (or the Cbula vi6ta City Council for that matter) selecting either the CFD or the BOA approach as a preferred one, and. instead believe tb.a t eit:her of these fe¡u;:ible al terna ti vas sbou1.d be equally available to a developer. Ea.cb of these four poÙ1ts is discussed mare fu1ly below. 1. Election Recruir...........t for rncreases in CFI) Taxes. While the Kello-Roes community Facilities District .Act of 1982, Covett!llleØt COde section 53311, et seq. authorizes the for:mation of a c""",.n1'lity facilities district, amoDq other t:.hing's, to maÙ1tain parks, parbrays and open spaee, and to levy special taxes to f1utd sud>. activities. ~ statutes do not perJllit a CFD to increase the voter-approved tax rata nt:hoUt:. a separate elec:ti.on. JIIoreover. while it JllaY be possible to establish asse.ss¡uent5 that autamatica.11y a4just based upon an est:a1>lished, objective irutex: (e.g'., cpr), neither thelanqua.qe of the Kell.o-Roos CoJIIm.unity Facilities District Act nor Þ:r:opositi.oD 21.8 countenance such a procedure for special taxes, and the in~oration of aut:.oDla.tic adjusters into a special tax seellS qu,est:i.onable in the absence of any legal sUpport. Propositicm 218 c1oeS allow a 't.ax.ÍDg' a¡;ency to estabJ.bh a high ~ rau (subject to voter approvaJ.), and thereafter annually impose di%ferent:. tax rates so 1onq as the ammal nte::i are lower than the maximum tax nte. .However, this prcce4ure will only avoid subsequent:. e1ecti- if. the llaYi'llll'l'Ø' tax rate is set sufficiently hiSb to avoid the need for future 1n~ses aboVe tb.at maximUl1 level. It sbou.ld al$O be DoX'De i.n 1IIihd. that setting a very hic¡h initial maxiJmm tax rate, while provicìinq significant flexibility to. the cm in subseqIlent years, may have a significan~ adverse iDlpact .in the aarketinc¡ of the project. unJ.ess a high 1IIaxÙIWI tax rate is established, therefO%"e, the original special tax rate set ~ a CFD for landscape and median :ma.intebaßçe purpose!; can only be adjuste4 throuc¡h a vote of the e1.e~ate. By its Þðture, a em tax is a "special taxi" 'óthile this issue had. been resolved prior to 1:h.e p¡u;:sage of Þ:r:opositioD 218, 't:ha.t:. i.nitiative has fu.:rther def:i.ried the teJ:m "special tax" in Article XIrrc, Section :led) to mean "any tax imposed for specific purposes including' taxes Ùllpose.d far specific pI1%'pOses which are placed into a general funcl." Taxes raised for the sole purpose of 1IIaintai.niJlq open space and median landscaping' clearly f...11 within the scape of a "specia1. tax." consequently. Article xrIrc, Section 2(d) prOvides that the ern may not "impose, extend or inc:t'ease ...ny ß~U3IIIæS. tD5II1lH1 D -.3 MAY-01-97 15,55 FROM,JM DEVELOPMENT 1D,619 656 4306 PAGE 4/6 RUTAN &. TUCKER. L.L.P ATTO""EYS AT LAw .----- Liz Jackson !fay 1,1997 Paqe 3 special tax unless and until such ~ is submitted to the electorate and approved by a 2/3 vote." 2. R..........l...,. Reduction of em S1>èCial Taxes bY Initiative. By the pa.ssage of Proposition 218, the california eJ.~orate codi.fied the state Suprellle Court decision in Rossi v-BrolIn, 9 caJ.. 4th 668 (199S), which held that a local tax was subject to repeðl by the voters ~ the initiative process. This codification, at Article xu:rc, Section 3, provides that, DDtwithstanding any other provision of the California constib¡tion, "[t]he initiat:ive power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters; of reà.ucinq to repealing' any local tax, asSe6'_"!!'..:t, fee or charge. II Under Proposit:.ion 21.8, an init:iative elect:ion ca.;n be 1I1Ounted based UpOn a petition by st of the affected electorate Cas opposed to J.0'l; for other initiative petitions), and a CPD tax can be reduced or repealed by a sÎJllple majority of the eleccorate votinq on the matter--even t:hoUqh the special tax requires; a 2/3 vote of the electorate to be enacted or increased. 3. BOA-œsed Al'ternatives to Fund Offsite and Median Landscaue Maintenance. Haster Dec1arations of CcJverI.ants, Conditions an4 Res~ict.i.ons CnCC5Rs") can be ;st:xuctured ~ require a HOA to twJd the maintenance of offsite or median landscape- one JIethod of &œ-based maintenance financing' that could be used for onsite and ~ian landscape maintenance wgqld involve a conveyance of the open space aM ~ian laDds to the city by the de".eloper, with a reservat:.ion of the dUty ~o maintain the 1andsca.ping-, as veIl as rights of way to conduct the mainten<mce. file CC'=Rs, to which both the developer and the city would be a party, would eause the HOA to assume the developer's landscape maintenance obliqations, and perform those obliqations by means of financing the City's cost of unc:lertaki.ng' the actualmaÌDtenance activities. Since the CC&Rs vould include the power to'levy BoA fees aDd secure those fees with a lien on the \UJp8.id properties, and because the city would independently have the power to ebforce the CC&Rs, this alter1:ta~ive would allCIV a relatively stable funding source. A seç:ond alternative for financing' the costs of offsite or JI1edi.an landscape :l8ai-ntenance by a BOA involves a siJDple representation in the CC&Rs that the BOA and all properties burdened. by the CC&Rs bear an obli9'a~iOJ1 to pay' the co:>ts of maintaining the specified. open space or mectian landscaping-- and requ.1re the BOA ~o set its fees at a sufficiently hi9'h rate to cover the cost of SUc::h landscape lllaintenance activities. Either in the CC&Rs or by separate insttWllent, the BOA can then contract to pay the City the costs of the a=ual maintenance activities. The ~._Im D-Ý mn-""-'" "',"" rROM,JM DEVELOPMENT ID'619 656 4306 PAGE 5/6 'ROTAN & TUCKER. U..P ATTORNE"'" AT &J<. ------ Liz Jackson Hay 1,1997 Page 4 city would also have the power, as a signatory ~o the ccats, to enforce the CCáR provisions rec;rardinc¡ the funding of landscape main1:ehaftee obligations:. rt bears emphasis that each of these BCA alternatives share features that distinquish them frOll!. the financing of landscape 1IIaintenance by CPDs.. Since the HOA. fees are privatelY-levied ril:t:h~ than gav~t:al fees, the HOA fees are not subject to the substantive an<:! proc:eàural >:equi.reDl8D'ts of Proposition 218.. And, 'While CC&Rs can be ëlJllended to reduce or el.i:mina.te an BOA fee, most CC~ are s~cturecl to require ei ~ unanimous or a super majority vote of the propez::ty owners before the CCi.Rs may be amended.. 1'his high threshold for modifications to the CC&Rs c:ampares with the si.mple majority vote requirement for repealing ~ecial taxes toy initiative. 4. Resb:ucb1rincr of Recollllllendations to Avoid Any Preferred MechaniSlll... 1IIhil.e the draft report's rec............ð,.tions regarding the discontinuation of open space districts to funà public open space aJ>d :median 1andscape aaintenanc:e seeIQS appropriate, i't. does not seem appropriate for the report to prefer the use of CFD f.inancing, wil.e providing' for HOA finahcinq on only a case-:t>y-case basis.. As indicated abo'll'e, CPD financing', while certainly feasible, does have the disadvantages both of a 2/3 vote requirement for any tax :increase. and the UhCertainty that the tax may be repealed or reduced by:means of an initiati.- that eaxr. be placed on the ballot as a réStilt of the actions of only a handful of the voters. In contrast, the BOA alternative has; certain features not listed in dle draft report, such as at least two alternative :means of providiftq direct funciinq for the maint~nce of offsite and :median landscape, as .,..11 as the fact that ROA fees are nQt subject:. to Proposition 218 and are much :more difficult to repeal. or red.uce than ei~ taxes or assessments. Givea all of the avai1.able facts, it is àÍfficult to discern any ul.timate advantage in concept that either the HOA al.terl2ative or the em a1.ten1ative has over each ot:be>:. However, on a case-:t>y- case basis, one of these two al~ati'9'e mec::han.isms may be pref~able based upon the corporate or fÙ1aDcinq structure of the devel.oper, the manner in which the de-loper ba£ already arranged. for its project financing- or the funciinq of public infrastru.ctu:re costs, and the aarJceting program that the de'll'eloper intends to implement. For example, developers that had always intended. to use CFD f1nancing to pay the cost of certain public facilities would likely prefer the crn alternative, in order to maintain a single public financing mechaniS1l1.. On the other hand, cievelopers with ~""""""'.~ D -- S- "M'-~'-~' '~'~b ~~UM'~M DEVELOPMENT '°,619 656 4306 PAGE 6/6 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTO""£yS AT uo.w .---- Li~ Jackson Hay 1,1997 patJe 5 projects inclucUIICJ sic;nifiC<U:lt private open space or private shared facilities, and who bad intended to maintain those iJIIprovements by means of a BOA, WOUJ.cl J.Îkely be inclined to finance open space llE!d.i.an landscape maiDtenance through the BOA alternative rat:her than est:ablisbing' a separate, supplemental fUDding mecbani.sa. AsSWlling that the CFD alternative and the BOA alternative are equ.ally feasible (which appears 'Co be the case based upon a reading of the draft report, augmented by the points raised in this letter), the city shou1.d not have vlY preference as 't.o which mechanism is employed in any given circumstance. The city's concern should be that a developer select. one of the two funding "ec:haniSlllS and c01llllli t to fW1dinq open space and :median landscape _in't.enance in a way that has no financial impact on the City's general fund revenues. So long as eit:her the CP'D alternative or the BOA alternative is st:~ct.ured to accC>lIIpJ.ish this goal, t:he city shou.ld no'C care which of the alternatives is actua.J.J.y u'Cilized. by any given deveJ.oper. I hope that this letter assists you in analyzing and providing' recommenciatiohs to the City of Chula Vista reg-arciing its pendill9' po1icy decision on the fbtancinq of open space ahd llE!d.i.an landscaping' maintenance. AS alvays, should you have any questions regarding' this or any other legal -tter affecting Pacific Bay HOllIeS, p1ea.se do n~ hesitate to contact me, Very truly yours, , LLP I3I1111S1iS14DlI3Im:u$. - ò-& TOTR... P-06 05-14-199703:04PM FROM Ayres Land Co'/PacWest TO 6915171 P.02 E)(!Jlbl,';T ~ VRES! I ' : ,: ~nd Company ¡, ' I ' I' I I ¡ i ' I [ I , May 14, 1997 i i VM FAX 619/&b-517j I 'I ' I I;: Mr C',,=. rd,S.i._-" I . i ' ! . lULO ' w,.......on. I CityEnginew ! ¡ . i ¡ ". .., 'I.' , Cl'ry'OF~VlSTAI I I 276FourthAven~1 , Ch~ Vistos,'CJ.\ ~~9110 i ! '. Ij., " t ' I I RE: PROl"OSI'f¡IØN 21$ RErOR.T : 1 i :: ' . ! : I '. iDead:::liff::¡ i Ii ,. I, i ,I: ¡ i ' : . : .! The purpose 1)~thi~ ~~ is to resPond to your draft report tip Proþo~ition ~ 18 impaCts 4n, ~þen I spacC:districifonnØ~~. IapologÌ.ze fur not responding earlier. ' i ' ; I ! : i ' :[ ,I . i', 1 I I The ply of Chplll ~ista iseíraluakgthe different ways a~lablclfo~~g the pas8ag~ o~ i i PropP)/ition ~ 1 a to ¡inPleme~ its ~irèd maintenance progr'¡lm for lán.4s* and open ~paþe in ! the S~bow n cOmWiliiity. We "'?'Ilt to express a str?n~ P~\Ìe ~~ thþ <:ity IIvoid.R~sing : any ~andatoryreq'o/!'lJlent for a ~omeowner's asSOClauon -- either ifrl:hejpnm8Jy nuu~t~~ance . I 1'eSpQl)Sibility or as I. eontingencYiplan. i .' :' . Ii' ' j If the City requúcd! }o~atioD. of In owner's association, which wd okosei tl$.t approac~ "¡þuld i : requi~ hom~ bJ1il~rs to conjltruct their colXlInunities as c°n;=on Ftfrli'Sì ~ubdivisions. ~;thus ! would be rcqWtèd ~ file applica~ with the State Department dfl}e81 E~tafe to o~ 1¥w ! Public Reports." TI1at filingp~ss is expensive and time consuririI¡.g,¡ a1lI!i State lawddes :jot j req~ itwhcn;S\l~ivisioD,S'are h~cated within City limits IlJld~i~e4!I ~:aS to deliver I ! i complètcli reilidenti,;jI units tþ the ~ome buyers, since it is welllUlderiltòod ¡cities are able td i prol1lct col)Surn,er iI!.~etests at' leas~ as well as the State. i' i ! , ',¡ .! . . i' , ; '; Ofequ.al importane~, ~owever, th~ building industry views tb.efo#i~n ~fhomeowne~ J . i :: aSSi:>cì¡itiol)S as ~Qunt tc,i inviting :futule lawsuits over oftc~ n?nF~~t iconstruC:tian. ~fect 1 'claim~. .Ex, peri!lnce by~rparticul!/rlY the p~ 1 ~ years ~ ?roVid¥ þ1Ple:e~dence. that :, i ì as$OçlltiOll boards c:¥ dírec:tots oftbn arc m.lsled Into bch~g thc)i, Vl/ould ~e þreachmg II :: . ! fiduciàry duty tp ~ homeciWnet-mei:nbers if they let the t~n-yeair $*te <oflimitationJ ruiii iwithout filing adcfeþt lawsuit. 11c cost to thehome-buildiIl.g indhsfry!to defend what are ~n i compIét.ely ffivølo~ claims lodg~ in such suits is enonnoUÍi. . Tw. State l~slature enaCtcð! Ilegislà,fion a feW ye\ir, ~. sago irltcndtd to soften this threat, but the pto.Jldn rb.,'mainS. I,! I ',' I '1., ;. I I I , I '- $~ow'..,CSt""'.SUi"17'O i i i S>nDioa...CAI¡IOI 'E I (Ól~) :i44-~I00 - (619)'44-0646 FAX i i I I . 1 I ! i 05-14-1997 03:04PM FROM Ayres land Co'/PacWest TO 6915171 , P.03 i : I £X~~ h ¡' E "I i I :' "I ' I ' 'Mr.CliffordS~ I ' I May 14, 1997 . ¡ i ¡ Page Two ¡I, I : Iii ,i "I 'I , ' ;1 In?ur view,,~ H I!PP~ fo~ ~ the City, the ~ome ¥ldmf l,~.$I¡ n.+w rl'8iden~ Jt who ultimately W'ín;benIi$1iom!the~ce ofthetmproveme~ - ,Will. be the fOlDlJltiODIc:>ÍB distriCt Llilderthe ~ucil-R'ocik CobunUmty Façilities District Act, ~iJnted, þ.oWcver, in its ~ility , to levy annual $~~. faxes t:o ~ ~ you go" amounts D~ t~ ullIÎn~ ~arks, park~afF and open space (lI$¡utlilJ~b~ S ~ OD 53313 ofthe~ello-R~os ~ttri S1J!eciñFilly, the distrtct should not be v~¡tb.cj po~ to ~ssue bonds and raISe the speclaI! I'll ~bo~e that "pa)j as! yoU go" l~veL We þndebrta:ndolher citiesÎn southern California luive!addptCdithis method ~ ~, reasonable W3Jf of :~iding ibe PTssible backlash effects wliich ~ult # under Pro~si~on 218. 'I " I' Please contact Joe iJ you ha\l~ anJ questions. I ' , , : ¡ 'I " Sincerely, : i I I I :AYRES~C~MPAN!,J:. I I ' , ,; I . I "I '~! I ! ¡a,,:! I, I I ' ' ,I i I ¡ ,'¡ I ' ; :Kei~ J. Home! i I II 'President " , " .~~ ! I :1 ;S69.11;jh ,; I ' I: 'i : ' I' ,cc:: John D. bosJ I ¡ I, Ann Y. MoclÍe ,I ; I CnügF~y.\b1/Mc~n~ ¡ J LizJab*=np~iñc,ay~oznØs : i Rob C~ ~ Villar Deyeloþment ' I; Charles It .~,Es'i', I 'I Cynthi~ J... :e~Esq. ! '¡ ! ,', If:! ii '; I H i ;1 ,j i i! " , , I' ¡ I ; I I , I , i I ¡'" I i 'I , I I I I I i i , I ' ! E 2 TOTAL P.03 . EXHIBIT 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FY 1997-98 The City of Chula Vista will utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds primarily to benefit low and moderate income persons based on the needs, goals, and objectives established in this Community Development Plan. A minimum of 70% of the funding will be utilized for this purpose. NEEDS: The City has identified the following community development needs: 1. To revitalize and improve deteriorating neighborhoods 2. To provide adequate public facilities throughout the community 3. To expand economic opportunities 4. To preserve, improve, and increase the supply of affordable housing 5. To enhance the provision of human services .GQALS: The City shall: 1. Plan, design, and construct capital improvements in deteriorating neighborhoods. 2. Construct public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers in neighborhoods deficient in such facilities. 3. Assist in the provision of human services to senior citizens, youth, and families in need. 4. Promote decent and affordable housing for all residents and prevent housing discrimination. OBJECTIVES: 1. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of senior citizens, including housing, nutrition, health, transportation, and related services. 2. Provide assistance to organizations which provide counseling and support to adults recovering from substance abuse or involved in domestic violence. 3. Provide assistance to organizations which provide basic needs assistance and/or assist people who are homeless, unemployed, or disable to become self-sufficient. 4. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of youth and their families, including prevention and counseling programs for substance abuse, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. 5. Provide assistance to organizations which promote literacy. 6. Construct public improvements to enhance the quality of life for residents, including parks, community centers, libraries, and other public facilities. 7. Construct public improvements to alleviate public hazards and revitalize deteriorating neighborhoods, including street, drainage, and lighting improvements. 8. Promote small businesses and the creation of jobs through planning studies, infrastructure improvement, technical assistance, and financial programs. 9. Provide assistance to neighborhood and community based organizations to initiate neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and affordable housing programs. 10. Furnish fair housing information, counseling, testing, and mediation services. /3-<><;; ~/J<L. RESOLUTION NO. / t:'¿, Y'1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPPOSING LIFTING THE ISTEA TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND MAINTAINING CURRENT ISTEA TRUCK LIMITATIONS WITHOUT A STATE OPTION PROVISION WHEREAS, the Chula Vista City Council is committed to maintaining highway safety for its residents and opposing increased costs for maintenance of roads and bridges; and WHEREAS, heavier trucks already are a serious safety problem; and WHEREAS, lifting the current truck size and weight restrictions on longer combination vehicles under the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act would jeopardize highway safety; increase traffic congestion; increase air pollution, and increase costs of maintaining roads and bridges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby oppose lifting the ISTEA truck size and weight restrictions and urges the President of the United States and the United States Congress to maintain the current ISTEA truck limitations without a State option provision. Presented by Approved as to form by Mary Salas, Councilmember c:\rs\tcucks.wgt